I watched United 93 last night

[MikeWilkinson]

Very surreal to watch a movie based on a true (and recent) tragedy. Lots of other movies that have been out that are re-creations of past events (Pearl Harbor, Saving Private Ryan) just don't have the same impact since I wasn't alive for it, but I can see for how someone who was would really appreciate the story being told.

[Sad Max]

Somehow, and I really can't explain why, I just have zero desire to see this film.

Heard nothing but good things about it, and have had opportunities to see it...just can't bring myself to sit down and watch it.

[KMR]

Somehow, and I really can't explain why, I just have zero desire to see this film.

Heard nothing but good things about it, and have had opportunities to see it...just can't bring myself to sit down and watch it.

I myself had no real desire to see it, but when I was preparing for the Oscar telecast (i.e., trying to see as many of the major nominees as possible) this was the only one available at my nearest Blockbuster one night. I wavered between renting UNITED 93 or some other (non-Oscar-nominated) movie, and went with it anyway.

I'm glad I did. It's not the best movie in the world, but it's very good. And for its genre (fact-based drama of the sort that gets made into a TV movie-of-the-week) it's pretty near the top of the heap. There are SO many spots in the movie that in almost any other hands would have turned out cliche and sappy. This movie shows how to do it right (not that I'm holding my breath for hack directors of TV movies to learn anything from it).

[J.R. Hudson]

Somehow, and I really can't explain why, I just have zero desire to see this film.

Heard nothing but good things about it, and have had opportunities to see it...just can't bring myself to sit down and watch it.

I am the same way

It just isn;t something I need to see yet; too fresh ?

[cecil995]

I watched 93 about a month ago, and world trade center just this past week. One thing I liked about 93 was that there was no soundtrack constantly playing to distract you, it was just the sound of the people that you could here. I was living about 1.5 hours north of where 93 crashed, so I felt the full effects of that crash.

It stuns me that watching those movies can put me in that state of shock again like the attacks just happened yesterday, even though its been six years now.

[Sad Max]

You know, cecil has reminded me that something I found unattractive about the trailer, pre-release, was the use of underscore.

It's possible that if the trailer-sound had just been diegetic, I might have been more inclined toward seeing the film.

Which leads me to realize that I can't recall the last trailer I saw, that didn't use music. And what's used, is sometimes really deeply freakily unsuitable and/or stale.

edit - Just remembered that the music-free trailers I've seen, are all for horror movies.

[Nathaniel McInnes]

I do also like how the film was edited. Especially at the where it just goes black and quite, where the plane would have normally exploded. It makes your heart just for a split second stop beating.

It does make you think.

[AloysiusK]

how can a movie be "fact based" when we only have a few short cell phone calls from passengers aboard the plane? it is far from "fact based," its as much fiction as anything else. thats why i didn't see it.

I'm in the same boat. I heard the craft of the film is stellar, which really makes me want to see it. But there has been so much mythologizing, propoganda, and disinformation surrounding 9/11 that I try to stick to nonfiction, and even be extra careful with those sources.

I don't doubt that it is a good film, though.

[J.R. Hudson]

how can a movie be "fact based" when we only have a few short cell phone calls from passengers aboard the plane? it is far from "fact based," its as much fiction as anything else. thats why i didn't see it.

i would like to see WTC, that looked way better and definitly more "fact based"

:huh:

[MOVIE STUNTS]

Oliver Stone+Nick Cage=:thumbdown(couldn't find a vomiting smiley).

[MotionFx]

I tried to watch it as a screener for Visual fx society, I started crying and coulndt get past the first half hour.

Yeah, too fresh.

I did watch and like world trade center, primarily because it was a story of two people.
B

[Ted Spencer]

I haven't been able to bring myself to watch it. I may never. 9-11 happened too close to home for me.

[SPZ]

Haven't watched it yet. But my reasons are entirely different.

I can understand that the memory is still fresh for US citizens. But I'm no US citizen, and while I do like Hollywood movies and to chat with fairly intelligent fellow independent filmmakers, here, I still feel that any movie done in the aftershock of 9/11 in America can only be "morale booster"movies, and not cinematic relevant movies.

Maybe I'm wrong. I own the movie, actually- haven't have the time to see it yet.

Other reason was because I actually watched WTC. And I was fairly disappointed, not by the performances- Nick Cage was actually quite good, but because of the "Marine" character. It felt like Oliver Stone was setting up for "RAMBO IV- The revenge" with the character. If not for this character, the human aspect of the firemen was a very good premise for the movie. It was ruined with the said character plot.

I was fairly impressed, however, with Farenheit 9/11. Now you can say anything about bias, etc. But there's a movie that really tries to "think" about 9/11.

I have also seen a sequence of short films reflecting on 9/11, from international filmmakers. Well worth a look. Can't recall the title.

And I'm only trying to discuss the film merits here- don't want this to go into a political debate.

Above all, we are all people. :)

[Sad Max]

I was fairly impressed, however, with Farenheit 9/11. Now you can say anything about bias, etc. But there's a movie that really tries to "think" about 9/11.

Maybe in the same way that October tries to 'think' about the Russian Revolution...

Moore practices the same kind of didacticism (is that a word?) as Eisenstein...he just uses a lot more narration, to do it.

And I agree with much of what Moore has to say. I just hate the way he does it, sometimes.

[Weston]

I still feel that any movie done in the aftershock of 9/11 in America can only be "morale booster"movies, and not cinematic relevant movies.

I know you havnt seen it so its understandable you might think that....but i would say "morale booster" is the last thing to call Flight 93. And it is cinematically relevant. Its one of the only movies I have seen besides Schindlers List that has the "you are watching actual events unfold" documentary feel. Thats a feel not many directors can pull off.

I think everyone should see it eventually. Its one of the movies...like Schindlers List....that should be required watching in history classes.

[SPZ]

I know you havnt seen it so its understandable you might think that....but i would say "morale booster" is the last thing to call Flight 93. And it is cinematically relevant. Its one of the only movies I have seen besides Schindlers List that has the "you are watching actual events unfold" documentary feel. Thats a feel not many directors can pull off.

I think everyone should see it eventually. Its one of the movies...like Schindlers List....that should be required watching in history classes.

Well, United just got on top of my " Weekend to watch" list :)

EDIT- Sad Max, I actually like Moore's approach to documentary. Its a " personal" docummentary. He narrates it, and he gives face to it. He assumes his position, and presents his own "investigation". In a country were everyone is " sued" , I find it fascinating that a person still has the liberty of expressing his own voice. Fahrenheit expresses whats still good about America. Even with all the fear, media manipulation and politically correct postures and restraints forced by the more and more " etiquete" driven society, there's still space for someone to question things.

I believe that " Moore's" stile comes not from Eisenstein, while I do agree with you in the similarities , but as a direct response to the so called "opinion Journalism", or " Cause Journalism" that some TV stations apply. Its a jpurnalism that uses accessible language and personalisation- almost plot creation- that's brainwashing today's average viewers. Michael Moore applies the same language, filled with sarcasm, but cemented in pop references- music/ pop culture/ well known figures, etc. Its a personal documentary with a purpose- a cause. Can we call it " Cause Documentary stile"?

Every time one points a camera to cover an event or subject, its being biased, since it removed of the scene the surrounding environment/texture. Michael Moore assumes his cause, or his bias, but tries to present his case with big research. To survive with this approach in a country prone to Legal Actions is no easy feat.

Independently of what one believes, of course.

Aesthetically, its no Cinema Veritee or Eisenstein, thats for sure.