I see ads for this, I automatically think 'Okay, another attempt by Hollywood to capitalize on people's emotions. Nobody really knows what happened up there other than some passengers talked to people on the ground, and the plane came down in an empty field. So they're probably writing the script with the same approach as if they were writing a fictional tragedy film'.

Then I see a 91 on metacritic.

Is this movie actually worth seeing, or are the critics just afraid for their careers if they bash a 9/11 film?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: mark f,

No, I'm not surprised. Director Paul Greengrass' last two films were Bloody Sunday (Metascore: 90) and The Bourne Supremacy (Metascore: 73- pretty high for a sequel.) I don't know how good it truly is, but I'll probably go see it, even with a no-name cast.

I have no plans in seeing it. The real 9/11 was bad enough.
Donna A.

I'm more likely to see it with a no-name cast than a Hollywood cast. The last thing you need for that kind of film is being overwhelmed by the actor's personality.

I just saw this movie today and it is indeed worthy of the high score. It should be required viewing by all Americans. Plus, if you see it before the end of this weekend, all studio proceeds go to the United 93 memorial. Go do something good tomorrow and watch it.

So..it's not just capitalizing off emotions? Maybe I will go see it. Although, I'm not sure I would get the same thing from it you did, because I'm not a person who really tries to attach symbolism to things.

I'm starting to think Flight 93 is the new Alamo.

I don't believe United 93 is out to capitalize off 9/11 any more than Schindler's List was out to capitalize off the holocaust. I remember when SL came out; a fair number of people declined to see it (at that time, anyway) because of its painful subject matter, and that was ~50 years after the original event.

I guess my point is, some movies will always be "too soon" for some. They can decline to see it; that's fine. But there are others who are interested and prepared, and if they want to watch a film like United 96, that's fine too in my opinion.

But like Schindler's List, United 96 is probably the kind of movie you see once and then don't even consider watching again for at least 5 years, if not a decade. I plan on seeing it eventually...

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Commontone,

I saw it, and it was definitly worth the high score. It's extremely intense and it's one of those movies where it's soo good that two hours felt like 20 minutes.

United 93 [Greengrass, 2006, Grade: B]

This is a very serious, straightforward depiction of the events of 9/11 which is also one of the more tense films you will ever watch. It also seems devoid of propaganda and sentimentality. Director Paul Greengrass chooses to tell this story by focusing on that flight, even though we know very little about what happened on it. However, there is a clear record of what air traffic controllers and the military did, and that plays as big a part in the power of United 93 as the fictionalized, yet totally plausible, events shown aboard the doomed flight.

From the outset, the film plays with your body and mind by using handheld cameras, quick editing and heavily-rhythmic, but subdued music as we are shown "just another day" at the airport for the flight crew and the passengers. As far as I recall, not more than two of the characters is ever mentioned by name, so everyone in the film seems to be equally-important. We may not get to know them very well, but we can easily relate to them and their predicament. Besides, the overall accumulation of all the details of that day amounts to something darker than the worst nightmare I could have ever imagined. I used to be a center air traffic controller, and I've taken familiarization ("fam") flights in commercial jet cockpits, so I can attest that United 93 has the most realistic depiction of ATC and jet cockpits that I've ever seen on film. I found the ATC scenes particularly unnerving. When you have planes which won't communicate and are trying to fly through all your other traffic, it can age you several years in a few minutes, and this film showed that to perfection. The utter confusion and miscommunication between all the FAA and the military also brought back bad personal memories for me, but certainly upped the suspense quotient of the film, which does an excellent job of presenting the entire morning's events. It was obvious and the end credits bear out that many of the FAA and military characters were played by themselves, and they all did a solid job. I have no quibbles about any of the acting by the no-name cast.

Ultimately, the last part of the movie concentrates on flight United 93 itself, after it has been hijacked and the passengers learn by phone that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have been attacked. Say what you will, but these passengers aren't really depicted as heroes. However, they ARE depicted as concerned human beings who are trying to survive and help others to survive. So this matter-of-fact approach to everything near the end of the film makes it deeper and stronger in its ultimate message of a possible hope to be found in the midst of the greatest tragedy. But there's no flag-waving anywhere, no finger-pointing (although you can draw some conclusions), and no happy ending. Just a movie which will have you react in many ways that only a good movie can.

I saw it and felt it was worthy of the high marks. I would guess that the reactions are going to run the entire range of emotion from feeling tremendous grief to intense outrage. Any movie that can touch a nerve that strongly is worth seeing and has cultural value. I discovered that the wounds of that day are far from being healed in my own life. Greengrass ripped the wound open. Either we will thank him for it or despise him.

Politics (which this movie avoids) aside, "United 93" is just great filmmaking. The final 15 minutes were sincerely the most intense, heart-wrenching thing I've ever seen in a film. I really cannot describe the intensity; it's all but unbearable.

I agree, any movie that can affect people the way this one does has great value and should be seen by anyone who can handle it.

I'm now very interested in seeing this film. At first I was very skeptical, but my parents went to see it and had good things to say. Plus everyone in here seems to have liked it.

Part of the concern, from my point of view, was with the amount of money they were donating. I know they were donating everything they made in the first weekend, but after that I thought it was only 10-15 percent.

It seems to me that if they're going to make a film like this, they should be donating more. It's a very sensitive subject matter for a lot of people, and it had the potential to do much better than it did. I think a lot of people refused to see it because they viewed it as purely a commercial venture. While this is clearly not true, they could have given more.

Either way, hats off to the makers of this film if it is as good as you've all said it is.

I'm not that surprised. I was really hoping it would be a good movie and it was at least as good as I expected. A few of the scenes were so intense, the movie would seriously grab you and keep you on the edge of your seat, which is a lot more than can be said about most movies these days. I'm not personally connected to 9/11 being on the other side of the country and all, but I can just imagine how powerful it would be for someone who is. Is anyone thinking possible oscar? (probably not acting, but maybe something else?)

This movie transcends the normal discussion of good/bad movie. It is respectfully told (maybe to a fault, since the hijackers are treated the same as the passengers, and air-traffic controllers) and mostly objectively framed, although the opening sequence and the framing of prayers on the flight seem to press for an egalitarian telling of the events that transcends anyone observer's abilty to "see" the events thus questioning the documetarian approach to the subject. Anyhow, the movie works as history and as inquiry into one of the seminal moments of American history. Someone mentioned the Alamo, but as that is Texas history I might offer the Battle of Lexington and Concord or Lincoln's Second Inagural Address as a parallel for influence on the course of history. And I don't feel that this is a hyperbolic description for this movie's reach.

I'm not dumb--I even went to college--but I needed a dictionary to decipher this post. Anyway, I agree.

Good. I agree too.

Mark f has hit the essence and descriptive of this movie right on. Perfection itself. Great job. If anyone hasn't read his May 3, 2006 post, do so.

Hey, my good friend tabuno, please come back to post more. I won't bite. You have plenty to share which we miss when you're gone.