What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?

The Monk

That's a difficult question. It is a very well made film.

It's also an extraordinary experience (words used carefully here). I
still shake when I think about it almost a month later - I saw it in an
audience test.

Given the choice, knowing what I know now, I would not have seen it. I
would have mailed a $20 bill to the producer and thanked him for making
it. It is soul-changing. In a good way, but it's still deeply
painful.

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>

Are you referring to the film "United 93", which premiered yesterday?

I don't think I'll see it. I mean, how can they recreate what happened
except in the most general sense? At most, the movie is a guess based on
cockpit recorders and a cell phone call or two.

Do you really want the story these victims of 9/11 to be based on a guess?

Flyingmonk > wrote:

> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?

Too soon for me to see it. Perhaps in ten years or so.

--
Peter

Flyingmonk wrote:
> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>
> The Monk
>

I haven't seen it and likely won't. I have enough
hatred for those animals that I don't need anything to
further it.

I think the fear is that if we don't have movies like this our country
will quickly change their point of view and see the terrorists as poor,
disadvangated people who really only need financial aid from the U.S.
and then they wouldn't hate us.

-Robert

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in news:1146090842.677019.152270
@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> I think the fear is that if we don't have movies like this our country
> will quickly change their point of view and see the terrorists as poor,
> disadvangated people who really only need financial aid from the U.S.
> and then they wouldn't hate us.
>
> -Robert

And even if we gave it to them, they'd still hate us.

Brian
--
http://www.skywise711.com - Lasers, Seismology, Astronomy, Skepticism
Seismic FAQ: http://www.skywise711.com/SeismicFAQ/SeismicFAQ.html
Quake "predictions": http://www.skywise711.com/quakes/EQDB/index.html
Sed quis custodiet ipsos Custodes?

("Flyingmonk" wrote)
> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?


It opens here on Friday (tomorrow).

I'll see it a month later, probably alone, at the $2 Theaters.

Too soon to tell what kind of job they did writing, directing, editing, etc.

Saigon fell in 1975:

The Deer Hunter (1978) ....9 Academy Award nominations
Coming Home (1978) .......8 Academy Award nominations
Apocalypse Now (1979) ...8 Academy Award nominations

The Killing Fields (1984) .....7 Academy Award nominations


Montblack

"Flyingmonk" wrote in message ...
> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>
> The Monk
>
Take a look at the movie trailer and decide if this is something you are
willing and ready to view.
Some of us choose not to because it will make us angry, yet others may need
to be reminded.
It amazes me that there are those that claim it never happened.

The trailer definitely looks like the movie is of potentially good quality.
Link to the movies website and trailer:
http://www.united93movie.com/index.php

David

I don't no if I will see it!

But did hear today that this weekend they will donate 10% of the weekend
take to the 93 Memorial fund, that alone my change my mind!

Ron Gardner

Flyingmonk wrote:

> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>
> The Monk

>>>>> "RG" == Robert M Gary > writes:

RG> I think the fear is that if we don't have movies like this our
RG> country will quickly change their point of view and see the
RG> terrorists as poor, disadvangated people who really only need
RG> financial aid from the U.S. and then they wouldn't hate us.

I think the fear is that Hollywood will go bankrupt unless they can
exploit every possible life situation.

They also had the approval and participation of the families of all the
passengers and crew.

> Given the choice, knowing what I know now, I would not have seen it. I
> would have mailed a $20 bill to the producer and thanked him for making
> it. It is soul-changing. In a good way, but it's still deeply
> painful.

That's EXACTLY the way I felt after seeing "Saving Private Ryan".

I still wish I hadn't seen that movie, even though it was very well
done.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I read these posts first and thought "man, it's just a movie...you guys need
to ease up a bit". I wasn't belittling the events of 9/11, but couldn't
understand why you let a movie get to you that way.

.......then I went to the website and watched the trailers. Now I'm sitting
here in a rage.

I think I'll be waiting about seeing that movie.

jf


"Otis Winslow" > wrote in message
...
> Flyingmonk wrote:
>> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>>
>> The Monk
>>
>
> I haven't seen it and likely won't. I have enough
> hatred for those animals that I don't need anything to
> further it.

It got a rave review in The New Yorker. I will certainly see it.

- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

On 26 Apr 2006 19:28:56 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>That's EXACTLY the way I felt after seeing "Saving Private Ryan".

That doesn't bode well! I walked out of SPR toward the end, after one
stupidity too many.

However, Steven Spielberg researched SPR by watching other war movies
and combat photographer footage. We can assume that the makers of
Flight 93 didn't research it at screenings of The High and the Mighty.


- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

>> disadvangated people who really only need financial aid from the U.S.
>> and then they wouldn't hate us.
>>
>> -Robert
>
>And even if we gave it to them, they'd still hate us.

*Especially* if we gave it to them! (Cf France, Germany....)

- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

"Cub Driver" wrote:
>
> It got a rave review in The New Yorker. I will certainly see it.
>

You don't think it will be too painful to watch? I'm still so angry about
9/11 that even documentaries about that day upset me.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...

> You don't think it will be too painful to watch? I'm still so angry about
> 9/11 that even documentaries about that day upset me.

I'm curious as to weather east coasters feel this way more than those of us
on the west coast who, while just as riveted to what was going on, were
still thousands of miles away.

I don't want to watch the movie but I will anyway, because all indications
by the critics are that it was done for exactly the right reason, and not
just to make a buck off a good story.

And, another angle on it is that if it's done now while the emotions are
still real and the participants able to remember it happening, it's going to
leave a much better legacy as a historical work than some dramatization a
decades from now.

For example: Pearl Harbor or Memphis Belle. Just imagine if some of the
actors in PH or Saving Private Ryan had been there. And when you consider
the original Memphis Belle, there's a movie that would have been painful to
watch when it was released, but the difference is, that was cinema verite.
(Which basically means "as it happens.")

-c

gatt > wrote:

> I'm curious as to weather east coasters feel this way more than those of us
> on the west coast who, while just as riveted to what was going on, were
> still thousands of miles away.

Here's one data point: It seems that everyone I knew in upstate NY,
including myself, at the time was a mere one degree away (a friend of a
friend, that is) of knowing someone killed in the NYC portion of the
attacks.

Additionally, I still have relatives who reside in Manhattan, I have
visited NYC many times, have many friends from NYC, and have worked and
lived in Manhattan for several months at a time (business weekdays, that
is) over my tenure as a software consultant.

The connection was there and the anger and sadness is still too close to
the surface, despite the five years it has been, for me to be able to sit
through the movie. The relatives of those killed on that flight are
incredibly strong to be able to do so.


--
Peter

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>>
>> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>>
>
> Are you referring to the film "United 93", which premiered yesterday?

No, dumbass, this is the other movie about flight 93 that comes out Friday.

Geez.

I will see it. I know it will be emotionally-charged with anger being the
dominant emotion but I think it helps frame current events.

I certainly won't watch it to make sure I remember--I unfortunately don't
need to. I saw the Twin Towers fall with my own eyes. I smelled the dust
while it blew over the Manhattan Bridge as I walked from midtown to Brooklyn
to a friend's house. I watched the F-15s from Otis AFB scream overhead as I
told my direct reports that the bridges were most probably safe to cross so
they should go home if they wanted to.

I know only one person that died and a few good friends that were minutes
away from dying. One childhood family friend was *seconds* away. He was a
cop directing people out the door in the lobby of the North tower and only
survived because he helped a fireman that had fallen to the ground as
everyone was running away.

As long as the movie was done for the right reasons (which from everything
I'm reading is the case) then I think people should see it. Everyone that
died that day represented everything that America is--including the courage.
There is far too much media attention devoted to the mistakes and the
vulnerability around that day. Anything putting the focus on the bravery
deserves the support of all American along with as much exposure as it can
get despite the pain.

As I walked through Manhattan that day, I saw stores handing out free
bottled water, people with working cell phones pass it around to strangers
so they can call loved ones, and absolutely no hint of looting or anyone
taking advantage of the chaos. What I saw that day was unforgettable not
only for the horror but for the glimpse it allowed me into the kindness and
compassion in New Yorkers and Americans in general during what will probably
be the darkest day in this nation's history.

No, we should never forget. We should never forget the terror but we should
also never forget the bravery that day as well.

These are my personal views/reasons and I don't mean to pass judgement on
anyone that won't see it. It's a personal matter and there are good reasons
not to see it and everyone should respect them.

Marco


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
> gatt > wrote:
>
>> I'm curious as to weather east coasters feel this way more than those of
>> us
>> on the west coast who, while just as riveted to what was going on, were
>> still thousands of miles away.
>
> Here's one data point: It seems that everyone I knew in upstate NY,
> including myself, at the time was a mere one degree away (a friend of a
> friend, that is) of knowing someone killed in the NYC portion of the
> attacks.
>
> Additionally, I still have relatives who reside in Manhattan, I have
> visited NYC many times, have many friends from NYC, and have worked and
> lived in Manhattan for several months at a time (business weekdays, that
> is) over my tenure as a software consultant.
>
> The connection was there and the anger and sadness is still too close to
> the surface, despite the five years it has been, for me to be able to sit
> through the movie. The relatives of those killed on that flight are
> incredibly strong to be able to do so.
>
>
> --
> Peter
>

> >That's EXACTLY the way I felt after seeing "Saving Private Ryan".
>
> That doesn't bode well! I walked out of SPR toward the end, after one
> stupidity too many.

Really? I thought "Saving Private Ryan" was extremely well done. The
concept of "saving" someone may have been contrived, but the combat
sequences were disturbingly real.

Actually, the only movie I've EVER walked out of was "Passion of the
Christ". I've always been able to sit still through any movie, no
matter how awful or disturbing, until that one.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> It got a rave review in The New Yorker. I will certainly see it.

I thought that was the "Kiss of Death"?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

I didn't see "PotC" because I anticipated it being gruesome. I've only
left a handful - one was "The Last Temptation of Christ." The most
recent was The Constant Gardner. I couldn't believe it got
nominations, and The World's Fastest Indian didn't.

("Richard Riley" wrote)
>I didn't see "PotC" because I anticipated it being gruesome. I've only
>left a handful - one was "The Last Temptation of Christ." The most recent
>was The Constant Gardner. I couldn't believe it got nominations, and The
>World's Fastest Indian didn't.


Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)

Free tickets. We gave it an hour...


Montblack

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> It got a rave review in The New Yorker. I will certainly see it.
>
> I thought that was the "Kiss of Death"?

Why did you think that?

Flyingmonk wrote:
> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?

Not showing here in the Philippines yet, but I suppose I could buy a
pirated DVD from a street vendor downtown. (No, I do not really buy
pirated movies, but I can almost guarantee that I could get a copy if I
wanted one.)

The thing is, by the time Hollywood is done with a story, what with
adding non-existent love interests and plot twists, combining some
characters and creating new ones, editing the story line and
rearranging the sequence of events to make it more of a story, adding
new subplots and maybe finding some greedy businessman that they can
blame the whole thing on, making sure everyone expresses politically
correct views, and then maybe changing the type of airplane and/or
whatever, the whole incident would be virtually unrecognizable to
anyone involved.

There will be an airplane. It will crash. It will have terrorists and
some of the people will have the same names as those on United Flight
93. That is about all you can guarantee.

On 27 Apr 2006 14:16:59 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>oncept of "saving" someone may have been contrived, but the combat
>sequences were disturbingly real.

I didn't mind the Dirty Dozen them; there are lots of movies like
that, and I enjoy them.

It was the *unreality* of the combat scenes that bothered me. It was
the fantasy of a boy who'd never been in the army, never mind in a
war.

He took some very sensitive 1990s types and put them at Omaha Beach,
which was in fact populated by graduates of the Great Depression. He
had officers wearing their rank on the FRONT of their helmets (very
handy for German snipers). He had them sleeping in a church, in
France, in the rain, and waking up next morning without shivering.
(Evidently Spielberg has never slept rough, either.) He had a sergeant
armed with an M-1 carbine leave a Garand sticking in the ground to
mark a gravesite, instead of swapping that toy gun for the real one.
He had a soldier asking for "bandoliers" of ammunition (the U.S. Army
carried preloaded clips in canvas pouches). Etc. Etc.

I much prefer the unreality of a James Bond flick to the boneheaded,
constant inaccuracies that Steven Spielberg put into SPR.



- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:01:53 -0400, "Peter R." >
wrote:

>t seems that everyone I knew in upstate NY,
>including myself, at the time was a mere one degree away (

I live in southern New Hampshire. Our veterinarian's husband was on
one of the AA planes from Boston to the WTC. A neighbor's daughter
lives in New York and had to walk all afternoon to get home (she
stepped into a shoe store and bought a pair of sneakers). And (known
only through the newspaper, to be sure) a gal in the neighboring town
weeks later had a letter returned to her: evidently it was aboard one
of the planes and became debris; the return address on the envelope
was legible, so some kindly New Yorker put it in a larger envelope and
mailed it back to her with a note hoping that she hadn't lost anyone
on the flight.

But then I'm only 60 miles from Logan airport, so I'm bound to know
people who travel through there.


- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

On 28 Apr 2006 02:11:34 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> wrote:

>The thing is, by the time Hollywood is done with a story,

From what I've read, not the case with United 93.

- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

On 2006-04-27, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Actually, the only movie I've EVER walked out of was "Passion of the
> Christ". I've always been able to sit still through any movie, no
> matter how awful or disturbing, until that one.

The only movie I "walked out of" (not really walked out of, it was made
for TV and I changed channels) was "Threads", made in 1993 for the BBC.

I was a young teenager at the time, and it was a film about nuclear war
(which in 1984, seemed only too likely). I didn't sleep properly for 3
weeks afterwards, and every flash of summer lightning had me bolt awake
in bed thinking it was a nuclear detonation - I had nightmares about
milk bottles melting in the heat. I have since watched it all
the way through - unlike "The Day After", it WAS NOT toned down. It is
the most depressing movie I have ever seen.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-04-26, Flyingmonk > wrote:
> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?

Personally, I'm not going to bother. I knew as 9/11 was happening, it
was only a matter of time before Hollywood made a movie about it - but I
did expect them to wait 15 or 20 years. I also predict there will be a
Hollywood movie about Hurricane Katrina.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-04-27, Cub Driver <usenet> wrote:
> Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
> 10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

The problem with Wikipedia: it can't possibly work in theory. It only
works in practise.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Cub Driver" wrote:

> On 27 Apr 2006 14:16:59 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
> wrote:
>
>>oncept of "saving" someone may have been contrived, but the combat
>>sequences were disturbingly real.
>
> I didn't mind the Dirty Dozen them; there are lots of movies like
> that, and I enjoy them.
>
> It was the *unreality* of the combat scenes that bothered me. It was
> the fantasy of a boy who'd never been in the army, never mind in a
> war.
>
> He took some very sensitive 1990s types and put them at Omaha Beach,
> which was in fact populated by graduates of the Great Depression. He
> had officers wearing their rank on the FRONT of their helmets (very
> handy for German snipers). He had them sleeping in a church, in
> France, in the rain, and waking up next morning without shivering.
> (Evidently Spielberg has never slept rough, either.) He had a sergeant
> armed with an M-1 carbine leave a Garand sticking in the ground to
> mark a gravesite, instead of swapping that toy gun for the real one.
> He had a soldier asking for "bandoliers" of ammunition (the U.S. Army
> carried preloaded clips in canvas pouches). Etc. Etc.

Wow; you're even pickier than I am!

Compared to the supremely ridiculous Pearl Harbor and Memphis Belle, SPR
did a pretty good job for a Hollywood war movie, I thought. I enjoyed it.

The best I've seen in a long time is HBO's Band of Brothers mini series.


--
Dan


'Gut feeling'


Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any rational
thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well known.

"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 13:01:53 -0400, "Peter R." >
> wrote:
>
>>t seems that everyone I knew in upstate NY,
>>including myself, at the time was a mere one degree away (
>
> I live in southern New Hampshire. Our veterinarian's husband was on
> one of the AA planes from Boston to the WTC. A neighbor's daughter
> lives in New York and had to walk all afternoon to get home (she
> stepped into a shoe store and bought a pair of sneakers). And (known
> only through the newspaper, to be sure) a gal in the neighboring town
> weeks later had a letter returned to her: evidently it was aboard one
> of the planes and became debris; the return address on the envelope
> was legible, so some kindly New Yorker put it in a larger envelope and
> mailed it back to her with a note hoping that she hadn't lost anyone
> on the flight.
>
> But then I'm only 60 miles from Logan airport, so I'm bound to know
> people who travel through there.
>



A very close friend of my Dad has a son that is (or was) a pilot for United.
Supposedly, he was to be the pilot on one of the two United flights, but the
schedule got screwed up or he got sick or something. Anyway, he ended up not
being on the flight. And we are in Texas!




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0617-3, 04/28/2006
Tested on: 4/28/2006 7:05:26 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

> The best I've seen in a long time is HBO's Band of Brothers mini series.

Agreed. That series was excellent.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Cub Driver wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2006 02:11:34 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >The thing is, by the time Hollywood is done with a story,
>
> From what I've read, not the case with United 93.
>

If that is the case, it is worth watching just to encourage Hollywood
to have a little more integrity in the future.

Cub Driver wrote:
> On 28 Apr 2006 02:11:34 -0700, "cjcampbell"
> > wrote:
>
> >The thing is, by the time Hollywood is done with a story,
>
> From what I've read, not the case with United 93.
>
> - all the best, Dan Ford
>
> Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
> 10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

You mean unlike "Titanic"?

The Monk

> I was a young teenager at the time, and it was a film about nuclear war
> (which in 1984, seemed only too likely). I didn't sleep properly for 3
> weeks afterwards, and every flash of summer lightning had me bolt awake
> in bed thinking it was a nuclear detonation - I had nightmares about
> milk bottles melting in the heat. I have since watched it all
> the way through - unlike "The Day After", it WAS NOT toned down. It is
> the most depressing movie I have ever seen.

Wow. And I thought "The Day After" was scary!
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

>
> You mean unlike "Titanic"?

Off Topic again, but everytime that I think about that movie, it reminds me
of a friend of mine that is...well...not the sharpest tool in the shed. As
he sat down in the theater to watch the Titanic, he commented to the couple
with him and his wife "This is based on a true story, I heard".

And they say the public schools system isn't in trouble ;)

jf

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back (2001)
>
> Free tickets. We gave it an hour...
>

Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back is only funny if you had seen all or at least
most of the previous Kevin Smith movies. Without understanding the inside
jokes I'll agree it was pretty weak.

It's not the case with United 93. A lot of the film takes place
outside the airplane, in the TRACON for example. Most of the people in
those scenes are playing themselves.

Way up thread I wrote that it's an extraordinary film. I was careful
not to call it a "movie". It's a different animal. I'm surprised they
were able to make it this way.

I don't have any hope for Oliver Stone's 9/11 movie, the families of
the dead men depicted are already protesting.

On 27 Apr 2006 14:18:53 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>> It got a rave review in The New Yorker. I will certainly see it.
>
>I thought that was the "Kiss of Death"?

My acid test is whether *both* The New Yorker and The Wall Street
Journal* rave about the film. Here's Joe Morgenstern in the WSJ today:

"Never has an audience brought to a motion picture what we bring to
"United 93" -- a sense of dread caused by an open national wound. We
are vulnerable to the formidable force of Paul Greengrass's
documentary-style drama from its first quiet moments, in the dawn of
September 11, 2001, and its first hushed words, spoken in Arabic by
one of the hijackers: "It's time." Each of us will decide for
ourselves whether it's time to see such a film, time to risk more pain
against the possibility of some catharsis, or at least some useful
vision of the events of that day. If the answer is yes, then this film
is well worth the risk. It's an anguishing, literally spellbinding
vision of what happened on the ground as the twin towers of the World
Trade Center were struck, and in the cockpit and cabin of the airliner
that was diverted, by a passenger revolt, from its flight path to the
U.S. Capitol."

There's more, of course, but I don't feel easy posting the whole
thing.
- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

"Flyingmonk" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Cub Driver wrote:
>> On 28 Apr 2006 02:11:34 -0700, "cjcampbell"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >The thing is, by the time Hollywood is done with a story,
>>
>> From what I've read, not the case with United 93.
>>
>> - all the best, Dan Ford
>>
>> Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
>> 10,000 keyboards can create a reference work
>
> You mean unlike "Titanic"?

I believe that took two mentally handicapped monkeys 2 minutes to write.

> The Monk
>

Richard Riley wrote:
> It's not the case with United 93. A lot of the film takes place
> outside the airplane, in the TRACON for example. Most of the people in
> those scenes are playing themselves.
>
> Way up thread I wrote that it's an extraordinary film. I was careful
> not to call it a "movie". It's a different animal. I'm surprised they
> were able to make it this way.
>
> I don't have any hope for Oliver Stone's 9/11 movie, the families of
> the dead men depicted are already protesting.

Tragic. Olive Stone has to be one of the lowest of the low.

"Jeff" > wrote

> And they say the public schools system isn't in trouble ;)

Yeah, the trouble is, that is the type of person they are tasked with trying
to teach! <g>
--
Jim in NC

Jeff wrote:
> >
> > You mean unlike "Titanic"?
>
> Off Topic again, but everytime that I think about that movie, it reminds me
> of a friend of mine that is...well...not the sharpest tool in the shed. As
> he sat down in the theater to watch the Titanic, he commented to the couple
> with him and his wife "This is based on a true story, I heard".

I wonder how many people believe that the purser shot himself in the
head, that Molly Brown acted the way she did in the movie, or even that
there was this old lady who claimed to be a Titanic surviver, or that
any of the main characters represented people who were actually aboard
the Titanic.

An author can write a book, "based on a true story," call it "A Million
Little Pieces," fill it with all kinds of distortions and falsehoods,
and the public will be furious with the liar. If a movie producer does
the same thing, millions of Americans will believe it is the gospel
truth.

On Fri, 28 Apr 2006 05:59:53 -0500, "Dan Luke"
> wrote:

>Compared to the supremely ridiculous Pearl Harbor and Memphis Belle, SPR
>did a pretty good job for a Hollywood war movie, I thought. I enjoyed it.

Oh sure! But Pearl Harbor was a fantasy, like the Dirty Dozen. One
didn't expect it to be real. SPR was hyped as realistic.

>The best I've seen in a long time is HBO's Band of Brothers mini series.

Yes, absolutely, and what's astonishing is that Spielberg was
responsible for that as well!

You know, it might have been the old vet weeping by the graveside that
did in SPR for me. That was a flag. Whoops! What's this all about! The
horror of war, one more time? So I started watching for the
anarchronisms, like the captain's bars painted on the front of Hanks's
helmet.


- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

On 28 Apr 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Flyingmonk" >
wrote:

>You mean unlike "Titanic"?

Oh gosh, I really liked Titanic!

- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

"Cub Driver" wrote:

> You know, it might have been the old vet weeping by the graveside that
> did in SPR for me. That was a flag. Whoops! What's this all about! The
> horror of war, one more time?

I found the scene moving. It seemed to be about a man mourning the friends
he'd lost and perhaps his own lost youth. I never got the idea it was an
anti-war movie: Spielburg and Hanks are both known to be great admirers of
WWII veterans. Hanks' character reminded me of the combat vet's I have
known; ordinary guys who did the job they were asked to do without a lot of
fuss.

The whole film seemed to me to be about sacrifice--how terrible and noble it
is to give one's life for a cause. The reading of Lincoln's letter
absolutely broke me up.

--
Dan

"The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is wishful
thinking."
-John Derbyshire

> > You know, it might have been the old vet weeping by the graveside that
> > did in SPR for me. That was a flag. Whoops! What's this all about! The
> > horror of war, one more time?
>
> I found the scene moving. It seemed to be about a man mourning the friends
> he'd lost and perhaps his own lost youth. I never got the idea it was an
> anti-war movie: Spielburg and Hanks are both known to be great admirers of
> WWII veterans. Hanks' character reminded me of the combat vet's I have
> known; ordinary guys who did the job they were asked to do without a lot of
> fuss.
>
> The whole film seemed to me to be about sacrifice--how terrible and noble it
> is to give one's life for a cause. The reading of Lincoln's letter
> absolutely broke me up.

I guess we're just hopeless, Dan, because I saw it the same way.

To razz "Saving Private Ryan" because of a couple of minor nits, while
missing the depth and breadth of the effort, seems silly to me. I
found it moving and, in many ways, deeply disturbing to watch -- and it
truly made me appreciate my father's generation.

Of course, I love "Top Gun", too -- so there's just no hope for me...

:-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> >> It got a rave review in The New Yorker. I will certainly see it.
> >
> > I thought that was the "Kiss of Death"?
>
> Why did you think that?

Traditionally any movie that gets a bad review in the New Yorker
usually does extremely well at the box office, and vice versa.

Of course, this is true of many critics, not just The New Yorker...

Critics are, by definition, critical. When you're a hammer, everything
looks like a nail.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

No, Jay, "Threads" was just plain terrifying. I was depressed for weeks
afterwards. "The Day After" was hoky by comparison. The only other movie
that's left me that depressed was "The Pawnbroker".

--
Bob (Chief Pilot, White Knuckle Airways)


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I was a young teenager at the time, and it was a film about nuclear war
>> (which in 1984, seemed only too likely). I didn't sleep properly for 3
>> weeks afterwards, and every flash of summer lightning had me bolt awake
>> in bed thinking it was a nuclear detonation - I had nightmares about
>> milk bottles melting in the heat. I have since watched it all
>> the way through - unlike "The Day After", it WAS NOT toned down. It is
>> the most depressing movie I have ever seen.
>
> Wow. And I thought "The Day After" was scary!
> --
> Jay Honeck
> Iowa City, IA
> Pathfinder N56993
> www.AlexisParkInn.com
> "Your Aviation Destination"
>

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> >> It got a rave review in The New Yorker. I will certainly see it.
>> >
>> >I thought that was the "Kiss of Death"?
>>
>> My acid test is whether *both* The New Yorker and The Wall Street
>> Journal* rave about the film. Here's Joe Morgenstern in the WSJ today:
>
> NPRs movie critic, Bob Mondello, gave it a rave review yesterday. He's
> usually pretty "on the mark", in my experience -- so I guess we'll be
> checking it out.

I was impressed by the fact that even Mondello, a hard-bitten critic,
admitted he was emotionally drained by the experience in spite of the tricks
he uses to stay objective about films he reviews.

If anything, that makes me more doubtful that I'll go see it. I just don't
know if I could take it; I'm upset enough about 9/11 as it is.

--
Dan

'Gut feeling'

Intestinologists concur that the human gut does not contain any rational
thoughts.

What the human gut *is* full of is moderately well known.

"cjcampbell" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Richard Riley wrote:
>> It's not the case with United 93. A lot of the film takes place
>> outside the airplane, in the TRACON for example. Most of the people in
>> those scenes are playing themselves.
>>
>> Way up thread I wrote that it's an extraordinary film. I was careful
>> not to call it a "movie". It's a different animal. I'm surprised they
>> were able to make it this way.
>>
>> I don't have any hope for Oliver Stone's 9/11 movie, the families of
>> the dead men depicted are already protesting.
>
> Tragic. Olive Stone has to be one of the lowest of the low.
>

Not Michael Fatass?

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jeff" > wrote
>
>> And they say the public schools system isn't in trouble ;)
>
> Yeah, the trouble is, that is the type of person they are tasked with
> trying to teach! <g>

That WAS a TEACHER. ;~(

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Cub Driver" wrote:
>
>> You know, it might have been the old vet weeping by the graveside that
>> did in SPR for me. That was a flag. Whoops! What's this all about! The
>> horror of war, one more time?
>
> I found the scene moving. It seemed to be about a man mourning the
> friends he'd lost and perhaps his own lost youth. I never got the idea it
> was an anti-war movie: Spielburg and Hanks are both known to be great
> admirers of WWII veterans. Hanks' character reminded me of the combat
> vet's I have known; ordinary guys who did the job they were asked to do
> without a lot of fuss.
>
> The whole film seemed to me to be about sacrifice--how terrible and noble
> it is to give one's life for a cause.

Hmmm...many rabid Nazis gave up their lives for a "cause". I doubt that
would qualify as "noble".

> "The opposite of science is not religion; the opposite of science is
> wishful thinking." -John Derbyshire

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> > You know, it might have been the old vet weeping by the graveside that
>> > did in SPR for me. That was a flag. Whoops! What's this all about! The
>> > horror of war, one more time?
>>
>> I found the scene moving. It seemed to be about a man mourning the
>> friends
>> he'd lost and perhaps his own lost youth. I never got the idea it was an
>> anti-war movie: Spielburg and Hanks are both known to be great admirers
>> of
>> WWII veterans. Hanks' character reminded me of the combat vet's I have
>> known; ordinary guys who did the job they were asked to do without a lot
>> of
>> fuss.
>>
>> The whole film seemed to me to be about sacrifice--how terrible and noble
>> it
>> is to give one's life for a cause. The reading of Lincoln's letter
>> absolutely broke me up.
>
> I guess we're just hopeless, Dan, because I saw it the same way.
>
> To razz "Saving Private Ryan" because of a couple of minor nits, while
> missing the depth and breadth of the effort, seems silly to me. I
> found it moving and, in many ways, deeply disturbing to watch -- and it
> truly made me appreciate my father's generation.
>
> Of course, I love "Top Gun", too -- so there's just no hope for me...
>
Hopefully, you recognize movies for the fantasies they are. Some contain a
subtle message (SPG - the horrors of war and the costs to preserve liberty),
but the overwhelming majority are fantasies and nothing more. Many people
miss that and can't differentiate the differences.

Now, being you're a Piper driver, I'd say that that more notably
demonstrates your hopelessness :~)


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
...
> On 28 Apr 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Flyingmonk" >
> wrote:
>
>>You mean unlike "Titanic"?
>
> Oh gosh, I really liked Titanic!
>
I don't think it was ever intended to serve as a documentary.

"Matt Barrow" > wrote

> That WAS a TEACHER. ;~(

Ouch! Spank me! <(:-))
--
Jim in NC

> Now, being you're a Piper driver, I'd say that that more notably
> demonstrates your hopelessness :~)

Ouch! :-)

Actually, I have nothing against high-winged Cessnas, and fully expect
to own one some day, when I am old, gray, feeble, partially blind,
incontinent, dim-witted, and no longer able to nimbly hop up on the
wing of my aircraft...

;-)
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

> If anything, that makes me more doubtful that I'll go see it. I just don't
> know if I could take it; I'm upset enough about 9/11 as it is.

This country could use a swift, sharp, painful reminder of what we're
fight against, IMHO.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

On 2006-04-29, Bob Chilcoat > wrote:
> No, Jay, "Threads" was just plain terrifying. I was depressed for weeks
> afterwards. "The Day After" was hoky by comparison. The only other movie
> that's left me that depressed was "The Pawnbroker".

Part of the thing that made 'Threads' so effective was the attention to
detail (well, as much as you can give given the film's incredibly low
budget).

When I watched it all the way through (relatively recently), I was still
shaking after the initial strike. Just little things like there being a
significant delay between the flash from the strike on the former RAF
Finningley (now an airline/GA airfield) and the blast/sound arriving in
Sheffield that made it feel so much more real than the ridiculous scenes
in 'The Day After'. The melting milkbottle scene is one I will never
forget.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

On 2006-04-29, Jay Honeck > wrote:
> Actually, I have nothing against high-winged Cessnas, and fully expect
> to own one some day, when I am old, gray, feeble, partially blind,
> incontinent, dim-witted, and no longer able to nimbly hop up on the
> wing of my aircraft...

Well, my Cessna was a real airplane. It didn't have a training wheel!

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

"Matt Barrow" wrote:

>>
>> The whole film seemed to me to be about sacrifice--how terrible and noble
>> it is to give one's life for a cause.
>
> Hmmm...many rabid Nazis gave up their lives for a "cause". I doubt that
> would qualify as "noble".

That is what we call perversion, I believe--when human drives are put to
evil purposes.

--
Dan

"How can an idiot be a policeman? Answer me that!"
- Chief Inspector Dreyfus

"Jay Honeck" wrote:

>> If anything, that makes me more doubtful that I'll go see it. I just
>> don't
>> know if I could take it; I'm upset enough about 9/11 as it is.
>
> This country could use a swift, sharp, painful reminder of what we're
> fight against, IMHO.

I don't need any reminder. I despise those filthy sons of bitches.

--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Now, being you're a Piper driver, I'd say that that more notably
>> demonstrates your hopelessness :~)
>
> Ouch! :-)
>
> Actually, I have nothing against high-winged Cessnas, and fully expect
> to own one some day, when I am old, gray, feeble, partially blind,
> incontinent, dim-witted, and no longer able to nimbly hop up on the
> wing of my aircraft...

Next Thursday?

>
> ;-)

Likewise!
--
Matt
---------------------
B36-TC Driver

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> If anything, that makes me more doubtful that I'll go see it. I just
>> don't
>> know if I could take it; I'm upset enough about 9/11 as it is.
>
> This country could use a swift, sharp, painful reminder of what we're
> fight against, IMHO.

Least a reminder come in the form of something worse.

A lesson can be learned the easy way, or the hard way -- takes yer pick!

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jay Honeck" wrote:
>
>>> If anything, that makes me more doubtful that I'll go see it. I just
>>> don't
>>> know if I could take it; I'm upset enough about 9/11 as it is.
>>
>> This country could use a swift, sharp, painful reminder of what we're
>> fight against, IMHO.
>
> I don't need any reminder. I despise those filthy sons of bitches.
>

That helps, but they really don't care what you think of them. They despise
you, too. They despise all of us. It moves them not an iota.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

In article >,
"Matt Barrow" > wrote:

> That helps, but they really don't care what you think of them.

Then we are "even" as I simply couldn't care less what they think of
me or anyone else in the US.

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

Flyingmonk wrote:
> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>
> The Monk
>
I did see the film Saturday evening. The film does a very commendable
job showing the inner workings of ATC. Nothing "made up" their. The film
also illustrates quite graphical just how unprepared out military was
(and perhaps still is) for an attack right on our front door. I felt
that the producers were very sympathetic to the survivors of the
victims; little time was given over to establishing the ususal sort of
Hollywoodian romances and relationships. I was quite emotional drained
after seeing the film; it is, after all, showing the sequence of events
that led up to many deaths and the closure of American airspace. It also
portrays quite accurately just how effective the ATC and the FAA were at
bringing all aircraft to the ground in a very short period of time.

Flyingmonk wrote:
> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>
> The Monk
>
I did see the film Saturday evening. The film does a very commendable
job showing the inner workings of ATC. Nothing "made up" their. The film
also illustrates quite graphical just how unprepared out military was
(and perhaps still is) for an attack right on our front door. I felt
that the producers were very sympathetic to the survivors of the
victims; little time was given over to establishing the ususal sort of
Hollywoodian romances and relationships. I was quite emotional drained
after seeing the film; it is, after all, showing the sequence of events
that led up to many deaths and the closure of American airspace. It also
portrays quite accurately just how effective the ATC and the FAA were at
bringing all aircraft to the ground in a very short period of time.

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
>
>> That helps, but they really don't care what you think of them.
>
> Then we are "even" as I simply couldn't care less what they think of
> me or anyone else in the US.

Were that this was all there is to it.

> That is what we call perversion, I believe--when human drives are put to
> evil purposes.

Yanno, I bet they agree with that. They just don't agree which one is
Good and which one is Evil.

Jose
--
The price of freedom is... well... freedom.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Sat, 29 Apr 2006 15:56:21 -0700, Matt Barrow wrote:

>That helps, but they really don't care what you think of them.

Do you care what they think about you?

> (...) It moves them not an iota.

Can you be moved? Sure, 'they' have to stop terrorist attacks. What else?

#m
--
"We're out of toilet paper sir!"
<http://www.webcrunchers.com/crunch/Play/history/stories/toilet.html>

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
> ...
> > On 28 Apr 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Flyingmonk" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>You mean unlike "Titanic"?
> >
> > Oh gosh, I really liked Titanic!
> >
> I don't think it was ever intended to serve as a documentary.

Maybe not, but did it have to defame the pursor? Did it have to portray
historical characters doing things that they never would have done in
real life? Could we perhaps have done without the stereotypes of the
greedy, money grubbing technonerd researchers, or the greedy, money
grubbing insensitive tycoons?

Matt Barrow wrote:
> "Cub Driver" <usenet AT danford DOT net> wrote in message
> ...
> > On 28 Apr 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Flyingmonk" >
> > wrote:
> >
> >>You mean unlike "Titanic"?
> >
> > Oh gosh, I really liked Titanic!
> >
> I don't think it was ever intended to serve as a documentary.

And come to think of it, was it really necessary to have the water
inside the ship magically warmed so the characters can flounder around
in it for several hours without harm while everybody outside is dying
of hypothermia within minutes?

On 29 Apr 2006 05:39:04 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
wrote:

>To razz "Saving Private Ryan" because of a couple of minor nits, while
>missing the depth and breadth of the effort, seems silly to me. I
>found it moving and, in many ways, deeply disturbing to watch -- and it
>truly made me appreciate my father's generation.

Would it be safe to guess that you never went through basic training?

>Of course, I love "Top Gun", too -- so there's just no hope for me...

Not at all! Top Gun is a fantasy; it can be enjoyed on its own terms.
SPR pretended to be the real thing, and it wasn't; it was an imitation
of old war movies by someone unqualified to do the job.

There's nothing wrong with imitation! What else is Indiana Jones but a
glorious rip-off of the serials we (I) used to watch on Saturday
afternoon at the movies? But SPR wanted to be something elevated,
truth-telling, and it was just so far off that it couldn't be borne,
at least not by me.

(Not just a *few* nits, either. Suffused with 'em! It was all nit!)


- all the best, Dan Ford

Wikipedia: the belief that 10,000 monkeys playing at
10,000 keyboards can create a reference work

> >To razz "Saving Private Ryan" because of a couple of minor nits, while
> >missing the depth and breadth of the effort, seems silly to me. I
> >found it moving and, in many ways, deeply disturbing to watch -- and it
> >truly made me appreciate my father's generation.
>
> Would it be safe to guess that you never went through basic training?

Yep. I missed Viet Nam by three years.

> (Not just a *few* nits, either. Suffused with 'em! It was all nit!)

Well, okay, soldiers wouldn't have worn their rank on their helmets in
the front lines. And they wouldn't have kept their M-1s if something
better had become available (and sufficient ammo found). What else
did you spot in SPR?

I've been told that the battle scenes capture the real thing better
than anything ever filmed. No?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Cub Driver wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2006 05:39:04 -0700, "Jay Honeck" >
> wrote:
>
> >To razz "Saving Private Ryan" because of a couple of minor nits, while
> >missing the depth and breadth of the effort, seems silly to me. I
> >found it moving and, in many ways, deeply disturbing to watch -- and it
> >truly made me appreciate my father's generation.
>
> Would it be safe to guess that you never went through basic training?
>
> >Of course, I love "Top Gun", too -- so there's just no hope for me...
>
> Not at all! Top Gun is a fantasy; it can be enjoyed on its own terms.
> SPR pretended to be the real thing, and it wasn't; it was an imitation
> of old war movies by someone unqualified to do the job.
>
> There's nothing wrong with imitation! What else is Indiana Jones but a
> glorious rip-off of the serials we (I) used to watch on Saturday
> afternoon at the movies? But SPR wanted to be something elevated,
> truth-telling, and it was just so far off that it couldn't be borne,
> at least not by me.
>
> (Not just a *few* nits, either. Suffused with 'em! It was all nit!)

So now you have me curious. What were some of these nits?

"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> I was a young teenager at the time, and it was a film about nuclear war
>> (which in 1984, seemed only too likely). I didn't sleep properly for 3
>> weeks afterwards, and every flash of summer lightning had me bolt awake
>> in bed thinking it was a nuclear detonation - I had nightmares about
>> milk bottles melting in the heat. I have since watched it all
>> the way through - unlike "The Day After", it WAS NOT toned down. It is
>> the most depressing movie I have ever seen.
>
> Wow. And I thought "The Day After" was scary!

I remember watching "The Wolfman" when I was six.

"Jim" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> No, dumbass, this is the other movie about flight 93 that comes out
> Friday.
>

What's the name of the other movie about flight 93 that came out Friday?

Flyingmonk wrote:
> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>
> The Monk
>
The film is actually entitled "United 93". Here is a review and weekend
box office report:

With painstaking authenticity, "United 93" recounts the horrific end of
passengers who fought back against their hijackers aboard one of the
commandeered planes, which crashed in rural Pennsylvania.

Families of those killed aboard Flight 93 cooperated with director Paul
Greengrass ("The Bourne Supremacy," "Bloody Sunday"), who re-creates the
experiences of passengers and air-traffic controllers in a
documentary-style drama. "United 93" earned widespread praise from critics.

Shot on a modest budget of $15 million, "United 93" should easily turn a
profit once theatrical, television and DVD revenues are tallied.
Universal said it will donate 10 percent of the first weekend's grosses
to the Flight 93 National Memorial in Pennsylvania.

Playing in 1,795 theaters, about half as many as "RV," "United 93"
averaged a solid $6,462 a cinema, the best results among the top-10 movies.

"We can now kind of put to bed any idea that people are not ready to see
this type of movie. The numbers speak for themselves," said Paul
Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

"Arnold Sten" > wrote in message
...
>
> The film is actually entitled "United 93". Here is a review and weekend
> box office report:
>

There was a TV production called "Flight 93" that aired about three months
ago.

On Sun, 30 Apr 2006 17:11:33 -0400, Arnold Sten
> quoted:

>"We can now kind of put to bed any idea that people are not ready to see
>this type of movie. The numbers speak for themselves," said Paul
>Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

Oh ****.

Don

My family just returned from seeing a matinee showing of "Flight 93",
and I have to say that it's been a shattering experience.

We normally fly as a family on Sunday afternoons, but heavy rain and
high winds kept us on the ground. Mary and my 15 year old son
suggested seeing a movie, and Mary has been wanting to see "Flight 93."
After following this thread the last few days, I didn't know if I was
sold on the idea...but we didn't have anything better to do, so...

At the last minute my 12 year old daughter opted to stay home, so it
was just the three of us at the theater. We did the usual
"buttered-popcorn-twizzlers-giant-pop" deal, and settled down in the
half-full house to enjoy an afternoon of escapism. Or so we thought.

The movie starts out slowly enough, following the terrorist's last
morning of preparations. These preparations were filled with prayer,
and tension, as they went about the business of checking in at the
ticket counter, and waiting the interminable wait before boarding. We
watch as, one by one, they -- and all the other passengers -- board the
plane, looking nervous but as innocent as newborne pups.

This story is interspersed with the happenings inside New York's,
Cleveland's, and Newark's ATC facilities, as, one by one, more and more
flights are hijacked. The tension is slowly ratcheted up as, one
plane a time, ATC loses contact with the pilots, and the planes change
course and altitude. Standard hijack procedures are pulled out, and
discarded, as the morning progresses and it becomes clear that what was
happening was completely out of the play book.

After the World Trade Center is hit, confusion becomes the norm, and --
as the ATC officials realize the enormity of the events unfolding
around them -- fear and horror join confusion as a close second and
third on the emotional tier. The military is called in, and (as luck
would have it) they are in the midst of a major NORAD exercise that has
left a total of four (4!) fighter aircraft available to defend the
entire Eastern Seaboard.

The FAA's military liaison cannot be found. When at last he *is* found,
he has scant little authority to do anything. People with authority
cannot be found, and NORAD is left with few planes and no rules of
engagement. Chaos reigns as the Trade Center is hit again, and the
Pentagon is attacked.

As the passengers on board Flight 93 become aware of what is happening
on the ground (via cell phone calls to loved ones), the formerly
passive passengers realize that this is no normal hijacking, and that
their only option is to try to take the plane back.

Of course, we all know the ending.

The movie is incredibly well done. The entirely matter-of-fact way in
which the events unfold -- in real time -- gives the film a weight and
authority that it would not otherwise possess. The tension that
ratchets up is nearly unbearable, as we watch events unfold both
knowing what is about to happen, and remembering our own, dark
experiences on that day of terror.

Near the end of the movie, I was entirely in the moment. I was with
the passengers as they plotted their take-over. I felt the knives slash
as they tried to take control. I physically felt the plane roll and
lurch as the hijackers tried to keep the passengers subdued. Mary said
that she was leaning whenever the plane rolled, and I felt a huge surge
of adrenaline as the passengers rushed the hijackers. I was with
them, as was everyone in that theater.

When at last the movie ended in a black screen, and utter silence,
people were audibly sobbing throughout the theater. My fists were
clenched, my breathing ragged, and tears streamed down my face. My son
was shaking, and my wife was absolutely motionless, not even breathing.

The people directly behind us were crying out loud, unashamed. It was
the most amazing thing I've ever seen in a movie theater.

No one moved. Minutes later, still no one had moved. I couldn't see,
and I couldn't catch my breath, as the rage poured out of me. I bit my
lip to stop from balling like a baby.

See the movie. We all need to see this movie.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

It's a movie!
All the actions depicted onboard the aircraft are speculation.
There may be some factual descriptions about what was happening with ATC
and NORAD as NPR has been reporting all weekend that the actual people
portrayed themselves in those roles.

in article . com, cjcampbell
at wrote on 4/28/06 9:56 PM:

>
> Jeff wrote:
>>>
>>> You mean unlike "Titanic"?
>>
>> Off Topic again, but everytime that I think about that movie, it reminds me
>> of a friend of mine that is...well...not the sharpest tool in the shed. As
>> he sat down in the theater to watch the Titanic, he commented to the couple
>> with him and his wife "This is based on a true story, I heard".
>
> I wonder how many people believe that the purser shot himself in the
> head, that Molly Brown acted the way she did in the movie, or even that
> there was this old lady who claimed to be a Titanic surviver, or that
> any of the main characters represented people who were actually aboard
> the Titanic.
>
> An author can write a book, "based on a true story," call it "A Million
> Little Pieces," fill it with all kinds of distortions and falsehoods,
> and the public will be furious with the liar. If a movie producer does
> the same thing, millions of Americans will believe it is the gospel
> truth.

I'm a little surprised at all the animus directed at this silly film. Surely
the hundreds of teenage girls in attendance at every screening was an
indication that it wasn't to be taken too seriously? By the way, Hollywood
also made the film in 1953, and that version was even sillier than
Cameron's, so this is nothing new.

But getting back to "United 93", it's interesting to note that it was
written and directed by a Brit, and largely shot in Britain, from what I
understand. I saw the film and was deeply impressed, but I'm afraid that
Hollywood doesn't get full credit for it.

Thanks Jay. I plan to see it.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

in article , Dylan Smith at
wrote on 4/28/06 3:35 AM:

> On 2006-04-26, Flyingmonk > wrote:
>> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>
> Personally, I'm not going to bother. I knew as 9/11 was happening, it
> was only a matter of time before Hollywood made a movie about it - but I
> did expect them to wait 15 or 20 years. I also predict there will be a
> Hollywood movie about Hurricane Katrina.

I'm neither condemning nor defending Hollywood, but I'm pretty sure that
everybody here is aware that it represents American capitalism in its purest
form. Hollywood sees an opportunity to turn a buck, and it takes it, taste
be damned. Simple as that. Is there another way of doing capitalism that I
haven't heard about?

Odd to see so much criticism of the American way. Personally, I would've
liked to have seen a big, dumb, Jerry Bruckheimer version of 9/11 about 6
months after it happened. When you think about it, what better signal to
send to the rest of the world?

"Philip S." > wrote in message
...
> in article , Dylan Smith at
> wrote on 4/28/06 3:35 AM:
>
>> On 2006-04-26, Flyingmonk > wrote:
>>> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>>
>> Personally, I'm not going to bother. I knew as 9/11 was happening, it
>> was only a matter of time before Hollywood made a movie about it - but I
>> did expect them to wait 15 or 20 years. I also predict there will be a
>> Hollywood movie about Hurricane Katrina.
>
> I'm neither condemning nor defending Hollywood, but I'm pretty sure that
> everybody here is aware that it represents American capitalism in its
> purest
> form. Hollywood sees an opportunity to turn a buck, and it takes it, taste
> be damned. Simple as that. Is there another way of doing capitalism that I
> haven't heard about?
>
> Odd to see so much criticism of the American way.

I do believe that is also a huge part of the American way.

in article , Dave Stadt at
wrote on 4/30/06 9:02 PM:

>
> "Philip S." > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , Dylan Smith at
>> wrote on 4/28/06 3:35 AM:
>>
>>> On 2006-04-26, Flyingmonk > wrote:
>>>> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>>>
>>> Personally, I'm not going to bother. I knew as 9/11 was happening, it
>>> was only a matter of time before Hollywood made a movie about it - but I
>>> did expect them to wait 15 or 20 years. I also predict there will be a
>>> Hollywood movie about Hurricane Katrina.
>>
>> I'm neither condemning nor defending Hollywood, but I'm pretty sure that
>> everybody here is aware that it represents American capitalism in its
>> purest
>> form. Hollywood sees an opportunity to turn a buck, and it takes it, taste
>> be damned. Simple as that. Is there another way of doing capitalism that I
>> haven't heard about?
>>
>> Odd to see so much criticism of the American way.
>
> I do believe that is also a huge part of the American way.

True, but I meant that it was odd to see it from folks who normally seem to
be a vigorously patriotic, capitalist bunch. ****, I'm merely the biggest
capitalist in the world, and I've never understood the general reluctance to
exploit 9/11 for financial gain. We should have been selling T-shirts 15
minutes after it happened, and telling the rest of the world to **** off if
they didn't like it.

("Philip S." wrote)
> True, but I meant that it was odd to see it from folks who normally seem
> to be a vigorously patriotic, capitalist bunch. [%^*#], I'm merely the
> biggest capitalist in the world, and I've never understood the general
> reluctance to exploit 9/11 for financial gain. We should have been selling
> T-shirts 15 minutes after it happened, and telling the rest of the world
> to [#%^*] off if they didn't like it.


We would have flown to NYC if the hotels were ALL $99 for that two week
period, and if they had constructed a GIANT three story viewing
platform/boardwalk around the entire site - $25 a person.

IIRC, our 1998 World Trade Center tour was $12 per person.

The (soon to be bailed out) airlines would have been on board, too - with
fare specials and extra planes to NYC.

Millions would have visited! ...and bought T-shirts.


Montblack
New York missed the boat on that one.

> It's a movie!

Yep, and a very well-done one at that.

> All the actions depicted onboard the aircraft are speculation.

Not all. They have the results of 20+ phone calls made from the plane.
They know what was being planned.

> There may be some factual descriptions about what was happening with ATC
> and NORAD as NPR has been reporting all weekend that the actual people
> portrayed themselves in those roles.

Yes, ATC has the real-deal ring of truth. What's really nice is that
they don't dumb it down or explain everything. If you understand
ATC-speak, you "get it" -- if you don't, it's probably gibberish.

It didn't seem to bother anyone in the theater -- but it sure added to
our movie experience, and I really appreciate the fact that the
director did it that way.

Best of all, they made the movie based on the actual timeline of
events. Things unfold at precisely the same pace that they did on
September 11th, which really gives it an authenticity it would not
otherwise have.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

Great review Jay thanks.


One thing though.

"United 93" = Film released this weekend.
http://www.united93movie.com/index.php

"Flight 93" = Film on A&E Network. http://www.aetv.com/flight_93/index.jsp

> One thing though.
>
> "United 93" = Film released this weekend.
> http://www.united93movie.com/index.php

Whoops! Sorry about that.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

("Gig 601XL Builder" wrote)
> "United 93" = Film released this weekend.
> http://www.united93movie.com/index.php
>
> "Flight 93" = Film on A&E Network. http://www.aetv.com/flight_93/index.jsp


http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/
World Trade Center (2006) - Oliver Stone


Montblack

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
.. .
> Nit-picky. Babys bawl. Balling is how we GET babies.

You do know why babies are so fragile, don't you?

They are put together, with only one screw!

RIMSHOT!!!
--
Jim in NC

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote:
> >
>
> Were that this was all there is to it.

Agreed Matt. Part of the concept of freedom is that people leave the other
people alone to do as they like within the law. These *******s are of course
not content with that and will kill Americans and consider civilians fair
game in fighting their "war." Here's a little speech written by a naval
captain I read today in Snopes about this subject:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/wakeup.asp

Marco







Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

I saw it yesterday.... It made my guts churn like I knew it would. It
brought some tears to my eyes remembering "that" day.. I am glad that
the movie was made because I think that American memories can be short
(mine included) and time tends to dull the pain of the fact that there
are folks out there that would like nothing more than to see thousands
of us burn. Remember the celebrations over our 3000 dead? Yea... I'm
glad I saw it...

Funny thing is it came in second to some stupid ass Robin William's RV
movie... Go figure....

Jon Kraus
'79 Mooney 201
4443H @ TYQ



Flyingmonk wrote:
> What'd you think of it? Should I go see it?
>
> The Monk
>

It's not quite that simple

# Title Gross Theaters $/theater Budget
1 RV $16,414,767 - 3,639 - $4,510 $50m
2 U 93 $11,478,360 - 1,795 - $6,394 $15m

Basically, it cost about 1/4 of what "RV" cost, it's in half as many
theaters, and in each theater it's making 50% more. If I was funding
films, I know which one I'd rather own.

OK... I feel better then... :-)

Richard Riley wrote:
> It's not quite that simple
>
> # Title Gross Theaters $/theater Budget
> 1 RV $16,414,767 - 3,639 - $4,510 $50m
> 2 U 93 $11,478,360 - 1,795 - $6,394 $15m
>
> Basically, it cost about 1/4 of what "RV" cost, it's in half as many
> theaters, and in each theater it's making 50% more. If I was funding
> films, I know which one I'd rather own.
>