United 93

[August1991]

I saw it, and I highly recommend it. It is very well made and it's not exploitative at all. It holds your attention throughout.

It's more like a documentary without narration. It simply follows events among air traffic controllers and military types on the ground and people on board United 93 in the air as each one began to figure out what was happening that morning.

The movie shows the incompetence of the US military in responding to the hijackings, or even understanding what was going on. [As I understand it, it was American, Delta and United employees who knew best and first what was happening that morning and who first made the decision to land all aircraft. Government officials were slow and behind.]

Alfred Hitchcock said that if a bomb goes off, then that makes for a few seconds of drama on the screen. But if the audience knows that a bomb has been planted, then that makes for several minutes of suspense.

In purely cinematic terms, I was at the edge of my seat on several occasions.

Given the political background to the story, the suspense is mixed with strong emotions. As quoted above, Greengrass, the film's director, said that the people aboard United 93 were the first Western citizens in the post 9/11 world. As I watched the movie, I certainly felt that way. You can't help but take sides.

And then curiously, just at the very end, in the film's final few seconds, I had a sense that we're all in this together and taking sides seems too simple a description of our situation.

Well worth the ten bucks admission. Form your own opinion.

[betsy]

I saw it and highly recommend it!

Not only did it depict the action in the plane...but it also showed those air-traffic controller and behind-the-scenes scenarios as the morning unfolded.

My God, 4,200 planes in the air that fateful day....just imagine how really catastrophic it would've been if there were not only 4 hijacked planes....but 20 or more??? And with the military unprepared for such an event???

The thing I liked about it too is that it's not politicized. And no popular actors to detract from the movie.

Acting was really good!

[betsy]

I saw it and highly recommend it!

Not only did it depict the action in the plane...but it also showed those air-traffic controller and behind-the-scenes scenarios as the morning unfolded.

My God, 4,200 planes in the air that fateful day....just imagine how really catastrophic it would've been if there were not only 4 hijacked planes....but 20 or more??? And with the military unprepared for such an event???

The thing I liked about it too is that it's not politicized. And no popular actors to detract from the movie.

Acting was really good!

Btw, we went on a 4 pm screening Saturday and noticed that among 50 or so people in the theatre, majority were middle-aged or older. I don't know if having that age-group as the core movie-goers say or mean anything (other than we all want an early night )....and then again, there's a game going on at the Corel.

[BHS]

Spoiler alert!!! Though everyone is familiar with the events depicted, I've included details about how the director and producers chose to recreate them that may not be appreciated by people who wish to be "surprised" by small technical details.

My wife and I saw the matinee on Saturday. Not many people in the theatre, but there never is for a matinee in the area where we live, so it's hard to say how successful the movie will be from first hand experience. I would guess that it'll hit the earnings list around 5 out of 10 for the weekend.

If I'd bothered to research ahead of time I would have discovered that Paul Greengrass was the director, and I would have prepared myself by taking a fistful of Gravol. His first non-indie movie was The Bourne Supremacy, and watching that movie I remember my biggest criticism was that I hated the hand-held stuff. Watching the DVD extras I discovered that this is something he is particularly proud of, and it's become his trademark gimmick since.

In United 93 the entire movie is shot with handheld cameras. By the one hour mark I was ready to vomit from motion sickness. Just something to keep in mind if you're planning to see the movie and you have a weak stomach. That's, again, my biggest criticism. The handheld thing gives a documentary feel, but it's unnecessary. The story is incredibly intense and doesn't need the gimmickery.

The film was very good, from an historical standpoint. It's clear that great pains were taken to recreate the events as accurately as possible, right down to the timeline: the movie occurs in real time, from about 8:20am (though this is never indicated, I'm just guessing) until the plane hits the ground. (Except for a brief introduction that shows the terrorists purifying themselves at their motel rooms, at around 5:00am, again a guess). There was no attempt at superfluous dialogue to explain technical jargon, and there was a lot of technical jargon. There was no attempt at premising special relationships between passengers a la Titanic.

This film doesn't even go so far as to moralize the subject. I was surprised to feel some empathy for the terrorists throughout the film. You know what their intent is from the first frame of the movie, and yet you can't help imagining the circumstances from their position. They are scared. They are as jumpy as cats throughout the entire film, and it draws you in. The terrorists speak only a few words of English (and only after the highjacking has started), so their is some subtitling. But you don't really need to follow their dialogues. Body language and facial expression tells everything.

Let me say here though, that the film is not in any way meant to portray the terrorists as victims or martyrs or heros. They are clearly murderers of the most despicable order, without any sense that the people they're travelling with are anything more than obstacles to achieving their goal, to be killed off as needed without compunction.

It's a strange thing to get to the part of the movie where the everymen fight back successfully, and to not cheer for them because you know they're going to die anyway. "Hopeless rooting" is maybe a way of putting it, the feeling that you want them to carry on and keep trying even if there is no hope.

A couple of other things.

A lot of the people who are arguing that this movie is being released "too soon" seem to be the same people who were happy to see Michael Moore release "Farenheit 911" two years ago , a film which made light of the events from a filmmaker who had the indecency to ask why Bluestaters should be targeted instead of Redstaters, as if the terrorists cared.

Ditto for "Bowling for Columbine" for the horror mentioned earlier in this thread.

Also, I take minor exception to August's post above about the military being "incompetent". Inexperienced, yes, but incompetent is an unfair perjorative. The movie indicates that the first two planes hit the World Trade Center before anyone was even sure that hijackings had taken place. By that point the miltary commanders at NORAD were prepared to shoot down aircraft but couldn't obtain clearance from the President. That the President was unreachable that day was a quirky twist of fate, not incompetence. ("My Pet Goat" not withstanding.)

[KrustyKidd]

Great review BHS!

In United 93 the entire movie is shot with handheld cameras. By the one hour mark I was ready to vomit from motion sickness. Just something to keep in mind if you're planning to see the movie and you have a weak stomach. That's, again, my biggest criticism.

Maybe they used those so that we would get a feel for the movement of the aircraft the hijackers used to keep the passengers at bay? Just wondering.

Now I realy want to see it. Thanks!

[betsy]

United 93 was #2 at the box office last weekend in North America.

[PolyNewbie]

"Bush and the White house created 9/11, not sure why."

Try looking at the evidence instead of burying your head in the sand. The CIA has sponsored terrorism for years. They are the worlds biggest drug dealers.

They started the New World Order with 911. Look up PNAC.

Look up Northwoods.

WHO SHOT KENNEDY.

Wake up.

[scribblet]

"Bush and the White house created 9/11, not sure why."

Try looking at the evidence instead of burying your head in the sand. The CIA has sponsored terrorism for years. They are the worlds biggest drug dealers.

They started the New World Order with 911. Look up PNAC.

Look up Northwoods.

WHO SHOT KENNEDY.

Wake up.

Oh Oh, think its time to get a bigger tin foil hate LOL

[Black Dog]

"Bush and the White house created 9/11, not sure why."

Try looking at the evidence instead of burying your head in the sand. The CIA has sponsored terrorism for years. They are the worlds biggest drug dealers.

They started the New World Order with 911. Look up PNAC.

Look up Northwoods.

WHO SHOT KENNEDY.

Wake up.

It doesn't logically follow that the CIA is responsible for 9-11 because of its sponsorship of terrorism or because of the organization's involvement in the drug trade.

The single biggest strike against the 9"-11 was a government conspiracy" idea is the fact that government's in general, and this government in particular, are pretty terrible at covering things up. Government's and beuracracies are large and cumbersome, with tons of moving parts: keeping sopmething of this magnitude secret would be well nigh impossible.

[RB]

I will not watch more of this terror

- first I am a softie as I could not even handle the documentary shown on TV

- second because my kid and I were in the area a week prior to the bombing - we only went back last year for some closure, plus we were in London the day of the bombing, then we were in Lyons with their riots - these evens are much too overwhelming and bigger than the terror it feeds, but it affected me personally

I think at least with the film I get to choose not to have this kind of experience