After seeing the atrocity that was the so called film Silent Hill, I decided this week that I needed to see a movie that had some substance to it.  I got an early viewing of the 9/11 tragedy film, United 93, which was written and directed by British filmmaker Paul Greengrass.

Now I really had some mixed emotions going into this film because my views on this event are slightly different than what the majority of Americans feel.  These stories also have no impact on my life, and I don't feel an ounce of sorrow or anger for anyone involved in it.  So  I decided the best way to look at this movie would be to look at it as a story.  Nothing more, nothing less.  And boy was I glad I did..

United 93 is a fast paced, gritty, and no holds barred vision of an event which tells the story of four American commerical airplanes that were hijacked by what Im assuming are Middle Eastern radicals.  Two airplanes are slammed into the sides of two very large buildings in New York City called the World Trade Center.  Another plane also hits the United States military command center called the Pentagon.  The fourth, United Airlines Flight 93, gets hijacked and is headed for the Capitol building in Washington DC, which one of the hijackers places on the steering controls in the cockpit.  The passengers of the plane eventually figure out what is happening and attempt a mutiny that is almost successful, but the plane evenutally crashes in rural Pennsylvania, miles away from its destination.

I was really worried that this movie would be full of cheesy United We Stand propoganda and "I love you's" out the wazzu, but it really wasn't.  The characters were believable and it seemed like a very real and genuine story.  I especially liked how the hijackers were portrayed as unsure and nervous before going through with their plan.  They appeared to just be young men following a belief and an order that a higher power is giving.  Sound familiar?

The only problems I had about this film was that the passengers of the plane seemed too nice.  I am from New Jersey and never have I been on a plane, especially early morning, where everyone is happy-go-lucky and saying hello to everyone and to the flight attendants, or showing baby pictures and family photos.  Sorry Greengrass.  This is the northeast, we aren't that open to strangers.    

Anyway, this is a very intense story and is not for the faint of heart.  I heard a couple of sniffles in the theater thoughout the movie and some even left because they couldn't take it.  But what I will remember the most is after the final shot of the plane hitting the ground and the cut to black screen, the theater was eerily quiet.  Not one person made a noise or stood to leave.  For about a minute, everyone just stared at the screen.  

Paul Greengrass made an excellent film, but I wonder why Universal chose a British filmmaker to make this movie.  Seems like an odd choice.

**** out of ****

        

This is one of those movies that I'll defiently watch... on DVD.  I just don't feel like being depressed in front of a whole group of strangers in a darkened room.  However, I am very much against anybody who says that it is too early for a 9/11-themed movie.  By saying that movies like "Titanic" and "Pearl Harbor" were all right because they waited up to fifty years to make them is the same as saying that there is some sort of invisible line that makes creating films based on real tragedies "okay."  After all, could it not be said that every political talk show, cheesy country song, or TLC documentary has all ready "cashed in" on 9/11?  If anything, main stream film is one of the only medias that has not delved into the territory yet.  I applaud Universal and I especially applaud Greengrass for making what would seem to be a very well done and non-partisan film based on such a tragedy.

There was a film similar to this on the History Channel I think called Flight 93 and it basically focuses on the same story.

That movie was pretty depressing, mainly because I didn't even know that happened until I saw the movie. The reason I'm not going to see this movie (or I might) is because that was just a hard day for everyone and it'd be hard for me to watch it (it was hard for me to watch Flight 93 also) so this one I might watch when it comes out on DVD.

Sean

On September 11th, 2001 an unprecedented series of events took place. Four planes were hijacked that day. Ona plane hit the north tower of the World Trade Center, the second the south tower. A third plane reached Washington D.C. and hit the pentagon. A fourth plane changed course, altering its heading for Washington D.C. It never reached its intended target thanks to the people onboard who, rather than allow the hijackers to carry through with their plan, attempted to reclaim the plane. They failed in retaking the aircraft, but succeeded in preventing it from reaching its target, whatever it may have been.

I was at first a bit skeptical about this movie. Not because of the controversy surrounding it. I don't think it's too early, I think it's about time. But that's neither here nor there. No, I was wondering how it could work with Paul Greengrass both writing and directing. If you read my review of The Bourne Supremacy you'll know just how much I dislike his style. I likened the look of Supremacy to, among other things, a rabid cat chasing its tail which happens to be a rabid mongoose. Well, his overly frenetic style is put to excellent use here and actually fits the story far better than a more conventional method would have.

The actual hijacking of Flight 93 doesn't take place until about half way through the movie. Up until then the story plays out primarily in the numerous air traffic control centers around the country. We know what they know, and what they know comes faster than they can track. We see the communication failures, the utter breakdowns. After the first hijacking is comfirmed the military becomes involved, and we watch as they struggle with red tape in an attempt to sort out the situation. By the time they have fighters in the air ready for action, not only is it too late, they can't even reach the only people who can give them authority to engage.

By the time United 93 falls to the terrorists we've seen the FAA and Norad crumble from the well organized systems they once were to ant hills of utter chaos. When 93 comes along, it's almost like it's not even a surprise for them. It's another call sign and number placed on a rolling white erase board, waiting its turn as they move down the list confirming situations.

Aside from key personnel on the ground no one is referred to by name. There is no Todd Beamer, though if you've seen his picture you'll recognize him the moment he gets on the plane. His now famous 'Let's roll' isn't even given the power you would expect. Rather than the similar A&E special Flight 93 where the line is front and center, here it is almost an afterthought, spoken in the middle of a conversation. There are no people who are made the main characters. Much as we know what the FAA knows, we know these people as their fellow passengers know them. There is no Todd Beamer, no Mark Bingham, no Tom Burnett. There's the guy with the hat. The guy who knows karate. The asian fellow. The old woman. We recognize faces, not names.

Unnerving as well is the portrayal of the terrorists themselves. While not given as much face time as the passengers, they aren't the simple one dimensional characters often seen in these sorts of films. The morning of they spend their time in their hotel room grooming, praying, readying themselves for their big day. If we didn't know what these men were going to do you almost wouldn't be able to distinguish them from anyone else. Even during the final retaking attempt they are far less removed from the passengers as some may like. Fully aware of the coming fight, they pray just as the passengers sit and pray. It may be in a different language and to a different chosen God, but both sides are for a brief completely removed. There's nothing outside of that plane, outside of the will. Each side has a simple goal, one to take life and the other to preserve it. Politics don't matter anymore.

The violence in the film is present but not forced upon us. When people are stabbed we see the attack, we see the aftermath, but it's never overly graphic for the sake of being graphic. We are well aware of what is happening, we don't need to see it. When they attack the cockpit one terrorist is beaten to death with a fire extinguisher. It's violent to be sure, and you do see some blood hitting the walls, but it's nowhere near as disturbing as the act itself. The passenger who knows karate strangles and snaps a terrorist's neck. Another grabs the pilot and begins strangling and clawing at his face as he attempts to pull him away from the controls.

The film ends on a single shot. After panning up from two sets of hands struggling for the controls, we watch the ground shakily approach us as the plane enters into its final downward spiral. There is no flaming fireball. There is no aftermath footage, or shots of rescue crews. No shot of the final crater. Rather the movie simply ends there, nowhere else to go and nothing more it needs to show us. Some additional details are given to us through a few fonts, and that is it.

More than once during the final cockpit rush I actually yelled out, cheering them on. I knew what would happen, I watched it on the news. And yet I still couldn’t help but hope that they would be successful, that they would manage to retake the plane and land it safely, preventing themselves from being the forth list of victems of the day. Sadly they don’t, but even so when the film ends it’s powerful, bringing back the memories of the day. Look at my collection, you'll see I'm no stranger to harsh cinema, yet there were times during the final twenty minutes or so that I actually had trouble watching, knowing the eventual outcome ahead of time. But, like I said, I don’t think it was too early. I think it’s a fine example of how such a film should be made. It doesn’t attempt to take sides. Granted it does portray the passengers as the ‘heros’ and the hijackers as the ‘villains’ but there is both more and less to it than that.

I just finished watching United 93 and I have to say that I found it pretty boring. I guess knowing how it was going to end robbed it of suspense. I thought the build up to the hijack was too long. What seemed like the first half of the movie was taken up by watching the repetitive action in the air control rooms and cutting to the hijackers on the plane. Eventually the hijackers pulled their fingers out (or the director did) and got on with it, but once again there was no suspense, because I knew at some point the passengers were going to launch a doomed attempt at taking the plane back.

When watching a movie based on a true story, I always ask myself. "Would this story be worthy of making into a film if it wasn't true?"
In the case of U93, I don't think it would. However, I do agree with what other people have said about the portrayl of the hijackers, they seemed very realistic and not at all like inhuman monsters. I thought this gave the film some credibility.

The most alarming thing for me whilst watching U93 was how ineffective the American authorities were due to all the red tape. Of course we now know that by the time the order to take action was given it was too late. I guess post 9/11 things would be different. Well, you would hope so.