I saw United 93 today and I have to say that it was...ummm...good, I guess. The way people were gushing over it, I was expecting more. In fact, so much of the movie hinges on the idea that the viewer already knows the outcome, that if the viewer didn't know, the movie would have been a snoozer. You could throw it in with "Condominium" or "Alligator." I know that by admitting this I am going to seem heartless, so I will defend myself on this one.
When the movie started, I got the usual anxious feeling of reliving a day that was both horrible and expected. In fact, I challenge anyone to tell me that when they first saw those buildings on fire, they didn't immediatly think of the Middle East. Anywho, the movie sort of plods along in the beginning, but not in a bad way. Just your usual time to get to know the characters. It wasn't until the middle did I start thinking to myself "Get on with it." Once the plane is hijacked, I thought my emotional chip was going to kick in, but it didn't fully. I felt that some of the actors seemed like actors and not ordinary people and the fact that the events were based on speculation didn't help matters. There were a couple of tear jerking moments for me, but overall I found myself uncaring. When the Americans finally rise up, that is when it got good. A rush of patriotism ran over me and I sort of wished the movie went on like that for another 15 minutes, but instead, it lasts for five minutes and then the screen goes black. Overall, it was a made for TV movie.
One can argue that movie puts to rest bogus cosnpiracy theories and that it reminds us who the real enemy is. That is cool, but it sort of left me with the same "What Now" feeling that I had when the actual day of 911 occurred. I like that the movie honors very brave people and I hope that it sets an example for what the media should be doing today. Maybe PBS will start showing the list of service men who have won medals for bravery along with their list of fallen soldiers, but that might be asking too much.
3 comments:
Blogust! You shouldn't have to defend yourself, there's nothing wrong with not liking a movie. There are some way better hijacking/terrorism films that you've probably already seen, Die Hard, Passenger 57, not to mention half a dozen re-enactments of 9/11 that were already made for and shown on TV. Why should this one be any better or different? You should watch the recent Legend of Zorro. There are a few patriotic moments in that zinger that might stir you. I'm serious, I thought Zorro was a hero for Spanish ruled Mexicans, but apparantly he actually helped the first governor of California enter the state in the Union.
How could a movie that is "based on speculation" put to rest "bogus conspiracy theories"? It should be viewed as the opinion of the producer/director, not fact.
As for the "what now" feeling you had, maybe they'll make a sequel.
Because the speculation part only deals with what happened on the plane. Half the movie is shown outside of the plane, also, the phone calls are sort of a dead giveaway. So the movie does deal with facts, but how the passengers finally rose up or how the hijackers took the plane over, well that is speculation.
Speaking of conspiracy theories, I watched Inside 9/11 on the National Geographic Channel last night, and saw the actual footage of the towers coming down for the first time in quite a while. Anyone who thinks those looked like controlled blasts is an a-hole. I'm looking at you Charlie Sheen.
Post a Comment