United 93

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:03 pm

[QUOTE=Phreddie]Profit donation: They are only donating 10% of their profits to a united 93 related charity, not nearly enough in my opinion. After covering production costs all the left over money needs to be donated to some useful charity.[/QUOTE]Why?

Phreddie · Post by **Phreddie** » Fri Apr 28, 2006 8:14 pm

I dont know exactly why, I wont exactly sound coherent this late but, here goes. They are making a tragic event into a profit producing entertainment project. How would the populace react to a film like this beingcreated about World War Two, depicting every aspect of the war, being as close to the truth as possible, in 1950? People are going to be angry, people are going to be happy. Only way to appease the asses is to make it seem as though you made the film purely to present the event in the purest way possible, and not to make millions.

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sat Apr 29, 2006 7:53 am

There is a good review of United 93 at Salon.com that might answer some of your questions. (You can get a free Day Pass by watching a short commercial.)

Amd of course, The Onion has its own take on the subject.

This kind of movie isn't really my cup of tea. On the one hand, it's about a serious, real-life human "drama". On the other hand, unless a movie is actually a documentary, it has to dramatize events and put them on an artistic, well-defined canvas in order to be successful as a movie. So right there, it has already departed from reality, no matter how faithful the moviemaker intends to be. If a film is to have any sense or any focus at all, it has to be an interpretation of events. By choosing which moments he wants to put on display in his film, the filmmaker puts his own indelible mark on the film. Apparently, Paul Greengrass did a good job of telling the story. But in the end, it just isn't the kind of story I want to see in a movie: half real life, half dramatic invention, and with no real emotional reward, just too painful to really enjoy.

I've seen documentaries about the Titanic. While I was somewhat interested in the true story, I have to say that I enjoyed the fictionalized fluff of James Cameron's Titanic even more. It was a great story, set against the background of a gripping historical event. Seen as a "documentary", it would be a complete joke. But the same thing is true of other great movies, such as Gladiator or The Man in the Grey Flannel Suit. Should they not have been made, just because people have really died? If movies are supposed to avoid all reference to events in which people died horrible deaths, then I guess all movies need to remove all references to reality. I happen to like movies about Martians and Harry Potter, but if that's all I could ever watch, I think they would leave me wanting for more.

What about some of the other 9/11 movies that have already come out? There was a movie about Flight 93 on TV several months ago. And then there was Fahrenheit 9/11 by Michael Moore, and then there was a movie starring Timothy Bottoms whose sole purpose was to show how heroic President Bush supposedly was. Come to think of it, there has been a whole lot of career-making based on the events of 9/11. Those terrorist attacks have spawned so many books, arguments, and disastrous policies, I don't know where to start. And arguably, the reaction to 9/11 has caused a lot more deaths. Is a single movie that merely tries to show what might have happened really all that important?

Chimaera182 · Post by **Chimaera182** » Sun Apr 30, 2006 7:38 am

[QUOTE=Phreddie]I dont know exactly why, I wont exactly sound coherent this late but, here goes. They are making a tragic event into a profit producing entertainment project. How would the populace react to a film like this beingcreated about World War Two, depicting every aspect of the war, being as close to the truth as possible, in 1950? People are going to be angry, people are going to be happy. Only way to appease the asses is to make it seem as though you made the film purely to present the event in the purest way possible, and not to make millions.[/QUOTE]

They made movies about World War II during World War II. As I mentioned before, Gung Ho! was one such movie. There was also another movie, one about the brave last stand of some Americans in some Pacific island (I so forgot which), where they all died heroically. The survivors of the actual event didn't exactly take too kindly to that, since the reality was they were knee-deep in Japanese bullets at the time.

Those terrorist attacks have spawned so many books, arguments, and disastrous policies, I don't know where to start

Does this mean they get royalties? -gasp- We're funding terrorists! We're terrorists! May Dubya forgive us!

Lestat · Post by **Lestat** » Sat May 06, 2006 9:58 am

I found [url="http://www.economist.com/world/na/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6888728"]this comment[/url] on the movie and it's context fairly interesting.

Especially these paragraphs:

Nor is there anything “too soon” about it. How can it be “too soon” to be reminded of the defining events of the new century—events which led, only this week, to a life sentence for the only terrorist arrested for the attacks, Zacarias Moussaoui (see article)? Many Americans have done their best to forget September 11th—driven partly by a desire to return to a normal life and partly by a desperate hope that nothing like that will ever happen again. The terrorist threat? A recent CBS News poll on April 28-30th found that only 3% of people think that terrorism is the most important issue facing the country. Airport security? A bore and a farce. The war against terrorism? A hopeless mess.

Many Americans have become so enraged about the Bush administration's policies that they are more interested in complaining about the war in Iraq than in grappling with Islamic radicalism. It is a sign of the way America is turning in on itself that Mr Young is now howling “Let's Impeach the President” rather than “Let's Roll”. “United 93” is not too soon but perfectly timed—a striking contribution to a debate that is in danger of becoming stale, and a vital reminder of what the fight is about.

Oscuro_Sol · Post by **Oscuro_Sol** » Sat May 06, 2006 11:32 am

I'll just say that I saw this movie two days ago.

It was... intense. I've never seen a movie like it. In fact, I'm not sure there was even a screening beforehand to see if it was appropriate for my age group (I was away at band camp). It wasn't even that gorey, I mean, I've seen way worse. But it made me want to scream and cry and vomit all at the same time. I've never seen a movie be so powerful without using a whole lot of gore and swearing.

Only a small group of the 103 kids saw U93. All the girls left the theatre bawling or at least red eyed, and there was even two or three girls who were in a state of shock, one of my best friends included. As for me, I was shaking the whole walk back to our hotel. It wasn't cold outside.

I wasn't very old at all when 9/11 happened. I didn't know what terrorism was, I didn't know what a hyjack was. But I remember the morning my teacher told us it had happened, clearly, even though I didn't understand any of it.

No one my age really knew what it was about, I guess. I mean, we knew what had happened, and how terrifying it was, and how many people died, but... the movie opened our eyes a lot.

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Sat May 06, 2006 1:51 pm

[QUOTE=Oscuro_Sol]No one my age really knew what it was about, I guess. I mean, we knew what had happened, and how terrifying it was, and how many people died, but... the movie opened our eyes a lot.

[/QUOTE]

Well then I suppose something good may have come out of this, which is nice to hear. My only opinions on this movie are that all the proceeds form it should be donated to some 9/11 fund. Nobody should monetarily profit from it. I know that's entirely unrealistic but only then would I find this justified.

TonyMontana1638 · Post by **TonyMontana1638** » Thu May 18, 2006 10:37 pm

I just saw the movie tonight and my stance has completely changed. I think we all owe Paul Greengrass (the writer, director, etc.) a debt of gratitude for doing this movie before some big-name director could get his hands on it and stuff Tom Cruise, Ben Affleck and Winona Ryder in it and make Pearl Harbor II. It was inevitable that somebody was eventually going to do so, but by getting this movie out now, Greengrass has completely poisoned the 9/11 plotline well but in a good way, and he should be commended for it.

The picture itself has little story, no recognizable actors and is hardly a movie at all; you learn the names of maybe two people and that's it. The whole thing is nothing but pure tension as you see a normal day slowly go downhill and then nosedive straight to hell the instant smoke and a gaping hole are seen on CNN; that first sight of the Trade Center gave me chills (it was actual footage I believe). The confusion in the airline control centers, the actual situation on 93... God it was all so damn realistic, regardless of whether or not what happened on the plane is true or not. I walked out of that theater talking with my friends about where we all were when we heard and saw the stuff on the news because Greengrass grabs you with this movie and shakes violently, forcing those memories out with a scream. I don't know if this review has done the movie justice and United 93 probably isn't for everybody admittedly, but I highly recommend everyone to take the time to go see it. It isn't so much of a movie as an experience, really, and won't win any academy awards in all likelihood but... It's really something.