Posted on 04/28/2006 1:21:50 PM PDT by RobFromGa
Just saw United 93-- I thought it was excellent. It evolves in real-time and its cuts back and forth between the Air Traffic controllers, the Military room, and the plane.
It was somewhat shocking to watch the level of confusion in terms of what was going on, but when you see what information that they were dealing with, it makes sense.
The hijackers to me came across more as fanatical than evil, and they were not turban-wearing obvious characters, they were cleaned up and I ride on planes with people like them on every flight I take.
In the movie, they are carrying out the plans of others and are obsessive in their task. We are not fighting an enemy that is likely to be reasoned with.
There is one character that I'm glad they included- he has a European *maybe French* accent and he makes a number of comments along the lines of "If we do what they say, they'll spare our lives"-- typical appeasement mentality.
Thanks to this group of heroes, many thousands of lives may have been spared and we kept the Islamic nuts from claiming the Capitol or White House as a prize.
I give in 9.5/10!
This is not a 'politically correct' point of view in todays hollywood.
I have no doubt I'll be arguing with others about the film where they'll take the position of "No one could know what happened on that plane!".
Which is true to a point, -- if the unrecorded cell phone conversations are ignored as second person hearsay.
The danger is in letting emotional judgments cloud the inherent truth of what Greengrass has shown.
- I think it's very well established that the passengers stopped the hijacking of flight 93, "emotional truth" notwithstanding.
That was something I noticed after The Passion of The Christ. No one said a word.
My husband and I plan to see it.
Excellent Analysis - Welcome to FR !!!
We don't know what happened beyond brief phone calls and cockpit voice recorders. However, it is the director's job to analyze the event to the best of his ability and create his own personal interpretation.
I was very impressed with the director's decision to have the hijacker flying the plane begin flying erratically as his final defense to keep the passengers out of the cockpit. I had not thought of it before, but that would have been the rational move on his part. A lesser film would have missed that.
Any thoughts on Greengrass' decision to have the hijackers speak almost no English? It intensifies the us/them dichotomy of the film. But I wonder whether this is based on his research of the hijackers or a directorial decision. The hijackers do not even know enough English to shout "sit down" at people.
I didn't realize it was a limited release, both the theatres in my town had it, and we are in the middle of Illinois.
The erratic flying is solely based on fact. The cockpit recorders record not only voice, but control stick input. Every movement of the controls is recorded by the cockpit computer, as well as gauge readings such as altimeter and rate of speed.
Those readings can then be loaded into a program which creates a simulation of the plane's flight up until recording stops. When the flight was recreated, it was shown that the plane went into a steep dive with contant banking movements to the left and the right. The hijacker, clearly knew the passengers were rushing the cockpit and attempted to knock them off their feet. In the end, the plane banked until it was on its back and then began a plummet near the speed of sound into the ground.
Call me a cynic, but I have a suspicion that if Stone minds his P's and Q's on this flick, it's because there are 3,000 families that will serve him his own family jewels on a platter if he messes with it.
I'm not very anxious to see Stone's film, but the scope of the film is quite limited, according to a friend who visited the set. It is also based on real life people, specifically two Port Authority workers who were in the World Trade Center when it collapsed and survived after being trapped under the rubble.
Here in Afghanistan it's already out on DVD!
Did anyone actually survive the collapse?
I actually thought the movie did an excellent job of showing that attacking the hijackers was not a simple, UN-thought-out event. Specific planning went into the attack: what weapons do we have, gather up those weapons, move all the big guys up front, go fast, assign/take on specific tasks ("I'm going to break his arm"), what do we do with the plane after we take over, who will fly the plane, can he fly the plane, make calls home to loved ones, time the attack, etc.
I thought that part of the film was particularly good because it showed there's more to taking back a plane than just disabling the bad guys in the passenger cabin.
That's good somebody of his age is so interested in seeing this. All the young ones at the theaters I saw tonight were all waiting to see one of the other movies playing.
Attendance was rather light at the theaters I was at (two screens for United 93 at my metroplex)
This movie is so amazing, there isn't a big enough adjective to describe the feelings you will relive (and new ones you may not have felt about that day yet). The real people involved as part of the cast makes this a real experience, the emotions are much more intense because you KNOW this is the way it really happened. From the frustration of seeing the 20-minute delay of communication between the ATC and Norad, to the horror of the terrorists cowardly attacks, to the pride of seeing the citizens come together in action, to the disbelief of seeing the terrorists praising allah for death. Every American (and Westerner for that matter) must see this. Tonight feels like 9/11 all over again, and we need to feel that intensity again...Because 5 years later, we are still at war. Let's hope that we all have the courage to do the right thing when our time comes, in the company of fellow freedom loving citizens. I am overwhelmed by the emotion that 9/11 in the long term has strengthened us because of the brave actions on United93 that we can integrate into our daily lives.
Yes, two men survived who were inside the building and effectively "rode" the debris as it collapsed, cocooning them in relative safety. Their names are John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno and they are the focus of Stone's World Trade Center. I don't know how people here got it in their heads that the film was some all encompassing portrayal of the whole day, but I assure you it's not. I don't think this film will be riddled with bunk conspiracy like JFK, because these men are alive and contributed to the making of the film.
Gah. The things I do for you people.
Adding more reviews/links:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20306_United_93_Topic_One
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=20306_United_93_Topic_One#comments
It's probably because Oliver Stone is most remembered for making films that have crackpot conspiracy theories and/or a left-wing political slant. That being said, I will reserve judgement for now on his yet to be released WTC movie.
Getting back on topic of this thread - I have read all the great posts here and plan on seeing United 93 saturday or sunday.
Thanks JLAGRAYFOX....you are correct....believe me I have learned enough here at FR in the past five years to know the details of the Clintoons, Dems and Liberals part in enabling what led up to 9/11.
Saw it tonight....
No words right now .
oh wait! If I were younger I would be going to enlist tomorrow!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.