United 93

[MacGuffin]

Theater Pulls Trailer for 'United 93'

A New York City movie theater has pulled the trailer for "United 93," which chronicles in real time the hijacked United Airlines flight that crashed into a Western Pennsylvania field on Sept. 11.

The AMC Loews Lincoln Square 12 theater in Manhattan said it made the decision after viewers complained they found it too upsetting.

"I don't think people are ready for this," theater manager Kevin Adjodha said.

"One lady was crying," Adjodha told Newsweek. "She was saying that we shouldn't have played the trailer. That this was wrong."

Universal Studios in Los Angeles, meanwhile, said it would go ahead with plans to show the trailer for the thriller, which is scheduled to open in theaters on April 28.

Adam Fogelson, Universal's president of marketing, said the trailer would be shown only before R-rated movies or "grown-up" PG-13 ones.

"The film is not sanitized or softened, it's an honest and real look" at the events of Flight 93, Fogelson told The New York Times in Tuesday editions. "If I sanitized the trailer beyond what's there, am I suggesting that the experience will be less real than what the movie itself is? We as a company feel comfortable that it is a responsible and fair way to show what's coming."

"United 93" is scheduled to make its world premiere on opening night at the Tribeca Film Festival in Manhattan.

The festival, which was created to help lower Manhattan recover economically from the attacks, begins April 25 and runs through May 7.

The trailer begins with images of passengers boarding the plane on a sunny morning, and builds to a disturbing scene that includes actual news video of a plane about to hit one of the World Trade Center towers. It then returns inside Flight 93 as terrorists begin hijacking it and a passenger calls his family to tell them of the impending disaster.

The Families of Flight 93 have said that Universal Pictures will donate 10 percent of the first three days' grosses to the memorial.

[matt35mm]

Rotten Tomatoes Reviews

Yes, this seems destined to be the movie that people will dislike or even hate while having to admit that it is a fine film.

Funnily enough, I've interacted with a lot of the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement due to my organizing of a screening of Loose Change here at UC-Santa Cruz, and they are ready to bash this film as well (not because it's too early, but because many of the truth movement people are convinced that there is something fishy about flight 93 that won't be shown in this film).

That said, I think that the reviews show what I expected from Greengrass, who I think is one of the best of the filmmakers that tackle socially and politically touchy material.  I also think most of this "too soon" stuff is absolute bullshit.  I'm sorry if that sounds insensitive, but I believe that there is a place in art and cinema for this.  The things that are most incindiary, the closest to our nerve, THESE are the things that absolutely must be dealt with head-on in art of any sort.  To say that it's too soon is to imply that we can be in a position to be less affected by it in 5 more years, which is likely true, but it is missing the point entirely.  If people feel that they cannot handle it, that is a decision that they must make for themselves, but to say that it is wrong to put this out there makes me angry.  So much of the history of controversial art has been plagued by rabble-rousing.  And yes, I am calling this film a work of art.  Good art?  I don't know; I haven't seen it.  But I do see it as an artistic project, absolutely.

This was Greengrass's project from the start; it was not Universal's idea.  Everybody involved (including the family members of the victims who approved of the film, I would guess) knew that this would not be what much of the public would want to see right now.

However, the people who say that it's too soon due to our current lack of information about what happened have a valid point.  Given that, I still feel that this is something that had to be done NOW, while it would still arouse passion, anger, while it would still engage people simply through its existence!  I'm sure the film will be tough to handle for those who bother to see it, and that is how it should be.

If some people should choose to wait a few years before watching this film, that's their choice.  But I believe that everything is fodder for the artist... for EVERYONE, actually.  From the biggest tragic event to the most personal dream, the internalization and output of these things in an honest manner is the beauty and importance of art, and is humanity incarnate, I believe.  Perhaps I ought to be more cynical and look at United 93 as nothing but a capitalization on a terrible event, but I just can't see it that way.  If someone has something to say, it is their responsibility and right to say it.  I won't say that it's anybody's responsibility to listen to what that person has to say, but I admit that I do feel that I must watch this film.

9/11 has been dealt with in songs, books, various other writings, paintings, and other art forms.  I think it says something that the idea of a movie should arouse so much passion.  Firstly, I think it says that most people still regard movies as less an art form than a piece of entertainment, but as I've said, I feel that there is a place in cinema for this.  Secondly, cinema is the most visceral and realistic of all art forms--and this film, specifically, looks to have a style of "hyper-realism" to boot.  Everything else that has dealt with 9/11 has been in the past-tense, because it's easier to digest.  No other piece of art about 9/11 has given a serious, present-tense look at an event that was recent enough that we all can, and must, bring our own experiences of the event to it.

Why a re-enactment?  What would be the point of simply watching these events unfold?  Please, please, please, before you think about answering that question, watch the movie and see if the movie has an answer.  I certainly don't mean to praise the film before I see it; that's not what I've tried to argue here.  Certainly, given that I have enormous respect for Greengrass's filmmaking, I expect that I shall appreciate the film, even if I don't enjoy it.  That's why I posted the Rotten Tomatoes reviews at the top.  Either way, I've only meant to say that I feel that the boos that have been tossed at the trailer have been unfair, and that there IS a place in cinema to tackle the most serious and sensitive subject matters.

[MacGuffin]

United 93 Actor Denied US Entry

In a security move more sad than it is surprising, the man who plays the lead hijacker in United 93 has been told by the American embassy in London that he probably will not be allowed into the US in order to attend the film's Tribeca premiere next week. The actor, Lewis Alsamari, deserted from the Iraqi army in 1993, fled to Jordan, and then was granted asylum in England, where he has established a successful acting career; he is still an Iraqi citizen, which he suspects is part of the reason the US is wary of allowing him into the country. However, Alsamari, who says he still has not seen the final cut of United 93, is still hopeful -- since he was granted permission to travel to the US for filming only the day production on the film began, he believes the embassy may relent at the last minute and again allow him to enter the country.

[Kal]

How stupid is this country? Just when you think it cant be that bad, it gets worse...

[MacGuffin]

Mixed feelings greet 'United' at Tribeca
Source: Hollywood Reporter

NEW YORK -- The mood was upbeat Tuesday before the world premiere of "United 93," the opening-night feature of the Tribeca Film Festival. Popcorn and soda were passed out in the lobby of the Ziegfeld Theatre, and members of the film industry chatted with one another.

But inside the auditorium, when Tribeca co-founder Jane Rosenthal acknowledged the presence of about 90 relatives of the victims of the flight that was hijacked on Sept. 11 -- the rebellion aboard United Flight 93 is re-enacted in Paul Greengrass' film for Universal Pictures -- the audience was given an inspiring yet somber reminder of the day that inspired the festival's founding five years ago.

As they took their seats, each audience member was given a pin commemorating the doomed passengers on the flight and promoting donations for a planned national memorial in Shanksville, Pa., where the plane went down. And even amidst the smiles and pleasantries in the lobby, mixed emotions were very close to the surface when audience members were asked about the film they were about to see.

"I'm very anxious about the film in two different ways," CBS Corp. president and CEO Leslie Moonves said. "I'm anxiously looking forward to it, but I'm also anxious about my reaction to it. I still think it was totally appropriate for Universal to make the film and appropriate for it to open the festival."

While expressing great enthusiasm about the launch of this year's Tribeca fest, Katherine Oliver, of the Mayor's Office of Film, Theatre and Broadcasting, said, "I'm curious to see the reaction to the film because it's a very sensitive topic."

Tribeca co-founder Robert De Niro began the evening's series of introductions by acknowledging the audience's difficulty with the subject matter, something Universal is facing as it prepares for the movie's release Friday. "Given our festival's founding after Sept. 11, for many of us, the story is difficult," he said. "We applaud the participation of the family members -- your participation means a lot."

De Niro's characteristically brief remarks were followed by Rosenthal's appearance. "The film exemplifies the highest form of the human spirit," she said. "It leaves us with a new memory that is uplifting."

After thanking the film's producers and a number of Universal executives -- including Universal Studios president Ron Meyer, Universal Pictures chairman Marc Shmuger, production president Donna Langley and publicity exec Michael Moses -- Rosenthal introduced the family members to a standing ovation.

Real-life Sept. 11 stalwarts, including New York City police commissioner Raymond Kelly, Empire State Development chairman and commissioner Charles Gargano and former New York City fire commissioner Tom Von Essen, also were received with applause.

Gordon Felt, a relative of a Flight 93 passenger, stepped before the podium to discuss the $30 million private capital campaign for the memorial, to thank Universal for donating 10% of its opening-weekend gross to the fund and to introduce writer-director Greengrass, whom he thanked for approaching family members in order to present an accurate portrait of their loved ones.

"Our guides to the foundation and legitimacy of this film are the family members," Greengrass said, also mentioning the air traffic controllers, servicemen and others he met with to study the 9/11 Commission Report.

"Universal supported this film unswervingly," he added. "Like many, they believe in the power of cinema to challenge us and change us."

Among those at the premiere were Joan Allen, Josh Lucas, Julia Stiles, Marcia Gay Harden, Tom Selleck, Dominick Dunne and Frank Langella.

"I wanted to support my friend Ron Meyer and his company for doing something of this significance," MPAA chairman Dan Glickman said. "Is it too soon to make it? I think people will judge that for themselves. My judgment is it's not too soon. The longer you get away from it, the further your personal memories are of it. In this film, people can see how average people can rise out of their shells and do amazing things."

Former Nebraska Sen. Bob Kerrey, who heads New York's New School University, said, "Having been on the 9/11 commission, I've heard from victims' families who say this film tells the story in a respectful and restrained way. I feel we need to be reminded of it. My wildest dream would be to recapture the spirit we had after Sept. 11."

But perhaps actor Gabriel Byrne best summed up feelings about the film: "I can understand why some people don't want to see the film, and I can see why there's a compulsion to confront it, because in many ways we still haven't confronted it."

[Weak2ndAct]

I've seen the movie.  Initial reaction: I feel like I'm going throw up.  That tense, muscle-tightening queasiness when say, you are personally threatened, or have just witnessed something shocking (my 2 closest relatable experiences: witnessing a road-rage beating, and escaping death in a car accident).  

As for the film, it's impeccably made and staged.  Greengrass knows his shit top to bottom.  Honestly, I have not one gripe with the actual filmmaking itself.  It succeeds at it's goal: to realistically portray the events of that day.  It's on par with "Bloody Sunday," it's that type of film.  You see how the system fails, and how out of control things can get so fast.  And how we're all human, no matter what side you're on.

When the shit goes down, you might think you're prepared, but you're not.  The chaos and screaming in the plane once the terrorists spring into action is, quite simply, horrifying.  It's so overwhelming.

The finale is what disturbs me most of all, because let's face it, that's what this story is about: the passengers fought back.  That's what you're there to see.  That is what makes this story different.  You see everyone fight for their lives.  And it gets UGLY, particularly when one passenger holds up the 'bomb,' and is so elated at their success.  And I can't help but wonder with the wrong audience, this film will play a whole lot differently.  When the passengers bum-rushed, I heard someone behind me clap and get excited.  Just one person.  And that gave me the biggest chill of all.  

Greengrass made the best possible film about this subject, I couldn't imagine it being done better (sadly though, I can imagine worse, and I fear it will come).  It's clear-eyed and honest.  However, I don't want to see it again.  I could never imagine buying it on dvd.  Hell, even recommending it to anyone-- I mean, this movie will fuck you up, I don't care what your politics are, or how you feel about the world.  It's real people in the worst situation imaginable.  Do not expect to walk out feeling patriotic or elated respect for those who died.  It's not a tear-jeaker.  This film grabs you by the chest and shakes the shit out of you.  This is how ugly the world is.  Deal with it.

But still, I have to say one last thing.  This film is dangerous.  It will provoke a reaction.  I'm worried that someplace, somewhere, someone is gonna get hurt after this movie, for all the wrong reasons... and in that instant, roles will be reversed.

P.S. Don't be surprised if this movie makes 'Passion' money.  

[Myxo]

P.S. Don't be surprised if this movie makes 'Passion' money.  

The movie isn't about Jesus.

People care about 9/11, but how can you compete with the Lord?

[Kal]

I think EVERYONE cares a lot about this, maybe even more than the Passion. The Passion went after religion and its something very powerful in this country, but this is a about a current even, still very current, and very much in everybodys mind. It just happened! And it shocked the world more than anything we've seen for a while.

What I'm not sure if its people are going to be scared to see them or not ready. When reviews come out Friday also, we will see what they say and what the general reaction is. I think a lot of people will read the revews on this one to see if its worth it. 95% of the people who go to the movies dont give a shit about the filmmaking aspect, and they just want to go and be entertained for a couple of hours. If this film makes them sick or causes a big shock or discomfort, it will bomb.

So its really hard to predict this one...

[Pubrick]

P.S. Don't be surprised if this movie makes 'Passion' money.  

The movie isn't about Jesus.

People care about 9/11, but how can you compete with the Lord?

it's a talking point. ppl are always harping on about jesus and wanted something new to say about the man so mel gibson gave them something new to harp on about. this is the same thing but with america's other favourite subject, Terrorists On A Plane.

[JG]

An uncommon 4 star review from Berardinelli, who seems pretty ecstatic over it.  http://movie-reviews.colossus.net/movies/u/united93.html

I didn't plan to see it, but due to some good early press I might just have to.   I think its easy to misread this movie as exploitation, but the fact that no famous actors are being used shows that this isn't necesarily financially motivated.   As long as this is this case, I have no problem with it and I don't know that it is "too soon."   

[matt35mm]

This began with no trailers.

To me, this movie was about what now means.  It brings us back to that day, but on a smaller, human scale.  What does now mean when you're boarding a plane like perhaps you do quite often?  What does now mean for the man who plans to hijack a plane?  What does now mean when you're facing a situation like that?  What does now mean when there is no "should I?" between you and cracking a hijacker's neck?

Film is always present-tense (well, you could argue whether it's always or most of the time), and Greengrass has a way of approaching that with such a clinical feel.  I don't know if others would use the word clinical, but it's the word that comes to mind for me.  Clinical doesn't mean emotionally detatched, in my mind, but rather it suggests an open-eyed and whole look to me.  Or at least I use it in that way.  The way a doctor would operate surgery is clinical, but not emotionless, and one must pay every fiber of attention that they can to it.  What we see is something raw--life, exposed.  You can smell the blood.  What life really is, in a biological and humanist sense, comes into full view, and with that, of course, is the view of what death really is.  I become horrified by the delicacy of life.  These are the effects that both Bloody Sunday and United 93 have on my senses and emotions.  It's what Greengrass does.  Through that, and through the lens of NOW, comes an appreciation of life and of the moment--both that moment and this very moment.  This is the value of the film, of the recreation of events.

I don't know if I have any real criticisms of the film.  It's fascinating, yet perhaps overly long, the way information comes into light at the air traffic control stations.  I can't quite call it feeling long a criticism, because it fits.  The real-time build of dread is necessary, and actually quite fascinating.  However, for me, I could only hear air traffic talk for so long before starting to mind-drift into questions about how they shot the film, about the actors playing themselves, and so forth.

Which brings me to why Bloody Sunday worked a little bit better for me.  While watching United 93, once in a while I became aware that I was watching a movie.  This isn't really necessarily a fault of the movie--it doesn't have any movie-isms about it.  No classy yet distracting compositions or anything.  Nothing that suggests anything other than cameras there on that very day.  But I still remembered that I was watching a movie from time to time.  With Bloody Sunday, I completely forgot that I was watching a movie.  I don't know if the difference was in the movies or if it was my state of mind while watching it.  I might just as easily have remembered that I was watching a movie during Bloody Sunday, I don't know.

But towards the end, I again became completely lost in the film, engrossed.  Most people probably will, too, because the film absolutely swarms our senses as we see these people fight for their lives.  After the film, I was left thinking about now, and what that means.  It's not that we've forgotten 9/11 and need to be reminded, and it's not masochism to watch a re-creation of terrible events--we just need to be shaken sometimes into what life and now mean to us on a fundamental level.

[w/o horse]

This began with no trailers.

To me, this movie was about what now means.  It brings us back to that day, but on a smaller, human scale. 

I started reading Matt's review but then got this far and feared that I'd be swayed by his review.  That's because I so thoroughly agree with these first lines of the review. 

The film was an action movie without the histrionic cut-aways, without the all-star actors, without the Hollywood subjectivity.  It was the movie told in the present tense, as Ebert says.  It was being on the plane, it was being in the air traffic control, without the affter effect, without the implications, without the media blitzkrieg; simply the crashes, the highjacks, the bomber running down the aisle, the airphone conversations, the goodbyes; the hardboiled SoCal community shutting their mouths for the first time - I saw it in a jam packed theater, today, the opening day, and no one whispered, no one cracked jokes, ate popcorn, we watched, stunned.

If the movie was to be done, it was to be done this way.  I loved it.

Edit.
And now I read his review and it just makes me want to see Bloody Sunday, because I haven't yet.  And I agree that at times I looked around the theater, conscious of the movie going experience.  Right before the plane gets taken over, while the movie holds inevitable suspence quite well, it perhaps takes for granted that we are charged for the event a little too much.  It has happened, after all.  I can see the audience in my peripheral vision while I wait for the cabin take over.  But still.  Now, years later.  The in-between.  It's hard to say.  What it wanted to do, what it had to do.

[last days of gerry the elephant]

I'm not too sure what to expect from this film (I'll eventually see it) but from the stuff that I'm reading, is this more towards like the style from Benjamin Coccio's 'Zero Day'?

[matt35mm]

I'm not too sure what to expect from this film (I'll eventually see it) but from the stuff that I'm reading, is this more towards like the style from Benjamin Coccio's 'Zero Day'?

I haven't seen Zero Day, but I took a look at the trailers and clips from that film, and I would say no.  I'm not going to detail why for fear of ruining United 93 by telling you exactly what it's like in too much detail and comparing/contrasting the two films stylistically.  If you're going to eventually see it anyway, it'll be best to answer your question yourself.

Though I can say that Zero Day looks like a video diary approach, and that's not at all United 93's approach (nobody is aware of the camera in United 93, and nobody tells you all their thoughts and feelings about anything, either).

[last days of gerry the elephant]

I'm not too sure what to expect from this film (I'll eventually see it) but from the stuff that I'm reading, is this more towards like the style from Benjamin Coccio's 'Zero Day'?

I haven't seen Zero Day, but I took a look at the trailers and clips from that film, and I would say no.  I'm not going to detail why for fear of ruining United 93 by telling you exactly what it's like in too much detail and comparing/contrasting the two films stylistically.  If you're going to eventually see it anyway, it'll be best to answer your question yourself.

Though I can say that Zero Day looks like a video diary approach, and that's not at all United 93's approach (nobody is aware of the camera in United 93, and nobody tells you all their thoughts and feelings about anything, either).

Oh sorry I didn't mention it but towards the end in Zero Day you're seeing the event through the security cameras around the school (with faint audio of the event) and more dominantly, the 911 emergency operator on one of the phone lines documenting it. It was not easy to sit through that, just wondering if United might have the same effect.