As long as the performance of this profession on film requeires no more of you than being authentic in its approach, not adding anything at all, I do not see how it could be a problem. It all seemed very authentic and real to me and frankly, you are the first person I see to mention that it did not seem authentic.

How can you say all they needed to do was be authentic and not add anything? I'd call delivering lines, taking direction, hitting marks, and just being generally aware that you're in a freaking movie adding something to your daily routine.

I think you're confusing authenticness with jumpy handheld camera work that OMG TOTALLY MAKES IT SEEM LIKE U R THERE. There was nothing authentic about the performances themselves. All I noticed was an overabundance of really stiff and monotone delivery. Certainly nothing a B-level actor couldn't accomplish with an aviation expert somewhere on the set.

As long as you are one of the very few people to "nitice" that, fine by me

You are wrong, though.

I saw it... It's definitley a good movie, though I can't say I agree with the masterpiece tag everyone seems to be giving it.

The on ground stuff with Ben, the computer signals, it's an interesting look at what goes on there but ultimatley I felt a little bored by how long it went on. The end of the film is really powerful though and the highlight of the flim, the struggle is filmed rather excellently, I felt the movie a lot there.

More thoughts in the Critics section coming up probably.

After a few days, I think I just realized while writing my review how utterly worthless this movie is.

It doesn't have a plot, it just shows the events of a couple hours that we already know.

It doesn't have any real characters.

It doesn't tell you anything, it just replays the events.

Blah. City of God tells a great story and is well made. Garden State has great characters and is well made. United 93 is... well... a camera rolling on 9/11, no great story, no characters, nothing standout at all.

I was not in the Crash bash parade last year, because I found that movie to be entertaining, with interesting dialogue and a nice cast. Also say what you want about it being stupid, but I found the storylines on their own to be fairly interesting as well, even if a bit surreal, overall that movie was a fun watch. But United 93... oh man, what a wash of a movie. If it gets Oscar steam, I'm going to be right in there destroying it.

After reflecting on it, I definitely agree with Shack. There's no characters at all in this film. I didn't even know any of the character's names by the time the film ended. Is that the way to connect with your audience? I don't think so. As I said before, the only emotion that comes from this film is derived from the events, and our memory of them, rather than the way they were portrayed. This is definitely not the masterpiece that you all are making it out to be.

And I gave Lady in the Water an A-.

Did Paul Greengrass pee on your grandma in between when you first saw this and now? I always have to really take huge changes in opinion over a movie like this with a grain of salt. Either way, if you're going to rag on the movie because it didn't have any real characters and a traditional story, you've clearly missed the point of the film completely. As much as I disagree with makeshift about the flight control people (this is the closest I think I've ever come to seeing a movie really seem like a documentary), I can respect his opinion on it. But with United 93 you're just pouring hate for this movie because it doesn't follow the normal path for a film to be constructed, and that's such a poor reason to hate this movie.

People, there were few recognizable "characters" in the film (if you can even call them characters, considering they were all real people) because the point of the movie was that they were united (the entire plane) as one body/group fighting these hijackers. I mean, goodness, the title is United 93.

I would say it definitely deserves a nomination, although I don't know if it will get one.

Yes, it definitely desrves a nomination and a win for Best Picture, at this point. The best film of the year.

I completely agree. The acting by the people in the flight room was atrocious.

My biggest problem with United 93 is that if you take away the fact that it's recreating an actual event, then it's just a very boring film about middle eastern folk sweating and glancing at each other shiftily on a plane while a group of flight controllers on the ground act shocked and ineffectual. And then a plane crashes.

United 93 is "Hey, you remember that event? We do too!"

It's Titanic being nothing more than the boat sinking. No Leo and Kate love story, no captain, no evil Zane. The boat sinking, shots of tons of people dieing from it, and the world being in whole displayed as shocked that this happened.

It's The Perfect Storm being just a filming of random meterologists discovering that a storm is coming, and 2 hours of watching as all the boats get destroyed, with shots of nameless victims dieing or being saved by the helicopter guys.

Is this really the best movie of the year? United 93 doesn't even have the advantage of fun special effects or disaster action.

Yes, it's really the best film of the year. Movies don't need special FX or big action to achieve a level of excellence. United 93 is just THAT good of a picture. I'd love to see a nomination!

Shack, would you have preferred a love story in United 93?

In the midst of the hostile takeover of the plane, the terrorist and the random passenger fall in love, go in the bathroom and share a steamy love scene, and then the terrorist gives her the only available parachute while he and the rest die.

You took things too literally.

But for the record...


Yes, I would have. At least then it'd be interesting, and better than the re-filming of an event that came out here. I prefer my love story and characters, to 2 hours of a camera shooting: Confused people in an airport + Angry people on a plane = Best movie evah!?!?!?

Now you're talkin'!!!

She escapes with a videotape her lover made documenting the incident, and as this is the only independent record of the true events, she is pursued by a CIA team lead by Phillip Seymour Hoffmann playing a cold-hearted agent totally loyal to his Commander in Chief...

"Abdul, kiss me one last time."

"No, I won't do it!"

"*crys* Goodbye. I'll cherish this forever."

"Noooooo! Aahahah muhammmeeddd!!!"

If there's one thing United 93 was begging for... it's snakes. Or at the very least, Steven Seagal.

It's almost like they weren't even trying to make it a tongue-in-cheek action-comedy spectacular.

The hell? If they infused a love story in the midst of the events, I would have stood up and left the theatre.

I think I phrased the question wrong. I didn't really mean, "would you have liked it more?" because I'm sure you would. I'm trying to figure out what in it would make it more Oscar-worthy, if it's not already.

They could not have gone any other way with this story, especially without pissing people off in the process. It's only been five years anyways, so it was too soon to begin with, but I don't think the families who supported the film being made would have appreciated a love story between the character playing their daughter and the terrorist that tried to kill them. I just don't see how you can compare this film to Titanic. It just seems like because you don't think much of the actual event, Shack, that you're trying to find tons of flaws and saying that it should have had a side-story to it, that would have basically killed the film and sent it straight to the Razzies.

Maybe I'm just misunderstanding, but...

Oh my god.

I didn't actually mean that a love story would be a good idea in United 93, it'd be absolutely a terrible one, but what I was trying to say is that United 93 or any "true story" needs to do more than simply refilm the event and let it slide as a film. Schindler's List was not 2 hours of nameless jews getting shot. What's missing in United 93 is a soul and human to any of the storyline or characters, any sort of character to them, any sort of life. United 93 would barely be a movie without 9/11 happening, it relys completley on the real event and people's beforehand knowledge about it to work. The love story comment was a half-joke, because if they actually did make it like that, it would be ridiculous, but at least interesting in a camp way, and it stand on it's own two feet more than U93, which is just a wash of life-less filmmaking.

Are there a lot of people in America that don't know the beforehand knowledge required to see this film? I mean, perhaps in other countries, some people might be ignorant to the exact details, but it's pretty well known, I'd say.

Also, I think a five-year wait for United 93 is a big difference from the 85-year wait for Titanic or the 50-ish year wait for Schindler's List. IMO.

That's nowhere near my point, but whatever.

I think it's time to bury this debate for a while anyways, if United 93 becomes a powerhouse come December, I'll bring up the bitching again. Enough for now.