Frank Rich slams 'United 93' film as 'exploitative'

[Bruden]

In his latest column set for Sunday's New York Times, Frank Rich, the former chief drama critic for the paper, slams the movie United 93 for exploiting tragedy and rewriting history, RAW STORY has found.

snip

Excerpts from Rich's column entitled "Too soon? It's too late for United 93" from Sunday's Times:

Don't feel guilty if you, like most Americans, have not run or even walked to see "United 93."

The movie that has been almost unanimously acclaimed as a rite of patriotism second only to singing the national anthem in English is clinical to the point of absurdity: It reduces the doomed and brave Americans on board to nameless stick figures with less personality than the passengers in "Airport." Rather than deepening our knowledge of them or their heroism, the movie caps an hour of air-controller nail-biting with a tasteful re-enactment of the grisly end.

We also practice denial by manufacturing vicarious and symbolic victories at home to compensate for those we are not winning abroad. Two major liberties taken with the known facts in "United 93" -- sequences suggesting that passengers thrashed and possibly killed two of the hijackers and succeeded in entering the cockpit -- are highly cathartic but unsupported by the evidence.


http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Frank_Rich_slams_exploitative_United_93_0506.html

[NJ_Lib]

1. Save your money... I saw both "United 93" movies,...

...the big-screen version and the one on TV (was it History Channel or A & E ? One of those...), anyway, the one on TV was much better and much more interesting... They got you emotionally sucked in by letting you get to know the charactors and their families, something the big-screen version sadly lacked...

I also read the "actual transcript", well, what the 911/Commission decided to release of it (hmmm...), and actually, according to the "actual transcript" on the net, it does appear that the passangers could have penetrated the cockpit... There is an Arabic translation of the conversation between the two in charge of flying and they do mention trouble brewing in the back and unruly passangers coming in... They keep asking one another, "Is this it?", and "Should we put her down"?, "Are they coming now? Should I put it down?" and this kind of thing...

Who knows? It could be a completely fake script, I've totally lost trust in my government...

[OKNancy]

2. I'll enjoy reading the original article

in the Sunday Times

[Union Thug]

3. and I agree...

Hackneyed, desperate, and formula.

[Skittles]

4. I saw United 93 and it is a good movie

the hysterics on DU about it were ridiculous; half the movie involves what happened on the ground and it leaves you with a lot of questions such as WHERE THE F*** WAS BUSH and WHY WAS UNITED 93 ALLOWED TO TAKE OF *AFTER* BOTH TOWERS HAD BEEN HIT....simply put, it is NOT a bush propaganda piece, it is simply a drama of events that MIGHT have occurred and quite frankly, given all the facts known, PROBABLY DID

[rpannier]

5. I haven't seen the movie

Is there a scene where Sylvester Stallone lassoes the plane wheel, climbs in through the baggage compartment and meets up with Wesley Snipes. Then they kill all the terrorists with the bows and arrows they find in the luggage bin -- because the Togoian Archery Team just happens to be on the plane. While they're killing the terrorists, Bruce Willis leaps into the cockpit and flies the plane to safety.

[OneBlueSky]

6. at last! . . . I'm sick to death of reading all these fawning reviews . .

of that movie ("Two thumbs up!") when, in reality, it's mostly a propaganda piece that seeks to reinforce the "official" story of what happened that day . . . and, as we all know, the official story has more holes than all the cheese in Switzerland . . .

[petgoat]

7. More holes than the "evaporated" steel samples discussed

in the FEMA report, Appendix C.

"The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/metallurgy/WTC_apndxC.htm

[NJ_Lib]

8. Yeah, but they went on to say that...

... it could be from the long-term burn that happened on the ground afterwards... As I understood it, they're not really sure and further studies are needed in order to be conclusive...

[petgoat]

9. "further studies are needed"

Exactly, and FEMA's failure to fund them seems peculiar.

Also, NIST denies that the Appendix C sample from building 7 even exists.
How weird is that?

[NJ_Lib]

10. I agree, that is shady for sure...

... Are you surprised though? We probably won't learn what "really" happened on 9/11 until we're old and grey and there's no warm body left to prosecute... Isn't that how things usually go?


Edit: Spelling

[beltanefauve]

11. Hate to be a cynic, but

it's been over forty years since the assasination of JFK and we still have more questions than answers on that one, too. And RFK, and MLK and Paul Wellstone, and...

[Skittles]

12. have you seen the movie?

WHERE IS BUSH is a glaring question, plus the figter pilots ending up OVER THE OCEAN, the mass confusion, it is NOT a propaganda piece unless their "official story" is everyone had their heads up their ass