United 93 - Preview

Comment on “United 93”

Note: This website is not meant for use by minors. The views expressed in the comments section below are not our own. This section is intended for discussion of the topic in the post above. Disagreement is encouraged, however comments which attack, insult, or threaten the author in a personal manner won't be published. Similarly, comments that we deem to be poorly worded, or wildly off topic will also not be approved and may be mocked. For free, uncensored, unfettered, and possibly dangerous discussion visit our forum.

1. Greg Palmer Says:
   April 4th, 2006 at 12:20

   "we’ve been slowly giving up freedoms under the pretense that doing so will make us safer."
   What freedoms have you been giving up? Is it the freedom to call or receive a call from a known or perhaps suspected Terrorist over seas? I've seen small sporadic protests... Perhaps their now all in concentration camps guarded by black helicopters. Michael Moore is still running his mouth and constantly lying, so I guess there's some bureaucratic error that has kept him from being picked up and tortured with the comfy chair... Perhaps it's the ability to look at library records? No one has done it yet and other than my record of overdue books, who gives a flying fig.
   Earth to Cinemablend.... WE ARE IN WORLD WAR III!!!...
   You honk off right wing Christians, they have a rally and vote for or against you
   You honk off Islamo-Fascists and they slit your throat, cut off your hands and burn Paris (hold on a moment... not all bad)
   These ordinary people knew what was likely to happen and refused to cower like Che when cornered. They stepped up to the challenge and made a very big difference. Almost 5 years is plenty of time and for some it appears enough time to forget. If you can't watch it, fine, just quit acting like a little wienie...

1. Moderate Man Says:
   April 4th, 2006 at 12:27

   Now wait a minute Greg... if we haven't given up any freedoms, what is it that you're justifying with the "WE ARE IN WOLRD WAR III" statement?
   
   You're taking an extremist stance.
   
   Just because Michael Moore hasn't been thrown in jail for being a loudmouthed idiot doesn't mean we haven't given up any freedoms. It just means we haven't given up the freedom to be a loudmouthed idiot... yet.
   
   There's no denying that The Patriot Act for instance DOES take away some rights to privacy and other freeoms that we had before its existence. Maybe not many, and maybe only little ones, but we've still given up something just the same.
   
   Maybe you're ok with that, and that's your shortsighted right. But the preview above doesn't comment on any of that, it just states a fact which... by your WORLD WAR III panic justification it sounds like you agree with.
   
   So what's your beef? You seem to be attacking just to attack and are quick to resort to name calling when someone says something that challenges your world view.
   
   That's a shame man.

1. Jonathan Johnstone Says:
   April 5th, 2006 at 09:31

   I am going to this movie the first night it plays at our theatre and I'm bringing my American flag. When the "let's roll" part comes, I'm standing up and waving it.
   
   The Angry Canadian

1. Patrick Says:
   April 7th, 2006 at 22:49

   No freedoms have been abridged. Name one. Just one.
   
   I can name a few that have been abridged, but oddly enough they don't have anything to do with the war on terrorism.
   
   The strongest case you have for that statement is the Jose Padilla situation. But making a blanket statement based upon the case of an individual in an unusual grey zone of law still being defined is a stretch.
   
   If you say your right to privacy has been abridged, well tell me where the Constitution says you have a right to it. Before you blow a gasket, hear me out. The "right to privacy" is an implied right, and a worthy one, but it is not nearly as absolute as, say, free speech (which has always had recognized exceptions too). The 4th Amendment prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. But that allows the possibility to have "reasonable" exceptions.
   
   Before 9-11, the law enforcement approach to terrorism focused upon making sure agencies could get convictions against terrorists, ranther then ensure that the terrorist action was stopped. Why? Because that is the primary focus of law enforcement. Catching and convicting criminals. A person is not a criminal until he commits a crime. One can make the case that conspiricy to commit a crime is also a crime, but please admit that that is a much more difficult crime to convict someone of.
   
   So what does that have to do with anything? Because the law enforcement approach was the method of dealing with terrorism, the stringent rules that bar "improper" evidence imposed terrible handicaps upon those who were tasked with identifying threats. Some restrictions, such as the infamous "wall", (the prohibition placed upon intelligence gathering organs from sharing information with law enforcement organizations), were imposed because of a fear of tainting future prosecutions. "Your Honor, the evidence against my client was obtained by military intelligence, and is therefore Unconstitutional, and should be removed from consideration!"
   
   The only thing the Patriot Act did is remove some of the restrictions placed upon the agencies about how they gather and share information and evidence. The "Wiretapping" program doesn't violate the 4th Amendment, because it is not a random eavesdropping program, but specifically targets KNOWN terrorist communications and the calls they make INTO the US. By definition, these conversations are "reasonable" to intercept and monitor. And most people know this, once they understand the facts. It is kept on a tight leash (periodic review) and was known to RELEVANT members of congress, both Democratic and Republican.
   
   I know things are messy and complicated and the news cycle does not deal with complicated and messy issues well. But be careful about repeating slogans that you don't really understand. You turn yourself into a sock puppet. I don't mean that as an insult, really I don't. Just pointing out the effect.
   
   As far as the movie goes, it won't be fun. But the desire to go back to sleep is so heavy upon the American public (not to mention the rest of the western world), I think this movie is extremely important. If it relates the facts accurately, which I believe it will, then all of us would be better off for having seen it.
   
   We saw "Saving Private Ryan", and it reminded us of the sacrifices born by those who have gone before us. We need a movie to remind us why there are people making sacrifices for us today. If this is the one, I don't know, but I will see it.

1. Josh Says:
   April 7th, 2006 at 23:36

   Wait, Patrick. Let me get this straight. So your argument is that we haven't lost any freedoms because the only freedoms we lost are things we never had a right to anyway?
   
   Wow.
   
   That's...
   
   Your comment makes me sad.
   
   No offense, it just does.

1. Stuart Says:
   April 8th, 2006 at 03:11

   I think that's the first and most terrifying attempt at justification for a totalitarian state in the modern world I've ever read.
   
   Patrick, all you've basically said is that the law is intepreted thus; "The Government GIVES you freedoms. You have no RIGHTS to them, so if the Government choose to take them from you in the name of protection of the people, you have no room to complain."
   
   Nanny-state apologism personified.
   
   I fear attitudes like that.

1. Mary Says:
   April 9th, 2006 at 14:18

   I personally knew three people who died on Sept. 11, 2001 - two in the towers and one on flight 11 . By the grace of God, my cousin made it out of the towers alive, but she lost her roomate, boyfriend, friends and coworkers. This event hit us hard. We're all doing better, but it's still traumatic to think about. I saw a preview last night while at the movie theatre. Tears came to my eyes. I will not be seeing this movie.

1. Lauren Says:
   April 13th, 2006 at 20:27

   Mary, I cry everytime I see the commercial. And those are tears of pain and outrage not just at the fact that it happened, but at the fact that these filmmakers are capitalizing on one of the worst tradegies in American history. The 9/11 wounds are fresh and real, and impacted the lives of millions of Americans. It way too soon and way to painful to relive those events. For those that assert this film is a reminder of those that died on the planes: Why don't you listen to clips of Zacarias Moussaoui's trial and hear real testimonies of people crying to their families and screaming of pain from the heat of the planes and fear of death? These accounts are real, and are not movie material. I lost a relative on 9/11 and to think that money will be made on such a tradegy is heart-wrenching. There are more honorable ways to remember the 3,000 innocent victims that died that day.

1. Madge Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 18:11

   If it is too soon for a dramatization of United 93, may one be confident that the writer's review of the political documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11," released two years sooner, also was "too soon"? Or is there a different standard applied to movies with whose political message the writer, y'know, happens to agree?

1. Rafe Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 19:10

   You may notice we specifically declined reviewing "Fahrenheit 9/11", both on the theatrical and DVD side.

1. Josh Says:
   April 14th, 2006 at 19:11

   Madge, Rafe is right. I never reviewed Fahrenheit 9/11. Though it wasn't for whatever reason you're talking about... I somehow just never got around to it. I fell into a black hole around the time it was in theaters.
   
   But, I never said it was "too soon" for United 93. I merely asked whether it was, and said that I personally might not be ready for it I've taken no stance one way or another on the subject in the broader sense you referenc myself.

1. Susan Says:
   April 17th, 2006 at 21:18

   I saw United 93 at a preview screening, and watching the movie was a horrific feeling. The director takes a documentary approach, and you feel that the events are actually taking place. To his credit, he does not use star names in any of the roles. The characters themselves are not given individual spotlights; thus, all the passengers are "united" in their struggle against the terrorists. The scenes in the control room(s) are very fast paced with frantic dialogue. I would advise everyone to see it, but only if you are emotionally prepared for it.

1. Patrick Says:
   April 17th, 2006 at 21:18

   Josh:
   
   No, I am saying you have NOT lost any freedoms due to the "War on Terror". What someone describes as a loss of freedom isn't at all. You do have a right to privacy, even if it is only implied. But that right has ALWAYS been with some exceptions.
   
   I wrote at the top of my post that we have not lost any freedoms. Nice and simple. Even put a challenge out to anyone to name one lost due to the "War on Terror".
   
   Still waiting on that.
   
   The later parts of my original post preemptively debunk some of the more popular instances that might be sighted.
   
   
   
   Stuart:
   
   Read what I said again. Nowhere did I imply that the government is the giver or rescinder of our freedoms. If I did I don't see it in what I wrote. Perhaps you could point out where this is (implied or actual). Until I find out what you think is so terrifying about what I wrote, I am left wondering:
   
   Where is the Totalitarian state stuff come from?
   
   The Constitution, the founding document of our government is a contract between the people and it's representative government. We are a nation of laws, and the laws, made by our representatives and popular referendums define what we the people and what the government can do. Why do we write them down? So we can check back on them. If you don't like the way the law is, fine, there are tools (built into the Constitution) that allow for changing them.
   
   Looking forward to a reply.....

1. Patrick Says:
   April 17th, 2006 at 23:46

   Lauren:
   
   So, you are outraged at the thought that this would be made into a movie. Are you outraged at Speilberg for "Saving Private Ryan"? Why not? Is it because that is old history? What does the passage of time do to make the making of money off of historical events acceptable? Is it because old history doesn't mean anything to you? I don't ask this with sarcasm, only a real wish to know.
   
   Movie makers are story tellers, that is their trade. This is an important story, and one worth telling. As far as I can tell, the producers of this movie are doing there best to get this right (very important) and to be sensitive to those who lost loved ones on Flight 93.
   
   There are many way to tell a story, but many want to get the story in a nice packaged format called a movie. That is why the movie industry exists. Just as the format can be used to tell funny, stupid, scary, enthralling, romantic and dramatic stories, it can also be used to tell uncomfortable ones. I prefer to see movies that serve some purpose beyond simple entertainment (though I do like them too).
   
   BTW, in what "more honorable way" have you remembered the heroes of UA 93? I will go endure this movie on it's opening weekend as a way.

1. Josh Says:
   April 17th, 2006 at 23:48

   Patrick, I don't think you've read your own post:
   
   PATRICK SAID: "I can name a few that have been abridged"
   

1. Mike Says:
   April 18th, 2006 at 11:10

   I was an extra in the FAA control room scenes. I was only there for three days filming, but I can tell you this, Paul Greengrass took the filming very seriously and handled the subject matter with the respect & dignity anyone one would expect. I am now stationed in Iraq, fighting the war on terrorism and I beleive this is a story that NEEDS to be told. However painful, and my deepest sympathies go out to ANYONE who lost anyone that ill fated day, but that day was a defining moment in our generations history. There will be other films made about 9/11, you can count on it! Will they be tasteful and not capitalize on others suffering, probably not, but that is fact. As for all above waffling on about rights/no rights, freedom/no freedom...come on folks, we ARE at war! I'm not saying you have to give up your rights, but we have an enemies that live within our borders as well as outside. They are considered insurgents and MUST be stopped. How would you have us do it? If the government does nothing, they will be blamed. If they pursue these criminals in a way that enters the grey area of the law, they are abusing the constitution? Does anyone want another 9/11? I don't!!! I'd rather have my phoned tapped, if it would prevent another day like that!
   
   Thank you all for listening

1. Doogie\'s Buddy Vinnie Says:
   April 18th, 2006 at 12:08

   Mike, you've joined the military because you're willing to give up your life to defend our freedoms.
   
   Shouldn't the rest of us be willing to do that too?
   
   So, if given the choice between giving up even ONE freedom or having another 9/11 happen, a real patriot would choose, as you have, to give up his life in another 9/11.
   
   No one wants another 9/11, but better another 9/11 than the surrender of our freedom.

1. Patrick Says:
   April 18th, 2006 at 19:38

   Josh:
   
   Yes, I said that there ARE freedoms that have been abridge in my original post. The context was in relation to the "War on Terror" (WoT). The freedoms that I believe have been abridged have nothing to do with WoT.
   
   I'll try to make this as plain as possible. TRY to follow me.
   
   It is the movie reviewer's contention was that we are slowly giving up freedoms under the guise that it will make us safer. In other words, he claimed the we are having our freedoms abridged due to the WoT.
   
   I took exception to that.
   
   I said that we have have lost SOME freedoms, but that they didn't have ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE WoT. I didn't detail any because they didn't further my main point (which, again was the the WoT had not infringed upon our freedoms).
   
   Why did I bring them up then? Because I DO care about our rights. But unless people are informed about the actual facts rather then just partisan manoeuvering (which is what most of the bickering in Congress and the media is) nothing good can come from it. They just spout off about their ill-informed fears, adding to the confusion.
   
   Follow me now?

1. Josh Says:
   April 18th, 2006 at 19:56

   Wow, that was incredibly condescending.
   
   Personally, I find your viewpoints contradictory and wrong-headed. But that's me. You've decided to categorize losses of freedoms as "easing of restrictions". So there's really nowhere to go from there for us.
   
   You can take exception all you want, but sadly everyone on the planet doesn't share your opinions. I'm not going to go round and round with you about it, especially since you yourself don't even seem sure what you mean... though you do seem very certain that you're right. Enjoy that. I'm sure you're much smarter than I am.
   
   But please note, that no one on Cinema Blend has written a review of this movie yet. Thus there is no "movie reviewer" involved in this article. PREVIEW is written all over the page in as many places as I could possibly write it... and I don't have a bigger font.
   
   Check back for a REVIEW of the film Thursday night.

1. Josh2 Says:
   April 23rd, 2006 at 11:42

   About this movie (if I may comment about the movie itself for a moment =D).
   
   Personally, I'm looking forward to seeing it. United 93 appears to be a tasteful (if somewhat overly dramatized) take on the events of 9/11. I dunno, maybe it will suck, but whatever.
   But look, if you're not ready to see this movie, fine. Don't see it- that's your right, and it is entirely understandable. However, there are others who are ready and have begun to heal their wounds, and I'd like to think of myself as one of them. Again, it's not a better-than-or-worse-than thing, it's just personal opinion and desire to see a film on 9/11 that, yes, could have probably waited a couple years without any harm done. But please, if you do not want to see this film, do not be like some people and go about protesting it or chiding the filmmakers or anything- it's a personal choice, and in the end, it's just a movie. It might be a movie on a big, unresolved, and saddening event, but it is still a movie.
   (Even though I have to say, the whole shaky-camera thing does tend to get a bit nauseating for me, literally. Even in a movie as great as Open Water.)

Leave a Reply

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Security Code (required)