Actually my mistaking the casulties number was already pointed out a couple pages ago, and I already admitted it was a random and honest mistake. Nice try though.

Hey! I just got blasted for bringing up "numbers" in this thread - I was told that it wasn't the number killed, but rather some particular aspect of "terrorism" that made 911 especially significant. But if numbers are important again, then consider this: If Shack had misstated the number of civilians killed in the 1994 Rwandan genocide by 2,000 - then he would have only been in error by less than a quarter of a percent from the true total death toll of 937,000...

And, if Shack had misrepresented the number of civilians killed in Rwanda by the same percentage he was off for 9/11, then he would have said that 324,333 people died.

But hey, it's just a 1/3 of a million, right? Not too bad in comparison to, say, the holocaust!

Actually, it would have been 648,666, but you make a good point (for my argument)...

Is this seriously what this debate has come to?

At least find something better to pick on than me misinterpreting the casulties. I urge you to.

I don't need to pick on you, nor does anyone else. I think your post where you said that 1,000 burning is no big deal pretty much covered it.

It's certainly a tragedy yes, and I can understand a deep level of sadness for those people involved.

But treating it like the Holocaust II, like it should change us forever, it just wrong. It's a sad day for Americans and a lot of people died, and by all means I think it's all well to look at that day as a sad time, when a lot of people lost their lives, it was a bad tragedy. But 3000 dead on the global scale should not be as earth shattering as it has been, it should not be blown out of porportion to the point that it has, especially when there's tragedies like the Rwandan 900,000+ thing in comparison, among others. It's just America's tendancy as the world's superpower to hold themselves that high on the pedestal, where 3000 dead here has been portrayed in itself as much more monumental and important than the the millions dieing everywhere else, which is wrong.

That's my last post in this thread for a while, kind of wrapping up my feelings in one paragraph. Adios.

That's fine to think that, as that seems to be the general point-of-view for non-Americans (and bradley), but the way you worded it earlier in this thread was kind of messed up. That's all.

As an American... I feel it was a tragedy. But since I am an american, it affects me on a larger scale. Do I think it's as tragic as Rwanda or other tragedies? No, but nonetheless, it was very tragic. Mainly because of it's sudden-ness.

With any other poster I'd at least tryo to discuss it, but with you. No chance.

In the end, comparing these tradegies as more and less tragic is just stupid. Thousands of dead people...it is all equally tragic, tragic to the point that it can't be topped. For the victims wo are dead, for their families in both cases...yeah.

When did this become a numbers game?

Was 9/11 tragic? Yes. Was the tragedy milked to the point of annoyance? Perhaps. Was United 93 bobbins? Absolutely.

Let's stick to the point people!

I dare anyone who's seen both, to call UA93 a better film over Bloody Sunday.

I second that. Bloody Sunday blows U93 away.

I recently rented United 93 and took the time to watch it finally. I admit to crying during films and/or sniffling in them like when I saw Titanic or SPR or even the Color Purple on dvd but I haven't out and out started streaming tears since I POTChrist in theatres. Now of course I wasn't letting loose all throughout the film because the film is very deliberate and almost anal about the details brought to our attention on that day but it's all done with a purpose so it works. The film just builds on the "confusion and misunderstanding" of that day which I still find hard to believe but that doesn't force me to think less of what transpired on Flight 93 and even if it was exaggerated at points or even fabricated the point and power of the final 15-20 minutes of the film can't be brushed away. I normally don't get choked up when I see images on screen of people telling their loved ones they love them and to remember them and so on and in fact I find it hokey sometimes but this just hit me so deeply that it was amazing and it almost makes you hope and believe that passengers will succeed in the end even knowing that they won't. Needless to say, I think United 93 is one of the best and most personal films I've ever seen and one that I don't intend to ever forget.

Other observations to bring up are that I do think this film is leagues better than WTC. I had no issues with the handheld/jittery camera usage and was not bored with the technical jargon taking place in the control towers and norad. Do I think this film could win BP? I originally thought there was no way this would even be nominated but if the producers can get the Academy to see this film then I don't see it NOT being nominated for BP simply because 9/11 is almost the US's version of the perennial Holocaust drama that hollywood seems to die for and to snub this film would be greatly disappointing although not surprising considering the source but one can hope they go for something more dear to America than the same old diddy.

Guys, this was probably the most moving picture I have ever seen. Makeshift said it best... we (at least some of us) see movies to be moved, to feel something. I'm not sure how to put my feelings to paper, but needless to say, I have never before been touched by a movie. It was intense, horrifying, upsetting...

Technically, it isn't a masterpiece, and yes, the first act is weak compared to the second. But this isn't just patriotic pulp... it is a wonderful chronicle of the what we know about the last minutes of a few dozen people's life. And it works best when it focuses on those passengers, not the news media or the chaos that day (we all remember that). It simply puts us in the shoes of those that were there and from there it becomes an emotional roller coaster unlike anything I've seen before.

For that, this gets very high marks. It isn't the most brilliant picture ever, but certainly one of the most emotional.

This movie is so late to come out here (Egypt)!!

Should I download it by torrent or should I wait to watch it in theater??

Wait. It is worth it.

the first 30-40 minutes i was confused as hell, all i knew is that they lost a few planes, kind of felt like a documentary. The rest on the actual United 93 plane was pretty good although i would of loved it if it was just focused of that plane alone. It didnt impacted me like you guys but its was very emotional film, especially right at the end.

B

Wow...I was NOT expecting this.

After being jaded by 9/11 overkill in the media, United 93 was a surprisingly fresh and authentic take on the story. I, for one, responded very well to the deductive flow of the film. The first 30 minutes are relatively uneventful (yet foreshadowing), as we get a glimpse into the routine of air traffic control pilots and airport life. In the next 40-50 minutes, we witness the events unravel on the outside, in the control rooms, and (of course) on CNN. And then the final act of the film takes us even deeper into the madness as we are baring witness to what's solely going on in flight United 93 (which is, to say the least, riveting). The film becomes more isolated and focused as it moves forward.

This is definitely a movie that builds and builds and builds to the point where every gripping moment feels like it's been earned. The final ten minutes are especially riveting as the film completely immerses us in the thick of the moment, in all its chaos and adrenaline.

A very mature, eloquent, powerful and respectful interpretation of the event it depicts.

So I have seen it..
(it's just released here today)

It's very well-crafted. I was truly amazed by how it felt so real as I was watching the real event. Hat off to Mr.Greengrass and all casts. And by how it was so much 'emotional impact', despite spent not much of time into character development.

But.. do I like the film?

No.

The portrait of 'a group of hijackers' really annoyed me (I'm Muslim). It almost made me walk out the theater. A picture of them screaming 'Allah El-Akbar' is fine (since this was clearly recorded). But having these people praying, reading Qur'an, is too much for me to handle. Since I couldn't (and wouldn't) accept this action as 'fighting in Islam's way' (especially, the opening scene in hotel -when they were praying and reading Qur'an-, no one knows that!).

This movie is really difficult to grade. It was most powerful movie I've seen in recent years, thrilled and moving (every phone call scenes did make me in tears). But in the other hand, it went too far in the part I've mentioned.

So for now, **1/2

So are you saying that it's likely that the hijackers didn't read the Qur'an some time before boarding the plane?

This film is simply depicting a likely scenario; it's not interested in making generalizations about Muslims.

TO BE HONEST,

YES, I think they didn't. Because I don't think they're Muslims at the first place.

But that's not my point.

I'm trying to say that this part bothers me, I got annoyed with it. I tried to make my point of why I give **1/2, why I don't like it. You can say it's my problem. It's fine.

Hm. I think to say that Muslim extremists are misconstruing the teachings of your religion is perfectly valid.

But to say that they weren't reading the Qur'an seems a little... naive to me. Or something.



It's your problem.

Seriousely, IF the hijackers were really as the movie portrayed. I'm so sad that how far we got lost. I'm (just) graduated from Azhar University (in Cairo). It's Islamic university, we learn about these stuffs. And this (what happened on 9/11) is certainly NOT what we called 'Jihad' (fight in Islam's way).

I just found Ebert's review;



Damn, he's right..

Here's some of a review by Fizz (moderator of Ten Forums, Muslim).. pretty much my thought..