NationStates Jolt Archive

Who is going to see this movie? I myself feel that it is too soon. This country is still in mourning I feel. In a post September 11th world this should have been forbidden to be made. This is for money not for mourning and respect for the dead. What do all of you think. To the movie industry :upyours:. This is just asking us to be attacked again.

Wow, forming an opinion before the movie is out? I saw a preview on the local news. It looks like a fitting tribute to the heroism of the people on Flight 93. It's been half a decade. When will it stop being "too soon?"

Treat it like Pearl Harbor. Many years should pass and many feelings need to get over what happened. I myself feared I had lost someone...My Aunt, Uncle, and Cousins who live in NY know people who died. The mourning period is not yet up.

Treat it like Pearl Harbor. Many years should pass and many feelings need to get over what happened. I myself feared I had lost someone...My Aunt, Uncle, and Cousins who live in NY know people who died. The mourning period is not yet up.
Look, I feel sympathy for the 9/11 families, but honestly, it's been 5 years later. This movie is to honor the victims of 9/11, not to make money. They have permission and approval from every family member of a United 93 flyer.

I personally have no opinion on the matter. The previews didn't spark my interest. There isn't any major battle scene or plot twist, therefore not my kind of movie.

In regards to the whole 'We're not ready, we're still mourning' crap: Yes, people died, therefore the mourning will continue for years to come. And as I've heard, many of the 9/11 victims families were involved.

And please, Neptune Michiru everything about 9/11 is for money, not respect. Flags were selling like hot cakes, mini statues portraying the raising of the flag at ground zero and 9/11 was reason enough for the invasion of Afghanistan then Iraq. Both of which were for money. Afghanistan: poppy fields. Iraq: Oil.

Don't be hypocritical, it makes me sick.

I'm not going to see it, but if people are interested in seeing it, then they should. I cry at really stupid things, so I know that seeing something like that would just make me lose my mind sobbing. There's no way I'm gonna do that to myself :/.

Look I am not being such. Hollywood is. I am a person that watches the world closely and tend to be sentistive. When I see a movie I want to see something fictional not real. These are my feelings and there is no reason to be rude and judgemental. Its hurting me because I watched this on the news and feared for people I cared about. Judge yourself not others. I am not going to see it as a form of respect that I see has the ture way to honor the dead. I didn't even see the Passion. Hollywood is too hype and they are the ones that need to be judged and called that.

When the families of the actual flight gave the green light for the movie...How exactly does that make Hollywood hypocritical?

Edit: Not calling you any names, I just used an adjective to describe you. That's all.

I'm not going to see it, but if people are interested in seeing it, then they should. I cry at really stupid things, so I know that seeing something like that would just make me lose my mind sobbing. There's no way I'm gonna do that to myself :/.

Thank you this was the point I was trying to make. I am a sensitve person as well and not going to support something I see as wrong. Others may want to see it. I just ASKED who wanted to see it not to be called names.

They made a film about the Omagh bombing 5 years after it happened. Things happen, time passes, people make movies out of them.

When the families of the actual flight gave the green light for the movie...How exactly does that make Hollywood hypocritical?

Ask yourself not me. They should give the money to victims and such. But you know as well as I do that the money is lining their pockets not those who deserve it.

For one thing. It's a movie and not a documentary.

I am not going to see it. Maybe if some knuckle head actually drops money and buys the DVD. I might borrow it.

Ask yourself not me. They should give the money to victims and such. But you know as well as I do that the money is lining their pockets not those who deserve it.
Should all World War 2 film's profits go to Concentration Camp survivors?

I fucking give up. I tried to start a converstation about what people felt not to be judged. Instanbul fuck yourself from now on and keep your opinions about me to your fucking self.

Ask yourself not me. They should give the money to victims and such. But you know as well as I do that the money is lining their pockets not those who deserve it.

Woah! Either I just stepped in a confusion cloud, or you don't know what you are talking about. I don't know how much more clear I can be by saying that the Victim's families were a major part of this film. Some payment could have been made to them, but how is that the point? They spend the millions of dollars for the movie, the victim's didn't, therefore in my opinion they don't deserve it. Some payment was made to them at the time of the incident when their loved ones died i.e. life insurance, lawsuits, etc. but that's not the point.

flight 93 never happened :eek:

http://www.utopiax.org/ua93.html

lol, no, but seriously, the government would really scare me if they made all of those people 'dissapear' for this stunt to happen. Aren't conspiracy theories fun?

flight 93 never happened :eek:

http://www.utopiax.org/ua93.html

lol, no, but seriously, the government would really scare me if they made all of those people 'dissapear' for this stunt to happen. Aren't conspiracy theories fun?
No, they are incredibly stupid and a waste of time.

No, they are incredibly stupid and a waste of time.

Oh, have a sense of humor :D

I've always believed that the plane was shot down. I wouldn't expect the government to say on TV that they shot down a plane when quite possibly they could have guided the plane, telling the passengers what to do via radio. I don't really blame them either way. But quite frankly I just don't care. People around the world die every day, in more horrible, more suffering ways, but I'm supposed to care about these people just because we live on the same land mass? Strangers who if died in a hospital due to a heart attack I wouldn't mourn over?

I refuse to watch propaganda films

Yah, I hate Michael Moore too.

Yah, I hate Michael Moore too.

His take on 9/11 was amusing though. Showing how dumb Bush really is, is just gold.

His take on 9/11 was amusing though. Showing how dumb Bush really is, is just gold.
Leftist propaganda and exploitation of facts, although provided a few good laughs.

Leftist propaganda and exploitation of facts, although provided a few good laughs.

Very true, but what facts are there to provide a clean outlook on the man though? I found this amusing though, that Mr. Moore challenged anyone to find anything wrongful about the film. A monetary amount would be given if so, but apparently nothing came of it.

Very true, but what facts are there to provide a clean outlook on the man though? I found this amusing though, that Mr. Moore challenged anyone to find anything wrongful about the film. A monetary amount would be given if so, but apparently nothing came of it.
There wasnt anything wrong with it, but it was just a manipulation so only one side is shown, sort of like the anti-drug campaigns.

There wasnt anything wrong with it, but it was just a manipulation so only one side is shown, sort of like the anti-drug campaigns.

What other side is there? This isn't a very intelligent or kind man we're dealing with.

Wow...yet another one of these topics. /clap....

Though it was one-sided it was fair.

What other side is there?
The pro-legalisation side?

And please, Neptune Michiru everything about 9/11 is for money, not respect.


How goddamned inconsiderate could you be!?

you think my brother who died in the towers was thinking about money when the planes crashed into them?

Sigh. :headbang:

#1, the film was made by a noted British documentarian.
#2, the Families of the victims were both involved and do not think it is "too soon"
#3, it matters dick-all whether or not "the nation" is mourning. See #2.
#4, if a film that portrays valor and a "Fuck This Shit - I'm fighting Back" spirit, whether fictionalized or not, makes "sensitive" people uncomfortable, then I'm all for it.

United 93 is Poetic Justice writ large.

--------------
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieve it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good night.

Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

And you, my father, there on the sad height,
Curse, bless, me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

- Dylan Thomas 1914-1953

Treat it like Pearl Harbor. Many years should pass and many feelings need to get over what happened. I myself feared I had lost someone...My Aunt, Uncle, and Cousins who live in NY know people who died. The mourning period is not yet up.

I live in New York City. I breathed in stuff I'd rather not think about and had flaming memos and a bit of airline ticket land in my front yard. I know people who died.

It's long past time for this.

I wrote this in my blog the other day, so instead of re-typing another response, i figured i would just put this one here.

This may sound insensitive, but i'm really rather tired of having to tiptoe around everyone who lost someone on September 11th. There have been so many tragedies in this world, some recent, yet 9/11 seems to be the only one we need to walk on egg shells around. Movies and stuff about 9/11 come out and our first thought its "oh, those poor families of the victims, what must they think." When Hotel Rwanda came out, i don't recall people worrying about the families of all the Hutus and Tutsis who were slaughtered. That event only happened about ten years ago, so in the grand scheme of things, it wasn't that long ago either. Munich came out this year, where are the people complaining about how damaging this is to the families of all those dead Israelis? I completely sympathise with all those who lost loved ones on 9/11, but i don't think that tragedy is more untouchable than any other. I realize it happened on U.S. soil so to Americans it may seem more important than any other, but it's not more important in the history of the world. A few years after the Holocaust they started making movies and stuff about it, i'm sure some of those survivors felt it was too soon, that didn't stop people from making them.

I think it's important to tell those stories, to keep events like that in our memories so we can stop them from ever happening again. If they are done tastefully, i think they can be helpful and necessary. You have people complaining that some of the movies don't donate money to the 9/11 fund when they should, but does every Holocaust movie donate money to The Yad Vashem or the National Holocaust Museum? Does every movie about child abuse donate money to children's charities? I doubt it, but that doesn't mean the sole purpose of them is to make money for the studios. Sometimes people really do want to teach us lessons. I think some people find closure in films like that too. My grandpa and his brothers were in a concentration camp and i don't shy away from Holocaust materials, in fact i'm drawn to them. It's important to me to see what they might have gone through. One argument is that people don't want to re-live that day, but if you lost someone that day, wouldn't you re-live it anyway, without help from anyone else? No one says you have to watch these movies if it's too sad for you, but does knowing they exist really make it worse?

If we are going to prevent people from making 9/11 movies, we might as well stop them from making any movies about real tragedies.

I fucking give up. I tried to start a converstation about what people felt not to be judged. Instanbul fuck yourself from now on and keep your opinions about me to your fucking self.

Warned for flaming.

Thank you this was the point I was trying to make. I am a sensitve person as well and not going to support something I see as wrong. Others may want to see it. I just ASKED who wanted to see it not to be called names.

But I'm taking a much more lax approach. Why name-call other people who do want to see it? Does it really affect you that much? Other people are going to have other opinions about the matter and you shouldn't get mad at them for it--that just breeds unhappiness and conflict. It upsets me to hear about the movie, but I know that I have the right to avoid seeing it if I want to, so I don't mind if other people see it. No one is being forced to see the movie, and I believe that 10% of the profits from it are going to the building of the memorial for the passengers and crew of the crash. So, it's not all bad :) .

Who is going to see this movie? I myself feel that it is too soon. This country is still in mourning I feel. In a post September 11th world this should have been forbidden to be made. This is for money not for mourning and respect for the dead. What do all of you think. To the movie industry :upyours:. This is just asking us to be attacked again.
Please die. You and the "victims' families" should sit down and shut the fuck up. The wives and mothers of soldiers in Pearl Harbor were not carrying on for 4 years and did not complain when the movies came out. I think it was great to make the movie and hope to see it. Hopefully it won't be one of those typical hero/romance movies. I still would like to make my own movie about 9/11...if only I were 10+ years older.

Get over it...shit happens...move on. The day after that bomb in Israel, people were back in the restaurant...well probably not, but that's not the point.

Who is going to see this movie? I myself feel that it is too soon. This country is still in mourning I feel. In a post September 11th world this should have been forbidden to be made. This is for money not for mourning and respect for the dead. What do all of you think. To the movie industry :upyours:. This is just asking us to be attacked again.
I disagree. I watched the trailers and it's done very accurately and very tastefully, and the families of 9/11 victims seem to agree.

Please die. You and the "victims' families" should sit down and shut the fuck up. The wives and mothers of soldiers in Pearl Harbor were not carrying on for 4 years and did not complain when the movies came out. I think it was great to make the movie and hope to see it. Hopefully it won't be one of those typical hero/romance movies. I still would like to make my own movie about 9/11...if only I were 10+ years older.

Get over it...shit happens...move on. The day after that bomb in Israel, people were back in the restaurant...well probably not, but that's not the point.

And YOU are warned for flaming as well.

It's simple to be tired of having to "tip-toe" around people and their mourning of a lost one. Especially, when you are safely far away and didn't loose anybody.

You do understand that people deal with tragedy in different ways right? My great-uncle help liberate a couple camps in WWII. Sixty-years latter he still had nightmares over that. Do we tell him get over it that was ancient history. You had more then enough time to deal with it?

In this age of cynicism, I really doubt many people are thinking "those poor families" I would suggest they are thinking more of "those bastards profiting off a tragedy" You don't hear many people screaming for censorship. The movie will come out and we shall see how well it is received.

Now Rwanda? Is that really the same? What body count makes one more important then the other?

I lost a couple friends in that mess and will always hold Bill accountable for the lack of action on it. He was a leader and he should have led rather then following polls. General Dallaire said he only needed 5000 well trained and well equipped troops and he could have prevented it. Well probably delayed it for awhile. Hatred is something that doesn't go away. Never the less, everybody balked. Clinton balked because the polls showed the people were gun shy because of Somalia.

Part of the problem in such matters is the information age. If you perceive a problem that is always going on; people get numb and slow to respond. Does it make it right? Off course not.

Now your comments about US soil being more important? It's not a question of perceived value, it's the fact that it happened in the US. If you asked anybody in the world if they thought they would ever see an attack destroy a New York landmark and kill many people; odds are they would have said no.

People all over were startled by this as I heard said a couple times. "If it happened in the US, it could happen anywhere."

The world was supportive. This can be seen by the nations that have troops or had troops in Afghanistan. Too bad GWB was a terrible diplomat, he had a gold mine of opportunity from the sympathy and support. He pissed it away.

Finally, why not simply give the "complainers" an understanding nod rather then roll your eyes?

It's simple to be tired of having to "tip-toe" around people and their mourning of a lost one. Especially, when you are safely far away and didn't loose anybody.

You do understand that people deal with tragedy in different ways right? My great-uncle help liberate a couple camps in WWII. Sixty-years latter he still had nightmares over that. Do we tell him get over it that was ancient history. You had more then enough time to deal with it?

In this age of cynicism, I really doubt many people are thinking "those poor families" I would suggest they are thinking more of "those bastards profiting off a tragedy" You don't hear many people screaming for censorship. The movie will come out and we shall see how well it is received.

Now Rwanda? Is that really the same? What body count makes one more important then the other?

I lost a couple friends in that mess and will always hold Bill accountable for the lack of action on it. He was a leader and he should have led rather then following polls. General Dallaire said he only needed 5000 well trained and well equipped troops and he could have prevented it. Well probably delayed it for awhile. Hatred is something that doesn't go away. Never the less, everybody balked. Clinton balked because the polls showed the people were gun shy because of Somalia.

Part of the problem in such matters is the information age. If you perceive a problem that is always going on; people get numb and slow to respond. Does it make it right? Off course not.

Now your comments about US soil being more important? It's not a question of perceived value, it's the fact that it happened in the US. If you asked anybody in the world if they thought they would ever see an attack destroy a New York landmark and kill many people; odds are they would have said no.

People all over were startled by this as I heard said a couple times. "If it happened in the US, it could happen anywhere."

The world was supportive. This can be seen by the nations that have troops or had troops in Afghanistan. Too bad GWB was a terrible diplomat, he had a gold mine of opportunity from the sympathy and support. He pissed it away.

Finally, why not simply give the "complainers" an understanding nod rather then roll your eyes?
Excellent post, really.

Um ... but I thought it was Somalia, not Rawanda?

Excellent post, really.

Um ... but I thought it was Somalia, not Rawanda?
Nope. The poster clearly means Rwanda. He even refers to General Dallaire.

Nope. The poster clearly means Rwanda. He even refers to General Dallaire.
Ok, sorry to have interrupted.

I disagree. I watched the trailers and it's done very accurately and very tastefully, and the families of 9/11 victims seem to agree.
Plus it got 4 stars in USA Today.

And YOU are warned for flaming as well.
Heh! On a roll tonight, are we? :D

Some of you referred to United 93 as an accurate depiction - there were zero survivors who could have told the truth about what happened on 93. All they have is scattered cell phone and radio transcripts - and they filled in the rest with speculative (writing whatever they please) drama.

Some of you referred to United 93 as an accurate depiction - there were zero survivors who could have told the truth about what happened on 93. All they have is scattered cell phone and radio transcripts - and they filled in the rest with speculative (writing whatever they please) drama.
Yes. It's a bit like that Perfect Storm movie, isn't it? I was a little disappointed, coming out of the movie thinking "well, they all drowned, how do they know what happened?"

The only concern I have about this movie is that one will be unable to publicly say anything "bad" about the movie.

Many people are still very sensitive about the events of 9/11 ("in mourning"), and I know for a fact that politicians and pundits love to milk it for all it's worth. Saying anything remotely negative may be like shouting "Sieg Heil" at a WWII Veterans Convention.

Alright, I've decided what my stance on this movie is. Here is the email I wrote to the radio station that was talking about United 93.

You asked us to call in to say whether we plan to see the movie United 93. I do not intend to see it, partially because I don’t see any movie that I think is going to scare me. As for people “needing” to see it, I’m not sure what purpose that would serve. After the actual 9/11 tragedy, people in this country became blindly patriotic and it resulted in a huge right-wing shift. Civil rights in this country have come under attack and Bush has been allowed to get away with just about anything. Many people still believe that the war on Iraq is somehow connected to 9/11. Americans that have the same skin-tone as the terrorists have been severely discriminated against. This movie will only fan the flames of the mob mentality that is finally starting to die down in America.

I go to the cinema to be entertained- that is all.

This does not seem to me to be an 'entertaining' film.

I'm going to see it.

What's more, I don't think the timing is bad at all. This country is not still in mourning. My friends, September 11, 2001 was more than four and a half years ago. We've had plenty of time for mourning.:(

That said, I do feel that while the time for mourning is over, we should not become complacent, and a movie like this is a good reminder. You don't have to see it if you're not ready or don't feel the need. That's a good thing. I am grateful that the movie is out, and I will be going.:cool:

I noticed a couple of people are concerned about the reaction if they criticize the movie. Well all I can say is, get over it. People will react to just about any publicly stated opinion, no matter what it is or what it's about. Post on this forum for longer than 5 minutes and you'll see that. The beauty of Freedom of Speech is that you can't be punished for criticizing anything. Just remember that people who disagree have the same freedom. It's the baeuty of the system. If you're afraid of people not liking your opinion of the movie, what the heck are you doing on a forum like this anyway?:p

Air force

Intense 'United 93' flies a course between myth and everyday heroes

'UNITED 93' (star)(star)(star)(star)

By Michael Phillips
Tribune movie critic
Published April 28, 2006


It's foolish to make a movie, write a play, design a building or compose a requiem on the subject of Sept. 11, 2001, with the intention of appealing to everyone. Such an aspiration may sound like a bid for universality, but it's more like an invitation to hacks looking for a way to transform an epoch-defining terrorist act into something inoffensive and placating and marketable.

The superb "United 93," from the British writer-director Paul Greengrass, does not waste time defining the undefinable.

Nor does it strain for poetry when, with this story, prose is enough.

The film is lean, harsh and remarkably free of cant. It doesn't waste a single minute of its harrowing 111 minutes. Much of it unfolds in real time on board the aircraft. Virtually all of it ignores the usual tear-jerking and "human interest" pathos. The film leaves the larger interpretive measures and grand insights for 9/11 efforts to come. It was the right way to go: Recent tragic events respond well to the straight and narrow. If the film is a limited sort of masterwork, its stylistic and narrative parameters nonetheless feel right. Greengrass convinces you the story had to be told this way, this soon after the fact.

The events themselves have entered the realm of mythology. Flight 93, departing Newark for San Francisco, carried a light load of passengers. It was one of four planes hijacked that day by members of the Al Qaeda terrorist network. The plane was the only one that did not reach its target, which either was the White House or the U.S. Capitol. Thanks to a handful of passengers and crew, the hijackers were overtaken and the plane crashed near Shanksville, Pa., about 150 miles from Washington, D.C. No one survived.

Greengrass treats "United 93" as a procedural, at once coolly considered and white-hot. It begins in the motel room where one of the terrorists murmurs his prayer to Allah. The look on actor Khalid Abdalla's face, a half-second before Greengrass and his inspired editors cut away to the opening credits, reveals a flash of violently conflicted emotions--anguish, terror, religious fervor. In that half-second we glimpse a human being on the verge of a monstrous act. And in the same half-second Greengrass reveals his own documentary-trained powers of observation.

By the time Greengrass arrives at the climax, the intensity is such that you may overlook how shrewdly he has textured the material, based on lengthy and fruitful improvisations. Using a blend of trained actors, real-life airline employees and other non-actors--Federal Aviation Administration operations manager Ben Sliney plays himself, and it's not a small role--"United 93" unfolds like an unusually vivid slice of verite. In many scenes we're eavesdropping on quick, chaotic developments in an air traffic control tower in one city or another. As the planes hit the World Trade Center towers, the panic spreads: How many more hijackers are there? Why isn't the FAA communicating fully with the military, or the White House communicating with the FAA?

Greengrass shoots "United 93" with hand-held cameras, in a hurtling, documentary-on-the-run style familiar from his equally fine "Bloody Sunday" (2002), about an enraging real-life 1972 clash between British soldiers and Irish civil rights protesters. The director lays out a broad canvas without fudging the details or slowing the momentum. There isn't a speck of hooey in this film's nervous system. Daringly, Greengrass does not introduce or even dramatize the key players in the usual expository fashion. No one gets a monologue. Much of the dialogue devolves into what talk show transcriptions describe as "cross-talk." This is a one-character story. The story is the character.

Working with cinematographer Barry Ackroyd, Greengrass risks a certain degree of motion sickness in his visual approach. The same went for "Bloody Sunday," and the Greengrass-directed "Bourne Supremacy," an exceptionally peppy popcorn picture. His nervous shooting style and editing rhythm isn't new, and it's very easy to misapply, especially in narrative filmmaking. Yet Greengrass has a knack for it, and "United 93" brakes at the edge of panic-inducing excess. The director is aware of the approach's limitations, and he knows how to modulate. When, near the end, the passengers make their final phone calls to loved ones on the ground the mood shifts, the technique recedes and the farewells (as we soon realize) become the calm before the final storm.

For comparison's and profit's sake, this weekend A&E rebroadcasts its TV-movie version of the same events, "Flight 93." The film is as drecky and sentimental as "United 93" is sobering and vital. To be sure, some will prefer the A&E version's remember-the-Alamo fervor and general moistness. (The "I love you"s and "I'll be strong"s stifle any honest emotional response to the situation.) By contrast "United 93" is almost unrelievedly intense, yet the actors are often glimpsed and overheard on the fly, and they appear not to be acting but simply reacting, convincingly, to a horrifying situation. The heroism this film depicts is real, or at least plays realistically, because Greengrass has the nerve to paint the passenger revolt as hastily planned, almost accidental. These are ordinary people operating in survival mode. And watch how Greengrass and actor David Alan Basche treat passenger Todd Beamer's legendary "Let's roll!" line. The most famous two words in the history of recent airborne disasters are handled simply as a blip in a breathless, escalating sequence of events not easily forgotten, no matter how those events are exploited for political gain, and no matter how often we turn history into popular myth.
`United 93'

(star)(star)(star)(star)

Directed and written by Paul Greengrass; cinematography by Barry Ackroyd; edited by Clare Douglas, Christopher Rouse and Richard Pearson; production design by Dominic Watkins; music by John Powell; produced by Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lloyd Levin and Greengrass. A Universal Pictures release; opens Friday. Running time: 1:51.

How long do people need to mourn? Seriously. If a family member dies, you can get a few days off work before they expect you back.
If a massive attack like that happens... sure, more time is needed. But, as someone said, it's been half a decade. If a few people are still mourning... *shrug* They may be the people who will always mourn, and never be able to move past their sorrow.

Personally, I still don't plan on seeing the movie in theaters, just because it doesn't look that good. The dramatic terrorist with explosives strapped to his chest on the airplane was what did it for me. They had box cutters. Hollywood needs to learn how to make movies that are closer to real life, when they're based on real life events... as if 9/11 wasn't spectacular enough on its own.

Still a boring, overdone, derivative plot line. I rank it up there with Passion.

How long do people need to mourn?

Psychiatrists say you should give yourself half the time you were with someone to get over them. The towers were built in 1973, so around 14 years.

OKAY ALREADY.

We know some of you have objections to it, and others aren't certain. How about this: I'll take one for the team and watch the bloody movie, then give an indepth review of it for you all, so you can then decide if you might want to watch it yourselves or not. Is that fair for everyone? Because I know a lot of people don't trust most movie reviewers. Me, I've been hesitant and on the fence about this movie ever since I first heard of it, so I think my opinions will be trustworthy. At least you guys know me somewhat, so that's better than trusting Ebert and Roper, or something.

I never said people should forget about it, no tragedy should be forgotten as far as i'm concerned, and i wasn't rolling my eyes. People should mourn however long they want but i refuse to refrain from expressing my opinion because it might offend them. My grandpa didn't talk about his time in the war much, he didn't like to re-live it, and i'm not saying at all that doesn't matter, but if it's going to matter for 9/11, it should matter for everything.

Just because i live far away it doesn't mean i had no stake in 9/11. I have good friends who live in New York, some of who were in downtown Manhattan that day. If they had been in the wrong place at the wrong time they could be dead right now, i was just as worried that day as anyone else who has loved ones there.

As for Rwanda, my comment had nothing to do with how many people died, i don't compare genocide. It was the fact that 9/11 seems to be elevated above everything else when it comes to how we discuss it or whether or not we make movies about it. You're right, i never thought the U.S. would be attacked the way it was, and while that doesn't lower it below any other tragedy, it certainly doesn't elevate it above all others either. I don't think any tragedy is untouchable, and i don't think it's fair to make one so at the expense of others, which is what some people, not everyone, seem to be doing.

I sympathise with anyone who has lost a loved one for any reason, but no one mourns forever because life can't just stop. Having a moment of silence on that day is wonderful, it keeps the memories of all who died alive, but at some point, we will no longer spend the whole day in mourning. People have birthdays and anniversaries that day, they should be able to celebrate them without feeling guilty.

I won't watch the movie until it comes out on our movie channels because there is only a select group of movies i'm willing to pay for, and that won't be one of them. I won't pass judgement on it until i actually see it though.

Psychiatrists say you should give yourself half the time you were with someone to get over them. The towers were built in 1973, so around 14 years.

You mourn the buildings and not the people?