How do you feel about the Movie "United 93"?

[ukgrad]

I know there are a lot of mixed emotions about a big screen release regarding 9/11. I've had numerous discussions w/ friends about this movie coming out and wanted to see everyone else's take...

Here's my POV:

- I still feel that it is too soon for a movie like this to come out into movie theaters... It's hard for me to deny the feeling that it's all about making money....

- But on the other hand, I hear that it is a great tribute to what these people did... sacrficied their lives to save who knows how many, by getting that plane down before it could hit in DC.... I admire those people's courage, bravery, and ultimate sacrifice... It seems likea story that should be told.. but again, why make a profit out of it???

I don't know if i'll go see it or not.... I'm teetering toward no...

[oruacat2]

I have no desire to see it at this point, though it has nothing to do with the "too soon" argument. With no survivors and only piecemeal accounts of what transpired on that plane, this film will just be one director's interpretation of what he thinks happened to those people.

I have no problems with the movie's existence, I just don't care to see it.

KD

[zonetoncatfan]

For me, it's still too raw. I thought the timing of "Titanic" was about right, 100 years after she sank.

[Will Lavender]

oruacat2 wrote: I have no desire to see it at this point, though it has nothing to do with the "too soon" argument. With no survivors and only piecemeal accounts of what transpired on that plane, this film will just be one director's interpretation of what he thinks happened to those people.

I have no problems with the movie's existence, I just don't care to see it.

KD

Speaking of that, Martin Amis has a short story in the new issue of The New Yorker called "The Last Day of Mohammed Atta."

It's one of the most profound pieces of short fiction I've read in a long, long time.

I would love to see somebody else's interpretation of it.

[gerntz]

Wonder how you felt about fahrenheit 9/11.

oruacat2 wrote: I have no desire to see it at this point, though it has nothing to do with the "too soon" argument. With no survivors and only piecemeal accounts of what transpired on that plane, this film will just be one director's interpretation of what he thinks happened to those people.

I have no problems with the movie's existence, I just don't care to see it.

KD

[Buddah]

gerntez is interjecting politics.. perhaps this thread may need to be moved.

[baldcat]

Citizen's Arrest!!!!

Citizen's Arrest!!!!

Buddah wrote:
gerntez is interjecting politics.. perhaps this thread may need to be moved.

[oruacat2]

gerntz wrote: Wonder how you felt about fahrenheit 9/11.



The same way you feel during each and every regurgitated piece of Bush propaganda passed-off as "an important speech"- enraptured.

KD

[Sir Richard F. Burton]

I watch Ebert an Roper every week and they both said it was the best movie so far this year. I am also not interested in seeing it despite of the raves.

http://tvplex.go.com/buenavista/ebertandroeper/today.html

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060417/REVIEWS/60419006/1023

[TrueblueCATfan]

I watched the United 93 movie they had on A&E channel about 2 months ago and it was great..what those people endured on that Flight was beyond imaginable..I will go see this movie also

[kybuc]

She~Cat and I will probally go see this movie also.

I'm a true patriot but I bow down before the individuals on flight 93.

I dont understand why every patriotic american would not want to see this movie.

[freethrow]

I will watch it but not unitl it is out on DVD.

[UK78ALUM]

I dont understand why every patriotic american would not want to see this movie.

I can tell you why. Because some of us lived through portions of it that day. The last executive I worked for at IBM missed his train from NJ and was 20 minutes late. That 20 minutes saved his life, as he was on the 91st floor. However, he got there in time to be slightly burned due to standing in the lobby waiting for the elevator when the first plane hit. The jet fuel came down the elevator shaft.

My clients (Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield, and Mercer/Marsh) lost 13 and 165 people respectively. Empire has a memorial to them in their new building in Brooklyn.

And I was on a 757 over Virginia. Had we been late departing CVG (as usual), we might not have ever left. However, there were only a few people on the flight that morning and we pushed back almost 30 minutes early. Just enough time to cross WV and into VA. We ended up in RDU. In fact, I still have my boarding pass - so personally, I need no further reminders.

I'm not saying your statement is wrong, but it definitely doesn't apply to me.

Dave

[gerntz]

Yea, well Ihad no desire to see 9/11, though it has nothing to do with the "too soon" argument. With no survivors and only piecemeal accounts of what transpired on those planes, that film was just be one director's interpretation of what he thinkshappened.

oruacat2 wrote:
gerntz wrote: Wonder how you felt about fahrenheit 9/11.



The same way you feel during each and every regurgitated piece of Bush propaganda passed-off as "an important speech"- enraptured.

KD

[Will Lavender]

Really, all film if it's historical has to bend the rules a little bit. There are only so many facts about any particular historical event. The gaps have to be filled in some way, and the director's imagination is the only way to do it.

[oruacat2]

Looks like the "not interested" WCNers aren't alone:

http://www.variety.com/VR1117942006.html

Studio tracking on the pic is ambiguous: By a slim margin the film is the top choice among males, but it's also registering a high percentage of "definitely not interested."

One reason I'm not interested is because I don't want to fight the same damn battles over and over again with those who keep politicizing this film. We've already had the "it's the movie the Left doesn't want you to see!" nonsense, and now we have the "every patriotic American should want to see it" angle...how long before we get the whining that "the terrorists weren't portrayed as sufficiently evil" or lamentations that Hollywood was "flaunting Mark Bingham's homosexuality!".

Besides, I've already been brainwashed by conservatives that "pinko leftist Hollywood isn't to be trusted!". lol

KD

[RxRusty]

FWIW...

USAToday gave it 4 stars (out of 4). I discussed this movie with a friend of mine this morning. We are having a hard time deciding if we want to see it. We both love going to the movies, but this one may be just too emotional. Still deciding...

[Will Lavender]

I'm going to see it if it is reviewed well.

My motto is to always watch/read/enjoy something regardless of the subject matter.

Some of my favorite films have had deplorable subjects and subtle political/ideological statements contained in them. So what? To refuse to see this movie based on that fact is silly, IMO. That sort of cloistered mindset is what I detest about some conservatives. If it's anti-money or -God, they won't see it. I refuse to hide from this movie if critics I respect say that it's worth my time.

[eternal blue sky]

I don't see the big deal.

It's a movie.

I don't get the "it's too soon" argument.

"Patriotic Duty" to see a movie? Let's add Rambo III to that list, too. lol

[Wildcat Larry]

I'm one of the "not ready, yet" crowd. I was around for the Vietnam War and it was just five or six years ago that I could comfortably watch a movie about that war. That's just the way I'm put together. :?

[Will Lavender]

BTW:

Stephanie Zacharek on Salon.com calls this movie "expertly made" and "the most excruiciating experience of [her] life." :shock:

[TrueblueCATfan]

Does anybody know when the movie comes out?????

[Will Lavender]

TrueblueCATfan wrote: Does anybody know when the movie comes out?????
Friday.

[TrueblueCATfan]

Will Lavender wrote: TrueblueCATfan wrote: Does anybody know when the movie comes out?????
Friday.

thanks.....I believe we might go see it Saturday night

[capitolkatnorm]

I saw the previews and it was too much for me. I was at lunch today for a newly promoted Sgt Major who was twice wounded in Iraq. He was twice wounded- once had to rebuild his mouth and throat, second time lost his right leg above the knee and had a closed head trauma- serious and was in an induced coma when he returned to the states. His wife sat next to me and told the story of how she encouraged him - 3 weeks after coming out of the coma and being fitted with a electronic leg - togo Germany to be part of his returning unit-- I almost couldn't keep my composure. Guys who give it all and then are so humble about it - tear my heart out and I know the movie would make me sad for days. Too much for me--

[RP_McMurphy]

No doubt it will be raw emotions felt in that movie. This past summer I had the fortune to visit the Flight 93 site in Pennslyvania and I will admit that I cried. I cried not for those passengers of Flight 93 but for my friend who died in the Pentagon. This was the first time I had cried because of the events of September 11th, 2001. In February 2002 I got to visit the World Trade Center site as a friend of mine reenlisted there. As we walked around that day one of the New York state enviromental police took us into the pit as they will still removing debris at that time. That day the World Trade Center went from a just numbers and faces I didn't know to something personal that I knew, felt and yes smelled. Yet that day I didn't cry because I was still in sort of denial that my friend was gone. On that mountain top in Pennslyvania I realized that I had only spot left to visit and I would probably never be able to visit it. I was stationed with my friend for 2 years on a ship out of Mayport, Florida and he was in my division. We slept in the same berthing aisle and worked the same watch rotation and I was his Watch Superviser most of the time we were stationed together. Personally I will take time to watch this movie and my emotions will be raw and unfiltered. However each person is different and each will deal with this movie in different ways. So I can't say if it is too early for everybody but for me the emotional wound is still wide open and I will have to wait to view this movie.

[CoquieKat]

I didn't have any personal ties to any of the victims, but I don't know if I'll go see the movie. I still get teary-eyed when I hear the stories of the families of the victims. May still be a bit fresh for me.

Is it "too soon" for the movie? For some people, maybe, and that's understandable. But it sounds like the movie was done tastefully and portrays the victims as heroes. So I don't have a problem with it being released at this time.

[UKSam]

The reasons I want to see are the same as the reasons I don't want to go. Out of respect of those who gave their lives for the cause.

Part of me thinks that watching is a way to pay tribute.

Part of me thinks that this event is sacred and shouldn't have been made.

I really am torn.

[BamaCat86]

It may be too soon for some, but I think that many have forgotten the lessons that we should have learned from 9/11......less we forget.

[Littlemeyer]

BamaCat86 wrote: It may be too soon for some, but I think that many have forgotten the lessons that we should have learned from 9/11......less we forget.

So true...many people probably think Iraq was responsible for that tragedy.

I may or may not see this movie. If I don't, it won't be because I feel it is too soon. More and more people would rather get their information from movies these days, and I don't necessarily mean that in a negative way either. "Too soon" is a relative term; I predict in the not-too-distant future, five years after a tragic event will be an eternity, and people will be questioning why a movie hasn't been made yet.

Whether or not I see a movie these days is becoming more and more of a "when can I squeeze a trip to the local theater in around my, and my wife's, busy schedule" issue. That sucks, too, because I love watching a movie in a theater. Watching at home is nice, too, but heck, I'm kinda nostalgic, I guess.

[gerntz]

That 100% accurate Farhenheit 9/11 is a great example.

Littlemeyer wrote:
More and more people would rather get their information from movies these days, and I don't necessarily mean that in a negative way either.

[Littlemeyer]

gerntz wrote: That 100% accurate Farhenheit 9/11 is a great example.


I would argue with your confidence in the accuracy of that movie (:ggrin:just kidding, I realize you were being sarcastic), but sure, that is a good example. Not really what I was getting at, though. More people would rather watch "Alexander" than read about Alexander the Great. More people would rather watch "Gettysburg" than read about the Civil War, etc. In fact, I would bet that a good portion of our population got most of their information about the JFK assassination from Oliver Stone's movie.

I am no different. I admit that most of what I know about the Appolo 13 incident was taught to me by Ron Howard.

[gerntz]

So what is information - what people say, right mixed with wrong - or something that attempts to be factual, or both? I'd contend the first isn't but rather disinformation. And IMO that is what many movies portray using events that happened as background to the story the director wants to tell.

My evidence that that is true is the lower attendance at movies, the lower revenue being achieved. Why? B/c people realize they're often bs.

Littlemeyer wrote: gerntz wrote: That 100% accurate Farhenheit 9/11 is a great example.


I would argue with your confidence in the accuracy of that movie (:ggrin:just kidding, I realize you were being sarcastic), but sure, that is a good example. Not really what I was getting at, though. More people would rather watch "Alexander" than read about Alexander the Great. More people would rather watch "Gettysburg" than read about the Civil War, etc. In fact, I would bet that a good portion of our population got most of their information about the JFK assassination from Oliver Stone's movie.

I am no different. I admit that most of what I know about the Appolo 13 incident was taught to me by Ron Howard.

[Will Lavender]

gerntz wrote: So what is information - what people say, right mixed with wrong - or something that attempts to be factual, or both? I'd contend the first isn't but rather disinformation. And IMO that is what many movies portray using events that happened as background to the story the director wants to tell.

My evidence that that is true is the lower attendance at movies, the lower revenue being achieved. Why? B/c people realize they're often bs.

Littlemeyer wrote: gerntz wrote: That 100% accurate Farhenheit 9/11 is a great example.


I would argue with your confidence in the accuracy of that movie (:ggrin:just kidding, I realize you were being sarcastic), but sure, that is a good example. Not really what I was getting at, though. More people would rather watch "Alexander" than read about Alexander the Great. More people would rather watch "Gettysburg" than read about the Civil War, etc. In fact, I would bet that a good portion of our population got most of their information about the JFK assassination from Oliver Stone's movie.

I am no different. I admit that most of what I know about the Appolo 13 incident was taught to me by Ron Howard.


But you're assuming here that people go to the movies primarily for facts. This is untrue for the most part. People go to the movies because they want to escape from their lives. There are other reasons, of course, but this is the most common. The fall in revenue is caused by various things (and some debate that there even has been a fall), but I don't think the fact that the viewing public sees movies as BS is one of those reasons. I think everybody settled the idea long ago that movies are BS. Many of them are inherently so.

There are a few - a very, very few - movies that present facts in a straightforward, unbiased manner. Erroll Morris's brilliant The Fog of War is one that comes immediately to mind.

[oruacat2]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/27/AR2006042702509.html

[Littlemeyer]

Will Lavender wrote:But you're assuming here that people go to the movies primarily for facts. This is untrue for the most part. People go to the movies because they want to escape from their lives. There are other reasons, of course, but this is the most common. The fall in revenue is caused by various things (and some debate that there even has been a fall), but I don't think the fact that the viewing public sees movies as BS is one of those reasons. I think everybody settled the idea long ago that movies are BS. Many of them are inherently so.

There are a few - a very, very few - movies that present facts in a straightforward, unbiased manner. Erroll Morris's brilliant The Fog of War is one that comes immediately to mind.


Will, I believe that most people do go to the movies seeking facts. They're not going to find them, but that doesn't stop them. Obviously, I am not referring to the action thrillers and comedies and such. But the historical pics, and biopics, yes, I think a majority of the viewers go in expecting to be fed the truth. The only evidence I have to support this is daily encounters with people in and around where I live.

I don't think this has anything to do with the falling revenue, because the people I'm referring to have yet to figure out that most movies are BS.

[BOURBON TOWN CAT FAN]

I plan to see it, I think it will be good for America to "refresh their memory" and support our troops.

[TrueblueCATfan]

Me and the hubby just got back from seeing this movie and it was a very good movie.....those people on Flight 93 are true hero's....what they endured on that flight....there were several times during the movie I felt I was actually on the flight..what baffled me so much is the way the Military handled the whole situation....they did not know that flight was being hijacked until 4 minutes after it crashed..after seeing this movie I am convinced we were never prepared for something like this and might not ever be..IMO