FILM REVIEW: United 93

[LuckOfTheDraw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Stephen King has also mentioned that this film should be put on the same shelf as "The Godfather"

[/ QUOTE ]

I knew Stephen King was losing his mind, that seals it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think his mind's been pretty lost for a while. Have you read many of his stories?

[AceHigh]

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, it has yet to be proven that Flight 93 wasn't shot down. That was my main objection to the film -- "officially" the plane crashed due to the passengers storming the cockpit, but it's at least as likely, if not more so, that plane down was shot down (which is completely justifable in my opinion).


[/ QUOTE ]

The plane wasn't shot down because the only person who could authorize shooting down a commercial plane was busy listening to a bunch of kindergarteners read the book "My Pet Goat".

[niss]

I've been thinking about this, with this movie and the other WTC movie about to come out -- no matter how good these movies may be, are we really entertained by them? Is this really something that people want to see, at least yet? I know that, no matter how good these movies are, I have no desire to see them whatsoever; but being from the NY area and having been down at the site on 9/11 probably has something to do with that. So these movies may be great, but are they going to make any money?

[Michaelson]

[ QUOTE ]
Lets say several years down the road a retired and disgruntled Donald Rumsfeld finally lets it be known that the president ordered flight 93 shot down (Rummy already let it slip once in a press conference that the plane was shot down). This would turn Flight 93 into something similar to a pearl harbor movie where most of the US fighter planes are scrambled and they shoot down and defeat the Japanese bombers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh?

[Sadat X]

The movie was very accurate with respect to what was described in the opening chapter of the 9/11 report "We have some planes." The accuracy of that document itself is certainly up for debate, but my initial reaction when I read it a few years back was that the commission made a conscious effort to make it objective.

The great thing about this movie is that you can basically throw politics out the window. The movie tells the story of what happened on that flight, and not a whole lot else. What happened was pretty remarkable, but it was still basically a story of survival.

For that reason, I don't think it's appropriate to call the passengers who stormed the cockpit 'heroes.' They knew what was happening and were fighting for their own lives. They thought that they could take over the plane and land it safely.

That being said, the movie is very powerful b/c it's a true story and is treated as such by the director and the actors.

[pryor15]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about this, with this movie and the other WTC movie about to come out -- no matter how good these movies may be, are we really entertained by them? Is this really something that people want to see, at least yet? I know that, no matter how good these movies are, I have no desire to see them whatsoever; but being from the NY area and having been down at the site on 9/11 probably has something to do with that. So these movies may be great, but are they going to make any money?

[/ QUOTE ]

this one made some $$. i look at it more as an essential part of the nation's grieving process. people like me (who are cold-hearted bastards) were ready for this after maybe a year or 2 and others (those more personally affected) aren't ready yet, so it'll vary from person to person. there will be a time in the future, i imagine, when you'll be ready to watch it, whereas now you couldn't imagine doing so. it may take 25 years, but i suspect it'll happen.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
I've been thinking about this, with this movie and the other WTC movie about to come out -- no matter how good these movies may be, are we really entertained by them? Is this really something that people want to see, at least yet? I know that, no matter how good these movies are, I have no desire to see them whatsoever; but being from the NY area and having been down at the site on 9/11 probably has something to do with that. So these movies may be great, but are they going to make any money?

[/ QUOTE ]

Most movies are made to be simple entertainment. But that doesn't mean all of them have to be. Some films are made to enlighten, to express an emotion...some are made for art's sake. And some are made as a collective catharsis...or maybe as a way to try and understand something completely incomprehensible to most of us.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

Most movies are made to be simple entertainment. But that doesn't mean all of them have to be. Some films are made to enlighten, to express an emotion...some are made for art's sake. And some are made as a collective catharsis...or maybe as a way to try and understand something completely incomprehensible to most of us.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't want to nitpick about your choice of words, but don't you still think that no matter what, a film should still be entertaining? Schindler's List, also about a true story, is an educational piece that enlightens, expresses emotions, I'd argue it is art, it also is a catharsis, and it is about something incomprehensible. But yet ... it's entertaining.

That was my issue with this film. I don't have a problem that it was made. I believe its story is true. I was just bored. For me, that's what sums up its experience: not evocative or causing me to question whether this happened (as, again, I believe it did) but I just ... was bored.

I go see (almost literally) every single movie that comes out (wide release that hits CT) with my friends and I can usually find things that entertain me about a lot of things. This just didn't entertain me at all.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Most movies are made to be simple entertainment. But that doesn't mean all of them have to be. Some films are made to enlighten, to express an emotion...some are made for art's sake. And some are made as a collective catharsis...or maybe as a way to try and understand something completely incomprehensible to most of us.

[/ QUOTE ]


I don't want to nitpick about your choice of words, but don't you still think that no matter what, a film should still be entertaining? Schindler's List, also about a true story, is an educational piece that enlightens, expresses emotions, I'd argue it is art, it also is a catharsis, and it is about something incomprehensible. But yet ... it's entertaining.

That was my issue with this film. I don't have a problem that it was made. I believe its story is true. I was just bored. For me, that's what sums up its experience: not evocative or causing me to question whether this happened (as, again, I believe it did) but I just ... was bored.

I go see (almost literally) every single movie that comes out (wide release that hits CT) with my friends and I can usually find things that entertain me about a lot of things. This just didn't entertain me at all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't think a film HAS to be entertaining if it's not the filmmaker's intention. However, I do think the film in question was meant to be so and I think it did entertain, as well as enlighten, etc.

[BarronVangorToth]

[ QUOTE ]

Actually, I don't think a film HAS to be entertaining if it's not the filmmaker's intention.

[/ QUOTE ]


Fair enough. I guess if the director means to make something not-entertaining, in some strange sense you could call it successful if it in fact accomplishes that. Granted, it's a horrid goal in the spirit of me being too old to waste my time with movies that don't entertain me, but that's a digression for another time.


[ QUOTE ]

However, I do think the film in question was meant to be so and I think it did entertain, as well as enlighten, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]


That's just it. I didn't get any of that. I was just bored. Different strokes and all that.