Quantcast

Movie Review: Flight 93

N8 v2.0

Not the sharpest tool in the shed
Oct 18, 2002
11,003
149
The Cleft of Venus
I thought the director's earlier work of Bloody Sunday was quite well done. I may see this one.




United 93
By Kirk Honeycutt

Bottom line: Unflinching account of the terror aboard the fourth hijacked plane on Sept. 11 provokes deep, disturbing emotions.

Press notes for motion pictures are usually filled with dispensable, self-congratulatory puffery, but the one for the soul-searing film "United 93" contains this trenchant comment from its English writer-director, Paul Greengrass: Speaking of the 40 individuals aboard United Airlines Flight 93, the fourth hijacked plane on that day of infamy, Sept. 11, 2001, he notes that these were the only passengers and crew members on any of those ill-fated flights who knew about the other planes having been used as weapons and realized what was happening to them. "They were the first people to inhabit the post-9/11 world," Greengrass says. These were the first to react to the worldwide conflict we find ourselves in today. Within the microcosm of that reaction, Greengrass has made an emphatic political document, a movie about defiance against tyranny and terrorism.

How many moviegoers will be willing to endure "United 93"? I suspect many will, but what that adds up to in terms of boxoffice is anybody's guess. Understandably, controversy engulfs this film. Is now the right time for such a film? Why make the film at all? These are legitimate questions. No one possesses a "right" answer. But Greengrass has made not only a thoroughly fact-checked film but a film that uncontrovertibly comes from the heart.

Greengrass wants the 91 minutes United 93 was in the air to speak to our tenuous situation in a scary, riven world. A previous film by him anticipates this work. The invaluable "Bloody Sunday" (2002), shot as if it were made by a camera crew at the time, dramatized a 1972 incident in Londonderry, Northern Ireland, where 13 unarmed civil rights demonstrators were shot and killed by British soldiers. Here again he takes a hard look at a cataclysmic event to provoke dialogue.

To keep things as accurate as possible, Greengrass reportedly interviewed more than 100 family members and friends of those who perished. He hired flight attendants and commercial airline pilots to play those roles; hired several civilian and military controllers on duty on Sept. 11, including the FAA's Ben Sliney, to play themselves; culled facts from the 9/11 Commission Report; and rehearsed and shot his actors in an old Boeing 757 at England's Pinewood Studios.

Even Barry Ackroyd's hand-held cinematography, John Powell's muted, anxious score and the plane set fixed to computer-controlled motion gimbals to simulate the pitch and roll of the aircraft urge the viewer to think of this as a you-are-there experience. Yet no one really knows what happened on United 93. We have evidence from phone calls made from the plane and those interviews, but that's where it ends. And that is where an artist can pick up the story.

This is what it probably was like, and the experience overwhelms. Time passes in weird ways. The four nervous terrorists wait seemingly forever to make their move. The panicked passengers wait seemingly forever to make theirs. Helplessness engulfs us, then determination takes hold.

During these breathless moments, Greengrass cuts away to the desperation and confusion in airport control towers, the FAA's overwhelmed operations command center in Herndon, Va., and the military's unprepared operations center at the Northeast Air Defense Sector in upstate New York. For all their monitors and electronic equipment, there is a horrific, low-tech moment when controllers at Newark Airport get a perfect view across the Hudson of the second plane hitting a World Trade Center tower. No one can even speak.

In years to come, United 93 may enter our mythology in ways unimaginable. But for now, we have a starting point. "United 93" is a sincere attempt to pull together the known facts and guesses at the emotional truths as best anyone can. Then, in the movie's final moments, the impact of the heroism aboard United 93 becomes startlingly clear.

UNITED 93
Universal Pictures
Universal Pictures and StudioCannal present in association with Sidney Kimmel Entertainment a Working Title production
Credits:
Screenwriter-director: Paul Greengrass
Producers: Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lloyd Levin, Paul Greengrass
Executive producers: Debra Hayward, Liza Chasin
Director of photography: Barry Ackroyd
Production designer: Dominic Watkins
Composer: John Powell
Costume designer: Dinah Collin
Editors: Clare Douglas, Christopher Rouse, Richard Pearson
Cast:
Donald Freeman Greene: David Rasche
Himself: Ben Sliney
Capt. Jason M. Dahl: JJ Johnson
Todd Beamer: David Alan Basche
Sandra Bradshaw: Trish Gates
Wanda Anita Green: Starla Benford
Maj. Kevin Nasypany: Patrick St. Esprit
Jeremy Glick: Peter Hermann
MPAA rating R
Running time -- 111 minutes
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
I completely forgot about this movie. Should be interesting to compare now to the transcripts of the 93 voice recorders.

I plan on seeing it if I can. If nothing else, Greengrass is a good director. The Bourne Supremacy was pretty good and Bloody Sunday was incredibly moving. Even though many are suspect of his fact-checking in that work (some of it seemed suspect even to me) his skill in telling the story from the ground is undeniable.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
42,790
14,873
Portland, OR
I doubt I will see it. I don't think there are enough facts to recreate what might have happened. There is some good data about it, but I don't think it could be true to life.
 

BurlyShirley

Rex Grossman Will Rise Again
Jul 4, 2002
19,180
17
TN
I heard Todd Beamer is played by Bruce Willis, and somehow he manages to kill all the terrorists and land the plane safely on an aircraft carrier in lake michigan.
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
jimmydean said:
I doubt I will see it. I don't think there are enough facts to recreate what might have happened. There is some good data about it, but I don't think it could be true to life.
I agree, particularly because the voice recorder information has only recently been made public so they could not have been relying on that. I am more interested just to see a well made movie and the director's interpretation of events. Basically the same reasons why I watched Bloody Sunday. In any case, with the basic facts, conjecture can be worthwhile. The Perfect Storm was a decent movie and most of it was just guesswork with even less data than for flight 93.
 

black noise

Turbo Monkey
Dec 31, 2004
1,032
0
Santa Cruz
w00dy said:
Too bad it never happened.
Woody is ballsy. That video has as many holes in it as the 9-11 story, but you have to wonder how their cellphones worked at 30,000 ft when that guy in the video had like a .01% success rate when he tried to make phone calls at that altitude.

Anyway, the movie is ballsy too. It was only 5 years ago so it pretty much has to be perfect.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
I DO like documentaries, so I watched the entire thing. It is very well done, and very convincing.

I must say that I don't agree with all of their theories, but they evidence they provide IS eye opening. This is especially true given that they can provide 4-5 legitimate sources for everything they claim, and the official story provides none.
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,539
2,622
Pōneke
...Sometimes years out, so the powers that be won't let me get my ideas out, and that makes me wanna get my advance out and move to Oklahoma and just live at my Aunt's house...
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,213
22
Blindly running into cactus
wow...that is a convincing video....just about enough to make me convert. :think: the opening section with the letter to mcnamara about staging terrorist attacks to start a war is just eerie. i was in the intelligence field in the corps and saw the way things are done from the top down......i have no doubt that this documentary is more correct than the official gub'ment story.
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
I saw United 93 this afternoon.

It basically met with my expectations of what it was going to be and how I would react to it. I don't think I've ever been so tense watching a movie before. It was an intense, powerful and very well-made film. It does little to editorialize, villify or raise up- it tells the story (as best we know it) and little else.

Comparing it to the cockpit voice recorders, it seems there are a few discrepencies, but nothing I would think irresponsible.
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
42,790
14,873
Portland, OR
I didn't want to see it when I first heard about it. Now that I have watched Loose Change 2nd Ed I want to see it even less.

I think Loose Change should be shown in theaters instead, but that's just how I feel. I'm not one to watch things like that, but it makes some creapy connections that I'm not sure how to explain away. I'm very angry right now and I hope it's not true.
 

manhattanprjkt83

Rusty Trombone
Jul 10, 2003
9,659
1,237
Nilbog
I went to see flight 93 last night. I thought it was very well done, and i feel horrible for anyone involved in the 911 tragedy. However, i do think that the US government shot that plane down. Esp after seeing the 3 prior planes hit the other buildings.

I think that they government felt that we as a nation could not deal with hearing that we shot our own plane out of the sky, and that the american public would react best thinking that the passengers died being heros. Like i said above i take nothing away from anyone though. It was an aweful tragedy.
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
While a few things here are somewhat convincing, some of the stuff in that documentary is laughable. Quotes take out of context, common sense appeals that we have no reason accept (lack of comparison etc), the whole "the gov't hasn't released the info- why not?" reasoning, leaps in judgment that are not supported, conjecture based on bare facts, reliance on certain eyewitness claims (notoriously unreliable) without considering other claims.

Common sense isn't science. Wikipedia isn't good enough if you're making such outlandish claims (I don't care what Science says). In the end, the reasoning cited for why all of these conspiracies were undertaken is weak. The cost-benefit doesn't line up. Killing 3,000 people in an outlandish and wide-ranging conspiracy in order to make money? If you are so unscrupulous, there are easier and safer ways to make money. People apparently smart enough to pull this off would first have to be stupid enough to do it in the first place.

On a more cursory level, I refuse to believe that something like this could be undertaken and actually work. Watergate, Iran Contra, Victoria Plame- all involved much fewer people and much, much less physical evidence and the truth has or will come out. This type of conspiracy would involve so many people, so much money, so much planning, so much evidence, I refuse to believe it could be done without more support for its existence.
 

Jeremy R

<b>x</b>
Nov 15, 2001
9,701
1,056
behind you with a snap pop
JRogers said:
While a few things here are somewhat convincing, some of the stuff in that documentary is laughable. Quotes take out of context, common sense appeals that we have no reason accept (lack of comparison etc), the whole "the gov't hasn't released the info- why not?" reasoning, leaps in judgment that are not supported, conjecture based on bare facts, reliance on certain eyewitness claims (notoriously unreliable) without considering other claims.

Common sense isn't science. Wikipedia isn't good enough if you're making such outlandish claims (I don't care what Science says). In the end, the reasoning cited for why all of these conspiracies were undertaken is weak. The cost-benefit doesn't line up. Killing 3,000 people in an outlandish and wide-ranging conspiracy in order to make money? If you are so unscrupulous, there are easier and safer ways to make money. People apparently smart enough to pull this off would first have to be stupid enough to do it in the first place.

On a more cursory level, I refuse to believe that something like this could be undertaken and actually work. Watergate, Iran Contra, Victoria Plame- all involved much fewer people and much, much less physical evidence and the truth has or will come out. This type of conspiracy would involve so many people, so much money, so much planning, so much evidence, I refuse to believe it could be done without more support for its existence.
I agree
I watched that whole 121 minutes, and I almost had to tie myself down to finish it. If you believe all that horse**** in that documentary actually happened you are either 15 years old or carrying around an extra chromosome.
Clinton couldn't get a blowjob in his office without the whole world knowing every detail, and we are supposed to believe there was some huge conspiracy killing thousands of our own people for what is a tiny amount of money for our goverment.
Conspiracy nutjobs are the saddest people in existance.
I was just waiting for that documentary to show Elvis and Kurt Cobain
masterminding the whole thing from their secret pod on Mars.
If these people want to make us believe something they could have at least focused on something that really could have happened like if our gov't shot down Flight 93. But instead, they say we landed the plane and put all those passengers in a room. I even bet they gave them kool-aid. Dumb.
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
cederrowe said:
No cell phone would have ever worked at the elevation, the technology is just now being implemented to make calls at that elevation. That plane was shot down.
HAHA:rolleyes:

So, why would they fake the cell calls and THEN shoot the plane down? Odd....besides, why do you NEED the phone calls? If they really shot it down, couldn't they have just not done the whole phone thing and left it at that? There's still no real evidence it was shot down.


Also, the whole faked call thing reported in the documentary- so the masterminds who landed a plane in Cleveland without anyone knowing or finding out, disposed of an entire load of people, used voice-changing technology to make fake phone calls and then faked the plane crash must be pretty smart. Yet I am supposed to believe that those people, those super-scientist-Delta-Force-CIA-spook-black-ops-Einsteins, DIDN'T KNOW and didn't think anyone else would figure out that cell phones don't even work in a plane? Are you kidding? If you believe that someone was smart enough to pull this off, you'd also have to believe that they were dumb enough to make that mistake and the mistake of even bothering to fake the calls when it didn't need to be done. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through if the end product is so shoddy.

Besides, you still need motive, which this "documentary" did not provide for the flight 93 "fake."
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
42,790
14,873
Portland, OR
JRogers said:
HAHA:rolleyes:

So, why would they fake the cell calls and THEN shoot the plane down? Odd....besides, why do you NEED the phone calls? If they really shot it down, couldn't they have just not done the whole phone thing and left it at that? There's still no real evidence it was shot down.


Also, the whole faked call thing reported in the documentary- so the masterminds who landed a plane in Cleveland without anyone knowing or finding out, disposed of an entire load of people, used voice-changing technology to make fake phone calls and then faked the plane crash must be pretty smart. Yet I am supposed to believe that those people, those super-scientist-Delta-Force-CIA-spook-black-ops-Einsteins, DIDN'T KNOW and didn't think anyone else would figure out that cell phones don't even work in a plane? Are you kidding? If you believe that someone was smart enough to pull this off, you'd also have to believe that they were dumb enough to make that mistake and the mistake of even bothering to fake the calls when it didn't need to be done. Seems like an awful lot of trouble to go through if the end product is so shoddy.

Besides, you still need motive, which this "documentary" did not provide for the flight 93 "fake."
So where are the remains of flight 93? Where are the bodies? "Not one drop of blood"? That's what I'd like to know.
 

Skookum

bikey's is cool
Jul 26, 2002
10,184
0
in a bear cave
JRogers said:
On a more cursory level, I refuse to believe that something like this could be undertaken and actually work. Watergate, Iran Contra, Victoria Plame- all involved much fewer people and much, much less physical evidence and the truth has or will come out. This type of conspiracy would involve so many people, so much money, so much planning, so much evidence, I refuse to believe it could be done without more support for its existence.
Precisely, also you have to have confidence the current administration is competent enough to pull this off as well.

The facts remain the government has manipulated the tragedy to it's own ends which is despicable to me, however i'll stop well short of giving them the credit of actually masterminding a grand global conspiracy.

i watched the video, i doubt i'll watch the movie...
 

JRogers

talks too much
Mar 19, 2002
3,785
1
Claremont, CA
jimmydean said:
So where are the remains of flight 93? Where are the bodies? "Not one drop of blood"? That's what I'd like to know.
I don't know. I wasn't there and didn't look around the crash site. I would assume that things sometimes disappear when they slam into the ground at 600 miles and hour and then explode. So, you think that the government (or whoever) had enough power to fake a plane crash and get a bunch of people to believe that, but not enough to think that people might not notice that nobody died on it?

Or, I can just throw it back to you: where is everyone who was on United 93 if it didn't crash? Where is the plane? What did crash?

Is the media "in on it" or are the NY Times and all the rest too scared to report what is, apparently, so obvious? Maybe it's that some people have to worry about their reputation....

Oh, and that part on 93 in that documentary is laughable....yeah 200 people got off a plane in Cleveland...must be 93..............except that part where there were only 40 people on it...
 

Changleen

Paranoid Member
Jan 9, 2004
14,539
2,622
Pōneke
JRogers said:
Oh, and that part on 93 in that documentary is laughable....yeah 200 people got off a plane in Cleveland...must be 93..............except that part where there were only 40 people on it...
You need to pay more attention.
 

Transcend

My Nuts Are Flat
Apr 18, 2002
18,040
3
Towing the party line.
JRogers said:
Or, I can just throw it back to you: where is everyone who was on United 93 if it didn't crash? Where is the plane? What did crash?

Oh, and that part on 93 in that documentary is laughable....yeah 200 people got off a plane in Cleveland...must be 93..............except that part where there were only 40 people on it...
You need to watch the video again. It explains pretty cearly, using FAA tracking info and logs. There were 2 planes...not 1.
 

Andyman_1970

Turbo Monkey
Apr 4, 2003
3,105
5
The Natural State
Back to the OP..............if that's possible. I don't think I'll go see it, the movie that is. I guess just knowing up front the fate of those passengers is just a bit much for me (ok call me a wuss).

Anyway..........back to the tin foil hat session...........
 

manimal

Ociffer Tackleberry
Feb 27, 2002
7,213
22
Blindly running into cactus
some of the claims in the video are a bit on the border but the government's explanation of why the towers came down is a bunch of crap. Im sorry but buildings just don't fall down like that without assistance from below. and WTC #7 falling so perfectly because of random debris even when no other buildings fell around it? c'mon.....even my 3 year old would call BS on that one.

what about the supposed hijackers that are reported to be alive?
 

jimmydean

The Official Meat of Ridemonkey
Sep 10, 2001
42,790
14,873
Portland, OR
manimal said:
some of the claims in the video are a bit on the border but the government's explanation of why the towers came down is a bunch of crap. Im sorry but buildings just don't fall down like that without assistance from below. and WTC #7 falling so perfectly because of random debris even when no other buildings fell around it? c'mon.....even my 3 year old would call BS on that one.

what about the supposed hijackers that are reported to be alive?
WTC #7 is bad. In the video "9/11 in Plane Sight" there is a clip of the owner during an interview on PBS. He says that the fire fighters fought the blaze, but couldn't contain it, so they made the call to "pull it". "Pull it" is explained as a term used in demolition, if it wasn't an organized demo, why would he use that term?