WTC- trailer

[romanD]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/wtc/large.html

Im sorry but this looks horrible... I certainly don't need a movie like this about an event like this!

Americans may feel different about it, but that this comes from Oliver Stone is shocking to me...

I think Flight 93 is a much more sensitive movie about this and probably the only way to go, but making a feel-good-movie or whatever you want to call this pathetic "Im a hero"-disaster-thing is just... I don't know.. upsetting...

what are your thoughts? Interested in whether opinions from different countries are well different?!

[Carlson2005]

Oddly enough, I'm open-minded about WTC but totally opposed on every level to United - I think Greengrass is a truly atrocious filmmaker on a technical level and an extremely dubious one when it comes to taste and accuracy. With WTC, it is known what happened to these characters, but with United 93 there's frankly so little that's really known about what happened aside from some emotional calls to families that it's really little more than feelgood fiction. I simply don't trust Greengrass with the material.

[AndyDursin]

Regardless of how "well intentioned" it is, that trailer plays like saccharine Hollywood studio fare.

I understand Trevor's point on UNITED 93 but I tend to agree with Roman's -- there's artistic license involved with what Greengrass made (and which I haven't seen), but on the other hand, UNITED 93 at least attempts to present something that you couldn't have been present for. On this movie, basically they've taken dozens of documentaries with real footage that millions have watched by now and turned them into a rah-rah Hollywoodization with Nicolas Cage...and this from a fading filmmaker whose best days seem to be behind him.

I just don't get the purpose when the real thing is available and I highly doubt anything in this movie is going to be more meaningful than this 2002 documentary, which this film very much appears to be patterned on (at least in terms of following the first responders to the emergency, going inside the building, etc.):



In general, I felt it was far too soon for these 9/11 movies a year ago and I still feel that way now. Having lived through it, and still being able to remember every detail of that day, I have little interest at all in paying to watch a filmmaker's dramatic interpretation of what happened -- regardless of how fine a film 93 or the upcoming WTC may be.

Again, it's not even 5 years, and it's just too soon for these movies IMO. With the amount of outstanding documentaries and amazing footage that exists of 9/11, I have a hard time stomaching actors like Cage and Maggie Gylenhaal when I could watch the real people talk about what happened and see actual footage that will give you a far better idea of the scope of the horror than any movie will be able to.

I'll give the movie a fair appraisal when I see it but those trailers are just going to have a lot of American audiences asking, "why?" Everything about it -- from the slow-motion shots of Maria Bello to Cage himself and the melodramatic music -- just rings so hollow in relation to the actual thing, which I think is far too fresh in the minds of most Americans to accept watching "Hollywood Goes To 9/11".

[Carlson2005]

They're both rah-rah Hollywoodizations: the difference is that for all its pseudo documentary trappings, United 93 is the more dishonest of the two by opting for a wishful thinking version of what could have happened. Stone has always been a horrendously inconsistent director, but Greengrass is far worse in my book - a wannabe Michael Bay with delusions of social and political relevance.

[AndyDursin]

Stone has always been a horrendously inconsistent director, but Greengrass is far worse in my book - a wannabe Michael Bay with delusions of social and political relevance.

This I agree with you on...not to mention BOURNE SUPREMACY may be one of the most-overrated summer blockbusters in recent memory. Isn't it shocking how many actually believe that film is well-directed? The car chase at the end was solid but the rest of it was hideously shot (too much hand-held camera) and a warmed-over rehash of the original.

[romanD]

well, I liked B.S... I think it is overrated as the story was very weak and the action scenes didn't serve the story at all... but still directing an action movie like a documentary style-wise was pretty cool...

[Carlson2005]

I liked The Bourne Supremacy in spite of the truly atrocious directoon, which was just the same-old same-old MTV style (documentaries don't look like that, something Greengrass should know having made some bad docs in the past). If anything, the direction kept you at a distance from the film and, for all his talk about showing you what it's like to be in the middle of the action, instead just substituted confusion. When you're in a fight with someone, your focus might be narrowed but you're aware of much more than he showed, and the con stant shifts in focus seemed absurd since the human eye adjusts focus automatically (unlike the camera). Even his rationale for using a cnstantly shaking camera to express unease was redundant, because even the characters who do know what is going on are photographed the same way - he devalues any effect by overusing it so much.

Of course, in U93 people might think he's doing turbulence effects the old Star Trek way, but to me it's just incompetence and wrong-headedness. Shakeycam can work when used properly - Spielberg in Saving Private Ryan, Patrice Leconte in Felix et Loala or Confidences trop Intimes are genuinely valid examples that gain their impact from not overusing it - but Greengrass is easily its worst exponent at the moment. Even Tony Scott used it better in Man on Fire!

[Eric Paddon]

I could not disagree more vehemently than with the negative remarks expressed in this thread about "United 93". As I mentioned elsewhere, my family has not one but two personal connections to this specific part of 9/11, and for me this was a compelling depiction of the blunt reality of what happened that day. And speaking only for myself, I think a little reminder of just what these people were up against and how they had so little time to form their brave plan to fight back, is something that all Americans could stand to see more of since IMO there has been far too much sugarcoating of the reality of 9/11 the last few years, especially given the suppression of almost all video footage of the planes hitting the WTC by the media outlets.

There is absolutely nothing "dishonest" about "United 93" nor its equally commendable cable counterpart "Flight 93" because both films just gave us the unvarnished truth of what happened. To call these dramatizations "feelgood fiction" is IMO a characterization that does the memory of these fine people a disservice, because believe me, having read the 9/11 Commission report and seen the transcripts of the cockpit flight recorder, we know that what both films did wasn't wishful speculation, but the blunt reality of what happened.

The families of the Flight 93 victims have endorsed both projects. I think we should also take that into account.

[AndyDursin]

I could not disagree more vehemently than with the negative remarks expressed in this thread about "United 93". As I mentioned elsewhere, my family has not one but two personal connections to this specific part of 9/11, and for me this was a compelling depiction of the blunt reality of what happened that day. And speaking only for myself, I think a little reminder of just what these people were up against and how they had so little time to form their brave plan to fight back, is something that all Americans could stand to see more of since IMO there has been far too much sugarcoating of the reality of 9/11 the last few years, especially given the suppression of almost all video footage of the planes hitting the WTC by the media outlets.

There is absolutely nothing "dishonest" about "United 93" nor its equally commendable cable counterpart "Flight 93" because both films just gave us the unvarnished truth of what happened. To call these dramatizations "feelgood fiction" is IMO a characterization that does the memory of these fine people a disservice, because believe me, having read the 9/11 Commission report and seen the transcripts of the cockpit flight recorder, we know that what both films did wasn't wishful speculation, but the blunt reality of what happened.

The families of the Flight 93 victims have endorsed both projects. I think we should also take that into account.

Eric, my own comments were only intended as part of my own feelings about releasing these movies here and now. It is very difficult for me personally to sit through UNITED 93 in a theater. I worked on 9/11, editing the news for the NBC station online here in Providence, and I not only can remember every minute of that day, but I've watched the documentaries and read the reports as you have...I just was not compelled to see the movie personally. I do, however, agree with you that its message is important, I just question the timing of the release. I know people will say "but when IS a good time?," and I can't answer that. I only know for me, it's too soon, and it seems as if it was for many other movie-goers here as well.

On the other hand, I do know where you are coming from and I am certain the film is as sensitive and well-made as you say. I think I know where Trevor is coming from as well and I don't agree with him that UNITED 93 movie is a "rah rah" piece of "feel good" fiction, as frankly he wasn't there either to know what did or did not happen. The evidence that has been noted in transcripts and recordings is compelling and I agree with you, it's most certainly tilted towards SOMETHING most obviously heroic happening. I would not characterize the film as being an insensitive or pro-American flag waving film at all, nor have any of the reviews claimed that it was.

[Carlson2005]

There is absolutely nothing "dishonest" about "United 93" nor its equally commendable cable counterpart "Flight 93" because both films just gave us the unvarnished truth of what happened. To call these dramatizations "feelgood fiction" is IMO a characterization that does the memory of these fine people a disservice...

Sorry, but I disagree: I think that the filmnakers are doing them a disservice and exploiting their memory and the powerful emotions it evokes. Nor did all of the families endorse the film, and frankly I find it somewhat distasteful that those who did not co-operate with the film have been criticized by 'unnamed sources' as being mercenary or wanting more money. That seems far more of an insult to me.

I think I know where Trevor is coming from as well and I don't agree with him that UNITED 93 movie is a "rah rah" piece of "feel good" fiction, as frankly he wasn't there either to know what did or did not happen.

Which inadvertently endorses my point: I don't claim to know what happened - the filmmakers by implication do.

The evidence that has been noted in transcripts and recordings is compelling and I agree with you, it's most certainly tilted towards SOMETHING most obviously heroic happening.

I don't deny the heroism: however, there isn't enough in those transcripts and there are still too many questions for it to make any real claim to being definitive. Certainly I find it hard to understand how of the two films, somehow this is the 'admirable' one.

[Eric Paddon]

"Sorry, but I disagree: I think that the filmnakers are doing them a disservice and exploiting their memory and the powerful emotions it evokes. Nor did all of the families endorse the film, and frankly I find it somewhat distasteful that those who did not co-operate with the film have been criticized by 'unnamed sources' as being mercenary or wanting more money. That seems far more of an insult to me."

Excuse me, but I find that outrageous, especially since I haven't heard of *any* criticism levied against non-cooperative family members of this film. THere wasn't any from the Petersons or the Beamers, the people that my family is connected with. The overwhelming majority approved of both projects. And I still think to dismiss a project that shows the heroism of those who chose to act as "feel good fiction" is a characterization that frankly makes me feel very angry in light of what 9/11 and specifically this flight means to me.

"Which inadvertently endorses my point: I don't claim to know what happened - the filmmakers by implication do."

The flight recorder, the data recorder, the testimony of people who phoned the ground and those who talked to them. THe 9/11 Commission Report. That's a lot more solid evidence for a filmmaker to work with in recreating real history than I've seen most other directors of the last decade do. Compared to the disregard for real history shown by the likes of Spielberg and Oliver Stone, the two movies on Flight 93 are standards of excellence in how history should be recreated.

[Carlson2005]

Excuse me, but I find that outrageous, especially since I haven't heard of *any* criticism levied against non-cooperative family members of this film.

In the runup to shooting, a number of news sources carried these stories.

And I still think to dismiss a project that shows the heroism of those who chose to act as "feel good fiction" is a characterization that frankly makes me feel very angry in light of what 9/11 and specifically this flight means to me.

And you're still choosing to attack me on false grounds. Personally, I think making a fast buck out of their heroism makes me very angry: it's a particularly sordid form of exploitation. My comments on the feel good fiction were in relation to Andy's comments on WTC, but they stand for this. Where WTC limits itself to what did happen, in U93 he gaps have been filled with what people would like to have happened. It may have actually happened, it may not, but the producers have gone for what sells the most tickets. And they also played up the notion that any attack on their motives for exploiting this must automatically be an attack on the heroism of the passengers: palpable nonsense.

The flight recorder, the data recorder, the testimony of people who phoned the ground and those who talked to them.

None of which give a clear indication of what happened once they tried to take the plane.

Compared to the disregard for real history shown by the likes of Spielberg and Oliver Stone, the two movies on Flight 93 are standards of excellence in how history should be recreated.

Greengrass is hardly known for historical accuracy, usually taking a partisan pro-terrorist anti-establishment stance in his past work, even if that means playing fast and loose with the facts. Personally I find it doubtful that he's suddenly undergone a Damascene conversion with this subject.

[Eric Paddon]

I saw no such stories. I saw only cooperation, and praise from family members like Todd Beamer's father and Donald Peterson's son. Since those are the people associated with those I have personal connections with, what they say carries a lot more weight with me.

"Personally, I think making a fast buck out of their heroism makes me very angry: it's a particularly sordid form of exploitation"

I think that when it comes to exploiting 9/11, film projects that try to recreate the simple truth of what happened that day with no further comment don't fall into that category. Unlike a propaganda documentary by a gent with the initials MM, who didn't donate any of the money or fees he made off that film to 9/11 families.

"in U93 he gaps have been filled with what people would like to have happened."

Just what does that mean? It's a historical fact that the passengers charged the cockpit and attempted to retake the plane and that caused the terrorists to abort their mission, thus sparing a target in Washington from being hit. That isn't how we would have "liked" to seen it happen, it's how it actually unfolded. We have enough evidence that points to it, and we aren't helping matters much if we suddenly have to reopen a debate over something that's long since been obvious from day one.

As to what Greengrass has done in the past, I could care less since I'm only concerned with what's been done with a subject I happen to know a great deal about. The individual work is what's being judged with me, and on that score he succeeded admirably as did the makers of "Flight 93" who found another way of telling the same story with a different focus of showing the conversations and feelings of those on the other end of the conversations with the passengers.

[Carlson2005]

Just what does that mean? It's a historical fact that the passengers charged the cockpit and attempted to retake the plane and that caused the terrorists to abort their mission, thus sparing a target in Washington from being hit.

Yes: but it's also a fact that we don't know exactly what transpired once they charged or the exact circumstances of the plane going down: that is dramatic invention.

As to what Greengrass has done in the past, I could care less since I'm only concerned with what's been done with a subject I happen to know a great deal about.

You judge on a subject that is personal to you. I judge on a subject that is personal to me. Greengrass is an apologist for terrorists who tried to murder my sister several years ago simply because she happened to work in a store they decided to blow up one Christmas. She was thrown through a plate grass window while clearing civilians from the site and saw two of her friends blown up. Greengrass's comments on this being a 'legitimate response' to British policy that just happened to have the wrong target may have played well in Ireland and helped his career in America, but it doesn't give me any trust in his sense of moral judgment or his veracity.

[Eric Paddon]

"Yes: but it's also a fact that we don't know exactly what transpired once they charged or the exact circumstances of the plane going down: that is dramatic invention."

It is not "dramatic invention" to take a large body of evidence and make a reasonable inference that corresponds to the conclusions reached by investigative commissions. The exact circumstances of the plane going down is based on the movements of the plane from the data recorder and the voices of those on the flight recorder. That takes less "dramatic invention" then what the likes of MM did for his film, or what Oliver Stone did in "JFK".

"You judge on a subject that is personal to you. I judge on a subject that is personal to me."


Well I'm sorry but when it comes to judging the merits of this movie, the matter of the specific event is what should be scrutinized. "Da Vinci Code" makes me have a low opinion of Ron Howard at this moment, but that doesn't mean I'm going to start hating "Apollo 13" or judge it differently just because it has the same director of a film offensive to me on another level. I'm just watching a movie to see if it tells a story that is deeply personal to me correctly, and the name of the director is for me ultimately an irrelevancy.