United 93 -- the movie
by JohnHuang2
Is it too early -- too soon -- for a review criticizing this movie? Some are calling the 2006 docudrama, United 93, 'too early and too soon,' given the events depicted happened only almost 5 years ago. This is the same unhypocritical crowd that shouted 'NOT SOON ENOUGH!' to the grand masterpiece of fiction, Fahrenheit 9/11, by Michael Moore. Reviews of United 93 have been generally positive.
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Bob Longino wrote that United 93, "the first big screen feature film to focus exclusively on the events" of 9/11, is "consistently emotionally gripping, and most certainly startlingly honest. It easily ranks as the best movie so far this year."
"It's a harrowing, honorable, even necessary memorial . . ." noted Ty Burr of the Boston Globe.
"This is a masterful and heartbreaking film, and it does honor to the memory of the victims," observed Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times, while Michael Phillips, writing in the Chicago Tribune, noted that the "film is lean, harsh and remarkably free of cant. It doesn't waste a single minute of its harrowing 111 minutes."
Entertainment Weekly's Lisa Schwarzbaum said the "movie is tightly built, but [writer-director Paul] Greengrass ["The Bourne Supremacy," "Bloody Sunday"] is patient, letting events unfold at the pace of reality."
The Hollywood Reporter said the film's "unflinching account of the terror aboard the fourth hijacked plane" on 9/11 "provokes deep, disturbing emotions," while Manohla Dargis of the New York Times called the film "good, in a temple-pounding, sensory-overloading way that can provoke tears and a headache."
Was "United 93" a "powerful and thoughtful," "non-exploitive piece of historical filmmaking," and therefore a "monumental achievement"? Yes, say the San Francisco Chronicle, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and Rolling Stone magazine, respectively.
These are just some of the reviews of the film as posted under "Critics Review" at Yahoo.com, which links to each full article. They're representative of the enthusiastic praise the film has garnered. So, is it too early -- too soon to criticize the movie?
Amid all the horror of that terrible day, the one thing we did come away with is pride -- we were proud of the heroism displayed by the passengers of that fourth hijacked plane, United Airlines Flight 93. Soon after their jet was hijacked, they learned of the World Trade Center attacks, so they knew this wasn't the typical hijacking. They realized their plane would be used as a guided missile to kill thousands more. These heroes gave their lives to save the lives of countless fellow Americans. Greengrass uses artistic license to give the impression the passengers were motivated more by self-preservation.
The film is too impersonal. None of the passengers are identified by name, even though Todd Beamer ("Let's roll!") was instantly a household name.
Too much of this movie dwells on the government's 'confused' reaction to the attacks that morning. Sure, there was confusion. But to dwell on it as much as this flick does is to distort the big picture.
Lisa Schwarzbaum, of Entertainment Weekly, wrote that United 93 pulls the "bandage of sentiment cleanly away from oozing concepts like 'heroism' and 'our nation's war on terror' in the aftermath of recent wounds . . . and grants the dignity of autonomy to every soul involved. In this telling . . . each hijacker is a man with a temperament and a religious conviction, not a cartoon monster." "Dignity" to terrorists. Lovely.
Incidentally, Universal Pictures pledged 90 percent of the revenue from the film's opening weekend goes to . . . Universal Pictures. A massive 10 percent goes to the Flight 93 National Memorial.
Yes, it's a good thing that movies about 9/11 are finally trickling out of Hollywood.
But! By far the best -- and most accurate -- docudrama on Flight 93 hasn't come from the Big Screen. It came from the Discovery Channel: The Flight That Fought Back.
Anyway, that's...
My two cents
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
