I had lunch with Josh in Burlington today, and afterwards I decided to go and see United 93.
Yes, I had reservations. And yes, it’s hard to watch at times. Nevertheless, I’m really glad that I did. And I’m glad that the film was made, and that it was made now, and that it was done so well.
[I’ve been struggling for the last 15 minutes to find the words to describe why I feel this way, and I’ve given up. If you want to read reviews, you can see over 150 of them at RottenTomatoes.]
One thought: Other people can make 9/11-related films (about NYC firefighters or stuff like that), but I wish that this could be the only film about the hijackings themselves. We don’t need more than one. Yes, I know that this is about one particular flight, but it stands for all of them. And (selfishly) I’d rather not see an actor playing Phil on board American Flight 11.
Update: For a pilot’s perspective, check out the comments of Salon’s Patrick Smith. Like him, I noticed a few minor technical bloopers, but they didn’t spoil the film for me. And he found words where I failed:
“Tasteful” is the word being spun by critics and pundits. Of course, there are different ways of being tasteful, not all of which are acceptable to everyone. If you ask me, Paul Greengrass’ re-creation of the events aboard the skyjacked United Airlines 757, shot with a low-budget cast of nobody actors, including real-life pilots, flight attendants, military officers and air traffic controllers, is nothing if not triumphantly unpretentious. The skeletonized dialogue and jittery, claustrophobic camerawork create an atmosphere that is realistic almost to a fault. As a viewer, you feel as if you’re peering into the cabin of the actual doomed airplane — as though you’ve been sucked into the black box recorders and forced to bear witness to the horror as it unfolds, the theater itself wallowing aloft in the same unthinkable predicament.