JUST SAW UNITED 93

[FARAFIELD]

All I can say is WOW. I think for people that dont go to very many movies they have the potential that they will get blown away, or rather "drained" for those that dont watch a lot of movies. As Todd Beamers Dad said in the WSJ, Greengrass (the Director) got it right. The day was fraught with clues and people who were just overwhelmed. The camera puts us right in there with them, and for anyone that doesnt know, 10% of all the profits of the first weekend will go toward the flight 93 memorial in PA. I would write a more coherent review but i have to send a letter to the Editor about the dufus congressman Taylor who is holding up the funding promised the Memorial. As I was watching the movie I realized that he would probably be DEAD or have no where to work if it wasnt for the passangers who realized that they were DEAD but werent going to try to take the Plane back, and at the very least not allow the hijackers to crash the plane into a building.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[longship]

15. That's not very nice.

no more comment.

[Jara sang]

2. What was the highjackers intended target?

And how do you know this?

[slackmaster]

34. Ultimately, their intended target was the ground

And they made it.

[TheDonkey]

203. I thought it was the WH? Not the capitol

or that the exact target was never know. I think it might have been a little premature to release this movie, but I'm sure it's intense.

[Bucky]

249. White House is way too small to hit & Probaby had ready defenses

If you've ever flown low over DC, you'd be surprised at how tiny the presidential complex is. The Capitol is much more hittable target. White House propagating of the message that they were the Flight 93 target is a little self-serving.

[shain from kane]

237. Death to infidels. Religion of Peace, remember? n/t

[liberalpress]

247. Inquisition, Crusades, etc,

Christiantiy... religion of Peace

[gatorboy]

3. Wow! 10% or the FIRST WEEKEND'S profits!

How generous....What saints! :eyes:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

7. That is a GREAT picture!!!!

Can I steal it?

PLEASE?

[gatorboy]

11. Steal away, my friend!

EOM

[OldLeftieLawyer]

16. May I give a little something back?

Oh, most generous one? With great thanks!

[gatorboy]

213. Heh!! I just caught that..

It took me a minute.

For a second there I was wondering, "What's that dragging?" :P

Thanks! :hi:

[Thtwudbeme]

10. Yep.

using people's personal stories to enrich themselves, then building a neat monument in the middle of a cow pasture with 10% of the profits.

God, America is so ridiculous.

[alfredo]

19. The first week is the big week. The majority of the money is

made that week. it could up around $1 million for the memorial. That's pretty good. Remember, the maker has to pay the investors, tradesmen, actors, and a host of others who took part.

[dorktv]

268. Sales-expenses=profit

[alfredo]

269. Is it gross or net profits?

[dorktv]

274. no idea

[wtmusic]

302. it's net

It's the entertainment industry...all payments are made on "net profit". Synonym for 10% of zip...zilch...nada.

[Beaverhausen]

28. Go get mad at Exxon will ya?

[gatorboy]

127. Don't get me stahted on Exxon!

But considering the amount of money the this film will make domestically, worldwide and especially with the future DVD release (which accounts for 40%-60% of alot of films final gross), I would've expect more compensation for the victims of this travesty...But that's just me.

[Beaverhausen]

144. here's the funny thing

I work in the royalties dept of a big studio (not Universal) and I doubt there will be any profits made the first weekend. This was probably an expensive film - even though there weren't any big name stars, the marketing alone I'm sure is way up there..

I'm sure they will come up with some figure- maybe a percent of the gross - and donate it.

[gatorboy]

166. I think they'll probably make a nice little profit.

Maybe not in the first weekend, but it's possible. No doubt they'll make their money back and then some. Surprisingly, the film only cost $15 million.

[shain from kane]

236. Maybe we can talk Exxon into matching that %. After all, 10%

of last year's profits would be $3 billion.

[JVS]

36. How expensive a monument is necessary in your opinion?

[Egalitariat]

202. How can you possibly fault them for giving away money?

Fahrenheit 9/11 profited of 9/11 -- did you knock Michael Moore for giving away money too?

[AllieB]

216. Apples and Oranges. At the time Fahrenheit 9/11 was released

there was no dissent in the media about the causes of 9/11. Michael Moore's budget was a lot smaller. This is a cheap ploy by the administration to play on people's emotions.

[NewJeffCT]

233. I know, how about 10% of the gross!

The way accountants can fix things these days, they'll probably lose money even if they gross $90 million

[shain from kane]

235. Under Hollywood's method of accounting, that will be zilch.

It does say "profits", not gross income. How much has those little yellow ribbons/magnetic stickers produced?

[JVS]

4. Oh boy

:popcorn:

[stop the bleeding]

9. .

:popcorn:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

5. It's a travesty

No one will ever know what happened on that flight, and this movie is nothing but a horrid exploitation of a horrid event.

The families have been had, you've been had, and I hope the damn thing tanks. What a fit of bad taste this thing is.

Oh, and find out exactly why Taylor is holding up the funding for that memorial. He's absolutely right to do so, and I'm sure you'll agree when you learn what's behind his reasoning. I applaud him for being responsible.

No one will ever know what happened on Fight 93. Just remember that, and keep in mind that what you saw was a movie, not a documentary, and it was made up.

[smitty]

18. Well, get ready for Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" coming

out this summer. You can get angry and righteous all over again.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

24. Oh, him.........

I'm still scratching all over from his 'JFK'.

Ugh.

[uppityperson]

30. Wonder if he'll have Kevin Costner saying "let's roll" in a bad accent?

:rofl:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

35. Speaking of Kevin Costner,

did you read that nasty little gossip item about him spanking the monkey while getting a massage on his HONEYMOON?

I'm sorry. That was in purely bad taste.

heh heh heh

[Gabi Hayes]

59. and they fired the masseuse. she may have already reached a

settlement in the suit she filed

and you don't really think Oswald acted alone, do you? (if at all?)

what about the paraffin test?

what about the pix of JFK's shirt?

impossible physical evidence

[OldLeftieLawyer]

67. Everybody knows who killed JFK

It's so obvious, and it's nothing but "Follow The Money."

[Gabi Hayes]

84. wotwot WOT?

interesting, usually correct dictum, but I'm flummoxed

who?

big oil interests?

defense contractors?

love to hear what you have to say, cause it would sure seem to rule out LHO.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

91. It rules out LHO,

who was involved, but only as a patsy/decoy/shooting victim.

Think back to the heady days in Cuba in the late 1950s. Think "Godfather II," if you must (but it will pain me).

Think about what was lost in terms of :::: ahem :::: revenue to some groups when Fidel took over.

Think about how we fucked up the Bay of Pigs and didn't get Cuba back.

Your head hurt yet?

[Gabi Hayes]

113. no problem with that....Ruby was clearly running guns to Cuba.

he was tied in with both Dallas and New Orleans, via Marcello, who was kidnapped, basically, by RFK, and dropped in Guatemala, IIRC. he REALLY hated the Kennedys

I think it goes deeper than just the mob, though

just drag up the rotting corpse of Richards Helms and Bissel and ask them again, and make them tell the truth

[OldLeftieLawyer]

118. No, no, no.........

Don't go down the Ruby trail. Red herring. All wrong. Another tool.

Of course it goes deeper than the obvious.

Poor Richard. He drowned. Pity.

Poor Richard B. How'd he croak?

Think Joe Kennedy. Think hard.

[Gabi Hayes]

132. nuh uh....Ruby was PROVEN to have run guns to Cuba

I'll stick with that

helms died of cancer, and bissell was 85

William Colby "drowned," if that's who you mean. he, like Helms, was a disgraced former CIA chief (head of Operation Phoenix in Vietnam, I think)

fill me in on Joe Kennedy, though. I know he had ties to Cuba, but how does that factor in with his own son's assassination?

I'm pretty sure Castro had nothing to do with it, as he was meeting with a JFK envoy almost exactly at the time of he assassination. I think a major reason he was killed was exactly because he was trying to reach some sort of rapprochement with Cuba, if not the Soviet Union.

his famous speech of June, 1963 scared the crap out of the coldest of the cold warriors

[Gabi Hayes]

133. that said, who knows WHAT to believe, except obvious, proven facts,

those that can be shown to be true empirically

I yield any more conjecture on this to the likes of Octafish, though. my head is starting to hurt

where's that DRINK, he said to himself?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

121. Don't forget Allen Dulles.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

117. Think also about who was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs at....

...that time, a man who commanded a group that authored a little something called Operation Northwoods in 1962.

The Big Oil guys weren't very happy with JFK, either.

And if we start discussing LHO's background, that will really make a few heads hurt.

[Gabi Hayes]

136. ever read Oswald and the CIA, by John Newman? ouch!

I got two members of the JFK Assassination Records Bureau, or whatever you called it, to admit on the radio that they didn't know of Helms' admission that Clay Shaw was, indeed, and after all, a CIA contract agent, at the very least. I read some lines straight from the book.

Helms was clearly a perjurer, and should have done time.

Oswald was without doubt working for some branch of US intelligence

[Media_Lies_Daily]

89. Stone got a lot closer to the truth than the Warren Commission.

[caligirl]

110. ah! So true!

[SmokingJacket]

131. Is that for real?

:puke:

Boy, do I love the way people scramble to get rich(er) off of other people's pain.

[Gabi Hayes]

139. so how do you feel about THIS movie, then?

who's getting rich off whose pain here?

do you approve of that?

[SmokingJacket]

154. NO, I don't.

Why jump on me? I've posted over and over about my discomfort with the emotional exploitation going on here.

[Gabi Hayes]

177. sorry....big thread....missed that. Stone, while not above exploitative

instincts, to be sure, has as much right as anybody to film 911 material. his JFK movie, as somebody else here said, is MUCH closer to the truth than the Warren Commission, AND, more importantly, is widely credited with waking up a public that had largely forgotten that we had a fricking COUP D'ETAT in 1963!!!!

an even more blatant coup than the one that occurred on Dec, 12, 2000, when they STOPPED COUNTING THE VOTES.

so I get a little upset sometimes

again....sorry

[SmokingJacket]

181. Well, I apologize too, because now that I think about it...

if anyone's going to make a big-bucks movie out of that awful day, it's better that it's someone with a skeptical bent.

:toast:

[Gabi Hayes]

193. I'll drink to that!

btw, Stone is one of the world's biggest aholes, so I have no dog in that particular hunt

he's made some very good movies, and some REALLY horrid ones

[autorank]

225. Well I'm ready to see that. Good for him.

I hope he peels the bark off of the multilevel idiocy that was our "protection" that day.

Everyone in charge should have had their asses fired but no, can't do that.

I don't care what Stone says as long as he's in the ball park and he points fingers.

I find it difficult to see this movie for personal reasons, but I'll go see Stone.

[fooj]

227. It's really not about anger or righteousness. It's about truth.

Peace.

[still_one]

26. I tend to agree with you

I do not need to see the movie to know what happened on 9/11, and how this administration ignored all the warnings

What is amazing is after 9/11 the country and the world were united, and this administration exploited that good will in the most obscene way. The world is mostly against us now, our country is more polarized, and our Democracy is in peril. A movie cannot express that

DAMN THEM!!!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

32. What's worse, I think,

is that this movie dramatizes things that will never be known. Where was that plane headed? Who the hell knows?

And, of course, isn't it a lovely diversion from the almost 3,000 dead American kids/soldiers/Marine/servicemenandwomen who have died in Iraq for absolutely nothing?

Or the over $3.00 a gallon gas prices we are enduring while the oil guys go madly rich beyond their wildest dreams, thanks to the Fuckface Squatter In The Oval Office?

And the fact that some people in America - oh, how about 42,000,000 - have no health coverage?

A movie. Another memorial. What nonsense. What fools we are to pay any attention to this dross.

[Gabi Hayes]

119. can't you just wait to see what the M$M does with this?

what if it turns out to be another Passion of the Christ?

this could be just what the Doctor (Rove) ordered

people are SO easily fooled

even here, apparently

as I said already in this thread, just think Triumph of the Will

[SoCalDem]

232. "Merikans love their memorials....I guess it helps them try to "care"

about things if they have a block of marble to pray over or gaze at. We are also fixated on the maudlin. I don;t know what it says about us as a culture, but I wish people would care a bit more for the people who are alive..the ones who are gone, are beyond our help..

[OldLeftieLawyer]

242. Perfect

Thank you for stating it so clearly.

All those big things dedicated to death and war. I'd like to see some kind of memorial - oh, how about universal health coverage, maybe? - that would be dedicated to life.

We are, are we not, a pro-life nation? Even as we're pro-choice? So, why not choose life-affirming acts?

Thanks for a great post.

[sendero]

50. My thoughts exactly..

... in 50 years, I'll be dead but if I weren't I might be ready for this bit of fiction.

[Jazz2006]

68. I didn't think it was exploitive at all.

Recognizing that there are, of course, many facts that we will never know since nobody survived the flight, I watched it with an open mind and as a (not so old) leftie lawyer myself.

There were certainly some things that were purely speculative where creative licence has been taken, no question.

But exploitive?

I don't think so.

What did you find exploitive about it, OldLeftieLawyer?

(Edit to correct the spelling of OldLeftieLawyer :) )

[Dyedinthewoolliberal]

92. Couldn't have said it better myself.

eom

[ldf]

208. a horrid exploitation of a horrid event.

i agree.

i wonder why some really great director doesn't take the exact same recorded cell phone calls and create a movie showing very brave americans, in total panic mode, especially as the nearby fighter jet, on cheney's orders, shoots them down.

but that one wouldn't massage our battered ego, and lift us to new heights of patriotism, causing us to scream for revenge.

:shrug:

[Jazz2006]

218. It didn't seem exploitive to me at all....

Were you watching the same movie that I did this aft?

[Marie26]

303. you're assuming they watched the movie. nt

[lvx35]

6. I've been debating about whether to see it or not.

So they did a good job with it? When I saw the previews I felt like it was somehow exploiting the whole thing. Did you feel it was respectful?

[Vinnie From Indy]

13. Good question!

Were they selling "Let's Roll" sticky buns at the concession stand?

I, for one, will pass on this movie. There are too many unanswered questions to make it worth my time.

[FARAFIELD]

58. Yes i did

Greengrass got the cooperation of every single family in fact said he wouldnt have done it without them. The Marketing was the only thing Greengrass wasnt in charge of, so some of the add were a bit formulatic. But if youve ever flown you can relate as well

[lvx35]

62. Sounds like it was done respectfully.

Maybe I'll give it a look this weekend.

[Jazz2006]

221. It seemed respectful to me, too.

Not at all exploitive or sensationalized. There are a few areas where the producers took creative licence, certainly, as there are some things that simply are unknown since everyone who was on board is dead and since the cockpit voice recorder saves only the last 30 minutes.

But even the bits of creative licence are rather even handed, i.e. I think it goes too far at the very end in giving the impression that the passengers actually got into the cockpit (although it's a vague jumble of arms and struggle and such and no "heroics" attributed to anyone) given that Greenglass also utilizes creative licence to portray at least one of the hijackers in a rather sympathetic light. The other hijackers are portrayed as normal, human, and in a neutral light at worst - no demonizing, etc.

Overall, I think Greenglass did a good job of piecing things together and not pandering to anyone - and did a good job of slagging the Bush administration along the way.

[uppityperson]

8. It will be interesting to read other DUers reviews.

thank you for taking time to write this.

[karlrschneider]

12. Fantastic. (My mom taught me to say that instead of

bullshit)

[Mandate My Ass]

14. Aww, how nice.

My mom's stock phrase under similar circumstances. :rofl:

[tjwash]

20. I like to say---"BRILLIANT!!"

[0007]

17. I think Congressman Taylor is right on holding up the funding

unless they include all 911 victims.

And I certainly don't care to watch this piece of propaganda. I rather donate my money to Dafar

edited to add;

[dysfunctional press]

21. IMO the passengers were concerned with saving their own lives-

NOT in trying to prevent the hijackers from "striking america".

[slackmaster]

33. Agreed, that's what I would be doing under the circumstances

Other than maybe crapping my pants.

[still_one]

56. not necessarily

a question that was asked during the Holocost was why did people allow themselves to be led like sheeps to the gas chambers?

Exceptions were the Warsaw Ghetto, but for the most part people were too scared to act

These people acted for whatever reason, and did NOT allow themseleves to be led by the scum that hijacked the plane, and they are heros.

I will NOT see this movie because I believe it is an explotation of the victims.

I also believe that the killing being done IN OUR NAME IN IRAQ is a disgrace

[FARAFIELD]

65. No one said they were

They just realized that dead was dead, they were going to at least try to take the plane back they had the "luxury" of having a licensed pilot and a trained air traffic controller on board. No one says that they didnt want to live but they also didnt want to die in their seats. And they certainly werent going to let them crash it into another building if they couldnt land it.

[Yogi]

241. I think you are right on with your comment....

n/t

[Beaverhausen]

22. Thanks for you review

ignore the naysayers. They haven't even seen it but they have plenty of opinions about it. :eyes:

[tjwash]

23. BRILLIANT!!

Sorry, man, but I've been 9-11'ed to death and I'll be damned if I'm gonna give someone money to shove propaganda down my throat now.

[barb162]

25. ebert gave it 4 stars

[OldLeftieLawyer]

29. Someone should give Ebert

a small dose of lubricant so that he can get his head out of his butt.

[NYCGirl]

37. You might say the same about these 106 critics that gave it good reviews..

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/united_93/

[OldLeftieLawyer]

40. Yeah,

them, too.

Critics, don't forget, are the ones who can't do. So they write about what other people do.

Critics, in my estimation, are remora with nothing to offer me. I say the idea of this film is grotesque and exploitive and false, and I say to hell with it. (James Thurber said that first, I think.)

[Johonny]

52. Wow

What is a critic of a critic? A person that writes about what a person writes about cause he can't even write a review? Thus what do you have to offer me?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

55. No, actually,

I'm a published novelist/TV writer/screenwriter, so I've been around the business for a bit.

Does that clarify? I hope so.

And, by the way, I offer only my message here on a message board - and it's not for you - it's for the board.

[Gabi Hayes]

63. where's johonny? I'm looking forward to more!

let's ROLL!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

71. heh heh heh

You really are such a big brat.

Cuba. Batista. Gambling. Joe Kennedy. Castro.

Think about that.

[hamerfan]

210. Hi OldLeftie,

I really respect your opinions on this board. Thank you for your inputs.

Cuba. Batista. Gambling. Joe Kennedy. Castro.

You're certainly spelling something out here, but I can't read it. Care to elaborate?

dumpbush
PS... I am going to see Flight 93 tomorrow. Thanks for your insight.

[FARAFIELD]

77. In my judgement

You have the right to opine about it, but im simply giving a movie review and you are attempting to review it without even seeing it. Just to let you know i wrote my letter to the editor and have taken a look around and the only "BAD" review i can find is the WA PO that called it the "best made movie i ever hated". Its simply a movie, dont watch it or whatever but its trying to do some good and its important to the families. Personally and i dont know why, but as someone that flies a lot. I identify with them.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

85. Didn't I see it?

Where did I say I hadn't seen it?

[uppityperson]

95. Have you seen it?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

104. Yes

[Jazz2006]

224. So.... without resort to Kevin Costner, Cuba, LHO, Bay of Pigs, ....

Richard B., Joe Kennedy, Ebert, lubricant, etc....

From one (not so old) leftie lawyer to another, can you please expand upon why you say that this movie is a "travesty", "grotesque", "exploitive" and "false"?

So far, you've mentioned a whole lot of other things without ever actually mentioning anything specific about the movie itself.

So, please explain, with reference to the movie itself - and without reference to the various and sundry tangents listed in the first sentence - why you think the movie is a travesty, exploitive, grotesque and false.

[Name removed]

226. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

240. I would, but,

you know, it's a message board, not a forum for any kind of apologist behavior (not without a fat retainer up front, at the very least), so I'll just say thanks for your interest in my posts, and let you get about the intellectually daunting and ultimately rewarding task of putting together all those topics you mentioned and draw your own conclusions.

You should, anyway, you know - draw your own conclusions.

[Jazz2006]

316. I'm sure that

you think that was clever and witty.

But it wasn't.

I'm equally sure that an actual leftie lawyer, old or not, would have considered professional courtesy somewhere along the line.

But you haven't.

I realize that you're not a lawyer any more (from your posts on other threads) and that you're doing other things these days (so no call for that 'fat retainer' that you alluded to in your last post).

But that's still no excuse for such a lame response such as you proffered above.

Question: Were you disbarred or did you voluntarily resign?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

46. Amazing what a little behind-the-scenes NeoCon pressure will do.

[NYCGirl]

47. Yeah, I'm sure they got to every critic in the country, many of them

outspoken LIBERALS.
:eyes:

Hey, did you happen to think that maybe it's just a good movie?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

53. Oh, please. Your continued excuses for this propaganda flick....

...are duly noted.

[NYCGirl]

60. You will be proven wrong. NT

[Media_Lies_Daily]

96. Incredible.

[Name removed]

61. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ronnykmarshall]

152. I'm sure she's shaking in her shoes.

Wadda gonna do? Put her on "The Report"?

Mary Mother of God w/ a side of slaw!

It's a MOVIE!!

Is is it a lame attempt of PR for La Bush? Who knows, who cares. His ass is fried anyway.

Good gawd!

Someone points out that this films is done well, is getting good reviews and suddenly we are to "suspect" them as possible traitors to the liberalism?

I think some peeps are od'ing on the Reynolds Wrap.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

38. LOL! What a mental image! :-))

[Beaverhausen]

43. Did you ever think it might be a good movie regardless of whether or not..

...you believe what is portrayed in it?

And don't be dissing Ebert- he is a good, outspoken democrat.

[Johonny]

54. Yip

How many movies (good ones at that) are even close to historically accurate?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

81. Shouldn't a movie about one of the events that the NeoCon....

...Junta used falsely to illegally invade/occupy two sovereign Middle Eastern nations be as historically accurate as possible?

Then again, the makers of this film relied heavily on what they were given by the NeoCon Junta, didn't they?

[Beaverhausen]

87. What are you saying? The Bush admin wrote the script?

Please, tell me more.

:popcorn:

[Media_Lies_Daily]

102. Tell me what the movie-makers used as source material?....

...That should tell you all you need to know.

[Beaverhausen]

108. No, I want to hear what you think it was

I know what they used. I have actually bothered to read interviews with the writer/director. But please, feel free to tell us what you know.

[Media_Lies_Daily]

129. No, you tell me what they used. This should be interesting.

[Beaverhausen]

134. Take the time to research it yourself

or don't. I don't really care.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

64. Ebert's a moron, in my opinion,

and I don't care how he votes.

I considered the source material for this movie, and when I found out that it would be fictionalized, that it would be rendered as something that had actually happened so as to sell tickets and do well commercially, I was repulsed. I am still repulsed, no matter how skillful the final iteration. I am saddened that America lets itself be taken in by cheap tricks, and the poor people who died on that flight will never know how badly they've been used.

I'm sure it's some comfort to their families, some of whom, by the way, have vocally and vehemently distanced themselves from this aberration of a movie, because you do want to believe that your loved ones died valiantly.

But, for instance, there's no indication that anyone ever broke into the cockpit, that anyone ever overpowered any highjackers, that - alas - anything heroic on the part of the doomed passengers happened.

It's a vile concept, and it defiles the memories of those poor people. That's my opinion, and, as a former screenwriter and current novelist, I'm sticking to it.

[Beaverhausen]

74. As a former screenwriter you should know the difference between...

...a documentary (which this is not) and a film (which this is.)

But feel free to continue to bloviate about a film that you haven't seen. It's pretty entertaining.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

76. Why, thank you

How do you know I haven't seen it?

[Beaverhausen]

82. Because you aren't actually criticizing the film

you are criticizing the fact that it was even made in the first place and that people are going to see it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

101. So?

The film itself has nothing to recommend it for any kind of evaluation.

Fatuous, pumped-up, offensive fiction.

That's my opinion of it, but my protestations began back when this project was first announced. That was a couple of years ago, as I recall. I wasn't alone in my opinions.

[Beaverhausen]

115. Well most people who have seen it disagree with you

you went in not wanting to like it, obviously.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

120. No, I did not

and your assumptions about my taste in movies is really weird. I sat down and watched it and thought, "What a disgrace. What an affront to the people who died on that plane. What a horrid piece of schlock exploitation."

Just my opinion.

[Beaverhausen]

135. You didn't? Did you not just write this in the post above?

<<...my protestations began back when this project was first announced. That was a couple of years ago, as I recall. I wasn't alone in my opinions.>>

[uppityperson]

145. picky picky picky

thank you. I'm quitting here and leaving for a while. Thank you for your work and words here.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

150. Yes, and as an artist,

I am curious about things. Why do you think I watched it?

And I drew my final conclusions about it.

Formulating opinions is never a one-step process if you want to end up with an enlightened and intelligent view of the matter.

[uppityperson]

99. Have you seen it?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

103. Yes, I have

Surprise.

I got the DVD a couple of weeks ago. That's how these things work.

[uppityperson]

106. Good. You got the DVD yet are saying people shouldn't go to movie?

I am suprised.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

111. Why are you surprised?

It's bad. That's just my opinion. People should do what they want to do. Where did I say that people shouldn't go to see it, if you please?

Hell, it's their time and money. And it's my opinion.

I saw it for free.

[FARAFIELD]

90. Sounds like ebert

Wrote a crappy review of your movies then, why not just let it go. Its kind of like voting, dont complain if you dont vote, if you dont want to see it fine, but it doesnt break the fabric of america if you dont see it.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

97. No, he never reviewed anything

I worked on.

I have my opinions, and I don't dump on you for having yours, so why come at me personally like that?

Not nice.

And, how do you know I haven't seen the movie?

[uppityperson]

100. Have you seen it?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

107. For the third time,

and people who make assumptions are always the last to figure it out, yes, I have seen it.

For free, by the way.

[uppityperson]

116. as above, glad you got to see it.

So are your criticism of whether it should be seen or not are based on your having seen it? Nice to be able to get a free DVd prior to release. Or is your criticism based on that we shouldn't pay to see it? Thanks. I'll keep my answers to 1 reply place here OLL.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

123. Do what you want

I have no interest in who sees what. Why would I?

Interesting that an opinion that doesn't praise the movie gets people - who haven't yet seen it - so worked up and antagonistic. I daresay George W. Bush would be pleased with this kind of mindless dissent over something that doesn't matter while people can't afford food if they have to buy gas for their cars, and more of our kids got murdered in Iraq this past month than before.

It's a movie. What does it matter what anyone thinks? Go. Enjoy. Get the buttered popcorn.

And yeah, I get free advance DVDs of lots of movies. Plus, I get free books from my publisher. Things work like that. It's another kind of world out there.

[Gabi Hayes]

66. you mean like Triumph of the Will?

EXACTLY!

yip!

[Beaverhausen]

98. I'm not sure I get that reference

I've never seen it but it's a documentary, right? I mean, I see that Hilter plays himself. Are you comparing that to United 93?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

128. You should see it

Interesting, that filmmaker.

You should know about her. You should know all about her and this movie and her movies and the history. It's very significant, especially in light of how our world is moving today.

You'd see this "Flight 93" movie in a whole different light, I believe.

Nice throw, Gabi.

[Beaverhausen]

141. I will look for it

something tells me it will freak me out though.

Hey, don't get me wrong...I think Bush is becoming Hitler as much as the next person here. That still doesn't mean that this film might not be something that I would or wouldn't like to see.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

160. History will freak you out?

You can't be a knowledgeable moviegoer in today's world without being familiar with this woman's work. You'll be fascinated and it really will change how you view the whole industry.

It's a brilliant lesson. Have fun. Read up on her. Remarkable story.

[Beaverhausen]

169. Nazi's freak me out

Evil freaks me out. Sometimes I feel like I don't have to study it to know it *was* and still *is* out there.

Unfortunately there are some big holes in my film history knowledge. I will make it a point to find out more about Ms. Reifenstahl. But still - :scared:

[Gabi Hayes]

175. Just watch Triumph of the Will, for starters, or Olympiad, about the 36

Berlin Olympics

maybe go with that first

I'll bet you won't make it all the way through Triumph of the Will. some of the images are absolutely stunning, though, and you'll see where lots of cinematic images since filmed got their 'inspiration'

[Gabi Hayes]

143. at least some people here know what's going on, hey?

I'm really amazed at how easily taken in most seem to be.

what other analogous situation can you compare here?

good craftsmanship, mythological, possibly odious premise, designed to make consumers look past the intent of the presenters?

[Beaverhausen]

147. Seeing the film doesn't mean believing everything portrayed in it

Give us a little more credit.

[Gabi Hayes]

149. sorry...didn't mean to sound like that....BUT I wasn't even talking about

what happened in the movie.

what I strenuously object to is the USE that's going to be made of it by the illegal regime currently destroying our planet

I don't care if it's the best film ever made, and every single thing they portray is exactly correct

they're USING it to take us back to the immediate post 911 fear/jingoist mentality

you want that again?

[Beaverhausen]

I agree

I even think for some stupid reason this film will cause smirky's poll numbers to go up a bit.

You know what I find really sad...in the moments right after these events we were unified as a nation more than probably at any time in history. Now look at us!

[Gabi Hayes]

159. exactly....the bit about the poll numbers. dunno why, but every time

he gets in trouble, something like this happens to bail him out

I'm hoping, though, that they've dug themselves a hole deep enough from which they won't be able to crawl. please, american sheeple, don't let yet another episode of 911 deja vu put you in thrall of the fascist propaganda matrix, as it did during the last two federal elections

[ronnykmarshall]

158. Oh come now ...

you know they will pump in sublinial message during the whole thing.

*bush is great* *democrats eat poop*

[OldLeftieLawyer]

151. CALGON, TAKE ME AWAY!

You don't mind if I call you "Calgon," do you?

Oh, I don't know. What's her name, that German chick? Leni, Feni, Weni somebody?

[Gabi Hayes]

162. she was SMOKIN hot in her day! not much of an actress, but learned

very well the lessons of the other end of the camera

great book on the Nuba, as well

sort of feel sorry for her, in a way

[OldLeftieLawyer]

164. Ever see

"Hitler's Secretary"? I think that's what it was called.

Riveting.

[Gabi Hayes]

168. I have it on tape, I think, but don't remember watching the whole thing

I have trouble watching much of that stuff. it's so frickin' depressing

after we saw Sophie's Choice (ever been to the Springfield Cinema, I think it was called), we went to the Circle Theater to see Play It Again, Sam. can't take that stuff.

did you live in DC when the Circle was still open?

when I moved, I found about four partially used ticket books

[OldLeftieLawyer]

179. In undergrad school,

we had a film professor who had access to the most unbelievable WWII film footage. Most of it German. That was in 1966.

Ever since then, I've pretty much avoided all of it.

Yeah, the Circle was a great place. And the Springfield Cinema is still there, but a lot of people get mugged at that mall now. Not in my frame of reference, ya know?

[Gabi Hayes]

195. whuh?

what's going on there? my old GF used to live right off Cardinal Drive, IIRC

what happened?

I really miss the Circle

they promised to reopen, those liars

insert nostalgia drip

[OldLeftieLawyer]

201. I can't be certain,

but it's possible that Cardinal Drive no longer exists. They did this huge Mixing Bowl (where the Interstate 95 and Beltway 495 come together) project that's still going on, as a matter of fact, and the whole area is completely transformed. It even confuses me, and I'm here almost 35 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/local/longterm/traffic/bowl.htm

Nostalgia is overrated. That's why I'm so glad my memory is going...............

[Marie26]

305. "Triumph of the Will"

Is a Nazi propaganda film, & the poster is implying that this movie is also some kind of glorifying propaganda for the Bush Administration. I am not certain if the poster has actually seen the movie, but people who have have uniformly stated that it is not favorable to the Bushies, & I agree. Why are people making so many assumptions about a movie they haven't even seen? I don't get it. Greenglass is a respected British director & did a documentary in the past about the violence in Northern Ireland. He knows about the connection between religion & violence, the impact of terrorism on people's lives, & the importance of authenticity. It seems like some people are saying that no artist, ever, should create a work about 9/11 & that seems extremely categorical to me. It's one of the defining events of our time - why shouldn't a filmmaker be allowed to make a movie about it?

[Shakespeare]

171. Exactly. It's a MOVIE, not a documentary.

CHILL out, folks. Geez.

[JVS]

49. Would you say that to him in person?

[Media_Lies_Daily]

57. Old Lefty probably would, and so would I. Your point?

[JVS]

70. I was just wondering if he would be rude enough to do it

And of course to see if anyone in the world would confess to being physically intimidated by Ebert, on the off chance that that might be the case

[OldLeftieLawyer]

83. Who's "he"?

"physically intimated" by someone? Because of an opinion?

Yeah, like I'm a he, too.

Getting beat up by little old Ebert because of his reviews?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!

Now, that was a laugh I needed.

Thanks for that.

[JVS]

88. I heard that he was a fucking maniac and beat the shit out of people

real bad!

[OldLeftieLawyer]

94. See.

that's why I avoid mortals.

They're dreary and predictable and violent.

He was more fun when he was fat and his wonderfully smart partner - Gene Siskel - whom I did know - was alive. They were good then.

So were movies, I believe.

[JVS]

93. I used "he" to refer to you. I couldn't tell if you were male or female..

and your profile isn't on display.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

114. It doesn't matter

My profile is always on display.

My right is my favorite.

heh heh heh

"he"

[Gabi Hayes]

80. so would I, and I usually like what he has to say. he's clearly wrong

about this

his Bergman writings got him the Pulitzer way back when, and he did a series on WTTW, based on that work

very well worth checking out

but this, well, this is very sad on his part...he was hoodwinked, like all the others who don't realize that there's no way to know what really happened (and this isn't even taking in the possibility that Flight 93 was shot down)

noting but a bunch of 'well-made' hogwash, designed to dredge up the most easily manipulated emotions evoked back then

despicable

[OldLeftieLawyer]

69. Why would I meet him in person?

[JVS]

73. Why wouldn't you? He's a mortal. He dwell in the same realm as you or me

[OldLeftieLawyer]

75. You sure?

He's mortal?

I don't do mortal.

[JVS]

79. I guess we could claim that his mortality has not yet been proven

But I wouldn't doubt it

[Media_Lies_Daily]

27. See! Propaganda DOES work!

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

140. You ain't kidding........

[Name removed]

212. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whopis01]

291. The dates

The dates are roughly 4 years and 7 years after the bombing of the world trade center. Clearly those buildings were already the target of terrorism at the time those documents were printed. I'm not arguing against your overall point, just merely pointing out that those documents are not quite as unlikely as some people make them out to be.

If you really want some good 9/11 prediction/conspiracry theory images of the wtc, have a look at this:





From a band called "Coup" with songs such as "5 Million Ways to Kill a CEO". While the album wasn't scheduled for release till November of 2001, the cover image appeared on the publisher's web site and in Wired magazine's September 2001 issue (which was printed and shipped in the end of August).

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/thecoup.htm

[Name removed]

31. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[peacetalksforall]

39. I would give 10% to the memorial - I won't see the movie. And I regret

that there is so much collective approval of something the details of which are held in near total secrecy by the administration.

I'll see as many independent documentaries as I can, but not this fiction.

Now, if someone makes a documentary of the testimony of farmers and local people who gave information to investigators that has since evaporated with accompanying silencing of the witnesses - then I'll go.

[Guaranteed]

41. Judging from other DUers' reactions to your post, I'm going to need

to go ahead and see this.

You know- to put together an informed opinion. ;)

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

51. How Dare You Be Informed Before Casting Zealous Judgements On Others!!!

Just who do you think you are buddy???? Don't you know you're supposed to shoot first and ask questions later? :rofl:

;)

[niyad]

42. does it answer the question of WHY the crash site does not seem to be

consistent with the crashing of a jet?

[NYCGirl]

44. I believe the film ends with just a black screen — so you don't know

Perhaps the OP can fill us in.

[FARAFIELD]

109. the Plane Crashed Nose down

Ive been the site, a few times and its consistent with a crash of a plane barrelling in. We know from the cockpit tapes that the family has listened to and were played in the MAssaoui case that they got "into" the cockpit what that means is anyones guess. Without giving away the ending, just imagine them breaking the door down (and an attempt to get their licensed pilot forward) in one half of your brain and for those of you who have used "googel earth" in the other half. And it goes dark. But then again we know how it ends thats part of the thing

[OldLeftieLawyer]

130. What it means

is that the highjackers got into the cockpit and immediately locked themselves in. That's all that can be determined from any of the documentation.

Old colleagues of mine are representing him over at the Federal Courthouse here in Alexandria, VA, and there's been lots of conversations about what happened on Flight 93. No doors were "broken down," and it's documented that no passenger ever got into the cockpit.

No one even knows who had his/her throat slashed before they got into the cockpit, by the way, either.

[gatorboy]

142. The fight in the cockpit was for dramatic effect .

In the film the passengers are going at it with the terrorists as you see the ground quickly closing in during the cockpit scene. But the recently released audio suggests that the passengers never made it past the cockpit door in time.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

153. And that's what I found so offensive

So untrue, so patently false, so wrong, so demeaning to the memories of those poor people who knew they were dying and were probably just out of their minds with fear.

Heroes are heroes, but let's hold out for the real ones. That's what I think.

[Gabi Hayes]

174. heroes like John ONeill? you should read this link!

just found it.

astounding stuff, if true

I'll bet Sibel Edmonds knows about this, and it has to do with why she's being gagged

http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id=P5204_0_5_0_C

those PRICKS!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Sibel+Edmonds+Melek+Can+Dickerson&btnG=Google+Search

know anything about this?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

178. John O'Neill had it down

Amazing man. Dark Irish hero/villain, but he knew stuff. And, boy, did they get rid of him fast, didn't they?

Bastards.

[Gabi Hayes]

197. really....did you see the PBS thing about him? it was more a soap opera

than a discussion of his role in 911, much less an investigation of what REALLY happened WRT government entaglement before/during/after the facts

that was a REAL disappointment

why don't you do a book about him?

why doesn't somebody? or a movie? now, that would be compelling

[OldLeftieLawyer]

200. The book's already been written,

and it's terrific.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060508221/qid=1146273170/sr=2-3/ref=pd_bbs_b_2_3/103-8170281-1374252?s=books&v=glance&n=283155

[Name removed]

230. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stray cat]

246. Did all the people who disappeared get abducted by aliens?

[rman]

248. I don't know. But that doesn't make the official story any more credible.

[Guaranteed]

45. What it SHOULD have been is a movie about an alien abduction of a plane

that coincides with three other plane crashes.

[Beaverhausen]

48. read this - eyewitness account of the crash site

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=84344&mesg_id=84549

[Xithras]

148. It's perfectly consistent with a nose-in crash site.

The conspiracy theorists who like to claim that it's inconsistent do so by comparing images of 93's impact crater to images of "normal" crashes. The problem is that "normal" crashes occur while a plane is still somewhat level, or when a pilot is fighting to regain control. The jets DON'T impact nose-first, but rather at an angle as the jets are trying to land, take off, or as they strike a mountain.

If you compare photos of the 93 crash site to photos of other high speed vertical impact crash sites, you'll see that it is perfectly consistent.

[Name removed]

223. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[INDIA]

264. Have you been to the crash site? n/t

[kath]

298. What about the the question of how the fok one of the engines ended up 7

or 8 miles away from the crash site????

[CoffeeCat]

72. I haven't seen the movie yet, but---

I am surprised by all of the pessimism around here.

I'm not saying that you're wrong. However, I've heard that this movie makes Junior and the rest of the get-along-gang look like incompetent fools.

I am hoping that this movie helps many people to understand that Iraq is a complete waste of time and irrelevant to 9/11.

Many Americans bought Bush's 9/11--Iraq connection. They need a jolt to help them see that there WAS NO connection and to help them come out of denial. I assumed that maybe this movie--and the horrors of what happened on 9/11--could help them to see more clearly that Junior is a complete failure and Iraq is a horrendous mistake.

Also--I've heard that this movie demonstrates that there were many clues pre-9/11--that this might happen. Again, further illustrations of Junior's failures.

I'll never know why he's the 'father of security' to many Americans. For God's sakes--the worst terrorist attack in our nation's history, happened on his watch. People need to be outraged about the pre-9/11 PDB. I don't think most people get it.

I was hoping that "Flight 93" might cogently reveal more truth about Bush's incompetence--further eroding that sick 32 percent that still hangs on.

I was also hoping that the movie would reveal some of the same information/facts that Fahrenheit 9/11 revealed. "Fahrenheit" was made by a liberal, but "93" is being touted by all points on the political spectrum--and maybe more people would be open to accepting the truth, because it's not unfairly positioned as liberal propaganda (as "Fahrenheit" was).

[BigYawn]

244. Good Post !!

[Radio_Guy]

78. I'm keeping an open mind until I see it

But I'm convinced that film will be pure propaganda.

[dailykoff]

86. 99.4% pure

propaganda, and that's putting it at nicely as I know how.

[Jigarotta]

105. I don't know what to think of this

except we are being told to think something that may not have been.

I haven't seen the movie, but I have seen much propaganda as you all have - the John Wayne thingie. but I do believe in us little people becoming heroes,, hell, that happens all the time outside of Flight 93 in many ways, look next door or in the eyes of your family.

I don't want to denigrate, but I also don't want to get caught up in the propaganda machine. It's really tough not knowing what the hell to believe. And that's the program, it seems.

[Ava]

112. i'm not going to see it, but here's why:

i have nothing against the movie, and from what i've heard(they talked about it last night on Majority Report) it's beautifully produced and directed, but i don't think i'll see it. why? first of all it's not really my type of movie, and second of all i don't think i want to see it this soon after 9/11. i remember how i felt on that day and i don't want to relive it. kudos to those who were brave enough to make and star in this film though.

[FARAFIELD]

126. Hey

NIce post, i was sort of getting used to the people who "claimed" to have seen it and just wanted to run it down. IN the end its just a movie, and there are all sorts of reasons for seeing or not seeing them.

[Ava]

251. exactly. i'm sure it's a good movie, but i'm just not going to see it

not this weekend anyways. :shrug:

[Marie26]

306. It is really heart-wrenching

and I can understand why many people don't want to see it. If you don't want to relive 9/11, you probably shouldn't see the movie, cause it puts you right back there.

[johnnie]

122. It's just a movie folks

This thread is funny. I'm not putting down the OP, I think it is perfectly alright for someone to go see a movie if they want. I think some of the comments on here are funny as hell though. What passion!...for a movie..lol.

You can lump this movie in with the 1,000,000+ other things said about 9/11.

[Radio_Guy]

239. It is JUST a movie

You are absolutely correct. That is what people have to keep in mind. It is a fictional movie. It isn't a documentary like Fahrenheit 911. It is for entertainment. If everyone goes into the theater with that in mind, they just might be entertained.

[caligirl]

124. I would kind of like to see it but have some bad history, over it but

nervous. I want to see it in a way , my husbands classmate'78 from the USNA who was also the class President was on one of the two flights that crashed into the WTC. He was a great guy. My sister was in a midair over San Diego and I am sure she must have known what was coming. I have long since gotten over her death, but the way she went is to similar to flt 93. I mean a plane only crashes so many ways, right.

[Beaverhausen]

138. My high school class vice president died in the south tower

I'm sorry about your sister. I can understand why you wouldn't want to see it. :hug:

[caligirl]

187. I kind of do want to, but I remember for about 5 years I couldn't

watch anything having to do with airplanes. Its better now in a detached way, actors its all fake. But this time flt 93 really happened.

[INDIA]

267. Maybe you should wait

I saw it about three hours ago and i am still WAY shaken up. It was extremely intense, and I had no connection to any of the 3,000 that died. I was almost physically ill in the early stages of the movie there was so much tension.

[caligirl]

293. so sorry, but thanks for the warning. I'll avoid the movie.

[ronnykmarshall]

163. Oh my god!

I am so sorry about your sister.

I remember that crash very well.

[caligirl]

184. thanks, a year after it happened I had dinner with friends

and the guy across from me saw it from the freeway, pulled his car over and watched. Oh well.

[Jazz2006]

125. It's shocking to me to see so many supposedly open minded, supposed Dem

...supposed Democrats so quick to call something "propaganda" without actually seeing the piece they denounce as such.

I thought that that kind of kneejerk, uninformed, misinformed, don't you dare inform me, sort of "fingers in ears chanting, 'I can't hear you'" thing was strictly a Repug trait.

It's disappointing to see so many exhibiting the Repug trait here.

[HornBuckler]

146. Well without seeing it, one shouldn't scream "propaganda"

However, all of the anomalies regarding the cell phone conversations and the widely augmented point of where the plane actually hit the ground would make one wonder what 'source material' was used in making the film.

I realize it's a movie and not a documentary - kinda like Titanic. Take a tragedy, exaggerate the story, slap some filler and cash-in.

I won't be seeing it, until I can do so for free.

[Jazz2006]

156. Agreed.

And until seeing it, one probably shouldn't equate it to the Titanic movie, either.

[HornBuckler]

161. Alright, but after we both see it I think you'll agree

it is like Titanic in the sense I described

Take a tragedy (check)

exaggerate the story (pretty much this is true - it's Hollywood after all, check)

slap some filler (most likely another check)

cash-in. (definite check)

What's wrong with a broad based comparison to Titanic? instead of a missile or passenger heroics we have an iceberg. However those are the specifics, I never would compare the two on specifics. Only that they are both tragedies and the truth of both events is as of yet, unknown.


EDIT: an argument could be made that we know far more about the Titanic than we do Flight 93 - and I would be compelled to believe that.

[Jazz2006]

176. I have seen it.

So unless and until you do... we'll have to agree to disagree.

(I could have and should have been clearer in my prior post to which you replied - sorry about that - but the threads on this topic have been moving fast and furious and it seems I didn't spell that out as clearly as I should have)

[Gabi Hayes]

228. soooohhhh, you saw a whole movie! what else do you know about it?

let me guess....you thought JFK, the movie, was an unbelievable compilation of suppositions, right?

how is that different from this movie?

if I'm wrong, I apologize....just going on your attitude concerning this, and your apparent lack of background knowledge of both the flight 93 controversy, and the way this regime uses propaganda to further its agenda

what can you tell us about the flight recordings that were released to the public?

what happened in the cockpit between the highjackers and the brave souls who breached the door?

can you fill us in on that, based on anything besides what you saw in the movie?


thanks

[Jazz2006]

252. I make it a point not to answer questions from

people who begin their posts directed to me with uncalled for insults.

[TheWatcher]

287. Um, there were no direct insults to you

There were no direct insults to you in that post.

Try again.

I'll ask the exact same questions she did and I am not insulting you in any way.

I'd be interested in your answers.

[Marie26]

307. It's not like that

There's no filler, or star-crossed romance, telegenic leads or soaring musical score. In fact, there's really no music at all. There's no filler storyline. There's no exaggerations or silliness. It's a very stripped-down, realistic portrayal of a real event. You can tell that the director was trying to stick to the facts & create an accurate version of what happened on that flight (as much as possible). It feels much more like a documentary than a Titanic.

[Telly Savalas]

272. Titanic was propaganda!

[rman]

231. Is is quite predictable what the movie shows

It's just a visualization of the official story

[incapsulated]

155. Get used to it.

This isn't the first or last time.

I think the reactions to this are absurd.

[still_one]

170. really? we lost the election because we are fighting the terrorists

over in Iraq and not over here... (sarcasm)

[Jazz2006]

192. Agreed, incapsulated. The reactions are absurd.

But how can so many people purport to "respond" with such conviction and such assurance to something they haven't even seen?

I've always that as a Freeper/Repug trait. I didn't expect such kneejerk, misinformed, uninformed, and reactionary crap from Democrats.

I am saddened to see so many of what I can only classify as Freeperish/Repugish type threads and posts here.

And I don't understand it.

[Pastiche423]

165. What else would it be called, if not propaganda?

The "storyline" came from the Official Bullshit Theory.

Did it not say in the film that the passengers in an heoric effort tried to save the Capitol/WH?

What kind if horseshit is that? How could anyone on this planet know that?

Answer: They couldn't. So a fairy tale of heroic people fighting the terr-ists is made up and, apparently, swallowed whole by many on this thread.

[Jazz2006]

190. No, it does not at all give the impression that they were trying to save

the Capitol or the White House.

It gives the impression that they were trying to save themselves.

Which is pretty much in keeping with human nature, don't you think?

It seems quite apparent that you haven't seen the movie. Perhaps you should reserve comment until you have.

[Pastiche423]

211. Have you seen the tv ads?

That's where I got the saving the Capitol/WH bs.

No, I do not have to see it to comment on it. It's bs, like I've said before, BECAUSE NOT ONE PERSON ON THIS EARTH KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED ON THAT PLANE.

So, according to the tv ads and the trailer, it's the same bs story that the administration has been selling since it happened.

[Jazz2006]

214. No, I saw the actual movie... this afternoon.

Thus my comments on this and other threads about the movie.

I wouldn't profess to comment in any substantial way on a movie I had never seen.

[still_one]

167. I think the sensitivity comes from bush using this justification

to go into Iraq, and destroy our republic

Please remember they kept using the quote "lets roll" in his build up to the Iraq war

In fact they used 9/11 as justification for going into Iraq

That will NOT be the part of this movie, and it will be forgotten

It is NOT that those people who fought the terrorists on the plane were not heros, it is that the neocons will use this to justify there actions on more preemtion

The results of 9/11 caused us to attack a country which had nothing to do with 9/11, and kill tens of thousands of people.

Human nature is very predictable

[incapsulated]

173. But what if they were heroes?

Why shouldn't there be a movie about them without it getting attacked by people here because some idiot freeper will say it justifies Iraq? Does anyone really believe seeing this movie is going to make people support the war? This happened on 9/11, not March of 2003. I don't care what Bush did, this is about the innocent people on that plane. Should they be forgotten because it offends some people's political sensibilities?

This reaction is so out of proportion, it is ridiculous.

[gatorboy]

180. I believe they were heroes.

But I believe they were heroes for trying to save themselves and others on the plane. The problem I have is the assumption that they did what they did simply to protect the capitol.

[incapsulated]

188. Well, I haven't seen the movie

Is that how they are portraying this? Well, I don't know, but it may well have played a part in it, not that the capitol is sacred, but that they could try to save themselves and if not, at least prevent them from killing even more people. There is nothing wrong with that assumption. And it is a heroic thing to do. No one will ever know exactly what went on, of course.

(personally, I have made sick jokes among friends to the effect that they shouldn't have stopped them flying into the capitol, heh)

[LostinVA]

205. My friend saw it today, and said it is not portrayed like this

I can say I respect Greengrass as a very good, non-sentimental filmmaker and writer. Watch "Bloody Sunday." If anyone can pull this off, he can. My friend said it's about the passengers and their lives and their will to live or go out fighting.

I honestly don't think this will help Bush. I think it will either keep the polls neutral, OR go back the other way. My friend said the movie does NOT make the Administration look good at all.

Her cousin died in the second Tower. Her email to me said that watching this was horrifying and scary and sad, but it's also helped her. She';s taking her mother to see it tomorrow.

I wasn't going to see this, but her positive response to the film has possibly changed my mind... although I think I, too, will say it's a great film, but one I hated to watch... like "Priest."

You know, they tried to live, no matter if they crashed or they were shot down. Unlike our "President," they didn't just sit there while Rome burned... we can all disagree about what happened that day, and agree that the Government screwed up big time, but we can still agree the passengers on that flight -- along with everyone else who died that day -- wanted to live, and tried to live, and did what they could to survive. Okay? We can all agree on that.

[still_one]

182. I didn't say you were wrong

[incapsulated]

185. I'm sorry if it sounded like I was arguing with you, in particular

I was really taking issue with the general anger over this movie.

[still_one]

189. you didn't, I just wanted to say you are right

[gatorboy]

194. This is what the movie is like for a good portion of the time.

Anyone see "Saving Private Ryan"? There's a scene near the end where Pvt. Mellish is fighting with a german soldier over a knife. The German gets the better of the private and slowly plunges the knife into Mellish's heart while he's begging him to stop. I always get this sick feeling in my stomach everytime I see this scene. I can barely watch it. And every time, in the back of mind, I'm hoping that Mellish escapes even when I know he won't. Now take that scene and stretch it for an hour and a half. That's United 93.

[LostinVA]

206. Great way to put it

A friend saw it today whose cousin dies at the WTC... she said something very similar to you: it was 90 minutes of "what ifs" and "could havebeens," and hoping for a different ending when you knew there wouldn't be one.

[Balbus]

183. Believe me, this is the norm...

[ContraBass Black]

279. You've been around for a whole month and this surprises you?

;) Welcome.

[frylock]

137. i'm waiting for the pat tillman and jessica lynch movies myself..

I'm sure they'll be just as factual as United 93.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

157. Wasn't there already a Jessica Lynch movie?

Or am I thinking of her book?

Oy gevalt.

[derby378]

263. Yep, there's a Jessica Lynch movie - work of fiction, natch

Haven't seen it, but in one of the teasers, it shows an Iraqi interrogator slapping Jessica hard across the face. Her caretakers in that Iraqi hospital swear that no such thing happened, even when interrogators were present.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

270. Thanks

Like Saddam Hussein's "capture," wasn't it an amazing coincidence that miitary film crews were there to record the moment?

It's all such micromanaged bullshit, and the American public just has to wise up.

[treestar]

172. Ultimately, this film is fiction - so its effect on our political view

should be nil.

It can be fiction based on a real happening but ultimately it is fiction. Like those episodes of Law and Order that remind you of a real case.

It may even be a good film as a work of fiction. Of course the country is crawling with people who can't tell the difference between fiction and reality.

[FARAFIELD]

186. Holy Cow

I just have to say, generally im dissapointed in most of you. The right wingers are the ones we destroyed for REVIEWING Faren 9/11 without having seen it, and yet here we are doing the same thing to a film that doesnt purport to be the truth past what it can prove. IN general I can see why you are so cynical about the subject, but yammering out of one side of your mouth while you are doing the same thing as they did to F 9/11 is frankly lame. IM glad i went to see it, it was good. If someoen doesnt want to go thats fine to. But a lot of you are acting like its produced by BUSH CO. without every seeing the thing.

[nashville_brook]

198. this is not like RW Farenheit 911 reaction!

i'm glad you saw the movie. i'm glad for the discussion.

but people are upset about this movie because PEOPLE ARE SICK OF BEING LIED TO. then, we are supposed to give our time and money to a piece of agitprop that does nothing to set the record straight and INSTEAD calcifies opinion on the "official" story.

this is nothing like Farenheit 911.

[Pastiche423]

219. Thank you!

This is exactly how I feel. I am so tired of being lied to. I will not give my money to any entity that would endorse, even innocently, the official story.

[FARAFIELD]

250. Nice rationalization

But thats pretty hypocritial, you are acting exacly like the right wing did during F 9/11, reviewing without seeing it and saying it has some sort of hidden agenda. Id say for a socialist Brit that greengrass if he is towing the Bush Line, he hid it pretty well. Im shocked by the closed mindedness of my fellow progressives. Why dont you contribute to Charles Taylor while you are at it. He doesnt belive in flight 93either. SHeesh

[treestar]

259. F911 was marketed up front as opinion. It was a documentary.

This is fiction based on a real happening. I'm shocked that you don't understand the difference.

[Imagevision]

265. You could watch F-9-11 without audio and still form an obvious opinion...

[nashville_brook]

292. "why don't i contribute to Charles Taylor" ??

wow. you really want people to see this movie.

look, i'm not interested. i'll wait for the movie where we find out what really happened.

i'm glad you enjoyed the show.

[treestar]

258. The makers would admit the film is fiction! What are you talking

about? Of course it is fiction. It can't be documentary, there is no proof of what happened. It is not even marketed as a documentary.

It is fiction based on a real happening and they would probably admit that.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

276. You're disappointed

because people have opinions that differ from yours?

How horrible would it be if we were all in lockstep and agreed with everything that you (or anyone else) ever wrote?

Oh, that would be freerepublic.com, wouldn't it?

Dissent and differing opinions are the very things that this administration has been trying to destroy, and you being disappointed in people not backing up what you thought of the movie is a subtle example of how successful George W. Bush and his band of thugs have been in getting normally right-minded people to start thinking that dissent is somehow a bad thing.

I say it was a great thread, and I think it went all over the place, and sure showed how some people think, which is always interesting. No agreement was ever called for, and that's a good thing.

[patrioticliberal]

191. No thanks

We don't need any 'reminders'

You sure Turd Blossom isn't in the credits?

[KoKo]

196. No Thanks for me, either...had my fill of "propaganda" from the Bush

Crime Family....don't need to drop that money for the popcorn and coke and the pap.

[incapsulated]

199. I didn't realize Bush produced this film.

Jesus, I am DONE with this thread and I'm hiding all the rest like it.

[nonconformist]

204. I've read this whole thread and it's just.... sad

A good old-fashioned dogpile with a nice big helping of condescending, elitist attitude.

I absolutely concede that there are events in this movie that have been fictionalized, because nobody alive knows exactly what happened. Not even you (you know who you are). We speculate, and I have a theory that probably corresponds well with the distractors in this thread, but we don't know 100% for a fact what happened. Some events have been fictionalized to fill in holes so that a story can be told.

You know what? That's called a fucking movie. It's done ALL THE TIME for any movie ever made about or based on an actual event/true story. People realize this, they're not morons. This has not been marketed as a documentary.

I haven't seen the film yet. I will withhold any specific opinions or judgments on the propaganda spin of this movie until I have SEEN the movie - because to do so prior to that would simply be ignorant. And I am keeping an open mind on this, overall, because the reviews I've read say that this movie does not paint the Bush administration in a positive light in the least. For those who hold film critics in utter contempt and blanketly disregard all of them, I would love to hear your personal review of this movie - and I would also like to hear examples of scenes and events in this movie that show the Bush admin to be heroic or even competent. Sincerely, respectfully. Because, since I've not seen the movie yet, I have an open mind on this. And if you are kind enough to share your review with me, I will hope that you won't speak to me in a condescending, flippant way as many have to the OP and others on this thread. That's how Bush talks to us "little people". I am an intelligent, informed person - I am your comrade.

That said - thanks for your review FARAFIELD.

[ShaneGR]

207. Ya, regardless, we have to examine 9/11....

I personally reject the MIHOP theories, I actually believe that mostly Saudi born terrorists came up with a plan to attack important US targets. The MIHOP theorists have their point of view, but I reject it. I think we really were under attack. I do not think George Bush had anything to do with it. However, I believe his response to it has been completely incompetent. We had such an opportunity, and we blew it. Bush blew it.

[nonconformist]

209. Well, I lean LIHOP

Which is, ironically, consistent with believing we were attacked and that Bush is incompetent. And I have a lot of unanswered questions. I don't expect this movie to answer them - I don't even expect this movie to address them. I don't think we will ever know the unabashed truth of everything leading up to and on 9/11, and on the off-chance we do it won't come in the form of a major motion picture.

[Jazz2006]

256. Once again, I agree with you.

Stop it!

This is getting to be a habit.

:hi:

[Jazz2006]

255. Very well said, nonconformist.

I did see the movie on Friday and posted in more detail about it on other similar threads, but for some reason which I cannot fathom, many people here refuse to hear that the movie does not portray the Bush administration in a positive light. I cannot think of a single scene that tries to portray the Bush administration as heroic or competent. Not one.

It is no fun being insulted and being called names for simply trying to provide information to people.

The movie does, of course, - and necessarily - include fictionalized parts. Nobody alive can possibly know everything that happened on board that plane. As I mentioned on other threads, some of the fictionalization was in relation to the passengers (e.g. I don't think that they got into the cockpit in real life; e.g. there is one passenger depicted as against the idea of trying to attack the hijackers and at one point, he yells out and other passengers subdue him) and some of the fictionalization was in relation to the hijackers (e.g. one of them - who appears to be the "lead" hijacker - makes a phone call from the waiting area just before boarding the plane and says "I love you" to whoever he is calling; e.g. the same hijacker is portrayed as reluctant to act, stalling, and perhaps even contemplating not going ahead with it).

I thought I might put pen to paper today and try to write a complete review now that I've had a day to absorb and think about it all.

But, back to the point I was initially addressing. After the movie, the comments from audience members were mostly criticism directed at BushCo.

[Marie26]

309. Good post

I agree w/you completely.

[leesa]

215. It is so amazing how gullible Americans are. Did the suitcase full of

clues left behind by hijackers supposedly going to their deaths leave their names address and plans...how very nice of them!! WHY do you guys believe this swill???????

[dave123williams]

217. Right. Or, somebody shot that plane down.

I don't trust anybody who would so callously profit from death. 10%, eh?

[kevinbgoode]

220. I forgot about the profit donations. . .I'm going to make sure

that I go see this movie on Sunday, I think. . .I'd like to see them get their memorial. Tell me. . .did they show anything about the gay rugby player who was on the plane?

[hamerfan]

234. Proceeds, not profits...

10% of the proceeds will go to the memorial, not 10% of the profits. And I do hope they also focus on the gay rugby player (what was his name?) and not just the "let's roll" guy.
dumpbush

[lovuian]

222. Not going to see it... Total propoganda movie...

Its taking advantage of the 93 victims...

[rman]

229. All it does is depict the official story re United 93,

a story that everyone already knows.
So the movie is predictable and uninformative, and therefor not worthy of much attention.

[shain from kane]

238. Early release of "Snakes on a Plane"? n/t

[OldLeftieLawyer]

243. THAT

has to be the scariest movie ever made. I don't even care about SEEING it. Just the title drives me insane.

It'll make gazillions, watch.

The word is that some actors signed on without even reading the script - just on the basis of the title.

I love that.

But, eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek.

[notadmblnd]

245. I won't be seeing it

basically for the same reason I don't gawk at accident scenes on the freeway. Besides we already know the ending.

[wtmusic]

304. 45 people die every day in Iraq

Just curious why this event deserves so much hype...because they were white people? Americans?

I mean all those Iraqis...they're all getting movies about them, right? Memorials?

[Minnesota_Lib]

253. I will see it, but there is no way the filmmakers or anyone could know...

...what transpired on that flight. No way. Except for adding recorded or remembered cell phone calls and whatever they got off of the blackbox to the dialog, the rest is fiction---the way we would have liked it to be.


I hope they were heros, but I don't need to force-fed myth to reinforce that hope. Let them all rest in the peace they deserve.

[Scurrilous]

254. United 93 opens in 3rd place:

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?sortdate=2006-04-28&p=.htm

[Swamp Rat]

257. Fiction based on a tragic event - a great, emotionally charged distraction

so Bushler can continue waging war against the very people who paid for this piece of blatant propaganda.



"W-w-we o-o-own y-y-y-yourrr m-mm-mind, s-s-ss-s-suckers!"

[Deja Q]

260. Is it a documentary, based on any form of reality, or total fiction?

And of surviving audio tape, transcripts, et al, how much is artificially conjured up?

[NYCGirl]

277. This article explains the process of writing it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/movies/24unit.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[Mass]

261. Sad world we live on where people dont have any respect for

these types of events and rush to make a "fiction" movie about it.

I am sorry, but this is voyeurism and nothing else. You cant put yourself in the place of these people and the director no more than anybody else.

I refuse to go see this movie. They make a fiction movie based on the truth and in a few weeks, everybody will believe this is the truth. Sorry. Not for me.

(not to speak of people making money on this tragedy).

[progressivebydesign]

271. I couldn't agree with you more, Mass.

that's EXACTLY where my head's at on this. I'm not a fan or voyeurism of tragic events, nor a fan of fictionalized accounts of anything. I have no interest in reliving the horror that other people went through.. why would I want to do that? Would any of the people who perished on that plane really WANT any other human to go through that experience?

I still wonder why the movie pushes the idea that they were trying to save others by taking back the plane. From what I read of the transcripts, it was the hijackers that plunged it into the ground, the passengers were just trying to take out the hijackers and reclaim the plane. How would the passengers have known what the next target was? I know if I was on a flight like that I would fight until my death to stop them from crashing the plane and killing all of us aboard.. that would be your absolute immediate response. I have yet to see any proof that they were trying to save the Capitol Building or the White House.

I do think it's too soon for this movie.. it's too raw, and CAN be used by the right to push an agenda and keep that horror in our faces for political gain.

[ContraBass Black]

280. I'm more concerned about people writing more fiction in their heads

To go with it. There was a review somewhere with quotes of people justifying the Iraq invasion and occupation to themselves using what they saw in this movie (WTF?). Of course, that can't be blamed on this or any other movie. Foolishness and ignorance , willful and accidental, abound everywhere.

So, if I die of unnatural causes, would I be ok with a movie depicting what may or may not have happened in my last moments starring, say, Denzel Washington with a James Earl Jones voice-over, showing me taking charge of the situation in a heroic fashion? Maybe, if I left behind children and it fed them for a while or it brought significant comfort to my loved ones. Otherwise, no.

[Cocoa]

262. is this the one where Jessica Lynch shoots everyone?

[OldLeftieLawyer]

273. No, it's the one where she

captures Saddam Hussein single-handedly while wounded almost mortally and then teaches George W. Bush how to say "rape room," something she later regrets when she realizes he really, really, really, really, REALLY likes saying it.

[MoonRiver]

266. We're going to see it tonight.

Thanks for the review. I didn't know whether it would be a good movie or not. You helped convince me it is. :hi:

[OldLeftieLawyer]

275. You've decided it's a good movie,

even before you've seen it?

How does one do that?

[ContraBass Black]

281. If they're wrong,

Seeing it will correct them.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

282. Correct an opinion?

Oh.

Your opinion. You can't "correct" anyone's opinion, since, by definition, an opinion is subjective and not subject to error. Or so it goes.

Got it.

I hope you have an interesting experience. And get the big buttered popcorn ................

[ContraBass Black]

284. Correct the misinformation on which an incorrect opinion might be based.

I wasn't aware that I had an opinion on this. What is it?

I will have an interesting experience tonight, and I do have some buttered popcorn, but I'm not going to see the movie.

[OldLeftieLawyer]

285. Oh, sorry

I thought you had responded to my post to the person who was going to see the movie, having decided on the basis of the OP that is was good.

My mistake.

So your post to me made no sense.

Ok, then. Enjoy your popcorn.

[ContraBass Black]

286. Did the hijackers have bombs in the movie?

I saw someone say it in another thread, but now I can't find it.

[MoonRiver]

294. I hadn't decided, but the reviews were good. wtf?

Anyway, I've seen it now, and it is a pretty good movie. Not academy award material, but good.

[ContraBass Black]

278. What's this I hear about the hijackers having bombs in the movie?

I saw someone say it in another thread.

[Jazz2006]

296. In the movie,

one of the hijackers makes a fake bomb out of plasticene, a battery and some wires and straps it around his waist beneath his jacket.

That is obviously one of the fictionalized parts of the movie, since there is no possible way to know whether such an event happened.

[ContraBass Black]

299. Thanks.

I think I can understand why that was included, but I don't like the sound of it.

[Marie26]

308. What did you think

about the portrayal of the highjackers? I was really surprised that the movie didn't seem to demonize them; in fact, it humanized them. The movie opens w/a highjacker praying, & shows them nervous, doubtful & afraid. That surprised me, and impressed me, so much.

[Jazz2006]

312. I thought

much the same as you said in that post. In fact, I wrote something very similar to that on Friday afternoon shortly after seeing the movie, i.e. that the hijackers were not demonized at all but were portrayed as human and hesitant and perhaps even having second thoughts about what they were doing.

And I agree, that was very impressive work by Greenglass. A lesser producer would likely have demonized the hijackers and portrayed them as wild eyed religious nutcases bound and bent on destroying infidels and such, but that isn't even an issue in this movie for a second.

[BlueStorm]

283. I don't really care much for this movie...

Though I haven't seen it...

I really am rolling my eyes at the made-for-tv movie coming out on ABC about the avian flu thing. I don't know if you have seen the ads but it seems to be another scare the pants of the people thing.

Blue

[Ediacara]

288. May I ask a "spoiler?"

Do the passengers make it into the cockpit?

[Roark]

290. It was a bit confusing...

but I think that was implied, yes.

I was watching for that because the "offical" story indicated that they did not but the cinematography at that point was a bit jumbled - for obvious reasons.

Difficult movie to watch, but I am very glad I went.

[Jazz2006]

297. Sure.

At the very end, they depict the passengers as having made it into the cockpit (but just in a jumble of arms and jerky movements - no faces) and apparently trying to get the hijacker flying the plane out of his seat. Unsuccessfully.

[Name removed]

289. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Dying Eagle]

295. I sure it was great....

for being 100% FICTIONAL tale of something that never happened!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose+change

[Marie26]

300. It's an incredible movie

I saw it last night & am still a little shaken. The director did everything right - there's no fake emotionalism, propaganda or action-movie cliches here. There's just a group of ordinary people doing extraordinary things. I thought the director was very good at re-creating exactly what happened that day & putting you into the events on that flight. The movie doesn't create a backstory, or follow the "main characters" before the flight begins - we don't learn all about these people's lives & their reasons for taking this flight. We're just there, like another passenger, hearing scraps of other people's conversations, knowing nothing more than they knew. It makes the confusion & fear all the more real, and their decisions all the more courageous.

And, by the way, people will not leave this movie w/warm & fuzzy feelings about the Bush Administration. There's one scene where the NORAD commanders are desperately trying to get authority to send out planes, & can't get clearance from the FAA, or find the president to receive authority to engage. And all I could think of was that scene of Bush sitting stupidly in that elementary school during those valuable minutes. The movie depicts a system that failed, leaving only the passengers themselves to take action. I urge anyone who thinks this movie is propaganda to see it first before judging it. IMO, it was done w/total integrity and respect.

[barb162]

301. nice summary; I want to see it; it has gotten great reviews

[RamboLiberal]

310. I saw it Friday night and agree completely with you Marie26

I was most struck with the scenes at the ATC centers, FAA Herndon, and NEADs. BTW, many of the controllers, FAA head (1st day on job) Ben Sliney, and personnel at NEADs were portraying themselves. Not kind at all to the the Bush & Cheney IMHO. It showed in the film how they were frantically trying to find Bush and Cheney, and when you remember what the doofus was up to that day and how he sat in that damn classroom then thought it more important to make that damn speech and didn't contact those at NORAD or the FAA - well I think that is damning! Maybe people who see the film will begin to question why they couldn't find Bush and why he didn't act. Especially now that they saw the same slow reaction with Katrina. IMHO it was the damn media who didn't ask these damn questions. We know if it had been a Dem in office Faux and Limbaugh, etc., would've never let us forget it.

Also in the beginning of the film we see that NEADs was conducting an exercise that day. And the puzzling fighter jets from one of the bases(was it Otis?) was mentioned. I would think these portrayals were accurate and if they're not I'd expect someone there that day would call out the people appearing in the film as themselves.

As to the horror on 93 itself I like the way it was told. None of the passengers were named and the filmmaker didn't involve us in too much of the phone calls to the families and we only heard the passengers side of the conversations. The filmmaker did put us on that flight - and who among us who flies hasn't thought "what would I do"? What I felt watching the onboard footage was fear in the pit of my stomach. I don't care if you think the plane was shot down or like myself that the government was too damn incompetent that day to shoot it down and the passenger revolot caused the hijackers to crash the plane, I think it is beyond question that the passengers on that plane did decide to fight back. I can't believe you would have all those families, a Verizon operator, etc., lie and to have those lies so neatly arranged in so short a time frame.

Choose to see or not see the film, but don't call it propaganda till you see it!

[Jazz2006]

313. Agreed on all counts, RamboLiberal.

The concensus among the audience where I saw it was along the lines of how badly the admin had screwed up, where was the prez, and why on earth communications between the various agencies failed so badly.

I concur as well with your point that the movie was well constructed in that none of the passengers are identified by name, none are played up as heroes individually, there is no propagandizing (I don't think that's even a word but you know what I mean) of any individual, and although, of necessity, there is some creative licence taken, it was all very well done.

And most of all, I concur with your last sentence - choose to see or not see the film, but don't call it propaganda unless and until you've seen it.

[Jazz2006]

314. Agreed, Marie...

it really was done with integrity and respect.

Those who say otherwise here are those who haven't seen it.

(With, perhaps, a smattering of those who have agendas that preclude them from seeing anything that doesn't fit their preconceived worldview in an unbiased fashion.)

[RamboLiberal]

311. Ebert's review was referenced and derided by some

Read this part - and it was what struck me as I watched the movie.

We watch United 93 as the passengers and crew board the plane and it prepares to depart. Incredibly, it was still on the ground when the first plane went into the WTC. An immediate order to abort all takeoffs would have saved lives, but how were the air traffic controllers to know of the other hijackings? Living in the moment, we share their confusion.

At first it's reported a "small plane" crashed into the tower. Then by a process of deduction it's determined it must have been a missing American flight. The full scope of the plot only gradually becomes clear. One plane after another abandons its flight plan and goes silent. There are false alarms: For more than an hour, a Delta flight is thought to have been hijacked, although it was not. At the FAA national center, the man in charge, Ben Sliney (playing himself) begins to piece things together and orders a complete shutdown of all American air traffic. Given what a momentous decision this was, costing the airlines a fortune and disrupting a nation's travel plans, we are grateful he had the nerve to make it.

As the outline of events come into focus, there is attempt to coordinate civilian and military authorities. It is doomed to fail. A liaison post is not staffed. Two jet fighters are sent up to intercept a hijacked plane, but they are not armed; there is discussion of having the fighters ram the jets as their pilots eject. A few other fighters are scrambled, but inexplicably fly east, over the ocean. Military commanders try again and again, with increasing urgency, to get presidential authorization to use force against civilian aircraft. An unbearable period of time passes, with no response.

"United 93" simply includes this in the flow of events, without comment. Many people seeing the film will remember the scene in "Fahrenheit 9/11" in which President George W. Bush sat immobile in a children's classroom in Florida for seven minutes after being informed of the attack on the WTC. What was he waiting for? Was he ever informed of the military request? The movie does not know, because the people on the screen do not have the opportunity of hindsight.

<snip>

There has been much discussion of the movie's trailer, and no wonder. It pieces together moments from "United 93" to make it seem more conventional, more like a thriller. Dialogue that seems absolutely realistic in context sounds, in the trailer, like sound bites and punch lines. To watch the trailer is to sense the movie that Greengrass did not make. To watch "United 93" is to be confronted with the grim chaotic reality of that autumn day in 2001. The movie is deeply disturbing, and some people may have to leave the theater. But it would have been much more disturbing if Greengrass had made it in a conventional way. He does not exploit, he draws no conclusions, he points no fingers, he avoids "human interest" and "personal dramas" and just simply watches. The movie's point of view reminds me of the angels in "Wings of Desire." They see what people do and they are saddened, but they cannot intervene.

[Jazz2006]

315. I'm not a big fan but those snippets from Ebert's review sound dead on....

...having actually seen the movie.

As far as I can tell, Ebert's review was derided here by someone with a user name which seems an entire misnomer in light of her posts on this and other threads and in light of her lack of substantive posts on the topic at hand...

but that's life in cyberspace.

[Marie26]

317. What a great review

He captured it perfectly. I don't know what kind of person Ebert is, but he's a very good writer.