United 93

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.

Spoiler:

That being said, the moment when the passengers unite and charge the terrorists is rousing and heartfelt to witness, despite the tragedy that is inevitable. The guts and desire to live is overwhelming to watch.

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

Spoiler:
trapped in a burning house, unable to escape, reliving his life through sequential flashbacks.

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?

No, Stone's "World Trade Center" focuses on 2 Port Authority workers buried beneath rubble. "Ladder 49" was about Joaquin Phoenix [SPOILER - highlight to read]: 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.

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.

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.

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.