I'm surprised you could face that. BPBS and I were both in the same office in Manhattan on 9/11, and even though we were way uptown, the memory of being stuck in the city that day and seeing the smoke in the sky makes it just too painful for me to think about going to see it.

Someone in England asked me recently what it was like to work in NYC five years after the WTC was hit. The only reply I could give that was while things seemed normal again, if you got down on your knees, and put your ear to the sidewalk, very faintly, you could hear Manhattan slowly ticking down.

no judgement from me if you choose to see it. but i will keep my $10

the thought of hollywood profiting off something so close to me and others leaves me with a taste of anger and disgust. i saw some of the press pieces and the studio released dialogue of the director for as long as i could stomach them. their justification for making it is built into the promotion

your point about it being a reminder is well taken, though

Turekyburger - a question... does the thought of Steven Spielberg profiting from dead Israeli athletes leave you with the same feeling of disgust?

i'm on the fence about this one, but i TOO agree with your reminder comment. I'm sure i fit into the category about needing one as well. i heard somewhere that all the proceeds of this film were going to various charities or to the families. is that correct?

I'm on the fence too. I think it's too soon to start making films about that day. It's like those tv movies that come out weeks after a news event. I know it's been almost 5 years but it feels like there's not enough historical distance to say anything of value. However, from the reviews I've read, including this one, it sounds like they really did this right and I'm definitely intrigued to see it even though I might find it grueling to sit through. And if the proceeds go to charity then great, however the box office success of this film just opens the floodgates to other less altruistic recreations. I'm not looking forward to seeing Nick Cage run around Ground Zero in the next 9/11 film.

Evil Rich - I thought that was simply a funny-yet-fictional way to end a post. I was preparing a sarcastic "National Treasure 2" reply. Then I headed over to IMDb.

World Trade Center (2006)
"Two Port Authority police officers become trapped under the rubble of the World Trade Center."

National Treasure 2 (2007)
"Ben Gates finds Lost City of Atlantis. And the Oscar race heats up."

It could be "It Could Happen To You, Too" where Nick Cage reprises his role as that NY cop who split his lottery ticket with Britget Fonda...

Yeah the Nick Cage thing is no joke. Directed by Oliver Stone which normally would make me want to see the film but I'm pretty sure we're not ready for a Hollywood-style politicization of 9/11 which United 93 seems to avoid from what I've read.

I'm curious, would it be too soon for films on the following topics?

- the London subway bombings (56 people dead)
- Madrid train bombings (192 people dead)
- Oklahoma City bombing (168 people dead)
- Hurricane Katrina (1,600 people dead)
- the Iraq War (nearly 2,500 US military dead)
- the current Darfur Conflict (est 300,000 dead)

Aren't there tragedies like 9/11 happening constantly in the world? The estimated Iraqi civilian death count in the current war is somewhere around 35,000, but we're concerned about whether or not we should see a movie about something that took place five years ago.

I must be a heartless fucker.

Just saw it. Absolutley amazing. I was nerve-wracked throughout the entire thing. It was really well done. Realistic, terrifying, and just the right tone as far as being respectful of the victims but not going overboard with all-american jingoism. I was afraid in a 9/11 movie there would be scenes where the passengers rise up like action heroes shouting "Let's Roll" as they storm the cockpit. They handled it all with stark realism.

Jellio, I understand your point but I think the general concern with 9/11 movies is that Hollywood would take the event and cheapen it like it generally does and 9/11 is too much of an unhealed wound for most Americans so we take it seriously. For that reason, I was one of those that thought this film was coming out too soon but having seen it I think it's done exactly right and is an important one to see.

Not being from the fine island of Man-hat'an, I can only sympathize with the people who live there and and were near there on 9-11.

This subject is galvanizing, and sad, and subjective on a lot of levels.

Let's just look at the argument itself for what it is. Is it 'too early' to make a film about an event that seriously altered all Americans lives, and in some cases affects us because of the close proximity of the subject matter?

As the title of this website suggests, yes but no, but yes.

As to the Jewish Question...

Spielberg is a Jew, and after he made the many many safe mainstream projects, he then unleashed onto the rapidly numbing world several films to let us Gentiles know that evil has been and still is out there towards the Chosen People, and when it comes to them, he won't let ANYONE forget it.

He is also one of the richest men in Hollywood because of this, but he also has taken his cash and spent it on many various projects to remind future generations of the Chosen People's struggle.

We also have Mel Gibson, a good Catholic boy, who went from being Mad Max and a Lethal Weapon to whipping Jesus to death in Surround Sound. He also is one of the few to take his faith and shove it on the screen for us to enjoy, and also making a quite a few bucks along the way, too, but he also has put his $$$ into his own side projects.

Has Spike Lee done this? Has ANY other directors/producers in Hollywood done this?

(Now personally, I think that "Flight 93" IS too early to made as well as watched, and Oliver Stone's "WTC" film IS too early to be made, and besides all that - and I have to throw this in here, sorry - we STILL REALLY DON'T KNOW what happened on 9-11.

For anyone on this planet to agree that anyone in the Government has a definitive idea is a fool. I cannot wrap myself around it. There are too many ideas being juggled about, there's even one about that Flight 93 did NOT crash, but was diverted to someplace in Ohio, the passengers quiely "eliminated," and then a large set of explosives were set off, making a somewhat clean round crater 1/10ths the size of an actual real oval-scorched debris-littered jet crash, in rural Pennsylvania.)

Anyway...

I will probably NEVER see this movie, and will not see "WTC," either. I think it's insulting to our intelligence to pay $10 to be subjected to 90 minutes of made up agony, especially since we know how it ended... according to our benevolent Government.

I think that this is a bit of agony best reserved for someone who needs to justify something. What that thing is, is as elusive as rationally justifying watching it in the first place.

Just my .02 cents.

This could be a lot nicer I think :)