Well I'm sorry you haven't been put out of your misery yet

There's just no other way to put it. This is a flat out fantastic film. Even though the events in the film are horrible, I just didn't want this to end. The 100 minute running time is a breeze, simply because I was riveted from beginning to end. I found the tracking of the two planes that ended up in the WTC Towers, just as interesting as the flight itself. As a matter of fact, I didn't even realize that the hijacking of 93 doesn't even take place until an hour into the film, and yet it still managed to feel just like a half hour. This leads me to my next point.

I found the film incredibly easy to watch, and I still can't figure out right now why that is. I guess is that even though it's a devastating film, it's an incredibly powerful and uplifting film. The last ten minutes are just like the entire film, powerful and uplifting. Their actions made me want to cheer, which is something I find extremely corny to do in a movie theater. This leads me to my next point.

Anyone expecting a rah-rah USA type film, especially on the plane, is sadly mistaken. It's a rah-rah humanity film. It's a rah-rah survival film. It doesn't matter if these people were just from America. The passengers could've been from Canada, Europe, or even the middle-east, and I still would've felt the same way.

In summation, this is one of the most powerful films I have ever seen. It's no doubt that it's the most powerful film since Schindler's List, and it's also no doubt that this will probably end up being the most powerful film of the decade.

If you are still feeling some apprehension about seeing the film, forget about it. Go out and see it as soon as possible.

A+

Couldn't have said it better myself.

It was odd that one of the highjackers looked like David Blaine.

I found the mixture of nonactors and familiar actors didn't work. One or the other, not both.


Also, the sequences onboard Flt. 93 were less effective than the rapid fire air controller and NORAD sequences.

I disagree. I think it's a fantastic film (I didn't see my first A-grade film last year until August), but for the everyday American, I can only see this film film opening old wounds. A lot of the reviews I've read have touted the film as some sort of catharsis, but I don't think I found it cathartic in the least bit. It just made me wanna cry.

But I guess it could be different for everybody. Maybe for some it will provide a sense of emotional closure.

This is one of the most gut-wrenching, visceral and emotional films I have ever experienced. Forget Silent Hill - this is the scariest movie playing in theaters right now. The feeling of slowly accumulating dread we all experience during the progression of the movie is part of the reason this movie is so strong. This probably sounds like hyperbole, but this is one of the best movies released in the last few decades. Absolutely masterful. A very strong A.

Wow.

Just wow.

This is one of the most, if not the most, gut-wrenching, fist clenching, Stomach turning movie I have ever seen. I liked that the movie did not try to exploit, or use propaganda to further the film. The film was pretty much minute by minute blow of what is thought to have happened on the plane, and in the respective ATC/FAA/Norad areas.

It showed how the US was not able to handle a situation of this maginatude, lots of red tape, and just too many talking heads for people of action to go through.

This movie was about the passengers on the plane, showing the heroism of that day, and then we hope, that if we we're in that situation, could have the courage to do what they did?

A emotional and draining experience, but one that I felt I had to feel and relive. At the end, as the movie had ended, no talking..nothing..just quiet..and several sobs and sniffles..just a devastating movie.

One of the best movies of the year.

A

I've come to the conclusion that this is one of the best films I've ever seen that I wouldn't recommend to anyone.

But I can't help but urge members of the forum to go out and see this. If you're prepared (and I'm not kidding or trying to be dramatic, if you're prepared), I do think this is an incredibly important film. Sorry for being cliche, but really. No other way to say it.

If not for the events, which have been a major source of criticism, then for the emotional experience itself, which will most likely be rewarding for some.

United 93 is one of the best movies I have ever seen. But yes, it was both difficult to watch, and ultimately the most uplifting movie I've seen in years.

I really can't say anything more then to quote jmart007 and argee that the film is pro-humanity and pro-survivial more then it is a Rah-Rah USA film. In fact, the portrait of the US government that day is rather bleak, with the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing. We see the FAA, for example, not being able to figure out that YES, the giant airplane that went missing over Manhattan at the same moment that a giant, fiery, airplane shaped hole appeared in the North Tower IS the cause of the giant, fiery, airplane shaped hole. Greengrass shows us how unprepared we really were.

What is uplifting about the story (and mythology)that has grown around the actions of the passengers on flight 93 is that they were able to do something that no one else was able to do that day. And that is to lift their hands against the terrorists, even though they were just ordinary people. They did what the government and the military evidently could not. (And whatever the facts are the idea that someone did that is important.)

All that being said, I read some descriptions of this movie as "documentary". That isn't accurate. The correct description is dramatization. No one will ever know what exactly happened on that plane. But there is enough evidence from the phone calls and the cockpit recorders to piece together a reasonable depiction. And I do believe that Greengrass has done that exceedingly well.

Greengrass does little things to make you feel like you are on the plane with those people. He never, for example, has the passengers introduce themselves or artificially state their names or backgrounds to one another. The passengers are strangers to one another, and only viewers familiar with the story will be able to figure out who is who. He also wisely keeps the focus on the passengers instead of the worried loved ones on the ground by showing us only the passengers side of the phone calls.

This is a movie that is going to be remembered for a very long time. The story of flight 93 has already become a part of American mythology, and I suppose as time passes, there will be other retellings of it. But Paul Greengrasses film will be the one all these future retellings are measured against.

A+

The key statement in this thread, so far...

I'm glad everyone is loving it It truely is the best film of the year, thus far.

Interesting...

The more distance I put between this film and myself, the less I like it. Now that the emotional impact is wearing off, I'm able to look at it in a more criticial light.

Is anyone else experiencing this?

Maybe I'm a robot.

I felt very little emotion while in the theater.

I still think it's a fantastic movie, and I can't wait to go see it again with my little brother.

How old is your little brother movies35?

This is a major reason why I really didn't like United 93.

http://aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=23185

Boils down to a movie about speculation. At least Titanic had some facts to frame a film around.

so my friend went and saw it and said to me that if he had considered the entire film as a work of fiction (meaning if 9/11) hadn't taken place, the film really wasn't all that good.

Then he proceeded to tell me how the hijackers were randomly shouting out la illaha and stuff which pissed him off cause it furthered the stereotype that arabs and the muslim world in general behaves .. well .. like that.

oh well ...

I'm in the process of writing something for the main site. It may become too inflammatory for print.

Suffice to say, I think most people are unable or unwilling to remove their feelings about 9/11 from the actual quality of the film. I also think critics, by and large, were afraid to be critical of the film.

a critic not critical?

what next? a bible not biblical?

If you look at it as a film, it really isnt anything special. But in the context of 9/11, it becomes the new Passion of the Christ. Just like how Brokeback was more than a film and Crash had something important to say.

How about just making a good film, a film that can stand on its own, without relying on a message or dogma or sentimential silliness.

I think that's backwards logic. America was by a large "this movie is too soon, disrespectful, etc, etc". If the critics wanted to go along and be safe, they would have tried to confirm those beliefs instead of praising the film. Anybody who was interested in the film was in a way deemed disrespectful too, and that is evident on this very forum.

Secondly, you can be non-critical of a film (if say, your statement is indeed true) without gushing over the film and giving 4/4 stars, A, etc. In other words, if critics were indeed afraid to be critical of the film, they could have given it a generalized passing review like a lot of films, and avoided that. Instead, a lot of reviews were super positive and praising the film. So I think your argument doesn't make any sense.

The argument that they were unwilling to remove their feelings about the actual event I think is a sound argument in a way, but then again, I don't think it completely holds up. There are some people that may have watched footage on the day, or even nowadays, and have a general emotional reaction, but won't necessarily "break down" over it. It took Greengrass' directional skills, it appears to me, to really breakdown people's emotions while watching the film, and is now making people call this one of the emotional films they have ever seen. To me it's clear it is more than just the event of the film, but the way Greengrass actually made, directed and structured the film.

I do not agree at all that United 93 was somehow "immune" to getting poor reviews from critics or people alike. I think that is quite frankly just an excuse. United 93 seemed destined to get poor reviews with the backlash it was getting way before it opened (for being "too soon" and exploitative and the like), and the fact that certain critics mentioned how they were not looking forward to the film, but then ended up loving it and realizing it was not exploitative (or Hollywoodized, etc etc), shows they are fair reviews, in my opinion.

Anyways, I know I'm going to get bombasted by all the anti-United-93 people now, and I've been trying to be quiet up to now and not engage in this, but I couldn't keep quiet here. It is only YOUR opinion that the film is "nothing special".

PEACE, Mike.

Let's Roll was never going to get bad reviews. Once it was announced it was opening at Tribeca and donating some of its profits, it was golden.

I have more faith in critics than that, and I guess I think they're just cynical enough not to buy into that.

This turned out to be a critics' film, but it could just have easily been one they sided against.

But we're talking about 9/11. The single most important event in the modern history of mankind.

I hate you a little less today, loyal...

Bravo.