Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Massawyrm Reviews UNITED 93

Merrick knows one of the 9/11 Air Traffic Controllers. She died in her own way, that day...

Is it "too soon" for this film....politically, emotionally, or artistically? I don't think so.

Is it too soon to turn tales of September 11 into commercial ventures? Personally, I believe it is. No matter how profound the stories of heroism… no matter how significant the events being all feels a tad exploitative when there's money involved (to me, at least). Which surprises me, as I’m usually rather capitalistic and open-minded about things like this.

None the less, here we are...

Massawyrm saw UNITED 93 this morning. This is what he says...

Hola all. Massawyrm here. You know, I was planning on writing an intro on this involving the morning I found out and the way everything unfolded, then likening it to the fact that we all have similar stories. But after seeing United 93, I scrapped it. We all have stories like this. Every last one of us. There probably isn’t an American among you that doesn’t remember crisply and absolutely every last detail of the morning you found out. Where you were, who you were with, how it came up. And my story only differs from yours in the details. We were all scared, we were all saddened and every last one of us was confused. And now, four and a half years later, we all still can describe that morning with perfect clarity. So why even bring it up?

Because now, someone’s made a film about it. And the big question is: Is it too soon? In the now famous story, when the trailer for United 93 played in one New York theatre, someone yelled out (cribbing the Hugh Heffner Roast Audience member heckling Gilbert Godfrey): “Too Soon!” But is it? Is it really? No. Fuck no. And anyone who thinks otherwise is far too cynical for their own good. Art isn’t supposed to be nice. It’s not supposed to be appropriate. Art exists to make us feel, to help us understand those feelings and to help us heal the emotional wounds we’ve incurred over time. And 9/11 left a big, gaping wound in this country. Whether through laughter, fear, sadness or hope – art helps us confront complex ideas and forces us to face them head on. Despite the fact that most films are meant to entertain, there are many that exist with the hopes of making us think or feel – films that truly qualify as art.

But I know what several of you are thinking. Sure, art is fine…but movies make money – and thus they are capitalizing on the tragedy of 9/11. Sure, okay. That argument I can see. And I could almost agree with it…if there weren’t already some 3000 country songs on the topic. If flag companies hadn’t made unrivaled profits in the days following the disaster. If there weren’t already untold pieces of art, posters and bumper stickers about it. If news shows hadn’t made money on advertising during any of their pieces, interviews or countless retrospectives. If political campaigns weren’t run entirely on the issue of national security, taking a complete failure of governmental preparedness and selling it as a success of a response after the fact.

Political cartoonists have received many a days pay drawing the towers to make one point or another. Countless comedians have performed countless monologues joking about some facet of it. Saturday Night Live did a Rankin Bass animated sketch on it. Comic books have written countless stories based upon the ideas – most notably the Marvel Ultimates universe which changed the terrorist attacks to the Hulk rampaging through downtown Manhattan and had the Brotherhood of Evil Mutants blowing up the Brooklyn Bridge. Several television shows immediately sprung up following 9/11, playing upon the fears of terrorist attacks, that followed teams of people trying to stop them. Countless books, from all points of the political spectrum, have been written on the topic. And yes, there are even many different documentaries on the issue – most notably Fahrenheit 9/11, which revolved around political agendas after the fact. It would seem to this reviewer that the only entertainment industry that has not in some way profited from the attacks is feature films. The studios have been very, very careful about this. Being the single highest grossing form of entertainment (per piece), movies based upon 9/11 seem to be the only untread ground left – out of fear of a reaction like some seem to be stirring up. So what’s the big deal? Clearly it’s not some sort of sacred ground. Otherwise people would have problems with the songs, the bumper stickers, the artwork, the retrospectives, and the comic books.

And its not like film has never capitalized upon true life tragedies. No one squawked when Wolf Creek made millions off of the very real mysterious deaths of two women. Or when Pearl Harbor made hundreds of millions off of the deaths of 3000 soldiers. Or when Titanic became the highest grossing film of all time, profiting off of the deaths of 1200. What? Is there some magical line of demarcation when it becomes okay for films to profit off of a tragedy? Or is it simply cynicism rearing its ugly head before the last medium left to get involved does so – the last cry of discontent before there are no taboos left on the issue.

This is a piece of art, pure and simple. And yes, people got paid to make it, people will get paid to show it and the company will make money off of the ticket sales. People will make money. Off of 9/11. If that were something new, it’d be something to squawk about. But its not. Some people aren’t ready to see a film on it – probably the same people still not ready to hear songs about it. Some people may never be ready. There’s nothing wrong with that. But this is art – and art in every medium has every right to exist. And anyone who hasn’t had problems with the other mediums profiting, really shouldn’t have a problem now. This is art. So as art, how good is it?

It’s brilliant. Absolutely, positively, unquestionably brilliant. Paul Greengrass handles this material with such reverence, such unbelievable care that it simply floored me. This is not propaganda trying to push some view of the events of that day. This is neither right wing nor left wing rhetoric on the events. There is no viewpoint but that of a fly on the wall, watching the build up, the confusion and ulitimately the terror of the events in the air that day. Greengrass simply shows the events. He never tries to lay on the pap or the sentimentality - because he knows he doesn’t have to. There are no American flags blowing in the wind, no firey speeches about rebuilding and overcoming. And there is absolutely no focus on the characters in an attempt to endear us to them. We don’t need that. We already feel for these people, there’s no reason to get to know them in a very artificial and emotionally manipulative way. The passengers are presented in a way that feels very real, very genuine – like the people you’ve flown with dozens of times on dozens of flights. They smile and make pleasant conversation. They recite the standard raka-raka we all have memorized for such situations, when we’re trying to pass the time on a boring, run of the mill flight. We know these people already, and Greengrass knows that all we need to see is those people and how they react to what was to come. But not as heroes, not as patriots. As people, real people, trying to save their own lives and that of those who might be in their path.

But the story isn’t just about them. The film shares focus with the air control towers, the FAA and the military air command, and perfectly illustrates the chaos that began to unravel. What struck me most was the care taken to show these people as people who really knew what they were doing, presented with a situation that they simply weren’t trained for, presented with a chain of command that was out of communication with those needed to make the decisions, presented with quite simply a lack of information about what was happening. And Greengrass shows us just where and how that communication broke down – without ever attempting to point a finger or place blame.

The film, simply put, is beautiful. It is extraordinary film making that completely involves you at every level. Greengrass very clearly knows what story he is telling and never deviates from it. The story on the ground? That’s another movie. This is entirely a film about what happens on one plane in the air and how the military and civilian authorities try to handle that while juggling what was going on everywhere else. We see the towers only in news footage and from the view of the air traffic control tower in New York – and we see it in the way we all saw it that morning. With disbelief.

There’s no mistaking it, this is an incredibly powerful film and anyone who feels they’re not ready for this probably isn’t. It’s raw, straight up and unvarnished. A view of the events that knows the emotion about them already exists. This film won’t change any minds on the subject, won’t make you re-examine the day in a new light and certainly won’t send you out of the theatre with new emotions. But it sure as hell will drag up your old emotions – the first day emotions – the emotions before there was rhetoric about war, or revenge or how we need to protect America. It’s about 3 hours in America, three hours we’ll never forget. And it is a MUST SEE FILM.

No, seriously. A MUST SEE FILM. I don’t care if you think you’ve seen more than enough about 9/11. I certainly thought I had. But I hadn’t. This film is a singularly unique piece of drama that can’t be ignored, can’t sit at number 20 on your netflix list, can’t be set aside for a day when you want to watch something heavy. It will hit you and it will hit you hard. So perfect in execution, I honestly don’t feel there will ever be a need to make another film on Flight 93. Reverence. Pure reverence. No jingoism, no agenda. Reverence. You owe it to yourself – not Paul Greengrass for his effort, not for America and not for the people of United 93 – you owe it to yourself to see this. There’s a good chance that this will be the single most powerful, profound and best made film you see this year. Highly recommended for anyone who feels they are emotionally up to it.

Until next time friends,


Share your discontent with my point of view here

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 20, 2006, 8:23 p.m. CST

    This reviewer could make 9/11 boring

    by splungiest

    and I think he just did. good christ, get to the point.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:32 p.m. CST

    for those jumping to the Talkback first, skip to

    by HypeEndsHere

    paragraph 7. that's where the review starts. the pre-ramble is his opinion of art art is supposed to do. and after it all, this is not a MUST SEE FILM. someone who says that is angling for a poster-quote. if you see it at all (which i doubt many people will), download it or buy a bootleg if only just to make a statement. the same statement that film makers are making to the families of those lost that day: We feel your pain, and we are going to make money from it.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:32 p.m. CST

    Good review

    by DonkeyBalls

    Wordy, but I'm that way. I like words. I never feel anything is too early to be made. It can be too early to SEE something for an indivudual, but I think it is retarded that people even discuss the notion of someone ELSE wanting to make art on a profound subject "too soon." It's never too soon for art. If a movie had been written and shot within say three months of 9/11, think of what a different film it would be than this. I personally would like to have seen that film, and would like to have it to look back on and compare to ones made with some distance, like Flight 93. More art is always better. I'm nervous about seeing this film -- I lost someone on one of the other planes -- but I am frankly glad to have the America back which was unafraid to tackle these kinds of things. We need to use the horrible energy of that day for some good, and film is one of the best ways to do that. I applaud Greengrass for jumping into something that was very risky, and for apparently doing it very well. I'll be there opening night.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:32 p.m. CST

    Say goodnight, folks: Massawyrm likes it.

    by zikade zarathos

    God, how I hate this reviewing "style": spend about ten intro paragraphs detailing exactly why no one on the planet Earth can dislike this movie or think it was done in bad taste (and here's a thought: when MANY people do something morally bankrupt -- profiting off of real death -- it doesn't then make it OK, as your laundry list is supposed to be evidence of), then maybe two or three paragraphs about how "unquestionably" brilliant it is.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:33 p.m. CST

    by DonkeyBalls

    "the same statement that film makers are making to the families of those lost that day: We feel your pain, and we are going to make money from it."<---That&#39;s stupid. The families were involved closely with this film, even during shooting.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:36 p.m. CST

    So is it good then?

    by John-Locke

    [quote]I honestly don

  • April 20, 2006, 8:36 p.m. CST

    Donkey, that&#39;s been debunked as a press release

    by HypeEndsHere

    by the studio.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:38 p.m. CST

    by DonkeyBalls

    Was Don Cheadle profiting off of death when he made Hotel Rwanda? Was The Thing Red Line a crass cash-in on the deaths of American GI&#39;s? Was Schindler&#39;s List a tasteless money grab? What is the difference with this film, that it came out only five years after the incident? That&#39;s fucking retarded. Movies are about everything that life is about, and there is no crime or greed involved in making a film about something tragic. The notion of an equation in which the deaths of many people = box office bonanza! is silly anyway. This isn&#39;t a love story set against 9/11, like Pearl Harbor, which was truly offensive. This is the story of that day, of those people, and of what they did in the situation they were faced with. How people can lazily accuse someone of being greedy for making a film on that topic -- especially when box office success is far from a guarantee -- is fuckin&#39; stupid.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:42 p.m. CST

    The Big Question is... is it good?

    by Succatash

  • April 20, 2006, 8:42 p.m. CST

    Sadly enough, I found out about 9/11 from this site!

    by IAmJack'sUserID

    Ok, I&#39;m a net junkie and the first thing I do when I&#39;m not working is get up is check out the websites, especially movie news. So I get up, push the junk out of my eyes, and stumble over to the computer. I turn it on and immediately visit AICN. Suddenly Harry is talking about planes crashing into buildings and buildings collapsing and I thought what a crazy movie Harry is talking about. Dunno if I want to see it. THEN it hits me and I dash over to the TV. I&#39;m living with my ex at the time and she has this big screen TV and when I turn it on, the first thing I see is a panoramic view of New York with two huge columns of smoke churning out of huge gaping holes in the WTCs. I was off that day so I was in front of the TV the whole time. Rough.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:42 p.m. CST

    Hello, Jollysleeve

    by chromedome

    I know you haven&#39;t posted here, yet, but I also know that you WILL, sir.... Go on, you know you want to! LOL Hope all is well with you.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:43 p.m. CST

    I don&#39;t have a problem with the film

    by tiredpm

    And I don&#39;t have a problem with the review. If you don&#39;t like the idea of this film, don&#39;t see it. If you don&#39;t like the reviews on this site, don&#39;t come here. I know that being rational in this forum is a silly thing to do, but still...don&#39;t whine about things you actually have control over, that&#39;s just self-flagellation and a royal pain in the ass for all of us.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:44 p.m. CST

    I have a morbid fascination about "Events" like this...

    by Vim Fuego

    But I can&#39;t be arsed to see this. I&#39;m not American, so it can&#39;t resonate with me as greatly as most of the good folks who visit this site, but why would you go to see this? It can&#39;t possibly be uplifting. And what&#39;s with that Poster? Christ on a Bike! I&#39;d rather stick my cock in a Bees Nest than watch this.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:44 p.m. CST


    by theoneofblood

    Jesus Christ, I can&#39;t believe some people still believe this. Wolf Creek is inspired by Ivan Milat and the Falconio case. NONE OF THOSE PEOPLE IN THE FILM EVER REALLY EXISTED.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:53 p.m. CST

    What was debunked?

    by DonkeyBalls

    The families involvement? No, that was real.

  • April 20, 2006, 8:59 p.m. CST

    I Think Someone Missed the Point...

    by ZooTrain

    It&#39;s not the capitalizing on tragedy that churns my stomach. That&#39;s to be expected (because we&#39;re a bunch of greedy assholes).;s the whole..."Do we want to be entertained by tragedy?" I don&#39;t know. The reviewer spent an hour talking about art. However lofty you try to make it sound, art is essentially entertainment. That&#39;s all. So...who will honestly get some "joy" out of seeing a movie like this? I put "joy" in quotes for a reason. Even if it&#39;s a profound sense of loss you feel, you still are entertained by it. That, I feel, is morbid.

  • April 20, 2006, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Hmmm, interesting...

    by vinceklortho

    This film is opening next week and who knows what&#39;s going to happen. I haven&#39;t heard ANYONE talking about this movie at all, besides this site. Ummm, also, when did the studio debunk any families involvement with the film. I heard Greengrass spent seven months getting the families&#39; approvals and so forth. Whatever. I&#39;m with you DonkeyBalls!

  • April 20, 2006, 9:05 p.m. CST

    To much shaky cam

    by glitzless

    to much hand held work by the looks from the trailer. it doesn&#39;t make it look more real or intense if you over use it. looks like &#39;24&#39; episode

  • April 20, 2006, 9:07 p.m. CST

    And, when I mean "anyone"...

    by vinceklortho

    I&#39;m not talking about the media, but my small ass group of friends who could be seen as the "normal" moviegoing public.

  • April 20, 2006, 9:24 p.m. CST

    firstly, your comparisons fail, Donkey because

    by HypeEndsHere

    those films are separated from America by years and/or miles and culture. i may be more sensitive than most as i live here in NY, but this is not a story that needs to be retold. it is retold every day when i pass Ground Zero. and the studio didn&#39;t do the debunking. that was a release saying "the familes" were involved implying ALL of the familes, when it was not true. i&#39;m sorry if it didn&#39;t come out right.

  • April 20, 2006, 9:26 p.m. CST

    great review

    by robotdevil

    Thanks M. I can&#39;t wait to see this film.

  • April 20, 2006, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Look, there&#39;s a simple answer

    by chrth

    If you don&#39;t like them making money, buy a ticket for a different movie, then sneak into Flight 93.

  • April 20, 2006, 9:34 p.m. CST

    You guys are really silly.

    by Lovecraftfan

    So its ok for country songs to make money off the tragedy. Its ok for artists to do that. Its ok for catoonists to do that. Its oik for anyone else to do that as THEY ALREADY HAVE. Yet the minute someone makes a film about with the families support than its bad. talk about being a hypocrite. Too bad you are guys are going to let your odd hatred mask what may be a well made film according to the review above.

  • April 20, 2006, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Remaking Predator?!?!?

    by Meremoth

    WTF. Thats more diturbing than a 911 movie. Why not just make Predator 3? Seriously. How the fuck is anyone supposed to top Arnie in that movie. Now, they might be able to redo Predator II, -warning explicit language and/or themes ahead- that movie sucked ass and balls. Scratch that. That movie sucked a fat ass, balls and a cock all at the same time. It then headed over to R. Kelly&#39;s place and took a nice warm acidic shower.

  • April 20, 2006, 9:41 p.m. CST


    by Bender-Wiggins

    There were no two women killed in the real cases that inspired Wolf Creek. Plus, "Merrick knows one of the 9/11 Air Traffic Controllers. She died in her own way, that day..." Was that line meant to be funny?

  • April 20, 2006, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Absolutely unnecessary

    by wingman321

    Forget the argument over "too soon." The reason to make historical movies is to inform or remind people what happened...nobody has fucking forgot 9/11. I fucking hate signs that read "9-11 NEVER FORGET"

  • April 20, 2006, 9:50 p.m. CST


    by PantherMatt

    My friend, I hear where you&#39;re coming from, with the sensitivity and all. As someone who was working on the Trading Floor when it all went down, and as someone who was compelled to absolutely switch professions after the events, I get the sensitivity. BUT... I do not feel it is too soon for this film to be made. As Wyrm said in his review: it may be too soon for you to SEE it. And that&#39;s cool. But I think you&#39;d have to admit that there is a definite difference between what is appearantly a very respectful film and "Pearl Harbor". Why did no one make a fuss when Jarhead came out? I know people/ families dealing with kids who made it back from that one. And how about that shitstorm froma few years back that had Denzel, Meg Ryan and Matt Damon? Aside from that being a BAD flick, no one seemed to care that it was made (except for me, and that&#39;s only ;cause I wanted my money back).

  • April 20, 2006, 9:50 p.m. CST


    by Joseph Merrick

    It was not meant to be funny in any way. In a very real sense, the person she had been before 9/11 ceased to exist because of what she experienced on that day. We don&#39;t have to be physically dead in order to die inside.

  • April 20, 2006, 9:57 p.m. CST

    all of it is or none of it is? i see things in shades

    by HypeEndsHere

    of grey, but what ever floats your boat. i don&#39;t for a second think this film shouldn&#39;t be allowed to be made. like i said, it&#39;s not going to make any dough, but i just think it&#39;s tasteless. do country songs make money off the tragedy? i don&#39;t know, i don&#39;t buy or listen to that kind of music. i seem to remember mindless patriotism more than a retelling of terrorist actions in the songs i&#39;m aware of. i saw Platoon a long time ago and remember liking it (it was about vietnam which is around the world 35 years ago, and i didn&#39;t live through it), same with Deer Hunter. and i saw Fahrenheit 9/11 and didn&#39;t care for it. and i saw most of Titanic and found it silly, though a dramatic retelling would be interesting as it was a few hundred miles and almost 100 years ago. which i didn&#39;t live through.

  • April 20, 2006, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Very good review. Thanks.

    by gobigblue

    I appreciate the review. I am going to see this. Hopefully with my father...I want to discuss it afterwards with him. We had a good time discussing Munich and, in some ways, I feel this is kinda&#39; the same. I guess I&#39;ll see. Thanks again.

  • April 20, 2006, 10:20 p.m. CST

    I&#39;m sure this movie is great. But I still can&#39;t watch.

    by antonphd

    This just looks too hard to watch. I couldn&#39;t watch the Passion for the same reason. Watching stories about fake people in rediculous situations is one thing. But the real thing is too hard. Not that I don&#39;t care. It&#39;s that I care too much.

  • April 20, 2006, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Art, Intent, and Content.

    by Thylacine

    "This film won

  • April 20, 2006, 10:40 p.m. CST

    Great Review

    by thatpeterguy

    He really hit the nail on the head. Many people have profited off of the tragedy. At least there are giving 10% of the profits which is more than what any of the TV specials and news shows have done.

  • April 20, 2006, 10:40 p.m. CST

    I was told everything I needed to know about this film.

    by Alonzo Mosely

    When I saw commercials for it during a Bond movie and during 24. Everyone can spew all the crap they want defending it as art, or needed or however they want. The simle fact is that the studio decided that the target audience for this movie were the people watching Halle Berry shoot people, and Keifer proving that he is the baddest man alive. This is a commercial venture, pure and simple. You can make logical arguements that a it is not too soon for a 13 year old to be having sex, you would be wrong about that as well....

  • April 20, 2006, 10:44 p.m. CST

    I dont get it.

    by Lovecraftfan

    I love how despite the fact that this movie has garnered two glowing reviews from this site and the fact its directed by a really good director you guys have already decided its a terrible film. Good job.

  • April 20, 2006, 10:47 p.m. CST

    Lists of other historical films prove nothing

    by zikade zarathos

    Every film is made with different intentions in different times with different sensibilities and released with different purposes. For fuck&#39;s sake, half the movies people are listing are fictional stories cast in a historical setting. When you have a fucking Flash website, and billboards, and put your trailer in front of INSIDE MAN, and all this other purely commercial bullshit, it smells funny. And then when asked point-blank what&#39;s the purpose behind the film, to say so no one forgets, I can&#39;t imagine anyone saying that a movie is necessary so none of us forget less than ten years after it happened. When the guy who did it still hasn&#39;t been caught. If THAT&#39;s your best answer, then no, I don&#39;t think Greengrass deserved to be the one to make the film. I had similar problems with Van Sant&#39;s ELEPHANT, but Greengrass&#39;s "I&#39;m making this for a reason" act is now making Van Sant look like a saint by comparison. "From the director of BOURNE SUPREMACY..." Fuck you. Stone&#39;s WORLD TRADE CENTER is the one telling a story that people might not have even HEARD of, nevermind forgetting -- that&#39;s the 9/11 movie I&#39;ll be seeing this year.

  • April 20, 2006, 10:50 p.m. CST


    by Lovecraftfan

    So I guess you were insulting me. Have you seen the film. I would guess no since its not out yet. I havent either but I havent seen anything to sugges t its a bad movie.

  • April 20, 2006, 10:55 p.m. CST


    by PantherMatt

    Aren&#39;t proceeds from this film going to the families of Flight 93? I could very well be wrong, but I think that&#39;s the case. And no, not 100% of the proceeds, of course, but some. And that&#39;s nice, isn&#39;t it? Yes, money will be made from this film, and I&#39;m sorry it&#39;s that upsetting to so many, but consider this: don&#39;t you think the filmakers and studio execs could have come up with a much more bankable and frivolous use of this film&#39;s budget and the filmmakers&#39; talents? Like another godforsaken XXX sequel or idiotic TV remake, or some fake-tits-and-no-plot torture fetish "horror" movie? My point is: I think there IS some attmpt at real statement ad artistry here. If it WAS really ALL about the money, there&#39;s plenty of better ways to leech some cash off fanboys (and general public) than this movie. You know? Like, anything with Wolverine in it. That way people would go see it again. This sounds like it might be something more.

  • April 20, 2006, 10:56 p.m. CST

    That&#39;s the whole ad for this movie - IS IT TOO SOON???

    by Orionsangels

    Oooh with a line like that. Hey judge for yourself. spend money on our movie. Will blow your minds with 911 action and drama. While disguising it as a message movie. "MESSAGE!" This story must be told, right? No I don&#39;t think so. Nothing a movie can do is gonna compare to the horror I and millions of others experienced that day. It&#39;s like being in a horrible car crash and living through it. Then someone makes a movie about it. Hey wanna watch a movie about your car crash? Relive every moment. It&#39;ll make ya feel better. It has a message. fuck you! boycott this film.

  • April 20, 2006, 11 p.m. CST

    by PantherMatt

    MovieMack, why so mad, bro? Someone asked Merrick a question and he answered it. No need to get your panties in a twist. And, frankly, you sound a little too self-congratulatory to be bashing anyone for being self-congratulatory. No one is going to ake you see this film, if you don&#39;t want to. Unless your girlfriend does. And if you really don&#39;t want to see it, then show some spine and don&#39;t go.

  • April 20, 2006, 11:03 p.m. CST

    Kubrick vs Schindler

    by WS

    In nearly every message board arguement I&#39;ve ever read involving Schindler&#39;s List, someone inevitably brings up that bullshit Stanley Kubrick quote... Um...Stanley, Schindler&#39;s List actually is about the six million who died. (What&#39;s the last shot of movie?) Look, Kubrick is a very talented director but should we really take the words of the man who directed Eyes Wide Shut as gospel?

  • April 20, 2006, 11:06 p.m. CST

    "It gets people talking" ?

    by Orionsangels

    I hate when they say that. As if the world hasn&#39;t been talking enough about 9/11. Remember V? "It gets people talking" How it was gonna start a movement that would topple American Government and change the world forever. Riiight. I was gonna say, my how the world has changed, but has it? During WWII Hollywood was making WWII movies while the war was going on. Not even Pearl Harbor was spared. Why should Hollywood be any different today? The only difference is back then it was glamourized. Today it&#39;s whiped up in 5 seconds and packed in a lunchbox.

  • April 20, 2006, 11:08 p.m. CST

    Its Art


    Just as Britney Spears music is art.

  • April 20, 2006, 11:12 p.m. CST

    Yes. Especially from "the man who directed Eyes Wide Sh

    by Thylacine

    "From the director of Jurassic Park and its sequel, The Lost World." Isn

  • April 20, 2006, 11:22 p.m. CST

    There is a "magical line of demarcation"

    by WillowFan2001

    According to South Park, Episode 6x02, "Jared Has Aides": 22.3 years. Well, that&#39;s until it&#39;s funny, not until it&#39;s appropriate to talk about. And somehow, I doubt I&#39;ll ever find any aspect of 9/11 funny in any way.

  • April 20, 2006, 11:25 p.m. CST


    by mondoz2

    Did you enjoy ANY of the following movies: ... Not really. Of those in your list that I&#39;ve seen, I looked at them more as being educational pieces about a period or event, with a plot in the foreground. I watched SAVING PRIVATE RYAN because it was to be such a realistic portrayal of the horrors of the war. It was. It told the story in a much more realistic sense than I had ever seen, and I can appreciate it on that level. Same thing as TITANIC - a fictious plot with historic events in the background. A documentary with some fake characters mixed in. But these people aren&#39;t fake. This is just a documentary, but it&#39;s being advertised as a Big Summer Blockbuster With A Vengeance Strikes Back Part III. I don&#39;t want a 9/11 giant plastic cup to go with my 9/11 bag of popcorn. Slapping images of 9/11 between the movie posters of the latest kiddie movie and some random action flick isn&#39;t what I want to see when I go to the RIAA Temple of Entertainment. T-Shirts and political cartoons are one thing, but when something is chewed up by the American Movie Industry, it becomes a twisted plastic charicture of what it once was. Like so many of the movies that Hollywood thinks is a good idea, I think this is one of the movies that just shouldn&#39;t have been made. Like a sequel to a movie that just doesn&#39;t need one; it should be left well enough alone. They can make it if they want to, but I won&#39;t go see it.

  • April 20, 2006, 11:36 p.m. CST

    I can&#39;t seem to decide...

    by seanny_d

    On the one hand, I agree with the artistic statements about the film. On the other hand, well, I just don&#39;t know. I don&#39;t think anyone is arguing whether or not this is a good movie. It may be a phenomenally brilliant movie. But whether or not it needed to be made in the first place is different. And in regards to all the other forms of media who made money off of the tragedy, theirs was a different money to be made. Most of that other media was trying to prove a point or serve as a rally cry for some form of patriotism. Relatively few of those tried to give you a bird&#39;s eye view of what actually happened. So for me, it&#39;s a toss up. I am interested in seeing it, but I just don&#39;t know if I want to support it. (And yes, I know I could just sneak in.)

  • April 20, 2006, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Michael Moore wasn&#39;t TOO SOON with F-9/11?

    by aceattorney

    Freaking hypocrite bastages.

  • April 21, 2006, 12:07 a.m. CST

    What about those who feel partly to blame?

    by phelion2

    For all the projects, comments, TV specials, ad nauseum about this subject, no one has address the feelings of those who feel somehow responsible in some direct or indirect way? Hundreds of BILLIONS of Dollars are ripped off from the taxpayers every year in defense industry related fraud and corruption, from the de riguer $400 hammers to contractors buying crap for personal use and billing it to their DoD contracts. My tale of woe is from the latter. My late father was a defense sub-contractor who ripped off an easy 2 million over the years starting with grass seed and lawn tools on his Lowe&#39;s account set up for DoD contracts and over 15 years evolved into building a small real estate empire while I lived in a ghetto apartment since I refused to join the "family business." The US Army Corps of Engineers is a feeding trough of evil and greed. Want to know why the Air Force couldn&#39;t keep planes on regular ready-stand by? Ask the base contractors in your area who fill up their trucks&#39; gas tanks on the taxpayer&#39;s dime, who rip off $30,000 generators to from bases and hook them to their own homes built with materials stolen from DoD accounts. All this shit is STILL GOING ON on top of all the waste of lives and more billions. I carry the burden of having watched US being ripped off by my own father and being helpless to do anything about it as a child and finally going to the FBI when he died to keep his "partners" from coming after me. Did I put a wad of money in Bin Laden&#39;s hand? No, but when we go too long in fear without standing up, people suffer the consequences. I&#39;d love to tell a story of greed, fraud and waste, but account fraud and bookkeeping manipulation doesn&#39;t "read" well on film. Anyway, hopefully you&#39;ll think twice about snitching those office supplies and then acting shocked when the CEO makes off with your pension and flies off to Zanzibar to start taking opium rectally.

  • April 21, 2006, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Zoo Train

    by Flickerhead

    Art is not essentially entertainment. What an unbelievably stupid thing to say. I mean, for fuck&#39;s sake.

  • April 21, 2006, 12:17 a.m. CST


    by WS

    Quote: "My main concern here is the condensing of a very complex period in history, (and in this case one that is largely unresolved), into a

  • April 21, 2006, 12:20 a.m. CST


    by Bender-Wiggins

    Some of your countrymen died of terrirst trauma- it&#39;s sad. A lot of Rwandan&#39;s died in the &#39;94 genocide. It&#39;s sad. Worldwide millions die of cancer a year, it&#39;s sad. Flight 93, Hotel Rwanda and Thank You For Smoking are all justified movies. Sadly, September 11 is just another tragedy, no worse than many than have come or before or since. Make movies about whatever the fuck you like. If you want to keep the world safe on a foundation or democracy and free trade, than market forces have to conceed to than taste. Be the film meretricious or not. If someone wants to release an XBOX game where you play Atta, slashing throats and flying planes, then they should be allowed.

  • April 21, 2006, 12:21 a.m. CST

    TOO Dollars

    by BranMakMorn

    All a New Yorker has to do to "remind" themselves about 911 is spend TWO bucks on a E train and head down to Ground Zero. That&#39;s as real and more layered than any film is going to get across. Smell the asbestos and gaze at the void. When NYers yell "Too Soon" it is because they are surrounded by reality, they don&#39;t need to venture to a multiplex to remind themselves.

  • April 21, 2006, 12:24 a.m. CST

    on art, &c.

    by Dollar Bird

    All this talk of art. Let&#39;s begin with the "too soon" argument. I think the poster who brought up the fact that Hollywood was making WWII films while WWII was going on made a very good point. It&#39;s probably never too soon to use actual events as the framework for a story. What the storyteller/artmaker does with the work he&#39;s making is the real test of the piece&#39;s worth. And is this movie worthwhile? I dunno, I haven&#39;t seen it. Truth is, I don&#39;t care for Massawyrm&#39;s reviews. I find him arrogant and obnoxious. I think any review that is given such hyperbolic praise as "And it is a MUST SEE FILM," isn&#39;t to be trusted. In fact, it&#39;s just lame and preachy on the reviewer&#39;s part. ... Let&#39;s talk about this review-line, now: "This film won

  • April 21, 2006, 12:37 a.m. CST

    Every Greengrass movie is a must-see movie

    by voxmortis

  • April 21, 2006, 12:44 a.m. CST

    Sounds Good To Me...

    by LucienPierce

    While I believe the actual story of the Two Towers destruction itself should be left until we all have a clearer understanding of what actually happened that day (It&#39;s not as clear cut as a bunch of terrorists stealing a plane and crashing them into a couple buildings) but I believe that this story can be told. And can be told now. The moment I heard about the real flight 93 I wandered about the people, their state of mind at the time and their absolute unfailing patriotism for a country whose government could&#39;ve instigated it in the first place. What makes a person willing to sacrifice their lives to continue fighting for the ultimate ideal of living in freedom. The emotions running through the plane and the people, what it&#39;s like to make a decision like that. While Merrick did turn his review into typical AICN rhetoric (every publication online and off have a standard approach/style/template) I quite enjoyed some of his observations particularly on the profiteering of 9/11. I disagreed with his statement on art but then again that&#39;s the nature of it. You make a big statement to claim something is not art because of it&#39;s subjectivity. Either way, I&#39;m watching this at the cinema. As long as Greengrass can control his camera. Watching Bourne Supremacy at the cinema actually proved somewhat uncomfortable for the eyes sometimes, just TOO rough and this comes from a person who loved Man on Fire, watching 3 times on the big screen, and the original Bourne (twice)!

  • April 21, 2006, 12:45 a.m. CST


    by LucienPierce

    ...Not Merrick, Massawyrm...

  • April 21, 2006, 12:49 a.m. CST

    Great review

    by BigStar

    I&#39;ve read a couple reviews on this film already. All were positive but once I read this one, I&#39;m sold. I don&#39;t mean this in a geeky Lotr/Star Wars way, but I&#39;m really looking forward to this. Plus, I know it&#39;s the notorious AICN Talkbacks and all but I&#39;m kinda surprised at the reaction some people have to this. It&#39;s like I&#39;m reading the ravings of some crazy fundamentalist christian loony complaining about the latest "evil" Hollywood trash. Here&#39;s an original idea: watch the actual fucking movie before deciding with you infinite wisdom and clarity whether this film will be brilliant and tasteful or pure stupid jingoistic exploitation. In the meantime, I&#39;ll be looking forward to seeing how Hollywood and a very talented director come together to treat the most important event in this new century. The whole issue of it being "Too soon" has been pretty much dismissed as bullshit. And art is not always about being entertained or making yourself feel better. It can be about changing your perspective on something, make you think about things you&#39;d rather not, create a snapshot in time,or at times depress the hell out of you. In my mind, art is about growing and chaning yourself, whether it be through a comedy, an action film, or something like United 93. Massawyrm did a great job in arguing that United actually is "art." He might be wrong and it might be shamelessly exploitive like Pearl Harbor. I&#39;ll keep my eyes open.

  • April 21, 2006, 12:52 a.m. CST

    Dollar Bird

    by Massawyrm 1

    Wow, and you called me arrogant. Oh yeah, and obnoxious. Normally I&#39;d let that slide, because, well I&#39;m arrogant and obnoxious, and love to call out my brethren. But lets examine the statement that keeps being brought up. Read it in context again. Now do it again. I never say there&#39;s no information the viewer won&#39;t know. There&#39;s plenty. I learned a hell of a lot about the inner workings of the agencies that were responsible for 9/11 and the people involved in those decisions. An what Greengrass did was make a film that did that that did not A) justify or villify the war on terror B) call into question the Bush Administrations actions on that day or C) turn the film into a RA-RA! America! film that sends you out singing God Bless America. He tells the story, straight up. He gives you plenty to think about. But he refuses to make propaganda. That&#39;s the key here. F 9/11, Good Night and Good Luck, Jarhead - good films one and all. But propaganda films none the less. Each has a political viewpoint and tries to make an argument. I love films like that. But I also highly respect a film that tackles a very politically charged issue, and manages to do so without trying to convince you of their point of view. Like a truly great documentary, this movie chooses no sides, never gets into the ideology of the attackers (for sympathy or for villificiation) and never tries to get into political discourse of any kind. This country is split in two over the fallout of 9/11...but this is a film that unites us - that takes us back to the shared psyche of that day and allows us to re-examine it with fresh eyes. It is very much a film about introspection - Paul Greengrass just isn&#39;t the one providing it. Politicians and political groups both have used the events as a basis for their arguments and beliefs, and we have a president that can&#39;t seem to break wind in the oval office without defending that he did so to keep America safe from another 9/11. It&#39;s refreshing to see a film that forces us for two hours to forget all the talk and focus on who we were both before and after that day. And yes, I actually believe that this is a must see film. Absolutely. I&#39;ve spent what time I&#39;ve had between movies today convincing everyone I know to see it - and I&#39;ll be doing so until well after its out. I really feel it&#39;s that good.

  • April 21, 2006, 1:08 a.m. CST


    by HarrisTelemacher

    No one here is allowed to tell Paul Greengrass what art is or when he&#39;s allowed to do it. The truth is we don&#39;t know what we&#39;re talking about. We should all see this because its a ballsy film by an interesting director that is worth having an opinion of. Just like Passion of the Christ, which I absolutely don&#39;t regret seeing, and I&#39;m a godless heathen. And to the guy bashing Schindler-that is some ridiculous holier-than-thou filmgeek BS. You don&#39;t have to like Schindler, but to complain because it doesn&#39;t challenge our feelings about the Holocaust? How the hell is it supposed to do that? To say all art must apply to your strict definitions of WHAT ART IS is some serious dork vanity. By that score, we would have no films but than romantic comedies, action flicks and video game based horror films. Whats wrong with focusing on one story inside the context of something enormous (WW2 or 911)? Should directors just stay silent?

  • April 21, 2006, 1:13 a.m. CST

    No Political Agenda?

    by Thylacine

    Hey Massawyrm, thanks for writing out a response. But tell me- using INVISO-TEXT if you have to: What happens to the plane at the end of the film? Then we

  • April 21, 2006, 1:22 a.m. CST

    I swear, if I hear "It&#39;s too soon" one more time...

    by moto

    Say "It&#39;s too soon" again! I dare ya! I double dare you motherfucker,say "It&#39;s too soon!" one more fucking time! God, it&#39;s like claws against a chalkboard. Twenty years would be too soon. Thirty years. It was a terrible day. It changed our nation. It changed the world. If you think you&#39;re going to forget about it, or if the impact of that day is going to be less in x number of years, then YOU are dishonoring the victims. If anything, we should be talking about it more and more. We should be constantly reminded of that day so perhaps, maybe, just maybe, we&#39;ll be smart enough to prevent it from happening again. Yes, movies make profit. You are a genius. You are the smartest mother fucker in the world for saying that. What happened to film being about expression? Conversation? Ideas? Viewpoints? Etc. Yes, the studio will do its best to make a profit. But don&#39;t throw the director into that mix. Sure, 99% of directors out there are trying to just make a buck and keep their career going. But there are still directors that make films as an artform. As an expression. To make people think. Yes, they have to play the game and use the studio system to do so. Boo fuckin hoo. Studio will profit from this movie whether is was made a year after or fifty years after. Get past this argument. If you feel so strongly about it, and continue to piss and moan about it, then don&#39;t buy ANYTHING ever again. "Then let the profits go back to the families of the passengers, blah blah..." Well, we don&#39;t live in a perfect world people. Get off of your weak soap box and accept that. Bill Gates will not give his billions to help feed the hungry. It&#39;s just a fact of life. It&#39;s a movie. Watch it or don&#39;t watch it. It WILL touch people&#39;s heart. It will have an effect on people. Is that such a bad thing?

  • April 21, 2006, 1:24 a.m. CST


    by Thylacine

    You missed the point. No one says

  • April 21, 2006, 1:36 a.m. CST

    Speaking of resident evil...

    by Novaman5000

    When are we getting a Silent Hill review?? Oh, and I don&#39;t think it&#39;s too soon for a film about 9/11, especially since that film is getting stellar reviews (meaning, it&#39;s probably really well done).

  • April 21, 2006, 1:54 a.m. CST

    This is horrible news!

    by Knugen

    They&#39;re remaking predator???! The single best action movie ever made, and they&#39;re remaking it?! That can not be true! Say it isn&#39;t so!

  • April 21, 2006, 1:59 a.m. CST


    by Thylacine

    There&#39;s a Pot on the phone for you, says he has your tinfoil hat ready.

  • April 21, 2006, 2:11 a.m. CST

    by WS

    It doesn&#39;t seem like anybody is suggesting that Hollywood doesn&#39;t have the right to make this movie...just that it might be tacky and tasteless and possibly irresponsible to do so. Hollywood makes a movie, people who have a problem with it speak out. That&#39;s pretty much how these things work. Christian zealots, pissed about the evils of hollywood, are primarily concerned with sex, not the truth of Flight 93, or the fact that a movie might obscure that truth. And, really, how could this movie not be effective at manipulating an emotional response? It&#39;s such a hot button issue that you&#39;d actually have to work to fuck it up...maybe if they&#39;d hired Stanley Tong to direct and then cast Jackie Chan. Good reviews are guaranteed.

  • April 21, 2006, 2:22 a.m. CST

    Oh, I didn&#39;t get that you were making fun...

    by Thylacine

    Sorry GreatOne2. I guess you intended to shine a harsh light on those that take cable television documentaries at face value. Glad we&#39;re on the same page.

  • April 21, 2006, 2:25 a.m. CST

    I want a movie about the people in the WTC Planes

    by chien_sale

    Personaly it would be by far more interesting to see for me. You`re about to crash in New York! In the freakn tall buildings in New York City! The feeling must be much more different than falling in the woods, wouldn`t you say.

  • April 21, 2006, 2:32 a.m. CST

    back atcha&#39; Mass.

    by Dollar Bird

    To paraphrase you, "I never say I&#39;m not arrogant and obnoxious myself." Though, I prefer "aloof" and "abrasive". But that&#39;s semantics. ... My insipid, pompous act aside, I appreciate your coda about Greengrass&#39; objectivity in this pretty delicate subject matter causing reflection on the part of the viewer. I have no problems with art that just bum-rushes the viewer with raw emotion, but I think the story of this plane is too complex to only hit the viewer in the gut. (Which was how I originally thought the movie hit you after reading your review

  • April 21, 2006, 3:09 a.m. CST

    Silent Hill

    by AnAgentOfEvil

    I&#39;m with Novaman5000. Where the fuck is the Silent Hill review? I thought this was Ain&#39;t It Cool News.

  • April 21, 2006, 3:13 a.m. CST

    This is by far.....

    by Undead Neverhood

    The single best, most level headed, common sense piece I have seen written about this movie.

  • April 21, 2006, 3:22 a.m. CST


    by Orionsangels

  • April 21, 2006, 3:39 a.m. CST

    I recall a similar debate about a flick called...

    by GreatWhiteNoise

    Schindler&#39;s List. Not so much the "too soon?" debate, but rather the need or motivations for making the film, as well as a lively discussion about the function of art as a social catalyst. Massawyrm makes an excellent point that art is not obliged to make us feel warm, fuzzy and contented all the time -- its function is to challenge society, to question its norms and in turn provoke further questions and dialogue. (Much like this dialogue, and the one that followed Schindler&#39;s List.) Sometimes that challenge is uncomfortable. Sometimes it&#39;s downright painful. And as will happen with this film, there were plenty of reactionary cries in 1993 that Spielberg was simply commercializing the horrors of the Shoah... until, of course, people actually saw the film, and understood. I sense from what I&#39;ve read that this film, while it may not win Best Picture or anything of the like, will receive the same criticism (and eventual acceptance). I look very much forward to seeing it.

  • April 21, 2006, 3:53 a.m. CST

    How about comparing it to serial killer movies

    by Vern

    I mean I&#39;m sure it&#39;s a better movie than say, BTK KILLER or THE GREEN RIVER KILLER or that whole series. But that seems like a closer analogy to me than HOTEL RWANDA. HOTEL RWANDA was different because most Americans didn&#39;t know anything about the genocide, alot probaly didn&#39;t even know it ever happened. And they watch that movie and there&#39;s the part where Nick Nolte complains that people will see the story on the news and say "that&#39;s horrible" and then just go on eating their dinner. You watch that scene and you think, "Jesus, that&#39;s me." That&#39;s something very different from a movie where every single American already pretty much knows what&#39;s known about what happened here. Reminding people about 9-11 is like reminding them to breathe. I mean, Massawyrm makes a convincing argument here. But my sense of watching this movie is that it&#39;s a morbid fascination kind of thing like wanting to know exactly what happened at Columbine or with the Ed Gein or something. I completely understand the fascination but I don&#39;t think it should be painted as our American duty.

  • April 21, 2006, 3:53 a.m. CST

    Yeah I agree

    by Undead Neverhood

    I&#39;m looking forward to seeing this. Oh and Orionsangels, wipe the foam off your mouth, because its dripping into your T.V. dinner.

  • April 21, 2006, 3:59 a.m. CST

    Silent Hill

    by Massawyrm 1

    The reviews are coming guys. The studio didn&#39;t schedule a screening until 9pm thursday - and it let out a scant 5 hours ago. My review has been submitted and should be up within hours, as I&#39;m certain Quint will have a review up very shortly as well.

  • April 21, 2006, 4:04 a.m. CST

    Wingman321: "Absolutely unnecessary?"

    by ChikeX

    Hello. Wingman, you wrote the following in an earlier post: Forget the argument over "too soon." The reason to make historical movies is to inform or remind people what happened...nobody has fucking forgot 9/11. I fucking hate signs that read "9-11 NEVER FORGET" WEll, if that were true, I would agree with you... HOWEVER, it appears our good friends at Daily Kos are over 9/11. Here is the link: I personally think people need something like this to remember those feelings when we were NOT Liberal, Conservative, Democrat or Republican... but Americans. I will be seeing this film opening day, and probably crying the entire time I watch it. And I will be unashamed for doing so. Domo.

  • April 21, 2006, 4:25 a.m. CST

    off of?? off of????

    by Cedar_Room

    how many times must you make this grammatical error Massawrym? simply "OFF" is fine, the of is superfluous. Damn yanks destroying our language again.

  • April 21, 2006, 4:26 a.m. CST

    there has been three acurate well documented tv movies


    that show what happened on flight 93 including interveiws with the people who actually talked to the people on board and play part of the tape that was recorded of the break in. whateva

  • April 21, 2006, 4:44 a.m. CST

    open your mind- you being played oceans 12 style

    by FinalSolace4 michael meacher video biotches.

  • April 21, 2006, 5:42 a.m. CST

    If Its Not About The Profits Then Why Dont They Donate

    by flamingrunt

    them to a 9/11 charity?

  • April 21, 2006, 5:52 a.m. CST

    Donate to profits

    by Undead Neverhood

    I think he made a pretty clear case against this being a profit taking issue. Try reading the article next time before scrolling down and seeing if you have a chance at "FIRST!!!!!"

  • April 21, 2006, 6:57 a.m. CST

    SIGH...You guys are going to feel really dumb when...

    by Darkplanet

    ...the democrats take back control of congress and start their full investigation of the Bush Whitehouse (you all know it&#39;s coming). This investigation will inevitably filter down to a vast volumes of legitimate 9/11 questions, inconsistencies and enigmas which have been too "hot button" to touch under Bush. When the dust finally settles there will be a period of deep introspection in the USA while people re-frame their loyalties and blind trust in government. Movies like "Flight 93" will be looked upon with some embarrassment but more predominantly a profound sense of shame. Hatred of some middle eastern boogie man will turn into a reflection of self. But don&#39;t listen to me, you can already see the cracks forming. It won&#39;t be long now. This movie is totally irresponsible.

  • April 21, 2006, 7:39 a.m. CST

    Actor refused entry to US for screening

    by GingerTwit

    BECAUSE HE WAS IRAQI !!! They actually got an Iraqi to play a terrorist. Fuck this movie.

  • April 21, 2006, 9:06 a.m. CST

    I will go see it...

    by Lost Skeleton

    ...for the simple fact that 9/11 changed everything. Our political discourse, a war that we can&#39;t win, the reelection of an administration obviously unprepared for diaster. I mean...if any film is important it is this one.

  • April 21, 2006, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Massawyrm, decent review, but sometimes I wish that...

    by Orbots Commander

    the staff at AICN would hire an in-house editor. The first dozen paragraphs of your review would have had blue penciled "X"s through them.

  • April 21, 2006, 9:58 a.m. CST

    I think I sometimes need an editor...

    by Orbots Commander

    I meant to write, &#39;the first half dozen paragraphs...&#39;.

  • April 21, 2006, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Orbots Commander

    by Massawyrm 1

    You know, as a review in a paper or magazine, I could definately see your point - but as a movie discussion site, we&#39;re allowed the occasional foray into this kind of discusssion. As I never write pure commentary pieces (that aren&#39;t attached to a review) sometimes I&#39;ll take a few liberties and talk about something as intimately connected as this issue. It&#39;s one I&#39;m pretty passionate about - and seeing as how that there have been dozens of news articles and blog pieces on "Is it too soon?" and I haven&#39;t seen anything but Harry&#39;s short piece a few days back countering them, I thought this would be the perfect time to open up that particular side of the argument. AICN has always been a place to open up frank talk about movies and how they play into our society. Had this been submitted to a magazine, no editor would have had to put a blue X through that section, because it wouldn&#39;t be there. I wouldn&#39;t have written it that way. But for AICN, well, that kind of thing is what we do.

  • April 21, 2006, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Darkplanet, I agree, BUT...

    by SK909

    The people on that plane were victims of the terrorists and they chose to take control of the situation, just like the american public are victims on the world stage as a result of the Bush administration&#39;s insane foreign policies. And yes, we voted him into office twice (ok, maybe once), but we all know they used the policy of fear on the American public ever since and only now are we finally, collectively tiring from it. I don&#39;t think the film is irresponsible insofar as it helps the Bush whitehouse, which I don&#39;t think it does. If anything, I think a movie like this shows americans taking control of their own destiny again, and if enough people choose to see it that way, or if its&#39; reframed for them that way by various reviewers after seeing it, then I think we&#39;ll see the enormous change and the kind of introspection you&#39;re talking about. The fact that these people did what they did on this plane is about not letting someone else fly the plane, not letting someone else control your destiny or the destiny of others. What better metaphor, however ironic, for what&#39;s happened since?

  • April 21, 2006, 11:43 a.m. CST

    by DonkeyBalls

    Above someone said that a movie is not automatically art, that a painting is not automatically art. That&#39;s the dumbest thing I have ever heard. I am so sick of peeople telling others what ISN&#39;T art. The NYSE could be considered art in the right context. Greengrass thinks this film is art, so it&#39;s art. It&#39;s fucked that these nerds will buy an "Art of Middle Earth" book or some shit and then say that a filmmaker who actually does a movie about the REAL world an opportunist. Luckily, I don&#39;t believe those people actually believe their own bullshit. It&#39;s just a thing to say.

  • April 21, 2006, 11:52 a.m. CST

    That&#39;s a good argument Massawyrm...

    by Orbots Commander college English and Pre-law proffesors would have given you an A. As far as the movie is concerned, I&#39;m not the squeamish or sensitive sort, but I still have mixed feelings about this movie&#39;s intentions. Whatever. I&#39;m sure Greengrass and Co. aren&#39;t aching for MY $10. Also, if it&#39;s as good as some are saying, watch for UNITED to be end-of-year Oscar bait.

  • April 21, 2006, 12:57 p.m. CST

    Isn&#39;t this the plane??

    by hammerbutt

    THAT HAS MOTHERFUCKING SNAKES ON IT? Anyway "Let&#39;s Roll (oops now I owe Todd Beemer&#39;s widow a dollar.)

  • April 21, 2006, 1:12 p.m. CST

    One of the best talkbacks in a while...

    by scrumdiddly

    A lot of people have *accurately* proven massawyrn wrong, I think.

  • April 21, 2006, 1:34 p.m. CST

    It depends on how you define "art"...

    by WS

    The word art has many definitions, but when I say "art", I mean this (from, "High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value." So, using that definition, if everything is art, then nothing is (to steal a line from The Incredibles). A movie that simply stirs up unpleasant feelings is not automaticly art...If this were so, the Blair Witch Project would be considered a masterwork.

  • April 21, 2006, 2:29 p.m. CST

    art is subjective....

    by vinceklortho

    so everyone&#39;s "definition" is null & void. Great talkback, by the way. Good ideas, some I agree with and some I don&#39;t. I agree mostly with Massy&#39;s review up there. I&#39;ll be there opening weekend, opening up my pockets to the movie studios. Oh, well.

  • April 21, 2006, 2:40 p.m. CST

    My god, has no one seen Bloody Sunday?

    by oisin5199

    If you have any doubts about Greengrass&#39; ability to represent a politically charged situation in a realistic, unbiased manner, see that movie. And Massawyrm, fuck these idiots. I think your review is good and your arguments about the film are RIGHT ON. The hypocrisy surrounding the "making money" exploitation issue, especially. How much political currency have the Republicans and the Bush administration squeezed out of 9/11? All of that propaganda should be the thing that sickens and angers people, not a movie that obviously is NOT being used for propagandistic purposes, but to tell a human story. The one thing that 9/11 did for our culture was to help feed into so many irrational fears and biases, so much that when people even just read a review of a movie about the topic, they have this incredible filter that helps them just see what they want to see, and not what&#39;s actually there on the screen (both the computer and cinema screen). Powerful, indeed.

  • April 21, 2006, 2:57 p.m. CST

    by WS

    "art is everyone&#39;s &#39;definition&#39; is null & void." This makes absolutely no sense...why is the word definition in quotes?

  • April 21, 2006, 3:24 p.m. CST


    by PhantomSpazzz

    So how does it end? Do the bad guys crash it into another building or.....?

  • April 21, 2006, 3:55 p.m. CST

    haha! yr all idiots if you believe this story

    by boast

    here are the facts. read it and weep.

  • April 21, 2006, 4:27 p.m. CST

    Some middle eastern boogie man would be

    by Meremoth

    Osama Bin Laden and various terrorist organizations. And yes I do hate them (them being the crazy terrorists and not all middle easterners.) Although Israel is kind of a terrorist nation and I like them, so I guess I shall resend my previous statement to just hating Osama bin Laden and his bitch ass lackeys. How does that sound? Anyone going to tell me I&#39;m wrong and that us stupid Americans with poor education systems really just misunderstand the Middle Eastern hero? Oh, thats right, some of you are pathetic enough to believe that the government blew up the Twin Towers with bombs from underneath the buildings.

  • April 21, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST


    by vinceklortho

    if you said that there are many definitons for art, then why is the one from the one we should base it on? It&#39;s just somebody else&#39;s def. of art. To me, there is no clear defintion to art, kinda like what you said, just maybe a cliched phrase to go by like, "art is in the eye of the beholder". My phrasing earlier may have been just some incoherant ramblings, so I apologize if this seems to not make any sense either.

  • April 21, 2006, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Anchorite, you&#39;re the prime example of what I mean

    by oisin5199

    Everywhere you look now you see terrorism and unpatriotic activity. Your brush off of this whole movie based on limited knowledge is exactly what I&#39;m talking about. You would never give this movie a fair shake because of your - that&#39;s right - irrational fear and biases. You only see what you choose to see, not what&#39;s actually there. And your continued ignorant racist statements just amaze me. Everyone from the Middle East or India or Southeast Asia is an Ay-rab terrorist to you. Do we judge the entirety of Christianity, and all its diverse sects, on the actions and pronouncements of right-wing fundamentalist whackos who are waiting for the Rapture? Of course not! But you&#39;re always willing to condemn an entire religion and culture (and not even one, but a diversity of cultures that follow Islam) over the actions of a minority. Yeah, they&#39;re the ones that talk (and explode) the loudest and are the most dramatic, but they&#39;re a minority. So until you take your blinders off, I don&#39;t think anyone should be reasonably expected to listen to your comments about a movie like this. Go live in your nice white Republican Christian American fear bubble and enjoy the view.

  • April 21, 2006, 5:27 p.m. CST


    by WS

    Thanks for clarifying. I agree that art is subjective, "in the eye of the beholder" and all that. My post was partly a response to Donkey Balls statement: "Above someone said that a movie is not automatically art, that a painting is not automatically art. That&#39;s the dumbest thing I have ever heard." If you look up art in the dictionary you will see many definitions. When DB used the word art, he probably meant, "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature." in which case his satement is absolutely correct. When I wrote, "just because a movie stirs up a lot of tense, uneasy feelings doesn&#39;t automatically make it art." what I meant by art was, "High quality of conception or execution...aesthetic value." (I wasn&#39;t saying that we all had to define art that way, simply that I was) It was partly a response to the review, which made it seem like the movie doesn&#39;t do anything except pummel the viewer with imagery of a horrific, recent tragedy. I was saying that, just because it&#39;s effective at doing that, it doesn&#39;t automaticaly attain "aesthetic value."

  • April 21, 2006, 5:28 p.m. CST

    In the broader context, Anchorite is RIGHT

    by SK909

    In the previous post, he&#39;s just stating a fact. You cannot possibly take away from the human psyche the instinct that makes us differentiate our &#39;group&#39; from others based upon skin color, religious affiliation, sex, favorite foods, etc. You name it and we want to put a fence around it and say we are this and everyone else is that. I think that goes for the human race, not just arab muslims, and I don&#39;t see Anchorite saying that. Although I would say HUMAN BEINGS have a demonstrated history of violence and terror that is nowhere being near exclusive to the middle east. Go back a mere two hundred years and it&#39;s the French Terror. Go back 75 and it&#39;s the Final Solution. 150 years ago and it&#39;s American slavery. Morals are relative, no matter what anyone says. They are relative to our position of survival. Morals are not absolute. They are exercised by the individual and we can say that some actions, like indiscriminate killing, are bad for the survival of the species because it breeds contempt, hatred, anger, and revenge. Violence begets violence, and if there is enough of it going around, we&#39;re all goners. Total annihilation. I think that true evil isn&#39;t really evil in the sense that the evil is a known quantifiable entity in the universe. What we&#39;d normally consider to be pure evil is the human or group expression of pure selfishness at the expense of other groups or people. It&#39;s like when one person becomes a black hole onto themselves and they make everything about them and their beliefs. That&#39;s what we really think of as evil. Cause evil has it&#39;s reasons just like good has it&#39;s reasons, and it&#39;s usually to do either with selfishness or selflessness. Anyway, I just think it&#39;s silly at all times to not look at the larger picture and our place in it. One of my favorite sayings is not, Man is not corrupt because society is corrupt, but rather, society is corrupt because of man. Man possesses very base instincts that it&#39;s just plain stupid to pretend they don&#39;t exist. When you do, you get something like communism, which, while good in theory, ignores man&#39;s penchant for selfishness, his corruptibility as a result of power, and our need to feel superior to others. Capitolism is, I think, the opposite. It celebrates all of these qualities to the point of spiritual emptiness, and, I would say, sprituality is another basic need that we seem to have. What do they call it again, the duality of man? Well... that&#39;s my two cents for now. Does it help anyone&#39;s argument? That wasn&#39;t my intention. I moreso wanted to just point out that we can&#39;t single out bad traits as coming from any one particular ethnic group but rather that these traits are inseparable from the human animal itself and can never be &#39;cured&#39;, as though they should even be to begin with. This is what makes life what it is. The circle of life, to get all Lion King on your asses... ok, rant over.

  • April 21, 2006, 5:31 p.m. CST

    In the broader context, Anchorite is right...

    by SK909

    In the previous post, he&#39;s just stating a fact. You cannot possibly take away from the human psyche the instinct that makes us differentiate our &#39;group&#39; from others based upon skin color, religious affiliation, sex, favorite foods, etc. You name it and we want to put a fence around it and say we are this and everyone else is that. I think that goes for the human race, not just arab muslims, and I don&#39;t see Anchorite saying that. Although I would say HUMAN BEINGS have a demonstrated history of violence and terror that is nowhere being near exclusive to arabs in the middle east. Go back a mere two hundred years and it&#39;s the French Terror. Go back 75 and it&#39;s the Final Solution. 150 years ago and it&#39;s American slavery. Morals are relative, no matter what anyone says. They are relative to our position of survival. Morals are not absolute. They are exercised by the individual and we can say that some actions, like indiscriminate killing, are bad for the survival of the species because it breeds contempt, hatred, anger, and revenge. Violence begets violence, and if there is enough of it going around, we&#39;re all goners. Total annihilation. I think that true evil isn&#39;t really evil in the sense that evil is a known quantifiable entity in the universe. What we&#39;d normally consider to be pure evil is the human or group expression of pure selfishness at the expense of other groups or people. It&#39;s like when one person becomes a black hole onto themselves and they make everything about them and what they want as a result of their beliefs. That&#39;s what we really think of as evil. Cause evil has it&#39;s reasons just like good has it&#39;s reasons, and it&#39;s usually to do either with selfishness or selflessness. Anyway, I just think it&#39;s silly at all times to not look at the larger picture and our place in it. One of my favorite sayings is Man is not corrupt because society is corrupt, but rather, society is corrupt because of man. Man possesses very base instincts that it&#39;s just plain stupid to pretend they don&#39;t exist. When you do, you get something like communism, which, while good in theory, ignores man&#39;s penchant for selfishness, his corruptibility as a result of power, and our need to feel superior to others. Capitalism is, I think, the opposite. It celebrates all of these qualities to the point of spiritual emptiness, and, I would say, sprituality is another basic need that we seem to have. What do they call it again, the duality of man? Well... that&#39;s my two cents for now. Does it help anyone&#39;s argument? That wasn&#39;t my intention. I moreso wanted to just point out that we can&#39;t single out bad traits as coming from any one particular ethnic group but rather that these traits are inseparable from the human animal itself and can never be &#39;cured&#39;, as though they should even be to begin with. This is what makes life what it is. The circle of life, to get all Lion King on your asses... ok, rant over.

  • April 21, 2006, 5:32 p.m. CST

    sorry for double post, quick TB form always stalls

    by SK909

  • April 21, 2006, 6:35 p.m. CST

    sk909 - if by right you mean right wing.

    by oisin5199

    certainly not as in &#39;correct.&#39; I just don&#39;t buy your argument. People of intelligence acknowledge their &#39;human&#39; prejudices and try to move beyond them. Prejudices are NOT inborn - they are learned behaviors drilled into us by our family, the government, media, peers, talkbacks, take your pick. Just because a person has them, doesn&#39;t mean they need to take over everything a person says or does. I&#39;m not for a second saying that a person can be totally color/race/religion blind, but know the difference between the facts of a case and when prejudice (either for or against something) is outweighing logical decisions.

  • April 21, 2006, 8:02 p.m. CST

    You know what

    by DannyOcean01

    I could give 5 hoary fucks for this film. I&#39;m so f&#39;ing sick of hearing about that day. Just get over it for Gods sake.

  • April 22, 2006, 12:39 a.m. CST

    Earth to Meremoth. Carefully extract your head from...

    by Darkplanet

    your ass. You mean the same Bin Laden who&#39;s family was allowed to fly out of the United States while all other air traffic was grounded that day? You&#39;re the worst kind of talking point driven drone. Talk about being behind the curve. You do realize that a majority of Americans now believe the government was involved in 9/11 in some capacity don&#39;t you? And for good reason, there is more than enough mind-blowing material to give this situation substantial credence. This event was willingly allowed to take place if not helped along in an effort to further the Neocon agenda in the middle east. The public is finally starting to wake up to that fact. Oh sure the loonie rightwing would love to have you think otherwise but those days are fading fast my friend. Pry open your poor, sick, deluded, brainwashed, meme eating mind and just get to the facts (and stop wasting your life in denial). Now, I doubt you&#39;ll have the balls to visit this link but if you want to have an educated opinion that does not rely on hate mongering, brainwashed, fear based nonsense then you really need the reality check:

  • April 22, 2006, 2:35 a.m. CST

    Will People Wake Up To The 9/11 Truth In 2006?

    by pockybot

    ...not with the Orwellian propaganda machine in full blast. It&#39;s, actually its pathetic both Democrats and Republicans scream "tinfoil crackpot" at the mere questioning of 9/11. Why is that...why is that, when there is a literal tsunami of whistleblowers from the government, evidence, and all sorts of provable in a court of law anomalies of US government foreknowlege and complicity are people so afraid to even question 9/11? I think deep down a lot of Americans know it was either allowed to happen or elements of the US gov were involved. Every single one of my friends, some even in the millitary, believe it was allowed to happen or an inside job. I think all the cynical asshats on AICN who think they know it all should wake up and do the research before saying there&#39;s no 9/11 coverup.

  • April 22, 2006, 3:26 a.m. CST


    by Darkplanet

    You heard what I said and you know it&#39;s true. A recent CNN poll found that 83% of respondents thought the government was somehow involved in the 9/11 attacks. "If you can find me some solid supporting evidence to back up your ridiculous claim, I&#39;ll eat YOUR shorts", would you like some ketchup with my shorts? Be big enough and brave enough to open your small mind, click on the link provided and start your re-education (deprogramming). You crackpot sheeple are all the same. Your ignorance of the truth is shameful and an insult to patriotism.

  • April 22, 2006, 5:39 a.m. CST


    by AGE IIX

    In the beginning I realy thought that you where a Reasonable guy open to discussion but you only want to hear and see what you want to believe! (now I know that that is what you also think of me but I know for myself that I keep an open mind and I am prepared to change my views if the evidence is overwhelmingly differeant to what I believe now) You can not say you have been to and not find the official story to be (for the lack of a better word) fishy of weird. What more do you need it shows 6 Photo&#39;s of the crashsite, where are the debris from the plane. (Yeah I know the evaporated.) It has quotes form people that were there one being a coroner. And then the they find no pieces of a plane but they do find a red bandana (ahahahah) and pasports! ok the WHOLE plane EVAPORATED allong with every person on that plane but a pasport and a bandana do survive? you know what that sounds to me, planted evidence! Now I would like you to comment on these things, before you make fun of my tinhat.

  • April 22, 2006, 6:29 a.m. CST

    So David Lynch and General Wesley Clark Are Crazy?

    by pockybot

    Because it aint just Charlie Sheen speaking out. We know the FBI authorized the first WTC 1993 attack. We know the CIA was following the 9/11 hijackers, and having them trained at US bases. We know they were living with FBI informants, funded by the CIA through Pakistani ISI, we know al Qaeda was set up and funded by the CIA in the 1980&#39;s to fight Afghanistan. We know Khalid Shaik Mohammed and other so called dmastermindsa are being safe guarded by the CIA in safe houses. We know Newton&#39;s law of gravity didnt take a vacation on 9/11, you cant perfectly fly a plane into precise targets after a month of Cessna single engine training, and we know the air was NOT SAFE to breathe around lower Manhattan. The whole thing is a coverup, and it doesnt matter if youre liberal or conservative, its up to everyone to rise up and start demanding answers. Forget Iraq: 9/11 IS THE CENTRAL issue right now.

  • April 22, 2006, 7:58 a.m. CST

    Now it&#39;s perfectly obvious to me.....

    by BendersShinyAss

    ....why the bandana and the passport survived the crash. Because they were EVIL. No actually they survived so some collector could get hold of them and pawn them off after the release of this film. what does a red ribbon around your head do anyway? Does it give you super monkey magic powers? Or does it stop the swet from dripping into your eyes as the tennis players will have you think? Of course! thats why they survived. Ever try to light a fire with wet wood? It just doesn&#39;t work!! Unless you&#39;re me and you make it work. but lets not get into that.

  • April 22, 2006, 11:45 a.m. CST

    by Shropshire Slash

    I think Hitler was a lesbian ... and what about TWA Flight 800 which many believe was shot down accidentally by a surface to air missile targeting a suicide bomber plane

  • April 22, 2006, 12:28 p.m. CST

    My reading comprehension&#39;s just fine, anky.

    by oisin5199

    Maybe you should check yours. If you need a class on it, I teach one. Did you not read Massawyrm&#39;s review? When he says that the movie is NOT presented as a patriotic spectacle? Sorry, but I&#39;m tending to believe the guy who&#39;s actually seen it over you. What I&#39;m responding to is not just your posts here, but a looongg history of posts where you&#39;ve made made racist statements about Middle Easterners and overgeneralizing, ignorant statements about Islam. I mean you are the tampon joke guy, aren&#39;t you?

  • April 22, 2006, 1:57 p.m. CST

    MASSAWYRM- On Your review and

    by 900LBGorilla

    I think your comment on Bush was invalid and a little silly (He does have things he can very validly be criticized on, I just rarely hear it done), and though I don

  • April 22, 2006, 3:14 p.m. CST

    anchorite - racism is irrational...

    by Max Meanie

    ...but unfortunately part of human nature. You cannot claim that a subconscious reaction like "Is it irrational to be suspicious of Arab Muslims now?" is rational as you end your post. Yes, 16 Saudis, 2 Arab Emirites & 1 Syrian were directly responsible for 9/11 but not the 3 guys that fixed my transmission or the guy that gives me my coffee and paper every morning. Or the thousands of arabs around us every day. I refuse to live in fear of other races. Neither should you. And I like Massawyrm&#39;s response to Dollar Bird. He claims it&#39;s unbiased. Maybe not. But if you wont know if you don&#39;t see it so I don&#39;t see the point of this Talkbalk.

  • April 22, 2006, 4:05 p.m. CST


    by ZooTrain

    Art exists to bring something beautiful to the world. To add something a little more extraordinary to our lives. Sculpture, painting, literature, drama, and film...all exist to make the mundane a little more tolerable. Little diversions that elevate. Which, essentially, is entertainment. For fuck&#39;s sake.

  • April 22, 2006, 4:17 p.m. CST


    by ZooTrain

    The argument isn&#39;t whether or not it&#39;s okay to make a movie about war or tragedy. I quote George Carlin, again, on the topic of one hour photoshops..."How the hell can you be nostalgiac for something that happened an hour ago?" And I&#39;m saying..."Why do we want to be entertained by a tragedy that happened less than five years ago." The movies you mentioned, there was some distance between the time they took place and the time that they were released. You mentioned "Platoon"...which was the first film about Vietnam made by a Vietnam veteran. At least they waited TEN years. The only exception on the list is Hotel Rwanda. But we can make an allowance for this because it&#39;s a story that not a lot of Americans are familiar with, so it&#39;s helpful to have a film about it to raise awareness. That&#39;s obviously not the case with 9/11 and Flight 93.

  • April 22, 2006, 4:29 p.m. CST

    by boast

  • April 22, 2006, 4:42 p.m. CST

    Thylacine just come out and say it.

    by 900LBGorilla

    It appears that we finally have a conspiracy kook among us- there

  • April 22, 2006, 5:33 p.m. CST

    Darkplanet- another kook!?

    by 900LBGorilla

    You mean the Bin laden family that was approved to leave the USA by Richard Clarke, the Bush critic and former top anti-terrorism aid under CLINTON? (and actually they didn

  • April 22, 2006, 7:27 p.m. CST

    Neocon wackos abound on this site. Too late for you?

    by Darkplanet

    90LBGorilla, Anchorite and others like you, are you really that lost? I can only assume based on your comments that you haven&#39;t done your homework. This isn&#39;t a left or right issue so much as it is a basic issue of trust in government and accountability. I&#39;ve been a free thinker long enough to understand that you can&#39;t argue with someone who has been utterly brainwashed by Neocon media. Even when countless facts which are contradictory to their fragile construct of reality are placed in front of them they will willfully deny them. They simply do not follow the truth, the leads, the barrage of countless facts. They would much rather steer things away from the core issues for fear of having to look with honest eyes at the data. I&#39;ve seen this scenario play out time and time again. The best that I can do is point out little festering contradictory facts about 9/11 and who might be ultimately responsible and who stands to gain from that terrible day. If you need a definitive list of FACTS to start your journey that cast a dark shadow over 9/11 and the governments official story please go here and do some research (everything here is sourced by the way): . If nothing else this list should give you pause to consider some very legitimate questions that need answers. The time for people like me to "prove" our side has passed, the time for people like yourselves to pry open your eyes and examine the truth has come. Stop plugging your ears, hiding your eyes and spewing talking point propaganda and start being a responsible thinking citizen. Your country needs you.

  • April 23, 2006, 12:54 a.m. CST


    by benito

    Massawyrm... I don

  • April 23, 2006, 3:58 a.m. CST

    anchorite isn&#39;t that bad, guys.

    by samsquanch

    He&#39;s actually an example of someone on the right wing of things that actually can think critically. I don&#39;t identify with either &#39;wing&#39;, I see flaws and advantages on both sides of the political spectrum- as they are defined today by politicians, media, pop culture, etc. which are always in flux (republicans abolished slavery, etc.) Anchorite weighs in quite a bit on this site, more than I do (I like to watch, heh heh) and even though I disagree with a lot of what he puts forward, I applaud his willingness to admit when he&#39;s wrong(headed), at least some of the time. If you really believe that important issues go beyond which team you belong to, if you REALLY believe that the most essential topics transcend the right/left divide... be willing to see the other side. calling someone on the left an"idiot" or someone on the right "ignorant" doesn&#39;t get us anywhere. It annoys me when I see this division. Who the fuck cares who voted for who? We&#39;re here now, wake up and smell the manipulation. Divide and Conquer. Who&#39;s divided? Us. Who&#39;s conquering? That&#39;s something worth discussing, but only if you can give up your bullshit alliance to some ideological construct that doesn&#39;t give a shit about you, personally. Anchorite! Keep fighting the good fight, bro! Who&#39;s got your back?

  • April 23, 2006, 9:47 a.m. CST

    When is it not too soon?

    by JackBristow

    Ten years? Twenty years? Thirty years? Fifty years? When it&#39;s not too soon, is that when we can frame a love story around the events of 9/11? Maybe have a movie where a police detective escaped the South Tower&#39;s collapse and foils a secondary attack on the Empire State Building. But lo and behold, his girlfriend is trapped by terrorists on the observation deck!

  • April 23, 2006, 5:24 p.m. CST

    DarkPlanet where do you get those neat tinfoil hats?

    by 900LBGorilla

    I mean

  • April 23, 2006, 5:29 p.m. CST

    Wait Darkplanet I think your video has taught me

    by 900LBGorilla

    The only thing that confuses me - where is your horror about the apparent Clinton Administration

  • April 23, 2006, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Too soon? How about too late, or hopefully just in time

    by AntoniusBloc

    Just in time to stop the demagogues who constantly and relentlessly attack the President on anything they can take advantage of while offering no solutions of their own. Thank God we live in a republic where the idea is to elect leaders to LEAD. President Bush is being attacked on every front, but in the context of 9/11 he has been a great leader, and remember that true leaders rarely do what the mob majority wants at any given moment. Thank God for that. How easily we are swayed by the major media into believing that the war in Iraq is wrong, yet where are all the predicted attacks on U.S. soil every expert has predicted? People who actually think for themselves understand that we have literally brought the battle to our enemy&#39;s region and they understand its a front they can&#39;t lose. It&#39;s a pretty simple idea that if we bring the battle to them it makes us safer here at home. And despite the demagogues, its easy to understand why our troop are true heroes and are literally protecting our safety, as did the passengers on flight 93. Obviously, President Bush is not popular right now, but he has proven his leadership. He&#39;s not swayed by polls, and stands for principle more than politics. Just look at his immigration stance where many conservatives are attacking him. Give President Bush credit for being a true leader and not trying to win a popularity contest, especially during these fragile times. Are things going smoothly in Iraq? No, but it&#39;s war. What was and what is the alternative? Suicide bombers on U.S. soil? Saddam was paying Palestinian families to have a member perform suicide bombings in Israel, how long would it have been before he started funding them for this country? It would be nice to believe that the terrorists and their agenda is suddenly no longer a problem and we stop fighting. Let&#39;s hope this film reminds people what can happen when we let our guard down.

  • April 24, 2006, 3:01 a.m. CST

    Blah Blah Profit on Death Blah Blah Blah

    by Hate_Speech


  • April 24, 2006, 6:42 a.m. CST

    900LBGorilla Be careful of that SPOOKY terrorist!

    by Darkplanet

    Afraid of the boogieman are we? Does good old boy George make you feel all safe and dreamy while you lay in bed knowing that you are protected from the big bad terrorists? Be careful citizen, they are hiding underneath your bed! BOO! You certainly are a good citizen aren&#39;t you. Watch those neighbors carefully and report any suspicious behaviour immediately to the proper authorities! BLIND...B.L.I.N.D! Here&#39;s another word for you; BRAINWASHED or how about SHEEP, sheeple, do you even know what NEOCON means? I suggest you look it up. Ultimately you are a waste of carbon, a fucking robot that has lost the capacity to use critical thought. Sure read the headlines dipshit but use that grey matter to actually question what is being force fed to you. Do some research, open a fucking book! I know how hard it is to accept that reactionary, fear based, fabricational meme based opinions like yours are in the minority. It really must be difficult to be in that spot where you&#39;re cognoscente of the fact that you are fighting a losing battle. Ignorance of the facts, ignorance of the truth never wins. You prattle on about Clinton like makes any difference in the context of what we&#39;re saying. Sure , let&#39;s lock them all up! I&#39;m all for it. Is that really all you have to keep your mind from opening a crack? Pretty sad if you ask me. And what fucking movie are you talking about? There are dozens of 9/11 movies out there and I&#39;m quite certain you did not disgrace your fragile mind by watching any of them. The only thing you&#39;ve really made clear here is your level of ignorance and your complicit sheep-like nature. Waste of skin, waste of time and a utter disgrace to America. Now if you don&#39;t mind I have friends and family that I would much rather hang with than waste another minute on your fucking Orwellian melon head.

  • April 24, 2006, 2:35 p.m. CST

    in the context of 9/11 he has been a great leader

    by oisin5199

    bwahhaahhahaha! Thanks for my day&#39;s first good laugh, antoniusbloc. Typical Bush rhetoric: "We haven&#39;t been attacked again, so he must be doing a good job!" Nice logic there, dude. And Anchorite, I admit I haven&#39;t seen the featurette you&#39;re referring to, but I would tend to weigh the film itself more heavily than a featurette, which may be more influenced by studio politics than by the film artist. Unlike you, I&#39;ll wait to see the whole picture (not just a featurette) before I make any judgment, thanks. Good luck with that knee.

  • April 24, 2006, 7:45 p.m. CST

    DarkPlanet = you are right TERRORISM DOENST EXIST!

    by 900LBGorilla

    LMFAO!!! You are so deluded you

  • April 25, 2006, 12:07 a.m. CST

    900LBGorilla = I think therefor you "DOENST" exist

    by Darkplanet

    lol...Did I get under your skin 900LBGorilla? Hard to argue with someone who actually has a brain isn&#39;t it? Can&#39;t steer me into the same old maze of talking point mind-trash huh? Oh sure "terror" exists and there are many ways our government manipulates that terror to garner the most influence over a very gullible population. Enjoying those high gas prices are we? lol. You are a classic example of the "model American" who buys the propaganda hook, line and sinker without any capacity for objective, critical thought. And don&#39;t even try to tell me you "looked into it" because if you REALLY went through those motions we wouldn&#39;t be arguing right now. I could lay a big steaming smoking gun on your desk and you would dismiss it as a figment of my imagination. You&#39;re the worst kind of sad talking head living in a false, very fragile and twisted construct of reality. Just keep taking your Prozac and swallowing the lies. Honestly I really just feel sorry for you. A parting gift for you; there may be a small glimmer of hope for you if you can give this material an honest look and actually follow the leads to their sources. Truth is truth my poor deluded friend: ,,,2087-1593607,00.html ,,,2089-1648758,00.html , , ,

  • April 25, 2006, 6:14 p.m. CST

    DarkPlanet Cont from Massywyms review

    by 900LBGorilla

    LOL- did you

  • April 25, 2006, 7:25 p.m. CST

    900LBGorilla = A comic tragedy

    by Darkplanet must need a neckbrace to support that big head of yours. lol. You&#39;re telling me that you&#39;ve "refuted all the points" I&#39;ve brought to your attention? WOW! I must have missed that somewhere in your deluded right wing ramble. There are literally 1000&#39;s of valid unanswered questions regarding 9/11 and the gong show that is the Bush Whitehouse. Your self affirmed megabrain didn&#39;t touch any of them. There is little doubt in my mind that you did a very cursory surface look at the material (if at all) without really getting to the bottom of the reality these subjects bring to the table. You&#39;re an ignorant fucking coward plain and simple. You would rather watch your country rot from the inside out than admit there is a deep seeded problem with your leadership. You&#39;re children and your grandchildren will agree with me when their world is falling apart from your blind support of a completely corrupt Neocon dictatorship. Get your fucking head out of your ass and think about the people you love instead of greasing up GWB&#39;s pole. You make me fucking sick. I feel sorry for your family and your friends having to put up with your bullshit. Oh wait, with that head on your shoulders I doubt you have any friends. The bottle maybe?...Baaaahahahahahahahaha Baaahahahahahaha. This is fun, when will it end? Oh wait, I know when it will end: