United 93

The biggest complaint I hear from people is that this movie is "too soon."  Balderdash.  I think Roger Ebert says it better than I could:

It is not too soon for "United 93," because it is not a film that knows any time has passed since 9/11. The entire story, every detail, is told in the present tense. We know what they know when they know it, and nothing else. Nothing about Al Qaeda, nothing about Osama bin Laden, nothing about Afghanistan or Iraq, only events as they unfold. This is a masterful and heartbreaking film, and it does honor to the memory of the victims.

But not all critics can see it so clearly.  Check out these reviews.  Some sound thoughtful, others not.  Here's what normal people are saying.

Of course, I will reserve judgment until I see it for myself.  But I am anxious to see it, and optimistic it will be an important and moving film.  I can't see it soon enough.

Comments

[HMIL]

I'll wait to hear what you think of it. Right now I think it might be too hard to see. I remember those days all too well and .... I'm just going to have to reserve judgement until one whom I respect so well can give his opinion. (hint: that would be you). Please post an update as soon as you've seen it.

[Bob]

Saw it last night and what I thought is perhaps summed up best by the O's movie critic, Sean Levy:

"I am not here to tell you that this is an exact account of what happened on Sept. 11, though it never once feels false. Nor am I here to tell you how we should respond -- individually or as a nation -- to what happened on that day. I am here to tell you that Greengrass has fashioned one of the most powerful films I have ever seen, and that watching it makes you value your loved ones and your privileges more, perhaps, than you ever have. He has made a film that makes you feel, makes you think and makes you want to connect. And that, finally, might be the greatest thing that art can do."

[me]

I am someone who was personally deeply affected by 9/11. It is too soon. The film cannot bring anything new to an audience. The script is supposed to be based on the information from the flight recorders and all known cell phone calls. Why would be need a reenactment when the last testaments of the victims have already been heard? What particularly makes my blood boil is that people are making money off the suffering of these people. And I don't care if victims' families gave permission, and if the families got some kind of payment for their stories. Bunk! The producers of the film aren't doing it for free. The flight crew and passengers deserve better than to be a source of income for Hollywood. I sincerely hope the film is a truthful epitaph to the victims of 9/11. I will not be seeing the film anytime soon. I already remember September 11th and do not need a reenactment. I already recognize the horrors of that day. I do not need to further line Hollywood's bulging pockets to relive the worst day in my life.

[Bob]

Before you go to this movie take a few minutes to look over some of the information at www.st911.org/ This is from a group of respected scholars from all over the world that are attempting to answer some of the questions surrounding this terrible day. The questions are many, the answers are few. Help get spread the word-get the answers we deserve the truth not a Hollywood coverup.

[Gullyborg]

"me," you may not need the film, but others do. I hope you can understand this, and not stand in their way. I need to see it, and I am anxious to see it soon (hopefully this coming weekend).

"Bob," (not to be confused with the regular Bob who comments here often), that site is pure BUNK. It is nothing more than paranoid conspiracy theories. It's time for you to take off the tin-foil hat. I encourage readers to instead check THIS out:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

Here is the introduction:

"FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?

"Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.

"Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.

"To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.

"In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history."

Read it all before even attempting to respond here.