Log in

View Full Version : United 93

2006-04-29, 00:24
I am not much of a movie goer and usually rent from Netflix, but when a movie comes out with a special theme, I will go see it rather than wait for it to come out on DVD. I have in the past on this forum published two movie reviews: Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showthread.php?t=558) and Hotel Rwanda (http://www.3-3-3.org/forum/showpost.php?p=10059). Following the same pattern, I sought to see United 93 because it was an important theme to me. It was not with pleasure that I sought to see it, but I felt that it was my duty and something that had to be done, like visiting the dentist.

I have seen two 9/11 related films in the past; both on T.V.. One was the CBS documentary that was aired 2002-03-10 that covered a rookie firefighter and then the events of 9/11. The second 9/11 film I've seen was the one called "Flight 93" by A&E aired 2006-01-30, regarding United Flight 93. That was similar to the one I saw today and provided a good point of reference for comparison.

The A&E version was good and after I watched it I felt it did a good job by being realistic. It did not create a black and white picture with the hijackers being totally evil and the passengers being totally heroic. It showed both parties being scared. I was relieved that the film I saw today also was realistic despite the temptation by some Americans to turn the events of 9/11 into a political issue or to paint terrorists as inhuman. It showed the whole situation as one which had believable participants.

Comparing the A&E Flight 93 to this movie I saw today United 93, I find myself liking this Universal Studios version better. I think the A&E version spent too much time focusing on the last phone calls of people on the planes, while the Universal Studios version showed a lot outside of the plane, with the FAA and NORAD reacting to the surprising events of the day.

I noticed one thing about the A&E version that was lacking in this Hollywood version I saw today. There were no children to be seen on the plane in the Hollywood version, but A&E did have a child shown and being comforted by the parent during the hijacking. Violence against children is a taboo, even in documentaries.

Both movie versions create a historical distortion by showing the cockpit being stormed in the end and the plane crashing while the passengers were fighting at the controls. But in actuality what happened was that the plane crashed as the passengers were about to get in, and there was no cockpit struggle. In any case I found both movie versions to be realistic, showing a chaotic struggle in the end. The Hollywood version was more violent, with more blood being shown. But it didn't seem too violent and I wonder if the movie could be rated PG-13 instead of R. A lot of emphasis is placed on language for ratings. I myself as a parent am more concerned about violence than about language, when watching a movie at home that my daughter will also tend to watch.

I saw the 11:00 showing of the movie today and the theater was mostly empty. Most of the people at the theater were older White people, in their 40s 50s and 60s. I myself sat way in the back away from people because of what I anticipated would be an emotionally wrenching movie. And anyways I cry easily when it comes to watching movies. Unlike some of these other movies I've watched, which had a somewhat lighter or a hopeful ending, this movie United 93 ended harshly when the plane crashed in the field and the screen was blank. And there was a silence that lasted a while and everybody in the theater was dead quiet and shocked. So the ending, while harsh, also drove the point home. It takes a while to recover from a movie like that. I couldn't just get up and walk out of the theater. I sat there through the credits trying to regain my composure. It was the same with many other people as well in the theater.

I've read a few of the comments about the movie online, and you can read a whole lot of them today posted in various papers from Google News.

I do not know how other people reacted to the movie. I myself was sad and so apparently were the other people in the theater. Some people doing reviews in in the newspapers claimed to be angry. One comment which I found interesting by Rush Limbaugh, was the following:

"The overwhelming emotion I had was sheer anger at the terrorists, bordering on hatred."

"It is my opinion that the kook-fringe left will come away from this movie blaming Bush. But anybody with half a brain, cannot help but just be angry with the terrorists. And this movie is going to refocus, for those who see it, the exact reason we are in the war on terror."

As much as I hate president Bush I didn't think about the movie politically. And I was not angry at anybody. What I got out of the movie was an appreciation of what happened on that flight, by bearing witness to the documentary. So it shows the varying reactions by people that can occur. The comments by Limbaugh, who managed to hijack and politicize the movie, follows the pattern that has occured with the tragedy of 9/11, which has also been hijacked by people with a political agenda. I feel that people who manage to politicize tragedies are selfish opportunists who have little compassion or sympathy for others. The reaction of anger that they have, seems to be unnatural and acted out in pursuit of their particular agenda.

2006-05-07, 02:24
Ernie Stull, mayor of the nearby village of Shanksville recalls

[question] They had been sent here because of a crash but there was no plane?
Ernie Stull: No. Nothing . Only this hole.

[question] I thought it was a crash site…
Ernie Stull: And it is. But there was nothing there to see. The plane had completely disintegrated. Puff. It hit the ground and flew to pieces–completely."

Question: At the very first, what did you think it could be?
Ernie Stull: Well...that a plane had crashed. But when we got here, there wasn’t anything.
Question: What do you mean--there wasn’t anything?
Ernie Stull: Well...there was no plane. There was what you see a hole. and that is the dirt that the airliner threw out--and the hole, about 6 meters deep...and that was all there was." - 9/11 File Unsolved


unfortunately, i place these flix in the fiction catagory...i happen to be one of the doubters of the public story....

1st eye witnesses accounts of what they saw don't jive with a plane crashing in an open field

FOX News reporter: It looks like there's nothing there, except for a hole in the ground.

Photographer Chris Konicki: Ah, basically that's right. The only thing you can see from where we where, ah, was a big gouge in the earth and some broken trees. We could see some people working, walking around in the area, but from where we could see it, there wasn't much left.

Reporter: Any large pieces of debris at all?

Konicki: Na, there was nothing, nothing that you could distinguish that a plane had crashed there.

Reporter: Smoke? Fire?

Konicki: Nothing. It was absolutely quite. It was, uh, actually very quiet. Um, nothing going on down there. No smoke. No fire. Just a couple of people walking around. They looked like part of the NTSB crew walking around, looking at the pieces..." - FOX (09/11/01) Link: Guerilla News Network / video

anything's possible but have you ever heard of a plane crash where nothing was recovered....heck, they even recovered parts of the lost space shuttle

2006-05-07, 02:34
So do you think it was a missle or bomb or what?

It is strange.

2006-05-07, 02:48
i don't know

2006-05-17, 10:21
From what I understand there was alot of contraversy about making films about September 11. People thought it was immoral to make a hollywood film about the terrorist attacks.
I think there is human curiosity attached to every devestating situation. I remember being totally obsessed with the hollocaust when I was younger... i would look at the pictures, read the books, listen to survivor accounts... sometimes my curiosity bordered on insensitivity.
It's easy to say that people should not 'forget' our history, but without awareness, it's all to easy to forget. Contrary to what we're all told, the world is still a very isolated place.

There is not much promotion in Australia of Sept.11 films. I've read in some magazines that there is a film due to be released on the topic (we always get film releases ages after the rest of the world!) but other than that, i have not heard much about it.

I will make the effort to go see it. I too am the person with tears collecting in the corners of their eyes during movies... and after the movie, when my mind expands on whatever i've seen.

2006-05-17, 16:45
The thing about the reluctance of people to accept a Hollywood movie regarding the 9/11 subject, is that whatever Hollywood touches could easily turn to shit. People do not want 9/11 to be corrupted, marketed, or distorted.

Interestingly enough, on 9/11 many people felt that the whole thing was like a movie because of course in real life one doesn't see much fire or death, but only in movies. And on queue it even worked as a movie with the curtain coming down with the end of the show when the second tower fell down (which was the first tower to be hit by airplane, the north Tower #1). With its television antenna still broadcasting up to the end, that caused the loss of signal for people in the New York area who were watching it by tuning in rather than by way of cable or satellite.

Actually the United 93 movie was not a typical Hollywood movie because of the usage of unknown actors in it and its closeness to being a documentary. What will be a step closer to being a typical Hollywood movie will be when they release the upcoming one soon starring Nicolas Cage that is directed by Oliver Stone.