I thought it was very poorly done. Not offensive, just not a very interesting story, the acting, especially by the femalese was luke warm at best. Nick Cage was average at best. I think that the whole story was over the top as far as dramatics, and the fact that it's only one good story in thousands of horrendous ones. It doesn't really reflect the entire tragedy. Also, Oliver Stone has clearly sold out. Since when did he decide not to offend anybody? At least conspiracy theories are more entertaining.

I dont know if you've noticed but this is a very sensitive subject. You can't just blatantly offend people.

I thought it was an extremley moving movie. Just like when I went to see United 93, the audience got up and left without saying a word. There were some young teenagers there that at first were talking, but when the movie started they shut up and didn't say anything. Watching the movie was like being absorbed in the feelings and emotions that the people felt. Definitley not even close to the same extent, but it was gut wrenching as two major emotions conflicted. To see the evil that men could do was horrible, but to see the hope, bravery and courage that it brings out in people was equally as moving.

I think that these films are serving as a reminder to why the world is at war. Maybe not directly, but they want people to remember the events that have happened, and that is why certain things are happening in the world right now. Many people are forming opinions of the wars and world events, but are completley forgetting what started it all.

Just my thoughts..

-Kegan

To second poster:

Give me a break... these films are so offensive not because of the subject matter but because they are so afraid of offending anyone that WTC is totally depoliticized and United 93 is essentially a fake documentary. There's really no need for faux-verite crap in a Hollywood big-budget movie about September 11th...

I won't discuss WTC having not seen it. But how is Paul Greengrass faux-verite? He definately achieves realism and naturualism. That just seems to be verite. The amount of money or who supplied it is completely inconsequential for the definition of verite. You are confusing the logic of relatedness to the logic of dependence.

realism> naturalism? Fox trot?


these are stupid words to limit what the actors are representing. if one asks for the same things from all the actors youll find a stylized cliche of characters, plus theyre sitting on the idea of 911???? goddamnit! the *****s! it happened lets move over here now...its troubling me cause most people see film as escapism/entertainment, but they love this **** too...oh this reminds me of America's new theme song is

Eye on the TV
'Cause tragedy thrills me
Whatever flavor it happens to be, like...
"Killed by the husband"
"Drowned by the ocean"
"Shot by his own son"
"She used a poison
in his tea... then kissed him goodbye"
That's my kind of story
It's never fun 'til someone dies

Don't look at me like
I am a monster
Frown out your one face
But with the other
Stare like a junkie
Into the TV
Stare like a zombie

While the mother holds her child
Watches him die
Hands to the sky crying,
"Why, oh why?"

Cause I need to watch things die... from a distance
Vicariously I live while the whole world dies
You all need it too, don't lie

Why can't we just admit it?
Why can't we just admit it?
We won't give pause until the blood is flowing
Neither the brave nor bold
Will write as the story's told
We won't give pause until the blood is flowing

I need to watch things die... from a good safe distance
Vicariously I live while the whole world dies
You all feel the same, so...

Why can't we just admit it?

Blood like rain come down
Drum on grave and ground

Part vampire
Part warrior
Carnivore and voyeur
Stare at the transmittal
Sing to the death rattle

La, la, la, la, la, la-la-lie (x4)

Credulous at best
Your desire to believe in
Angels in the hearts of men
Pull your head on out your heavy/happy eyes and give a listen
Shouldn't have to say it all again

The universe is hostile, so impersonal
Devour to survive... so it is, so it's always been

We all feed on tragedy
Its like blood to a vampire

Vicariously I live while the whole world dies
Much better you than I


if i was on that movie set, on a plane getting ready to die, id bust out the keg and alld be well.

quote:

He definately achieves realism and naturualism. That just seems to be verite. The amount of money or who supplied it is completely inconsequential for the definition of verite.

How can it achieve 'naturalism'?? It's a fictional 'reconstruction' of a situation which has no actual recording... who knows if it's 'natural' or not. Certainly not the families of the people who died on the flight - they'd have no interest in seeing a responsible and realistic document, but rather something that can turn their loss into mock heroism and profit.

From what I've seen of Greengrass' earlier film, Bloody Sunday, there was also a disturbing trend of presenting something imagined and embellished as something real. This is highly irresponsible when you purport to make movie about real events, because it is taken for granted that they should not be full of lies. I wasn't incredibly familiar with the political circumstances of the incident in his earlier film, so it didn't leap out right away. You tend to think, 'well, that might be how it was.' After a little more research and looking at it again, you realize that isn't how it was at all.

Furthermore, the music of United 93 is incredibly ill-advised. If it's so 'verite' why is there music at all? Oh, because a Hollywood audience can't stand 90 minutes of 'real' life, even if it's still fake and the only artificiality removed is screen music. As far as I can tell we don't all walk around with vaguely Middle Eastern-sounding 'world film music' directly pumped into our brains, so why it belongs in a film about 9/11 is totally beyond me.

Evan I don't know why I do this with you. You clearly don't like anything. Normally I'd say that as a joke but you really don't like anything. And if anyone challenges anything you like they are simply too stupid or "hollywood" to understand the "genius" of crappy camera work (Solaris). I mean in this thread alone you accused the families of 9/11 victims of exploiting the deaths for profit. Why? Because you don't like the fact that Paul Greengrass used music.

How ridiculous - I like hundreds of films. There are so many excellent films out there that it seems pointless to waste two hours watching something terrible.

And the camera was guaranteed to be shakier in United 93 than Solaris Have you even seen Solaris? It's beautifully shot. I have no clue what that other thread was about.

Well, considering that those families are signing book deals, etc. left and right with quite sizable advances, I can't see that they aren't profiting from their loss.

It's not even the music that's so offensive, but the fact that it's combined with a seeming attempt to make a more 'realistic' film. If they supposedly went to such great lengths to make it 'realistic,' why is there music?

Music in United 93? Ridiculous! I read an article that said those people in the movie weren't even the same people who died in the crash; they were ACTORS! And they weren't even in a real plane in the air! They were in a studio or something! Jesus! I've never been so offended in my life. To think that they tried to pass off something like that as "realistic" is frustrating, cowardly and exploitative.

I smell another argument...

Bah, normally I agree with you Evan, but not on this count. I'm pretty cold myself, and even I can see that its a sensitive subject. I'm not too sure why you don't appreciate music in movies either.

The music is there to try to replicate the mood and emotions that were going crazy during the problem. A lot of movies use music to their advantage and because of it, the film benefits. I haven't seen Silent Hill, but from playing the video games--the music alone made me scared. That's the effect these directors are trying to acheive.

-Kegan

*--How did this become about United 93? Just because I mentioned it initially in passing? Well, it's about the WTC and should stay as such.

Ahhhhhhhh the music is scary!

Great lets take these personal disputes somewhere else...in case you missed the title, this thread is a discussion about WTC not Greengrass, music, faux-veriteness, flight 93, or your personal film preferences, take this cat fight somewhere else, like a baby pool filled with KY jelly...or something.

This is America, and we argue wherever we want, you fuc*kin fascist. Can I get a Amen?

quote:

I haven't seen Silent Hill, but from playing the video games--the music alone made me scared. That's the effect these directors are trying to acheive.

Silent Hill are great games, but I think feature films based on an incident that involved massive loss of life need different rules.

Just because music *can* be used for an effect doesn't mean it *should* be. The fact that the film tries to have its cake and eat it too, so to speak (using music to wring emotion from the audience while also purporting to not be exploitative).

Anyway, United 93 is clearly related to WTC. There's nothing wrong with discussing both together.

I haven't seen WTC and probably won't bother. I don't need to watch a film providing an 'inspiring true story' of survival on a fatal day.

quote:

Silent Hill are great games, but I think feature films based on an incident that involved massive loss of life need different rules.

There are hundreds of feature films about real-world incidents which involved massive loss of lives, and almost all of them play by the rules they want to play by.

Fine, but that doesn't mean I approve of it. Look at the tone taken by a Japanese film like Ningen no joken (Conditions for Being Human, Kobayashi's trilogy from the late '50s) or Nobi (Fires on the Plain; Kon Ichikawa) and learn how to deal with a profound historical sacrifice with humanity and dignity. Or 'Under the Flag of the Rising Sun' (Kinji ***asaku), which is provocative and aesthetically outrageous but utterly free of exploitation.

In the end, what matters are not the specific techniques, but the general feel of the film towards the content. I don't get the feeling at all that Greengrass or Stone, for that matter, comprehends the enormity of what happened, or that the film appropriately reflects that. It just isn't there.

FWIW, I'm interested in seeing the '9.11.01' compilation of shorts made by various directors. Most of them are apparently terrible, but Imamura's is supposedly fantastic. This could be a more viable method of looking at the historical experience.

if i made a film about september 11th it would be a 4 hour shot of ****heads sitting infront the TV watching the news.

wE might see tears

but then itll slip away, and we'll forget, and the TV will still be on, the same images still flashing.

why would i make it like this? Cause thats how i saw it. My school stoppe d for the day and we watched the news, some people cried, "it was suc ha bad thing" but did we ever sit and discuss it? NO. NO WE CANT DO THAT. THE TV WILL TELL US WHAT HAPPENED. THEY WILL DISCUSS IT FOR US. THEY WILL TELL US WHAT TO THINK ABOUT IT HOW TO FEEL



so why a theatrical demonstration? what are the characters? Are they questioning why it happened? The lies behind it? the money? The money behind the movie? ITS ALL SUCH CROCK! GET THE HELL OUTTA THERE!

BAN MOVIES

Yeah sorry for sidelining the thread. I'm glad to hear that those who have seen the movie have liked it. After Alexander which was one of the worst films I've ever seen, it'll be nice to see Stone rebound. I'm a huge fan and I haven't really dug anything since Nixon.