Anyone seen "Flight 93" yet?

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 , 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.