I was thinking about the following quote from the Slant review:

Call me wet behind the ears, but I can imagine a thoroughly researched and verified documentary where all of the families approve of the truth of the story, including those of the hijackers. Imagine the depth that film would portray, where both sides are held up to the bright light of truth. Surely, it would provide a different level of understanding to viewers than anything United 93 will offer in the way of global objectivity...

But look as feasibility of contacting the families of known terrorists? Let alone the implications of that lets look at it from a standpoint of infeasibility. Would these families actually talk to filmmakers? Highly doubtful.

Sorry Bradley but that is just too much too ask and I think you judgement against the film is way to early for its own good.

So far, I'm only judging the hype preceding the release of this movie, as well as the irrational defense of some against any negative reviews. My own review, if and when I see this docudrama, as always, will be my true and direct opinion of the film itself. I believe that you will have a hard time finding another reviewer on this forum as unbowed by peer pressure as I...

Update:

81 Total Reviews: 76 Fresh, 5 Rotten

Overall: 94%, 8.3/10 rating

COTC: 97%, 8.3/10 rating

PEACE, Mike.

Roger Ebert's review now up. He gave it 4 out of 4 stars.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... S/60419006

There has been much discussion of the movie's trailer, and no wonder. It pieces together moments from "United 93" to make it seem more conventional, more like a thriller. Dialogue that seems absolutely realistic in context sounds, in the trailer, like sound bites and punch lines. To watch the trailer is to sense the movie that Greengrass did not make. To watch "United 93" is to be confronted with the grim chaotic reality of that autumn day in 2001. The movie is deeply disturbing, and some people may have to leave the theater. But it would have been much more disturbing if Greengrass had made it in a conventional way. He does not exploit, he draws no conclusions, he points no fingers, he avoids "human interest" and "personal dramas" and just simply watches. The movie's point of view reminds me of the angels in "Wings of Desire." They see what people do and they are saddened, but they cannot intervene.

PEACE, Mike.

Dargis at NYTimes, that you guys said gave it a 70, went through as fresh.

I'm laughing at myself right now, this has nothing to do with the movie. When I review movies, I consider a C+ to be rotten, not just average, because if I got a C+ on a semester paper, I'd be traumatized. I'm starting to realize I'm really confining myself to the B range that way. Because I already have to think a movie is "rotten" when I give it a C+. C- (70) is an abomination that only a handful of movies get, and I've only given out 2, maybe three Ds. No wonder every movie I review get, like, a B or a B-.

That's very similar for me too, though. Most movies get grades in the B-range from me because I consider C to be, well, not just average, but rather..um...bad.

Isn't a C+ in the 60's? At least here I know it is, I don't know what you guys do in New York. But here it is:

A+ = 90 and above
A = 80-89.9
B = 70-79.9
C = 60-69.9
D = 50-59.9

That is straight from our course manual. In which case, their 70 grade would be a B-. Anyways, this makes up for Salon's review, which should NOT be rotten, but it is anyways.

PEACE, Mike.

Yeah. Its kinda funny. now i look at it, my B- is like most people C+ (average). But my B already is considerably better and more solid. and B+ is really good. A's are incredible. I only give out the same amount of As as I do Cs. So basically. 80% of the movies I watch get something in the Bs, and there's a huge difference between a B-, B and B+. I really think i need to do away with grades altogether, since I evaluate them compared on the fact that if I got a C on something in real life, I'd probably freak out.

Metacritic now has 17 100's

rating of 92 out of 100 on 31 reviews.

And I again reassert that COTC on RT should be 100%, as salon's review was 3 1/2 stars out of 5

Just to briefly join in this thread sidetrack:

That's one of the things that drives me crazy about a 10-point grading system (besides the polarization) - the grades below five are all equivalent and rarely used. What's the point?

Local reviews not yet up on RT or metacritic:

Tacoma News Tribune: 4 out of 5 stars





Seattle Times: Four Stars





Everett Herald: No rating (looks to be positive though)



The Oregonian: Grade A

United 93 is now #20 on Metacritic's All Time list. Nice.

No. Everywhere I grew up it was

A+ - 97+
A - 94-96
A- - 90-93
B+ - 87-89
B - 84-86
B- -80-83
C+ - 77-79
C - 74-76
C- - 70-73
D - 65-69
F - Under 65

Just so everyone here knows, that's how I grade at least. :-) With 70s (considered "average") being a really bad grade. :-)

At any normal school you usually need at least 50% to not get an F, so Mike's makes a bit more sense. 65 seems even a bit ridiculous to me. Even at my University you pass tests if you got 60%...

To me a "B" is a fairly average film, B+ is good. B- is lacking but not a terrible film, C+ is subpar and then down from there. A- I do give out but A's are rare (I assigned A to less then 10% of movies I saw last year and less then 5% this year so far).

Wow, that's crazy. I couldn't ever imagine doing that. I've never encountered that. No wonder your grades are different. Failure for getting under 65? Incredible.

PEACE, Mike.

Dolce's Grading scale is the one I have been on my whole life.

I think every major University in the US uses it.

Oh, I believe it. Just entirely different from where I am and what I've known. Just goes to show the subjectivity of "grading".

PEACE, Mike.

Update:

91 Reviews Total: 86 Fresh, 5 Rotten

Overall: 95%, 8.4//10 rating (that's a really strong rating for RT)

COTC: 97%, 8.3/10 rating

And currently there are Thirty-two 4/4 star, 5/5 star, 10/10, A+ or A reviews, only counting reviewers who gave a specific grade like that.

PEACE, Mike.

Dolce's grading scale is how its normally done in the US, sometimes a D will be 60 and above.

So Lecter is you are plannign to study in the US get used to this system, its what you'll be dealing with.

So, like, all the foreigners, think that when i give something a C here I'm recommending it? :-) I'm most likely not except for to very niche and/or "flexible" people.

But Mike, we have grade curves and scales to compensate for it. If everyone gets a 60 on the exam, that usually gets moves up to a 90, and people who got a 50 a 75, etc, etc. In the sciences that is. In humanities if you get a 64 on a paper, there's no scale, you deserve what you got.

Frankly, I like our way. If you get a 64 on an exam where everyone was getting nineties, you don't deserve to pass. If everyone gets a 64, that speaks to the teacher's ability, or to the demands of the content, and then everyone usually gets an A or B.

I can't believe there are places that say if you only do 64 percent of the work/retain information and everyone else is getting 90+ (meaning the ocntent is easy) that you pass.

Anywho...back to united 93, sorry for the detour.

Yeah, we have curves too, but our marks are never adjusted up. It's the profs responsibility to have created a marking scheme and an exam scheme which will already make sure that people are alotted in the University's expected curve. So, a well written exam, according to the University, will always make sure there are questions that only a 90 student would be able to answer, and questions only an 80 student would get, and so on. So that the average is always around 65-75, and there is a nice curve.

Here you would pass with a 64, but you are likely not going to get very far. If you're getting 60's in highschool here, you can pretty much say "bye-bye" to Universities, because all good Universities require entrance grade averages around 77-80%, with certain courses requiring higher specific grades depending what faculty/program you want to go into (for example, I needed a 77% average plus at least a 90% in English in order to enter my University and program). That was easily taken care of, since I'm neurotic and perfectionistic and will only suffice with really great marks and therefore my average was awesome. If you're getting 60's, over here you'll be looking for a college/community college, not a University. And University is required for most higher end jobs (college won't get you there; though let me add that for some jobs, college is a better option, and far less expensive too!).

In first year University, at least where I am, 50% is still the passing mark, but again, you are probably not going to be able to get where you want. I, for example, require a 75% average in 3 principle courses, with no course below 60, in order to get into my particular program (science programs/medical school generally have high expectations, and there are also differences based on program/faculty). I know that next year, 60 will be the "passing" mark for all my courses in my program, but the grade ranges don't change. It's still A+ = 90 and above, A = 80-89.9, and so on. It just means I can't ever get a D next year (which for me, is easily done, since like I said, I need great grades, I'm just like that).

Not everyone may need as high of marks I need though, depending on the program. Also, a person still passing with a 60 allows so that they aren't completely ruined for their whole University career because of one stupid course that may have been run by a horrible professor, or a course that was mandatory, but just isn't someones forte. If you fail a course here, it's HUGE. You won't be able to move on until you complete all courses required and the number of courses required, and this failure remains on your record and so on.

Oh, and your comment about not deserving to pass if you get a 64 and the rest of the class get's a 90: wouldn't happen. For one the grades wouldn't be this lopsided, and here, it's all about competition. If you have a 64, and everyone else is higher, you almost definately would not get into your program or have the most success, since you will be the worst candidate for a program/job/etc.

I'm getting off-topic too, sorry all.

PEACE, Mike.

91 at metacritic with 37 reviews in! (19 100's and only one is "mixed" and scores 40/100)


I've never seen anything like this... should have a BP nomination in the bag if it's a moderate hit (which should be)..

Oliver Stone's WTC is now even more pressured to succeed... I honestly think it's in trouble right now, but I still have hope that the critics will judge the two movies separately and by their own merits (yeah right, lol)..

I feel World Trade Center will be panned/mixed bag at best.