criterionforum.org

Trailer: http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/wtc/hd/

Personally, I have a bit more interest in seeing this than United 93. I was kind of put off by the clinical approach Greengrass took. I understand that he wanted to be faithful to the events that happened but at a certain point, without getting involved in who these characters are, it becomes an act of pantomime. I think Stone's film might find a larger audience because it takes us into the lives of two of the officers at ground zero rather than a technically accurate portrait of one event from the day.

But it's going to be a long while before I actually watch either United 93 or World Trade Center. I don't think I'm ready to see a Hollywood recreation of the events. I think the best post 9/11 film so far is 25th Hour. The scene/discussion with Barry Pepper and Philip Seymour Hoffman looking out of the apartment at the construction in the spot of the old WTC probably says more about how that event shook the city and its people than anything Greengrass or Stone are doing.

I just revisited JFK last night and was struck by the similarities between Garrison's theory that the CIA was responsible for JFK's assassination in order to make billions with the Vietnam war, and the theory that the US planned 9/11 in order go to war with Iraq and make billions. I'm a little disappointed that this will not be a political film. It seems sort of strange coming from Stone, doesn't it?

A little strange yes, but even before shooting started the studio assured the press that Stone's film wouldn't be political in nature. It's hard to see why Stone would helm the picture anyway, but he probably owes a favor to a few investors after Alexander.

That trailer looks dreadful. I'm not sure what kind of film I was expecting Stone to make, but this feels nearly like self-parody. It could just be the way the trailer is cut, I suppose, but I've got a bad feeling.

The problem with making a more JFK-style film about 9/11 is I think we are still too close to the events. While JFK took plenty of liberties with the facts, it still was able to play on years of accumulated rumors and theories which were known not just to a dedicated niche but had gained some level of wider acceptance or at least awareness. Any more politically or conspiratorially-minded 9/11 film today would be crucified either by disputes regarding the facts, or if nothing else, by information that is still emerging and becoming declassified. It's still too early in the game for anyone to make some kind of defining cinematic statement (unless they were to address more this feeling of uncertainty many of us carry).

Right now, the place for these kinds of films seems to be on the internet, as independently-produced documentaries, the best of which I've seen is Loose Change. Like JFK, the film is less satisfactory in its grand theory than in the small details it picks out from the official account in order to suggest something else was going on; that we are not being given the full story.

And I second Antoine re: 25th Hour. It is easily the best film to deal with 9/11 so far, and also in my opinion Spike Lee's finest.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Personally, I have a bit more interest in seeing this than United 93. I was kind of put off by the clinical approach Greengrass took. I understand that he wanted to be faithful to the events that happened but at a certain point, without getting involved in who these characters are, it becomes an act of pantomime.

I disagree. Like, his previous film Bloody Sunday, the film is filmed in such a way, with hand-held cameras, that I felt a real intimacy with the people in the film and that not knowing the characters' backstories didn't matter because we got to know them over the course of the film. Of course, in both films you know what's coming and so the dread and tension gets to be unbearable. I felt that United 93 was far from clinical and in fact very gripping and visceral.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Personally, I have a bit more interest in seeing this than United 93. I was kind of put off by the clinical approach Greengrass took. I understand that he wanted to be faithful to the events that happened but at a certain point, without getting involved in who these characters are, it becomes an act of pantomime.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I think the best post 9/11 film was 25th Hour. The scene/discussion with Barry Pepper and Philip Seymour Hoffman looking out of the apartment at the construction in the spot of the old WTC says more about how that event shook the city and its people than anything Greengrass or Stone are doing.

I love love love when people have already made up their minds about a film they haven't seen. So classy! Why see any film at all if you already know if you like it or not before having seen it? Why not just cut out the middleman? You'll save tons of time.

Not quite sure why you're singling me out when the entire New Films thread (and certainly the Criterion Rumor thread) are people discussing and speculating on movies they haven't seen......

And though I haven't Scary Movie 4 and though SF Chronicle says it's "About five times as funny as "Scary Movie 3" I think it's safe to say - without seeing it mind you - that I won't like it. But you never know right?

I have absolutely NO interest in seeing a film on the events surrounding 9/11.

I fail to see what intrinsic purpose there would be for any artistic endeavor to use this as it's subject. I feel it's a waste of effort and money.

This subject serves as a platform for the expression of nothing that would interest me about the human condition that was said before in Film.

Dear Catastrophe Totoro wrote:I just revisited JFK last night and was struck by the similarities between Garrison's theory that the CIA was responsible for JFK's assassination in order to make billions with the Vietnam war, and the theory that the US planned 9/11 in order go to war with Iraq and make billions. I'm a little disappointed that this will not be a political film. It seems sort of strange coming from Stone, doesn't it?

An interesting observation.

This is why I don't see why ANYONE has to "say something" about it.

I mean...what can you say about it ? Apparently it even flumuxes Stone to some extent, but not enough for him to be silent about it...and he is someone who somehow feels compelled to say something about everything.

Antoine Doinel wrote:Not quite sure why you're singling me out when the entire New Films thread (and certainly the Criterion Rumor thread) are people discussing and speculating on movies they haven't seen...

Okay, it's a little unfair. But you have to admit (or at least I hope you would) that there is a world of difference between Scary Movie 4 and United 93.

I can acccept that you would refuse to see United 93 or World Trade Center because you don't want to see a fictional treatment of the events or even because you have disliked the respective filmmakers' previous films, but you shouldn't judge a movie on artistic grounds if you have absolutely no basis on which to make such a judgment other than preconceptions or received ideas.

matt wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:Personally, I have a bit more interest in seeing this than United 93. I was kind of put off by the clinical approach Greengrass took. I understand that he wanted to be faithful to the events that happened but at a certain point, without getting involved in who these characters are, it becomes an act of pantomime.

Antoine Doinel wrote:I think the best post 9/11 film was 25th Hour. The scene/discussion with Barry Pepper and Philip Seymour Hoffman looking out of the apartment at the construction in the spot of the old WTC says more about how that event shook the city and its people than anything Greengrass or Stone are doing.

I love love love when people have already made up their minds about a film they haven't seen. So classy! Why see any film at all if you already know if you like it or not before having seen it? Why not just cut out the middleman? You'll save tons of time.

This is one of those subjects where EVERYONE feels they have something to say something about it...so you don't really have to see a film on the subject to have an opinion about it.

Silly isn't it ? Sometimes silence IS golden !

Dear Catastrophe Totoro wrote:I just revisited JFK last night and was struck by the similarities between Garrison's theory that the CIA was responsible for JFK's assassination in order to make billions with the Vietnam war, and the theory that the US planned 9/11 in order go to war with Iraq and make billions. I'm a little disappointed that this will not be a political film. It seems sort of strange coming from Stone, doesn't it?

The US hasn't made billions, it has SPENT billions. It's companies like Halliburton and Exxon that have been raking in the dough from the war in Iraq...

Fasten your seatbelts Please !

You are entering the Twilight Zone !

matt wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:Not quite sure why you're singling me out when the entire New Films thread (and certainly the Criterion Rumor thread) are people discussing and speculating on movies they haven't seen...

Okay, it's a little unfair. But you have to admit (or at least I hope you would) that there is a world of difference between Scary Movie 4 and United 93.

I can acccept that you would refuse to see United 93 or World Trade Center because you don't want to see a fictional treatment of the events or even because you have disliked the respective filmmakers' previous films, but you shouldn't judge a movie on artistic grounds if you have absolutely no basis on which to make such a judgment other than preconceptions or received ideas.

Yes, United 93 and Scary Movie 4 are quite different but the point I'm trying to make is it's virtually impossible to enter a movie without any preconceived notions.

I have seen some of Greengrass' and pretty much all of Stone's previous work so it's not like I'm calling out my opinion in the dark here. I still stand by my statement regarding 25th Hour as the most resonant (for me) post 9/11 movie so far. That it didn't have to recreate the plane crash, tower collapse or show clips of the planes slamming into the buildings to leave (and pardon the pun) an impact made it that much more compelling. And yes I could very well be wrong about United 93 (Fletch made a particularly nice defense of the film) but I'm in no rush to see it based on what I know about it.

Anyway - here's to a truce. I'm calling off the duel at high noon.

Another vote for 25TH HOUR as the best film so far to capture the uneasiness of post-9/11 NY. An incredible, elegaic and unjustly underrated movie.

The Stone film looks embarrassing. I couldn't take it seriously with all those terribly cliched lines of dialogue, and 1950's-esque footage of teary-eyed women hugging children while the men step forward heroically. Pure comedy. And when was the last time a Nick Cage performance wasn't overshadowed by his facial hair?

filmfan wrote:This is one of those subjects where EVERYONE feels they have something to say something about it...so you don't really have to see a film on the subject to have an opinion about it.

Don't be ridiculous. I'm talking about having an opinion on a film without having seen it. It doesn't matter what the subject matter is. Sure, you may know every detail about what happened on United flight 93 on September 11, 2001, but that doesn't in any way equip you to make aesthetic judgments about a film on that subject without having actually seen it.

I'm beginning to remember why I quit posting on here...

Antoine Doinel wrote:I have seen some of Greengrass' and pretty much all of Stone's previous work so it's not like I'm calling out my opinion in the dark here. I still stand by my statement regarding 25th Hour as the most resonant (for me) post 9/11 movie so far.

I get you, and I'll stop picking on you. But I still must point out that 25th Hour remains the most resonant 9/11 movie for you because you haven't seen the others. I'm just saying that your opinion would carry a lot more weight and would garner more respect if you had actually seen the other films you're dismissing.

I mean, wouldn't I look foolish if I said that The Green Berets was the best film on Vietnam and no, as a matter of fact, I haven't seen Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter, Casualties of War, or Hearts and Minds and I don't think I care to?

matt wrote:I mean, wouldn't I look foolish if I said that The Green Berets was the best film on Vietnam and no, as a matter of fact, I haven't seen Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter, Casualties of War, or Hearts and Minds and I don't think I care to?

You would look foolish if you claimed that The Green Berets was the best anything.

filmfan wrote:I have absolutely NO interest in seeing a film on the events surrounding 9/11.

I fail to see what intrinsic purpose there would be for any artistic endeavor to use this as it's subject. I feel it's a waste of effort and money.

This subject serves as a platform for the expression of nothing that would interest me about the human condition that was said before in Film.

Well, I'm not rushing out the door to see these films, but I think it's pretty fascinating to see how people (mis)construe recent history, especially history I've lived through. Best & worst case scenario: it'll be utterly hilarious.

Of course, on that note, it's probably best that I wait for home video for these ones. The Cape Fear laugh won't go over well in a 9/11 movie.

But one thing's for sure: I'll never forgive myself for failing to tape the pro-Bush movie on Showtime starring the guy from "That's My Bush." Talk about revisionist history.

matt wrote:

Antoine Doinel wrote:I have seen some of Greengrass' and pretty much all of Stone's previous work so it's not like I'm calling out my opinion in the dark here. I still stand by my statement regarding 25th Hour as the most resonant (for me) post 9/11 movie so far.

I get you, and I'll stop picking on you. But I still must point out that 25th Hour remains the most resonant 9/11 movie for you because you haven't seen the others. I'm just saying that your opinion would carry a lot more weight and would garner more respect if you had actually seen the other films you're dismissing.

I mean, wouldn't I look foolish if I said that The Green Berets was the best film on Vietnam and no, as a matter of fact, I haven't seen Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Full Metal Jacket, The Deer Hunter, Casualties of War, or Hearts and Minds and I don't think I care to?

a) I said "so far" - leaving the door fairly wide open for other films to come in and take its place
b) My reasons for dismissing United 93 are based not only on my personal gut reaction but on the countless articles stating how true the film is to the events of that day. Big whoop. The real events of that day are real enough for me. For a post 9/11 film to resonate with me I want something about how it affected the city, the people, etc.
c) If you read my initial post I actually think World Trade Center might be worth seeing, crying-mothers-clutching-their-children aside, as it does actually show the ripple effect on the lives of the people. Who knows, maybe it will be better than 25th Hour. But forgive me if my initial reaction is that I doubt it will.
d) Sure I might think you're crazy if you thought Green Berets was the best Vietnam movie without seeing the others, but I wouldn't scold you if Heaven & Earth wasn't on the list of dismissed films.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The scene/discussion with Barry Pepper and Philip Seymour Hoffman looking out of the apartment at the construction in the spot of the old WTC says more about how that event shook the city and its people than anything Greengrass or Stone are doing.

From the first post...

This would appear to be the offending quote (which I am in full agreeance with matt on). Revise that mo'fucka with a "so far" or some shit and let's move on!

-Toilet Dcuk

Oh lord.........I amended my statement down the line but since those five little letters are the cause of so much uproar, I've edited my initial post so its painfully clear that I am not making any hard and fast statements regarding films based on the events of 9/11. Furthermore, I promise to watch any and all feature films regarding this subject so that in the future I may one day remove the words "so far" or even change my opinion altogether. And thus having seen very piece of film on the subject, no one will be able to question my opinion and we can all live happily ever after.

Oh, Lord, don't go getting all patronizing on my ass... I was trying to be the friendly voice of reason (in an online forum topic involving 9/11... good luck to me...)

Although if you could explain how matt's first response to you was supposed to take into account the 'so far' that you brought up in response to his, the wormhole would probably be quite impressive. But do it on your own time, as neither 9/11 discussions (political or emotional), Oliver Stone, nor the downward spiral that is your line of defense for judging films you haven't seen garner enough interest for me to stick around to put up with the kind of shit you're last post consisted of.

-Toilet Dcuk

Hey Toilet Duck, my response borne more out of frustration rather than being directed at you. I'd rather get back to the topic at hand as well.

My real frustration with Matt's post was someone singling me out in this thread as going off on movies "I haven't seen" which the majority of the the New Films forum consists of just that. Honestly, I don't see how any of my comments warranted a reaction of this nature. It's not at all unreasonable to make an educated assumption about a film based on a director's past work, countless articles and reviews. And opinions are just that - opinions. Some are more educated or less educated than others, not gospel truth. Especially those on messageboards.

If only everyone had reacted to my initial post with the maturity and clarity (myself included) of Fletch's defense of United 93, this all would've been avoided.

Apologies, I'm done, let's all move on.

I agree. Let's move on.

A more significant consideration is why we're getting all this cliche looking stuff in this trailer. Obviously Stone is not above it and yet I persist in respecting his work because I believe that overall there is a real integrity at play (and, yes, I am one of the defenders of Alexander). I cannot imagine that whether he intended to make a "political" film or not he would present us with goofball heroics free from any kind of critical context. The trailer definitely did not give me great encouragement but I believe in Stone (so far as such a thing is possible) and expect an ultimately more nuanced and perceptive look.

exte wrote:

Dear Catastrophe Totoro wrote:I just revisited JFK last night and was struck by the similarities between Garrison's theory that the CIA was responsible for JFK's assassination in order to make billions with the Vietnam war, and the theory that the US planned 9/11 in order go to war with Iraq and make billions. I'm a little disappointed that this will not be a political film. It seems sort of strange coming from Stone, doesn't it?

The US hasn't made billions, it has SPENT billions. It's companies like Halliburton and Exxon that have been raking in the dough from the war in Iraq...

Sorry, I meant the government's leaders have made millions. In JFK, I believe the profits were from a company named Bell that made helicopters and other war supplies. The Halliburton connection is very similar, and obviously, the Bush family = oil ("Don't set your oil wells on fire!" -- didn't Bush slyly say that to Iraq in some speech before "shock and awe"?).

I would think the connection Stone would want to pursue is the "permanent army industry of vast proportions" that Eisenhower warns against at the beginning of JFK (even though he certainly contributed to its existence). If it was hidden in the 60's, I believe it is clearly in the forefront of the United States government today. Just about anyone can see that war and corporate profits have been at the heart of this administration from the beginning. So I suppose I'm saying, since Stone seemed so passionate about the American government's secret motives, so to speak, why would he make a film about 9/11 (three numbers that scream "political shitstorm") while staying clear of politics, which he has stated to be his intention?

John Cope wrote:I cannot imagine that whether he intended to make a "political" film or not he would present us with goofball heroics free from any kind of critical context.

After the twenty-minute "Stone-speaking-directly-through-Garrison, completely-overcome-with-moral-outrage" monologue at the end of JFK, when Costner looks into the camera and gives us, the viewers, a challenge to keep an eye on our government (got it, buddy, now what?), I almost expected him to show us the nail marks in the palms of his hands before he ascended into heaven, just for a final bit of "umph". Then again, I suppose this just comes with the territory when dealing with political filmmakers.