United 93 RT Tracking: 93% (114 Fresh, 9 rotten, COTC 97%)
Author |
Message |
Ripper
2.71828183
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 9:16 pm Posts: 7827 Location: please delete me
|
yearsago wrote: loyalfromlondon wrote: The other part is that I don't believe the events depicted in the film are at all accurate. . I am assuming you are talking about how it was shot down by jet fighters? Didnt they release the voice cockpit recordings, and in the recordings you could hear the 'attack' by the passengers? And also noted to by the many phone calls that a attack was happening?
The cock pit recordign is not exactly clear, (note, I don;t think the plane was shot down), I thought there was still some debate as to whether the passengers got through the cockpit doors (who certianly know they tried) but ultitmealy for me that detail does not matter towards whether or not I see the film.
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 11:58 am |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
Oh, oh - the third negative review...
So, what could the reason be -- does this reviewer:
a) Never write good reviews
b) Hates freedom/America
c) Loves terrorism
d) All of the above

|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:32 pm |
|
 |
xiayun
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:41 pm Posts: 25109 Location: San Mateo, CA
|
Yeah, Salon is actually fine. Their top 10 lists the last few years were quite respectable. Slant is really the only one that is so obvious in their intention/motivation (I sometimes confuse the two too since their names are kind of similar). Lee is also an incredibly tough grader, as he seldom gives any film better than a B+, but he isn't targeting specific type of films as Slant does.
_________________Recent watched movies: American Hustle - B+ Inside Llewyn Davis - B Before Midnight - A 12 Years a Slave - A- The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - A- My thoughts on box office
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 1:37 pm |
|
 |
Libs
Sbil
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 48678 Location: Arlington, VA
|
bradley witherberry wrote: makeshift wrote: Libs wrote: Salon comes in with another negative review.
Don't *they* also hate everything? So can we now assume that every negative review that comes out for this film will be from someone that "hates everything"? Libs is taking a big hit on her review cred over this film before she's even seen it...
Makeshift, I wasn't trying to say that; it's just that I feel like Salon and Slant are just two sources of opinion that seem to hate a lot of movies that the majority of other critics like. It looks like I'm mistaken about Salon, so nevermind.
And Bradley, you can disregard my "review" when I do see it. I probably won't write anything for it anyway.
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:24 pm |
|
 |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
It's fun to read this thread.
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:34 pm |
|
 |
bABA
Commander and Chef
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!
|
you find a thread concerning 9/11 funny ...
traitor
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:44 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
Well, off-topic, but I just want to mention once again how much despise I bear generally against Slant and especially Ed Gonzales, one of the worst critics to see the face of earth.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 3:56 pm |
|
 |
neo_wolf
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 10:19 pm Posts: 11033
|
Dr. Lecter wrote: Well, off-topic, but I just want to mention once again how much despise I bear generally against Slant and especially Ed Gonzales, one of the worst critics to see the face of earth.
Agreed, i rate gonzales and medved(is he even a real one?) as the worst film critics out there.Gonzales is the liberal version of medved.
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:14 pm |
|
 |
Chippy
KJ's Leading Pundit
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:45 pm Posts: 63026 Location: Tonight... YOU!
|
Everyone here is stupid.
_________________trixster wrote: shut the fuck up zwackerm, you're out of your fucking element trixster wrote: chippy is correct
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 4:45 pm |
|
 |
yearsago
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:20 pm Posts: 491 Location: seattle
|
bradley witherberry wrote: Oh, oh - the third negative review... So, what could the reason be -- does this reviewer: a) Never write good reviews b) Hates freedom/America c) Loves terrorism d) All of the above 
This guy has a blog and we are suppose to take his review credible? Especially after he questions what happened on the plane? when we have voice recorders and phone calls between the people on the plane.
No thanks.
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 5:28 pm |
|
 |
STROKER ACE
Speed Racer
Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 7:07 pm Posts: 199
|
bradley witherberry wrote: Oh, oh - the third negative review... So, what could the reason be -- does this reviewer: a) Never write good reviews b) Hates freedom/America c) Loves terrorism d) All of the above 
Based on the content of his review? d... 
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 6:37 pm |
|
 |
xiayun
Extraordinary
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:41 pm Posts: 25109 Location: San Mateo, CA
|
The film will receive multiple Oscar nominations. The reviews are simply too good to ignore. Whether it can get the bigger ones will be the question. Among techs, I think Sound or Sound Mixing and Editing look pretty good.
Another interesting thing is that critical success of U93 could be seriously damaging the Oscar prospect of Oliver Stone's WTC, although WTC had the better pedigree of the two and was more geared toward awards to begin with. Now it's very hard for critics to rave about WTC unless it's really really good. The comparison will be inevitable.
_________________Recent watched movies: American Hustle - B+ Inside Llewyn Davis - B Before Midnight - A 12 Years a Slave - A- The Hunger Games: Catching Fire - A- My thoughts on box office
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 8:46 pm |
|
 |
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am Posts: 13347
|
Well only 25 reviews are in, out of an eventual 150+. So it's a bit early on that. At the moment it has the same RT rating as akeelah and the bee.
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:24 pm |
|
 |
Anonymous
|
Archie Gates wrote: All that link shows is that there are some other people in the country and the middle east with the same name. No surprise there. The second link under the U93 category on that site actually goes a long way towards making this film look legitimate, by printing 9/11 CNN broadcast snippets from family members talking about how the people on board were going to attack the hijackers. Thomas E. Burnett Jr., 38, of San Ramon, California, was a senior vice president and chief operating officer of Thoratec Corp., a medical research and development company, and the father of three. He made four calls to his wife, Deena, from the plane. Deena Burnett said that her husband told her that one passenger had been stabbed and that "a group of us are going to do something." He also told her that the people on board knew about the attack on the World Trade Center, apparently through other phone calls.and He left the phone for a while, returning to say, "The men voted to attack the terrorists," Makely said.And that's from a skeptical site.
I actually don't believe calls were placed. Now, one might say the amount of people involved in such a cover-up would be too great.
But if you fail to believe the story behind the collapse of the towers or the pentagon attack, then that calls into question everything about that Tuesday, esp the soap opera-ish Flight 93 tale.
|
Wed Apr 26, 2006 9:51 pm |
|
 |
insomniacdude
I just lost the game
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:00 pm Posts: 5868
|
Well gee, when most of the user reviews come in, I don't think any of them will be much of a surprise...
_________________
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:05 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
Libs wrote: Salon comes in with another negative review.
Don't *they* also hate everything?
Honey, get a clue.. Just because they didn't care for it doesn't mean they hate everything..
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:37 am |
|
 |
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am Posts: 18501
|
makeshift wrote: Libs wrote: Salon comes in with another negative review.
Don't *they* also hate everything? So can we now assume that every negative review that comes out for this film will be from someone that "hates everything"?
When it involves this film?? I suppose so..
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 12:38 am |
|
 |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
BKB_The_Man wrote: Libs wrote: Salon comes in with another negative review.
Don't *they* also hate everything? Honey, get a clue.. Just because they didn't care for it doesn't mean they hate everything..
And, just because someone does like the film doesn't mean they're biased.
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:45 am |
|
 |
bABA
Commander and Chef
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!
|
xiayun wrote: The film will receive multiple Oscar nominations. The reviews are simply too good to ignore. Whether it can get the bigger ones will be the question. Among techs, I think Sound or Sound Mixing and Editing look pretty good.
Another interesting thing is that critical success of U93 could be seriously damaging the Oscar prospect of Oliver Stone's WTC, although WTC had the better pedigree of the two and was more geared toward awards to begin with. Now it's very hard for critics to rave about WTC unless it's really really good. The comparison will be inevitable.
of course, the one thing that we can not measure is 'if' this film ends up experiencing a backlash.
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 7:56 am |
|
 |
yearsago
Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 11:20 pm Posts: 491 Location: seattle
|
Climbing higher 90% at rotten tomatoes, 28 fresh, 3 rotten, 92% Cotc
and the one rotten in the COTC is not really a rotten (80 at metacritic, 31/2 stars out of 5)
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:47 pm |
|
 |
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm Posts: 10266 Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
Currently 34 total reviews: 31 fresh, 3 rotton for a 91% RT rating.
92% COTC and a solid overall rating of 8.0/10.
PEACE, Mike.
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:24 pm |
|
 |
Bradley Witherberry
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 30, 2004 1:13 pm Posts: 15197 Location: Planet Xatar
|
Rotten Tomatoes ratings alway represent a movie's critical approval, sometimes predict box office results, and are never related to how true the facts are in a movie...
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:29 pm |
|
 |
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm Posts: 10266 Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
Another update:
42 Reviews Total: 38 Fresh, 4 Rotten
Overall: 90%, 7.9/10 rating
COTC: 94%, 8.1/10 rating
PEACE, Mike.
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 4:39 pm |
|
 |
Dr. Lecter
You must have big rats
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 4:28 pm Posts: 92093 Location: Bonn, Germany
|
bradley witherberry wrote: Rotten Tomatoes ratings alway represent a movie's critical approval, sometimes predict box office results, and are never related to how true the facts are in a movie...
So, I assume, Slither's good reviews at RT are just as unjustified.
_________________The greatest thing on earth is to love and to be loved in return!
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:40 pm |
|
 |
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
No, Lecter! It's okay with bradley if Slither gets over 80% at RT, because he liked it. It's so not okay if United 93 gets a high score, though, because bradley has made up his mind prior to watching it that it'll suck.
|
Thu Apr 27, 2006 6:42 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 91 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|