 | Category: | Movies | | Genre: | Drama |
I watched this movie yesterday night, i was so sleepy but for the sake of this marriage i got up the bed and took bus 187 to Vue with oyong talopo. Anyway, the movie sucks and so pointless and irresponsible. I dont care about the cinematography or whatever. Its about the 4th airplane that was hijacked by 20 terrorists on 11 September 2001, the one that was failed to reach on target. In the beginning of the movie, the hijacker is praying in arabics, they look very decent like people around us, dressing up in suits, polo shirts, jeans, so handsome like a prince, and obviously doesnt look like an osama bin laden fan. This movie is trying to describe the situation on the plane with 'documentary movie' style as if its the real world situation. Trying to prove the truth about terrorism whatsoever. Aargh. At the end, the passengers, the stewardesses plan to attack the hijackers, and retake over the plane. They fight and kill each other but the plane is crashed anyway at some park. The last scene is so depressing, the passengers call their families saying i love you because they are going to die, etc. I cried, but not because of the sappy i love you things. I heard the hijakers yelling Allahu Akbar 100 times, Laa ilaaha illallah 150 times. Astagfirullah I dont know how many times. The passengers pray in mostly Christian way. I cried because why do people have different faith. Why do people do this kind of thing. I cried because this movie will increase the misperception about Islam. For the reason that not all people are smart they might have 'what you see is what you get' system of thinking. There was a time when people see a man look-arabic-carrying-a-backpack with suspicion. Now after watching this movie, a handsome-arabic-look-business-man would might get a 'terrorist' written on his forehead. 11 September and terrorism are issues that are difficult to be explained. People do try to explain it and this movie is such a wrong explanation. Although the director said that this movie is for rememberance so there is no point, but i guess some memorabilia like this could produce an unexpectedly dangerous perception. I regret to say that bad movies are one of this world's biggest failure. Bad movie = bad education. At the end of the day, I was not sleepy anymore, too much anger inside me. 
 | hmm..kapan ya orang bisa paham kalo ada dua buah busuk dalam satu keranjang bukan berarti yang lainnya juga busuk.. |
 | well, some provocative titles suck indeed. |
 | Ah..don't you love it when a bunch of bigots were allowed to make a film and actually get financed? Only in America.
And please tell them that Gus Van Zant just called and he want his concept from 'Elephant' back! |
 | robym wrote on Jun 9, '06 i don't understand. if you're angry then you should be angry with the terrorists. they are the bad guys: how they were willing to kill innocent people while saying Allahuakbar and Laillahaillallah hundred of times. That's the reality. We cannot conceal the fact just because we don't like it. Of course the passengers were praying according to christian religion, what do you expect, they pray like zoroasters?
The movie was created based on the actual recording inside the plane. Of course we can think that it's all conspiracy, but hey elvis is still alive too.
I think you're too sensitive, the movie is not about Islam at all. It's about terrorists (who happen to be muslims).
In general, I just don't believe in censorship. Don't be like "suharto's orde baru": hide the truth, and if something bad come up just apologize and ask for understanding from everyone and hoping everything back to normal like nothing happen.
|
 | cagi wrote on Jun 9, '06, edited on Jun 9, '06 you just dont get it, do you? of course i hate the terrorist they burn my vein up! and of course i know this is obviously not a film about islam, but they EXPOSED the gap thats what im saying. how do people know its different between terrorist and ordinary muslims? this movie expose the similarity between them. this movie so sucks i dont like they way the movie was made and the result after people watch this movie. as i mentioned above, some memorabilia could produce a dangerous perception even if they didnt mean to. A review about this film on cinematical.com quoted what susan sontag was said after 11 september, " ...Let's by all means grieve together. But let's not be stupid together."
"dont be like soeharto's orde baru?"
actual recording? im hiding the truth you were saying? hello? what do you know about truth anyway? which truth? whose truth? dont be naive |
| cagi wrote on Jun 9, '06, edited on Jun 9, '06  And please tell them that Gus Van Zant just called and he want his concept from 'Elephant' back!  yeah why there are so many bigots in america? is it because the food? haha yeah anyway the director admitted it is similar artistic tecnique and acting technique to elepant haha so funny |
| robym wrote on Jun 9, '06 wow ... calm down. I'm sorry if you're offended. This is a complicated problem. It's impossible for me to explain it here. But several things:
1. You're right, we shouldn't be stupid. Invading other countries is stupid, axis of evil is stupid. But this movie is not stupid. It potrays the fact that there are "ordinary" muslims who thinks killing innocent people are righteous. I do think moderate muslims are too apologetics about all these. I believe in self-critique. The movie is a good opportunity for muslims to do self-critique. Of course they can be back-lash as you have mentioned. But I think the cost is higher if we don't have this movie: then moderate muslims keep on believing that the terrorists are just lunatics that have nothing to do with them. Maybe it's hard to swallow but I do think moderate muslims should wake up and face this problem. Of course there many problems in current American government. But you know more about this so I'm not going to mention it here. For me it is as much conscious experiences as politics/ideology.
2. Terrorists can wear business suit, turban or even a lady with a baby. It's a problem how to identify these terrorists. We can't assign zero probability to any profiles. Look at the report of the London bombings, according to the report, the profiles of the bombers are not the same as what usually pictured for suicide bombers: they are educated, middle class, and british (not just legally but grew up and went to school in UK). Discriminating against arabs and muslims is bad, but even Indonesians have been discriminiting chineese Indonesians for decades. No one is perfect.
3. I haven't seen any complain about the movie before (both liberals, conservative praised the movie). I'd like to read the review in cinematical.com, can you pass me the URL please, thanks.
5. And of course we can believe everything is just a conspiracy of a few big guys that nothing we can do about. Then we can just shrug off and continue with our live knowing that we don't have any more freedom in our action.
|
| I agree with mr. roby saying that we need not be so much sensitive on any Islamic symbolism exposed in this movie.but like many other visual products, movie is a representation of "truth". it is a product of interpretation of reality that cannot replicate a 100% of what really occured in the horrible event. hence, it'll be wiser if the movie showed less religous rituals and sayings than political interests. not suggesting hiding the "truth" but picking up which elements in the event more relevant to show the hideous nature of terrorism. |
| cagi wrote on Jun 9, '06, edited on Jun 10, '06 mr roby, i must say, people do have different opinion and its halal deh, i just dont like the way the movie was made, i dont care if the liberal conservative whatsoever dont complain about this movie, i have my own opinion and i dont take their opinion as something important anyway. i just dont like it, period. and i still believe that this movie could produce misperception about whatever gaps if there even existed. just listen to what people say after they watch this movie. btw this is the url: http://www.cinematical.com/2006/04/27/review-united-93/anyway, iya betul kita semakin tidak punya freedom ya tapi ah lama2 jadi terbiasa, i couldnt even remember when was the last time we had one |
 | eleuh eleuh aku baru baca meni rameeee..hahahha |
| cagi wrote on Aug 20, '06 |
 | agah wrote on Aug 30, '06 in my opinion, this movie could be an indulgence 4 those who doesnt and cant think critically...southern rednecks nationalists 4 example,..so they could simply comment "see that?..told u son i ain't playin when i say they did it (southern accent). i'm expecting oliver stone's world trade center 2 represent a more objective point of view supported by strong hypotheses in this matter (think JFK) albeit i wont expect too much as thel likelihood of a biased view on this matter is very high. thanx cag 4 ur review, this way, people will save time n money 2 stay away from this rubbish.my 2 cents. |
| agah wrote on Aug 30, '06 below is an excerpt of a review from Jeffrey M. Anderson of combustiblecelluloid, on this movie which pretty much represents my point of view about this flick:
"May 5, 2006 - I think I figured out a better way to break this down: Yes, United 93 is a well-made film by any technical standards. Greengrass brings a dignity and intelligence to these portrayals. It's well-shot and crisply edited with a uniquely excellent use of hand-held cameras. But what is the purpose of this film? Is it educational? No. Any American old enough to see the film knows all the facts of this situation, and the rest is all speculation. Is it entertainment? Absolutely not. Is it art? No. The movie never lets on why this particular filmmaker made this particular story. It doesn't have that sense of a burning, personal need to illuminate this subject as only Paul Greengrass can. It feels more like a duty or an obligation, rather than a desire. If this film is to be considered a great work of art, there ought to be something of the artist in it. So what is its purpose? The only thing I can think of is that it purports to legitimize the heroism of the Americans on that plane. But why do we need a movie to do that? Were they not already heroes long before the film was made? If that's the only purpose of this film, wouldn't the money be just as well spent on a monument? Yes, the cinema has the power to make people seem larger than life and to make violent events seem more exciting. Thus the passengers on the plane are elevated to something more than human, something godlike. In a weird way, I suppose there's something comforting in that myth, but if it's comfort we're after, why is the movie so excruciating? And we're back to square one. I guess the ultimate purpose is that people are finally ready to face what happened on 9/11, as if they'd been in denial for five years. And this movie offers a safe way to do that, complete with group therepy, catharsis and a badge of honor for having endured something so painful. If there are people who find closure through this film, then more power to them. But if other people are going merely out of a sense of duty or for bragging rights -- or because an important subject automatically makes an important film, no questions asked -- then I still can't recommend United 93"
|
| cagi wrote on Aug 30, '06 agree mr. agah and mr. anderson! I dont know about mr oliver stone, well. lets see..my view still pessimistic about this 9/11 thingy gah, and i said to marah just yesterday, movies on 911 will be produced and produced and produced again again again until the end of this century and the next century because it is the biggest thing that happened in the real life that can expose american patriotism.. so i must say: just die in your stupid patriotism! |
| |
