United 93

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.

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).

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 [b]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.[/b]

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
[B]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.

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?

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.

😂