Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

What are your feelings about this film? Are you against this film? Do you think it should not be told?

Personally, I plan on seeing it as soon as I'm better (sick right now). It looks great and I have no problem with a film such as this, which is supposed to be done very carefully and tastefully, from what I've heard.

What do you think?

Looks Good To Me, I've Been Waiting To See Something Thats Actually Good OutOf Doug Liman For A While Now.

Pointless and tasteless, IMO. Not to mention, hardly any of the money's going to help fund the memorial.

Originally posted by C-Dic
Pointless and tasteless, IMO. Not to mention, hardly any of the money's going to help fund the memorial.

Can't argue that, it's logic. However, I'm always interested in these kind of things, so I'll see it.

It's just a pretentious idea to begin with, thinking you're honoring the memory of those who died, with a story that some guy thinks happened.

Seeing the movie is the only sure fire way to know if this is much more than feel good propaganda, going with the "Let's roll.." story we've all been led to believe happened, when in fact, to this day, nobody knows what happened aboard the flight.

There's just no need for this movie, there's nothing to gain, nothing to entertain, and nothing to captivate. It's an outsiders assumption of what happened on a hijacked plane almost 6 years ago.

The movie poster is not only irrelevant to the movie, it's borderline offensive, conjuring up things that we'd rather forget, but can't, and won't be allowed to by shit like this.

http://ia.imdb.com/media/imdb/01/I/51/89/10/10m.jpg

It's about a field in PENNSYLVANIA..not New York, anyway. If this were being directed by a US director, I'd be infinitely ashamed.

10 %!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 Thats Some ****ing Bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Bastards I Completely Change My Opinion I Won't Pay To See This Movie, As Amatter Of fact I' ll Probably Bootleg It, Just Kidding, But Seriously They Can Take That Ten Percent And Blow It Out Their Ass

He's not just making stuff up blindly, he's had a lot of help from the people who were working that day on the flight deck and even directly from the families of the people who died on the plane.

And from what I've heard this movie is in no way propaganda, it offers no meaning or message of any sort - political or otherwise- it just shows the events as they could best be conjured. According to reports and to those who experienced them on the ground while they were occuring.

Also, tragedies shouldn't be forgotten, especially of this magnitude, otherwise we're bound to repeat them. Wilfully ignoring these events is far more pretentious then allowing artists to deal with them as they see fit.

When I Went To See SM4 There Was A Little Documentary Of The Director Interveiwing Two Or Three People Whose Family Members Died On 9/11.
Who Are The People Who Told That Ass He Could Make This Movie To Speak For The Hundreds If Not Thousands Of Others Whose Lifes Were Affected By This!? And No Tradgedies Should Not Be Forgotten. Far From It, What They SHOULD be Is Respected. At Least Enough Not To Be Exploited For A Quick Sympethy Buck. Pffft Bad Road, Bad Road.

Well, if you read reviews you'll see that according to most the film is very very respectful, and not exploitive at all.

I don't think he's trying to speak for anyone, not even himself. The movie is just supposed to show events happening, devoid of message or agenda, just events in action.

Well I Suppose That's Good To Hear But He Needs To Give Some More Goddamn Money Away If He's Gonna Be Shouting The Fact That He Is From The Mountain Tops Like He Is. IDK I'll See It And Then For A Full Opinion

Honestly, I couldn't care less how accurately this film depicts the events of 9/11... if it's entertaining, it's entertaining. Simple as that. I'm not going to hold the fact that its subject matter may be controversial against it... and I'm not going to see the film just because of that. From what I've seen of the film it looks very hit or miss... it could go either way for me. Though I have to say I've yet to see anything to intrigue me enough to see it at the cinemas...

As a side note, I could have sworn I've seen this being advertised before under the name "Flight 93"... what's the deal?

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
As a side note, I could have sworn I've seen this being advertised before under the name "Flight 93"... what's the deal?

Studios do that sometimes. I think they think change names just because the film would appeal to that region under that title. In the states, for instance they have the movie Flying High under the title Aeroplane!. However, I suppose your guess is as good as mine.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
As a side note, I could have sworn I've seen this being advertised before under the name "Flight 93"... what's the deal?

Flight 93 was the working title of the movie. It is just the name that they used while making the movie. Pretty much all movies have a working title Batman Begins working title was Batman 5 for example..

Flying High is different, Because that is the Australian name for the movie Airplane!.. It is called Airplane! pretty much everywhere I think apart from Australia. Airplane's working title was Kentucky Fried Airplane

Okay, so the director doesn't know what exactly happened on the plane. Guess what? No one does. And no one ever will. Do you blame James Cameron for predicting what happened to the captain in Titanic?

I'm personally for this movie. I hope to catch it in the theaters. Enough time has passed where we can watch this and not start bawling uncontrollably. And it's not too far in the past that we would remain unaffected like if we were to watch a WWII movie.

Originally posted by BackFire
What are your feelings about this film? Are you against this film? Do you think it should not be told?

Personally, I plan on seeing it as soon as I'm better (sick right now). It looks great and I have no problem with a film such as this, which is supposed to be done very carefully and tastefully, from what I've heard.

What do you think?

Absolutely! I been interesting to see how this films tells the story. But why would be someone be agaisn't it?

btw- Get better BF. Take lots of liquids and a good game of Oblivion might do you good.

I really want to watch this film but the people i usually go to the cinema with get really worked up over subjects like this so 1 i might have to go by myself 2-wait for dvd release,

Originally posted by BackFire
He's not just making stuff up blindly, he's had a lot of help from the people who were working that day on the flight deck and even directly from the families of the people who died on the plane.

And from what I've heard this movie is in no way propaganda, it offers no meaning or message of any sort - political or otherwise- it just shows the events as they could best be conjured. According to reports and to those who experienced them on the ground while they were occuring.

Also, tragedies shouldn't be forgotten, especially of this magnitude, otherwise we're bound to repeat them. Wilfully ignoring these events is far more pretentious then allowing artists to deal with them as they see fit.

See what I am getting at? How can second long cell phone accounts and clueless flight deck crew help? They can't, because they don't know what happened on that plane. Nobodies forgotten 9/11, considering we're still at war over it. We can't forget it. We're not allowed. We're not ignorning it by any means, and that doesn't mean we need somebodies assumptions of what happened to 40 people on a plane that day thrown on a movie screen.

It's fodder, at best, for a television movie. I don't think these 40 people deserve any more special recognition than those 2,500 that burned alive at the WTC. They took the supposed feel good story and ran with it, and if it ends up being the "Hollywood ending" that gets incorporated into the movie...it'll just furthur prove my point.

I mean, they made hats, t-shirts, and bumper stickers with "Let's roll.." on it, so why not market it in a movie? Go USA! 2 or 3 brave guys supposedly overtook armed terrorists, and supposedly "saved" the plane from killing more people, when it was supposedly headed for the White House, even though the President wouldn't be there anyway. Obviously, t just sounded more dramatic.

Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
Honestly, I couldn't care less how accurately this film depicts the events of 9/11... if it's entertaining, it's entertaining.

Nobodies going to see this movie for entertainment value. Frankly, I don't know why anyone would WANT to see it, period.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Absolutely! I been interesting to see how this films tells the story. But why would be someone be agaisn't it?


Why would anyone be for it? It's a pointless fairy tale, told by a clueless Brit? It has absolutely no redeeming factors as far as I can see.

Why would anyone be for it? Simple, for Historical fiction and story telling. Didn't Spielberg do the same for Munich? And he got recognize for it. Cinemaddiction how can you call him a clueless Brit? The man is basically trying to tell a story. Heck! don't we allow Michael Moore and what his face Spurlock to make their bias movies and make money out of a tragedy or a social issue? We should let Greengras do the same if we really believe in freedom of speech.

It's not on my too see list, when it comes onto television in the future I will take a look at it.

It already was a tvm, wasn't it? Called Flight 93, I believe?

It must be said, outside of the States, American networks have built up somewhat of a poor reputation for clamouring to make cheap ass tv movies out of tragedies before the events had even finished. Hence, Waco (made so quickly that it didn't even have the full ending), the Oklahoma bombings and, inevitably, 9/11. All with crappy tv movies.

At least they are making the effort with this one- and often, films of this nature have historical significance. The reason they deserve more attention than the 2500 who died is because they stand as a symbol of resistance in the most dire and doomed of circumstances. That's good grounds for a movie from any perspective.

(the Oklahoma bombings also part-inspired Arlington Road, a fantastic film made unfortunately a bit more irrelevant by 9/11)

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
Why would anyone be for it? Simple, for Historical fiction and story telling. Didn't Spielberg do the same for Munich? And he got recognize for it. Cinemaddiction how can you call him a clueless Brit? The man is basically trying to tell a story. Heck! don't we allow Michael Moore and what his face Spurlock to make their bias movies and make money out of a tragedy or a social issue? We should let Greengras do the same if we really believe in freedom of speech.

Storytelling is right, given it's the accounts of the day are pretty much based on nothing but conflicting rumours. There's no "historical fiction" to be derived from a day of guessing and assumptions. In fact, it's historical NON-FICTION, and will remain that way unless some medium contacts the ghost of someone on Flight 93 and gets the straight story.

Spielberg had facts to go on with "Munich". Greengrass doesn't. It's as simple as that. Spielberg's not taking liberties with a piece of history, drawing conclusions to make a story whole. How can I call him a clueless Brit, you ask? Well, being a Brit, he probably doesn't have any idea the social impact his film will have here in the States, which doesn't seem to be taken into consideration, much less how HE HIMSELF will be viewed for thinking we really need a movie filled with his clueless assumptions and accounts, minimally based on some speculation and backgrounds of the passengers BEFORE the flight. Greengrass knows about as much about the days events, factually, as anyone else alive today.

Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore had agendas to get across. Spurlock was dope who just told us what we already knew, Moore was is just a dope who likes to stir the pot with fact and fiction, and Greengrass is just a dope who thinks purported heroism makes for good cinema, and wants his film to serve as a reminder to us, although it didn't do a damn thing to effect his life. IT'S A POINTLESS RELEASE!

I believe and support freedom of speech, but Greengrass has nothing to say, and if he were to, nothing worth listening to, given it's based on speculation.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

The reason they deserve more attention than the 2500 who died is because they stand as a symbol of resistance in the most dire and doomed of circumstances.


..which is exactly the message everyone will take from the movie, and it's a complete lie.

The black box proved that the cockpit was never entered by anyone other than the pilots that were killed, and the terrorists themselves. The passengers banged on the cockpit door, and then soon after it crashed. The terrorists committed suicide, and murdered the passengers along with them.

God bless the opportunistic USA. We're always right, even when we lie.

Well, according to documentation and based on the phone calls the passengers made, that's what happened. The passengers were planning on over taking the terrorists, then later the plane crashed. Put two and two together. It's the most likely, reasonable scenario, and it's the one that has the most to back it up (despite your baseless claims of otherwise).

Again, you're making it sound as if the story is completely made up, as if there is nothing to base it on, which is absolutely incorrect, either you don't know about the event or you're just so blindly against it that you're spouting nonsense that, ironically, has nothing to back it up other than lazy conspiracy theorists and haters who have a predetermined bias against the film or the subject. The story is based on what those who experienced the event and those who spoke to the people on board claim happened. Like it or not, they will know more than anyone else, you included. It's a story that, according to anyone in the know, actually did happen.

If you attempt to condemn this movie for filling in some blanks to make for good cinema, then you must do the same for every film that is based on history but had to take some guesses to complete the story and give it cinematic merrit. This includes films like Schindlers List, Paths of Glory, Platoon, Hamburger Hill, Saving Private Ryan, and pretty much every film that has a story that has any form of historical relevence. The filmmakers must work within their medium, they must do what is necessary to make a film good.

I don't think Greengrass has anything to worry about when it comes to peoples reaction to this film, which have been overwhelmingly positive.

Strictly opinion, and the fact of the matter is that the black box proved the cockpit was never breached and that authorities already ruled that the hijackers took the plane down on purpose. You can't just end a movie based on something so significant with "most likely". The facts are there, and if they go ignored in favor of the "feel good" Pro-USA ending, I have every right to harbor negative feelings about the movie and its creator.

So, in a nutshell, I couldn't care less about the meat of the film, just the ending, which is what captivated the world in the first place.

Originally posted by C-Dic
Strictly opinion, and the fact of the matter is that the black box proved the cockpit was never breached and that authorities already ruled that the hijackers took the plane down on purpose. You can't just end a movie based on something so significant with "most likely". The facts are there, and if they go ignored in favor of the "feel good" Pro-USA ending, I have every right to harbor negative feelings about the movie and its creator.

So, in a nutshell, I couldn't care less about the meat of the film, just the ending, which is what captivated the world in the first place.

Proof? Care to back that up in some way?

*Nevermind, looked it up myself and it would seem you're right, black box suggests that they never did get into the cockpit*.

But we don't even know if they make it into the cockpit in the film, so again, your condemnation is a bit premature. And even if it does show them getting into the cockpit, so what? It says it's BASED on truth, not that it IS ALL truth. Every film alters history in some way or another to make it a better film. Really nothing wrong with that.

You have every right, of course, to have negative feelings on the film. Though, seeing as you haven't seen it, and your opinion is based entirely on a bias, it's a meaningless opinion that few people will take seriously in any way.

Most likely won't see 'United 93'.

However, I am going to see Oliver Stone's attempt at the matter.

Originally posted by BackFire
What are your feelings about this film? Are you against this film? Do you think it should not be told?

Personally, I plan on seeing it as soon as I'm better (sick right now). It looks great and I have no problem with a film such as this, which is supposed to be done very carefully and tastefully, from what I've heard.

What do you think?

I do not like the idea of this movie...
I believe the people that died in United 93 are rolling in there graves

Originally posted by Dusty
Most likely won't see 'United 93'.

However, I am going to see Oliver Stone's attempt at the matter.

Why? Oliver Stone's will probably be much closer to what C-Dic is complaining about, a film that will probably have an agenda.

Originally posted by C-Dic
Storytelling is right, given it's the accounts of the day are pretty much based on nothing but conflicting rumours. There's no "historical fiction" to be derived from a day of guessing and assumptions. In fact, it's historical NON-FICTION, and will remain that way unless some medium contacts the ghost of someone on Flight 93 and gets the straight story.

It is Historical Fiction Cinema...if it was "NON-FICTION" then this wouldn't be a film....it would be a documentary. Big difference there...

Originally posted by C-Dic
Spielberg had facts to go on with "Munich". Greengrass doesn't. It's as simple as that. Spielberg's not taking liberties with a piece of history, drawing conclusions to make a story whole. How can I call him a clueless Brit, you ask? Well, being a Brit, he probably doesn't have any idea the social impact his film will have here in the States, which doesn't seem to be taken into consideration, much less how HE HIMSELF will be viewed for thinking we really need a movie filled with his clueless assumptions and accounts, minimally based on some speculation and backgrounds of the passengers BEFORE the flight. Greengrass knows about as much about the days events, factually, as anyone else alive today.

Facts? He took the story from the screenplay by Tony Kushner. If Munich would have been a documentary then yes the facts would be present! But it isn't even close to a pure facts. Spielberg himself said that Munich was "Historical Fiction" I can't believe you said Greengrass being Brit wouldn't have an idea of the social impact of the film in the US. I feel the man knows what he's trying to do with subject so delicate as 9/11. Why else would he even dare to do such a risky project?

Originally posted by C-Dic
Morgan Spurlock and Michael Moore had agendas to get across. Spurlock was dope who just told us what we already knew, Moore was is just a dope who likes to stir the pot with fact and fiction, and Greengrass is just a dope who thinks purported heroism makes for good cinema, and wants his film to serve as a reminder to us, although it didn't do a damn thing to effect his life. IT'S A POINTLESS RELEASE!

I believe and support freedom of speech, but Greengrass has nothing to say, and if he were to, nothing worth listening to, given it's based on speculation.

No, both Spurlock and Moore are propagandist. That's why they make their works into so-called documentaries. Certainly they touch on subjects that are controversial. But they always bias as to what to point out. They rarely provide counter arguments for their work. Had Spurlock and Moore made their documentaries into movies then they would be in the same level as Greengrass. But good thing Greengrass knows that by making a documentary you're creating a project that is bound to be far more controversial than a movie.

Originally posted by BackFire
Why? Oliver Stone's will probably be much closer to what C-Dic is complaining about, a film that will probably have an agenda.


That's precisely why I wish to see it.

I can't complain about its lack of realism if I don't see the film itself.

Originally posted by BackFire

But we don't even know if they make it into the cockpit in the film, so again, your condemnation is a bit premature.

They probably won't. The movie will probably end on "Let's roll..". I MAY see it, since I have free passes, out of sheer, morbid curiosity.

Originally posted by Dusty
Most likely won't see 'United 93'.

However, I am going to see Oliver Stone's attempt at the matter.

I got a feeling that it's going to play out like "Ladder 49", personally.

Originally posted by WrathfulDwarf
It is Historical Fiction Cinema...if it was "NON-FICTION" then this wouldn't be a film....it would be a documentary. Big difference there...


This is, by all the reviews I've read, a docu-drama, like the TV movie.



You don't think Spielberg researched? He wouldn't take on a project because it merely sounded good. The only aspect in which "Munich" was historically fictional would be in the personal accounts of the shooters, and there's factual evidence to support the majority of the events in Munich. Whereas "Flight 93", it's a recreation based on very little evidence by way of recollection and some data. Greengrass isn't an American, and his motivations to tackle a touchy subject, being a foreigner, probably unaware that we DON'T need this movie, are questionable.

You keep saying that this is bad because we "don't need" it.

Movies should only be made if they 'need' to be made? No movie 'needs' to be made. Schindlers List didn't 'need' to be made, and like United 93, it filled in some blanks to make for good cinema, United 93 isn't alone in doing something like that. Every movie based on 'historical fact" does such a thing. It's entirely necessary, because in the end it's a movie, and a movie needs to be engaging and entertaining.

Is this movie out yet? Did it suck?

Came out today, it's gotten good reviews.

I heard a commercial on the radio the other day that Ebert & Roeper gave it thumbs up, saying it's the best film so far this year.

Then again, who cares what E&R say?

Originally posted by C-Dic
I got a feeling that it's going to play out like "Ladder 49", personally.


I don't get it.

I loved L49.

I think he means overly dramatic while portraying the characters as pure heroes.

Overly dramatic? Like 'Pearl Harbor'?

Something like that.

Originally posted by BackFire
You keep saying that this is bad because we "don't need" it.

Movies should only be made if they 'need' to be made? No movie 'needs' to be made. Schindlers List didn't 'need' to be made, and like United 93, it filled in some blanks to make for good cinema, United 93 isn't alone in doing something like that. Every movie based on 'historical fact" does such a thing. It's entirely necessary, because in the end it's a movie, and a movie needs to be engaging and entertaining.

"Schindler's List" was made by a famous Jew who wanted to spotlight a savior of his people in a time of ultimate peril. Greengrass is a Brit. What's his excuse for making a movie about something nobody knows much about? That's my point. I still hold that it doesn't need to be made, but when it comes to subject matter such as this, what would be this guy, or anyone elses motivation? To remind us? We've never forgotten. To learn from it? Learn what? That people die when planes are hijacked, and we should go to war over it?

Historically factual movies, when dealing with tragedy, shouldn't be entertaining. They should be insightful and full of FACTUAL INFORMATION. I read another review that suggested, as I suspected,that it had the all too familiar "Let's roll.." ending.



Originally posted by BackFire
I think he means overly dramatic while portraying the characters as pure heroes.

No, Stone's "World Trade Center" focuses on 2 Port Authority workers buried beneath rubble. "Ladder 49" was about Joaquin Phoenix trapped in a burning house, unable to escape, reliving his life through sequential flashbacks. If Stone thinks he can make a movie about two guys merely trapped under rocks, he's got another thing coming.

I also loved "Ladder 49", as well as "Pearl Harbor", aside from the familiar (and still engaging) romance, it was an epic movie. I own the 4 disc DC.

Originally posted by C-Dic
"Schindler's List" was made by a famous Jew who wanted to spotlight a savior of his people in a time of ultimate peril. Greengrass is a Brit. What's his excuse for making a movie about something nobody knows much about? That's my point. I still hold that it doesn't need to be made, but when it comes to subject matter such as this, what would be this guy, or anyone elses motivation? To remind us? We've never forgotten. To learn from it? Learn what? That people die when planes are hijacked, and we should go to war over it?

Historically factual movies, when dealing with tragedy, shouldn't be entertaining. They should be insightful and full of FACTUAL INFORMATION. I read another review that suggested, as I suspected,that it had the all too familiar "Let's roll.." ending.

His point is to show people doing something amazing, displaying great courage during something terrible. As Ush said, a story like this is good grounds for a film.

Of course they should be entertaining, no historic drama is completely factual, every film dealing with history, that isn't a documentary, must be entertaining. Entertaining doesn't mean fun, it means engaging to watch. To achieve this things must be altered or added, I'd think someone with such a great love for film like yourself would have no problem understanding this. The quality of the film comes first and foremost for every filmmaker, why should this film be any different?



Ah, yeah that's true. But really, it couldn't be any worse than Alexander...but no Rosario Dawson boobs...so we'll see.

Originally posted by C-Dic
..which is exactly the message everyone will take from the movie, and it's a complete lie.

The black box proved that the cockpit was never entered by anyone other than the pilots that were killed, and the terrorists themselves. The passengers banged on the cockpit door, and then soon after it crashed. The terrorists committed suicide, and murdered the passengers along with them.

God bless the opportunistic USA. We're always right, even when we lie.

Not even vaguely a lie. What the heck is wrong with you?

The passengers tried to take the plane back so the terrorists crashed it. What the hell does it matter whether they got into the cockpit or not? They would have donem given time, which is what forced the terrorist's hands. You say the terrorists crashed the plane deliberately? What, you think that was their PLAN? Take the plane, fly it around, crash into a field? They crashed it because they had no other choice. Because they failed. And they failed because of the passengers.

That's your movie right there.

And no- films are not history, they are not documentary, and they are under no obligation at all to be 100% factual. And so they never, ever are.

And hence Greengrass is just a film maker who wants to make a good film about what he thinks is a highly dramatic and worthwhile story. Plenty agree with him, so why does he need any more reason than that?

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Not even vaguely a lie. What the heck is wrong with you?

The passengers tried to take the plane back so the terrorists crashed it. What the hell does it matter whether they got into the cockpit or not? They would have donem given time, which is what forced the terrorist's hands. You say the terrorists crashed the plane deliberately? What, you think that was their PLAN? Take the plane, fly it around, crash into a field? They crashed it because they had no other choice. Because they failed. And they failed because of the passengers.

That's your movie right there.

And no- films are not history, they are not documentary, and they are under no obligation at all to be 100% factual. And so they never, ever are.

And hence Greengrass is just a film maker who wants to make a good film about what he thinks is a highly dramatic and worthwhile story. Plenty agree with him, so why does he need any more reason than that?

It's all speculation. The only "power" those passengers had was that of telephone communication. They couldn't physically do anything, given they couldn't get in the cockpit, so who's to say why the plane crashed? Maybe the terrorists were aware of the jets being scrambled to take them down? They were, afterall, the last remaining hijacked flight in the air, and given the failure to communicate, process of elimination, going way off course, common sense would tell you that something was wrong.

I think you would owe it to the people who perished and their families to be as true to the events as possible, unlike the other "Flight 93" movie, which is on DVD next Tuesday, outright claiming that the passengers took the plane down.

Just because someone wants to make a movie because he thinks it would make for good cinema doesn't mean he should. Filmmakers usually have something a little more personal in mind, a connection and ninterest, when making something as important as this.

I don't have anything else to say about it, though. I still think it's tasteless and pointless, and I'm not budging or debating anymore.

Opened on Friday with 3.7 mil. Can anyone say bomb?

http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/

Originally posted by C-Dic
I think you would owe it to the people who perished and their families to be as true to the events as possible, unlike the other "Flight 93" movie, which is on DVD next Tuesday, outright claiming that the passengers took the plane down. Sorry for just jumping into the middle of this debate, but weren't the victims' families involved in the making of the film? How much more consideration could you give them?

Yes they were. As were the people who were working in the flight control that day on the ground dealing with these events in real life.

Anyways, the film made 11 million this weekend, the film cost 15 million to make. It will definately make a profit.

Not a bomb.

Originally posted by BackFire
Every film alters history in some way or another to make it a better film. Really nothing wrong with that.



It seems like a pretty big thing to alter.

#2 at the box office. I wouldn't call it a bomb.

Originally posted by BackFire
I think he means overly dramatic while portraying the characters as pure heroes.

LOL that was dead on. I personally felt the same way about spider man too. The way they kiss new yorks ass after the tragedy, trying to depict all firemen and spider man as all american pure heroes.

Isn't there another movie coming out based around the World Trade Center? Oliver Stone directing? Or is that more BS?

No, it's for real. It's called World Trade Center.

8.1 on IMDB. Which is actually pretty damn good.

From what I hear, it was done really well.

I don't put any stock in what IMDB says. Afterall, it's just a collection of everyday people's opinions. Case in point, "The Shawshank Redemption" is their 2nd highest ranking film of all time. It's a good movie, but not that good.

Originally posted by C-Dic
I don't put any stock in what IMDB says. Afterall, it's just a collection of everyday people's opinions. Case in point, "The Shawshank Redemption" is their 2nd highest ranking film of all time. It's a good movie, but not that good.
Case in point, the whole "Lord of the Rings" trilogy is in their top twenty. Let alone their top fifty.

I agree though, their whole scoring is definitely insane.

Im against a 911 movie, just because Im afraid its propaganda or something unhealthy... but Im so curious as to what this is movie has

Originally posted by BackFire
Why? Oliver Stone's will probably be much closer to what C-Dic is complaining about, a film that will probably have an agenda.

I dont think it will.From my understanding,Stones film is just about the survival of two firemen in the building.

as far as my feelings for the film goes since the familys of the victems have been in support of it then I have no problem with the film,they are behind it.I also remember reading that after Pearl Harbour happened there were a couple films made within a couple years on those attacks so it would not be the first time in history that a movie company has made a film about a ttavesty occured and this is much later than when they made those two movies about pearl harbour which again were made within a couple years.

I saw this movie today... didnt think I was going to see it but -- it was very intense and emotional-- reminds us why we are at war

and the hijakers werent quite what I expected (as for physically ) ...umm.. a couple of them seem so young ... which is sad too

I liked it, it was well made and quick and to the point...

so sad aww

Originally posted by C-Dic
I don't put any stock in what IMDB says. Afterall, it's just a collection of everyday people's opinions. Case in point, "The Shawshank Redemption" is their 2nd highest ranking film of all time. It's a good movie, but not that good.

When it comes to IMDB. 7 and above means it's a good movie. That's what I go by, and usually that's how it turns out... usually.

A good movie according to a bunch of other movie goers. If we did the same thing here on KMC, and most everyone thinks POTC is a good movie, would you believe it, or would you take into consideration everyone's predisposition to liking anything their favorite actor or actress is in?

Besides, "United 93" is more than likely getting sympathy votes from people who didn't even see it, as well as negative votes for people who are against it as well.

So, in closing, IMDB is nothing by which to grade a movie's worth, IMO.

You're prematuraley judgeing a film you haven't even seen. I think thats a first from you.

Its not just IMBD. I been reading reviews from other websites as well and as far as I can see it's been getting rave reviews. The thing I keep hearing is that it didn't in no way have an agenda but just tried to state the facts.

Im going to see it when it hits dvd. Until you see it you should judge or make premature accusations.

Just got home from seeing this movie, don't have time to write a full review, I will say that this movie is outstanding, zero percent propogana, no agenda, beautifully made and one of the most purely effective and powerful films I've ever seen. I was physically shaken by the movie, and it stays as true to the events as it could while still remaining a powerful and effective film. Simply put - a masterwork.

I'll keep this brief. Saw the movie, wasn't impressed, much less engaged at any point, and the happy Pro-USA ending made me sick. I saw it comin' a mile away. Not only were the Flight 93 victims not heroes, this movie gives their families a false sense of closure, ignoring the fact they made no progress in the end. I admire their determination to fight back, but nothing came of it, and as sad as it may be, that's what should have been reflected. It's in better taste and honesty.

What Happy Pro USA ending is that? I sure didn't see one. I don't think a bunch of people failing to overthrow a doomed plane and as a result dying constitutes a happy ending.

Saying nothing came of it is entirely false, the plane crashing came from it, as all evidence in existance shows. Yes, they most likely never made it into the cock pit, but that's the only large liberty taken by the movie, and that hasn't even been completely ruled out.

I never felt the movie was making them out to be heroes. They did what they did out of pure desperation, knowing that they would die if they didn't try and take back the plane, not for some "greater good" or anything, they did as a final effort to survive, and that's what was shown in the movie.

But, at least you gave the movie a chance after already deciding you didn't like it. Better than most would do.

It wasn't even that I didn't like the movie. It was well put together, and felt realistic with the plain jane actors, but it was just TOO plane, and didn't really strike a chord with me deep down like it was supposed to. It just played out like the news always claimed. This movie put pictures to words. Frankly, like I said months ago, I wanted to see it just for the ending, to see if the truth would be ignored, and it was. After having read up on the doomed flight, and the findings, deciding to go with the ending Greengrass did, I thought was just in bad taste.

By now, these families probably know the truth of how their loved ones were ultimately trapped, having gone down fighting, but they did NOT take the plane down, and that's just too big a factor to ignore given the velocity and importance of the entire flight. The story has always been that of heroism, and now it'll be tainted by a lie.

Again, they didn't physically bring the plain down, that's correct, but they were the reason the terrorists crashed it. They knew that if they didn't crash it, the victims would eventually break the door down and take over the cockpit. The movie is actually very very accurate except for them getting into the cockpit, which I think is a totally understandable liberty taken, because, frankly, it just makes for a better, more climactic ending. It even had them banging on the cockpit door with the food cart to try and force it open, which is what actually did happen.

The best way to approach the movie is as non-fiction, and that's all I can say. You don't make a movie based on real events, than literally fabricate heroes based on circumstances that were never proven, and even disproved right after the release of the movie. Like someone said in an article I read, "we needed heroes, not the truth".

What really chaps my ass is that people seem to think A) a food cart is made of a tougher material than a damn airplane threshold door and B) you can ram a door as a plane is in a downward trajectory. Unless this plane can defy the laws of gravity, nobodies to say what really happened.

Every historical movie drama, every single one, fabricates things, this one is no different. That's why they all say 'based on a true story' rather than 'A re-creation of a true story'.

Well the black box recorded them ramming it with something, it's now believed that that something was the foot cart. Plus, it's possible that while they were ramming the door the plane wasn't yet descending.

With the force of such a large group of people behind it, it may have been able to force the door open, or would have in due time. Or even not, the terrorists probably didn't know WHAT they were banging on the door, and didn't want to chance it.

I just saw this. It's a strange film to consider; all the action in the airplane is hypothetical, but I still found myself unnerved by it none-the-less. It certainly gives you an idea of what it must have been like inside that plane, but the accuracy of it is pretty impossible to judge.

after now knowing what I know about this film people shouldnt waste their money on it.Its the governments fairy tale version of what happened.a propaganda piece by them.