UNITED 93: an objective film review

[Lord Hearteater 0]

Clearly, not everyone is a history buff, and many people obviously question spending their entertainment funds for what clearly is not intended as entertainment. Once the reader identifies these issues, they might then be able to better read my words for what they are intended to be. Irregardless of what one's sentiments are about the politics behind the story, what was intended to be depicted in the film (and it is depicted very well) is the HUMANITY of ALL involved with the story, the hijackers included. Even the lead-hijacker places an "I love you" phone call prior to the chaos. I respect those whose opinions differ from mine, and will not resort to intellectual violence to try to change them. It is also my opinion that films that try to depict historical events with the highest degree of accuracy reasonably possible perform a service to the veiwing public, who still maintains the right of choice whether or not to view them. It has been nearly 40 years since a definitive film about the Battle of Britain has seen release in the USA (notice that I cannot legitimately speak for what may or may not exist in the UK in making this statement of opinion). Surely, my esteemed fellow flight-simmer with a preference for the C-130 may harbor different sentiments with regard to the possibility of a new Battle of Britain film being produced, especially with all of the technological advances since the late 1960's. That said, this thread has seen (for the most part) the healthy debate that I thought that it should foster. If and when one sees the film, one can revisit this thread and perhaps see it differently. Thanks to all for keeping it civil.In a bit of irony, ABC TV (one of the 3 major American TV networks, for those unaware) aired "Pearl Harbor" last night. I was thus able to see the most recent cinematic interpretations of two seperate surprise attacks on American soil on the same day. For the sake of the entire planet as a whole, I can only hope that the final resolution of the conflict engendered by the second of these attacks will be similar to the final resolution to the conflict engendered by the earlier of the attacks, but without the use of nuclear weaponry.

[Guest Charlie]

>My opinion is; that to talk, display reviews or even to>consider watching this movie is sick, depraved and glorifying>a disaster that most civlised people believe as a very sad way>of making money. The movie industry has stooped to an all time>low with this effort and I don't believe that the relatives>sanctioned the making of this movie nor too did the people on>the ground that suffered injuries as a result of what was>happening above their heads!>>I. for one will definately NOT be seeing it and no body I know>will either.>>This movie is what I call real obsenity.WOW! Talk about another bizarre point of view. This is why it is so difficult to define obscenity. I trust that you feel the same about "The Longest Day" and all of the Pearl Harbor based films? Heaven help us if you were ever given the power to censor.This is a major historical event. As such, of course movies will be made about it

[Guest]

Scheduled for release doesn't mean any cinema will actually carry it...Most likely it'll end up in some small film houses with a few dozen places per showing. That's what happens with most movies that are more mentally challenging than the latest Disney megaproduction.

[Guest]

Had Pearl Harbour or Tora! Tora! been made in 1943 you'd have gotten the same reactions about that one.It's still too painful for many people, to fresh in their minds, to use as a plot for a 90 minute (or whatever) flick intended to earn someone a few more million dollars.

[G7USL 117]

Jeroen,Thank you for explaining my view's also.It is much too soon. Maybe in twenty years after freinds and relatives have got over their grief?'The longest day' and Pearl Harbour depicted an event that happened over 60 years ago. A slight difference.Dave T. .........On the Devon Riviera and active 'FlightSim User's Group' member at http://www.flightsimgrpuk.free-online.co.uk/http://www.captainsim.com/user/dl/c130/c130_captain.gif

[Guest nem]

I might be mistaken, but the Path

[Guest Ken_Salter]

To All:As I know I don't have to remind you, please keep this discussion civil and on topic.There is no reason for this thread to head south, but if it does we will have to lock it down.Thanks,

[Guest Charlie]

1943 for Tora! Tora! Tora! is not an equivalent time difference. Though 1946 would chronologically be equivalent, for WW II I think 5 years after its end would be a more like it. Be that as it may, scores of films depicting WW II events were made DURING and within the first few years following. And I trust no one would imply that it was a lesser tragedy. Much to the contrary, it caused pain and suffering for many, many, more people than 911 did.As to it being a "flick intended to earn someone a few more million dollars"? No one I have ever known quite matches your level of cynicism, Jeroen. I think the filmmakers had more than that in mind.

[Guest]

Had WW2 dragged on to 1950 or beyond a 1946 timeframe would have been more in line for Pearl Harbour movies when compared to this situation. But it didn't, so 1943 is the equivalent.No movie would have been made unless there were money in it. It isn't a propaganda movie, it's not a documentary created as a piece to show someone's skills.It's a commercial venture. That means there's people wanting to make a buck out of it, preferably a LOT of money. There's nothing wrong with that mind, though IMO using the deaths and suffering of real people who have living relatives as entertainment is sickening, especially given the extremely short timespan.Were this an NGC documentary it might be different (though NGC is also a commercial venture, they do have an educational mission) but it's not. It's designed to be entertainment of the blackest kind. Sadly that kind of entertainment draws big crowds, because lots of people like to see others suffer.

[LAdamson 240]

>>I would also add that, at 65 years, I am definitely in the>real world sir, seems to me it's a more respectful one than>yours.For starters, I'm only 10 years behind you. And since you said:My opinion is; that to talk, display reviews or even to consider watching this movie is sick, I clearly don't consider myself sick for seeing a movie that I feel everyone should see. As stated elsewhere, it's history, was not a natural disaster, but man made by an "enemy"; and could easily happen again if we get careless and forgetful.It's MY opinion, than many are getting much to complacent about this subject.L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

>It's designed to be entertainment of the blackest kind. Sadly>that kind of entertainment draws big crowds, because lots of>people like to see others suffer.I'm going to see this movie in two hours. I've read many reviews from reviewers and patrons. It's NOT a movie designed to see people suffer. It's a movie made to make people think! It puts reality back on the front burner, exactly where it should be! These acts of terrorism are NOT over! Let's don't pretend that it is!L.Adamson

[LAdamson 240]

See these comments from those who've seen it...It's interesting that so many, who are now writing very positive comments, had preconceived notions, such as many do on this board.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0475276/usercommentsL.Adamson

[Guest Charlie]

"Had WW2 dragged on to 1950 or beyond a 1946 timeframe would have been more in line for Pearl Harbour movies when compared to this situation. But it didn't, so 1943 is the equivalent."Huh? If there is any logic there, it escapes me. 1943

[Lord Hearteater 0]

I have seen it a second time, and noticed a few more things.Character development: the hijackers are as close as this film comes to having anyone in what would be recognized as a "starring role." It is a subtly important establishment of their mindset that one sees as they walk through the terminal, avoiding even a cursory glance at risque advertising (like a "Cosmopolitan" magazine ad).I also see more continuity errors. An establishing shot of UAL93 climbing out is of an aircraft with winglets and an elongated fuselage in the tailplane; an Airbus. ATC displays that are supposed to depict a near miss of two aircraft at the same altitude actually depict a 3000-foot difference. The flight crew walks through the terminal area featuring the new UAL color scheme, which did not get adopted until 2003. Those not familiar with aviation would find these easy to overlook. I will again thank everyone in this thread for keeping the level of discourse relatively high and issue-oriented, and the forum staff for allowing the discourse to remain open.

[Guest Kingair315]

Regardless of when they were made, that has nothing to do with the subject. War Movies were made and shown all during WWII, right while it was actually happening. For Veterans or Victims and Families of those in 9/11 it will make -NO- difference when they are made. War is ####, those who lived through it, or those who lose loved ones will suffer just as much if it were made today or twenty years from now. Every time that I watch the news on any channel, and see explosions or watch the troops in Iraq, it causes me to have flashbacks to Korea. The Uniforms are not the same, and the weapons are not the same, but the Explosions & SOUNDS ARE THE SAME. Post Traumatic Stress is the same, if you suffer from it, it makes no difference when it happened. We see WWII Vets with tears in their eyes when talking about their experiences, it is just as real to them today to talk about it, as it was over 60 years ago.Mothers of those KIA's from WWII, Korea, Nam, feel the same loss today, that they felt decades ago. Those who lost loved ones on 9/11, will feel the same way twenty years ago, that they feel today.The only thing I would recommend, is that they do NOT go to see the film. After the Korean War, I couldnt watch the news from Vietnam. I coulnt go to Movies about the Korean or Vietnam War, and couldnt even watch Murder Mystery Movies... A Flashback makes you feel as if you are right back there in the experience. The difference between a War and 9/11, is that you personally SEE friends who are as close as brothers dying every day, for months.If you dont think you will like the movie, dont go... But, to say others should not go, is CENSORSHIP, and that is NOT why I volunteered for in three tours of combat in Korea. We who were there, will never forget the Korean War, one of the bloodiest conflicts in history. One of every 16 who served in Nam, was Killed in Action. One of every 12 who served in WWII, was Killed in Action. One of every NINE who served in Korea, was Killed in Action.