This was a film a wathched a while ago and it's telling the story of United Flight 93. This was the other aircraft in the 9/11 attack that crashed in Pennsylvania after tha passengers stormed the plane.
The cast where actually given studies of their real-life counterparts in order to make the film more realistic.
http://paloaltoonline.com/movies/moviescreener.php?id=002353&type=long
http://www.reel.com/movie.asp?MID=141935&buy=open&Tab=reviews&CID=13#tabs
I looked at two reviews that seemed to be the most prolific in glorifying the film because I strongly agree with them. The film was so well done that at no point did I forget that I was watching almost a documentary rather than a hollywood style movie. I remember exactly where I was when it happened and a saw the second plane hit on the news as it happened ind for about 2 mins everyone in the room thought we were watching a movie as we wearn't paying attention to start with. This film almost re-created the feelings I had then and it's so well done that no-one can argue that it's just a soulless attempt to make money from a tragedy.
Jeanne Aufmuth's description is perfect - Harder to express is the sense of rage the film generates, a bitter pill of bile that forms at the sight of terrorists who murder innocent victims in the name of their god. Their humanitarian abyss left me a mess of tears, shaking hands and hollow heart. This is a violently expressive view of a film that deserves nothing else and Goldstein's conclusion summerises just how hard it was to make the film right, no emphasis on blame or opinion, just facts.
The two reviews, though agreeing in the excellence of the film a written in different ways, hence why I'm using both. One was a portrayel of fact and style, the other, a story of emotion and personal conflict.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I think it isvery had to review a film which carries with it such raw emotions. I have read both reviews and they both express how the topic of the film is hard to tackle without the raw feeling of the american people. The flight of United 93 is fasinating as it does not head for the twin towers and is the only plane in the 9/11 attack that does not. The film it seems should have explored this concept more as to why the pentagon was chosen as the second attack site. It might be a task for me to research this and blog it.
alice
It must be incredibly hard to portray a film with such a hard hitting and emotive true story without turning it into a glorified blockbuster, destroying the meaning and actual horric disastor. So although i have never seen the film myself, reading the reviews it seems to me that the crew behind "united 93" did an incredible job. To depict such a recent and incredibly prolific moment in America's history must be a difficult task.
However, because of this being a fairly recent and still talked about item, to create a blockbuster out of it seems to be a tad unethical and morbid, despite how carefully the film did tread. It is still very raw to many people who tragically lost family and friends in the event. Looking at the reviews i'm sure the film was very tastefully done yet it still seems to be rushed and used as something to gain money from the back of 9/11.
Still, well done Olly for finding a film which has created more insight into such an emotional period of America's history.
I think Rachel's mention of the victim’s families, is very relevant to the discussion of accurate representation of American history. What, for example, do they find of the film? Is it really so tasteless, or does it show a significant display of events? When they gave their knowledge to the film makers, had they envisaged it to turn out like it did?
It is curious that the first review explains the event's impact without giving an example of the change in views or perspectives of American citizens. It is true that the writer, as Olly suggested, exclaims a "sense of rage (that) the film generates", but Aufmuth doesn't dig deep enough into the American psyche and explore the repercussions of the event.
It was interesting that the second commentary brought up the question of political inadequacy. I myself had read that there was a conspiracy as to whether flight '93 had been shot down. However, it is likely that many theories have immersed their way into 9/11, none of which can be taken seriously without liable evidence.
When exploring this topic, the question of accurate representation is always a difficult subject. It will, for example, be impossible to find out whether the scenes in "United '93" had any similarity to those of real life. Evidence from phone calls and the airports, are merely an insubstantial bulk of information when repeated.
As with “Glory”, it is questionable whether these films have been exaggerated.
Though both reviews ignore the fundamental effects of 9/11, not to mention the motives behind it, (besides a quick mention of God,) it is not the job of the reviewers to find out this information. The film nevertheless is a great example of a representation of American history.
Thanks Olly.
I belive that this films helps poeple to remeber that day and not just push it to one side, it is a powerful film and i agree with Olly that it is very relistic it is neither a film or a documentary it is history. You got to see the bravery of all the people on United 93, they saved so many lives by diverting the plan in a different direction.
I think this film will help families to come to terms with the loss of their loved ones as it is a tribute to them it is not a gimick just to get money which some people might see it as, Watching this film it does give you the same feeling as when you first saw it on television, it gives you that stomach aching feeling and makes you respected what they did in that plan, as many people did not know how they helped save one part of America, but know they do.
Sarah
Post a Comment