Review of United 93 (2006) by Faisal A — 28 Jan 2014

Paul Greengrass is a brilliant director, and this film is actually the very first movie of his I got to watch, and I think he has a gift for portraying very gritty stories. Anyone who knows me may or may not understand my frustrations and issues with films based on historical accounts. Not that one can't do it, or make a great one ("Ed Wood" , "Gandhi", "Hotel Rwanda" etc.), but you will always find that people struggle to tell a story and may rely on audiences having many facts known already or they may even rely on the timeliness of the event(s) being portrayed on screen. There are many other issues I have with historical films, but with this film, thankfully, I only have one...a major one.

Right from the beginning, from the opening scene, I really felt like it was a big mistake to even think about take the p.o.v. of the terrorists/hijackers. There is really not much we know about them initially nor much we will know about them later on...oh except that they seem to be a group of angry, fanatical muslims who want to hijack a plane in order to crash them into a very important American Landmark; although admittedly, this theory is partly based on fact. You see, in the film they are angry and want to crash the plane into a building of sort, but thankfully, you do have a look at what goes on behind the scenes at the people in charge of the network towers, flight monitors, millitary and government agents who do report that other planes have hit the world trade center and the Pentagon. That is a saving grace to give even a hint of what is going on. At the same time, while you have interesting american characters, and genuinely heartfelt, emotional scenes (that are not as phoney or overdramatic as most Hollywood films would normally indulge in), the four arab terrorists are really just there to be the bad guys. One of them, Ziad, the chap with glasses, may actually be sympathetic and may seem like he has a purpose or a redeeming quality (at least based on the brilliant acting of the actor), but honestly, even he doesn't have much going for him by the end. I'm not asking to be politically correct and have a good arab/muslim character somewhere in the film so there can be a balancing act. No, what I want to see is that these characters have motivations (even a small slice is fine), some defining characteristic and ideology, if you were going to take their point of view from time to time. Really this one complaint, is the films real major flaw.

9/11 is a complicated, event in world history. There are many angles and agendas that stem from politics, religion, business, philosophy, power etc. that come with that territory, and it is also the even that really brings various world issues, battles and politics into play, letting rip the true feelings that different cultures and countries truly feel about each other. If this film was a part of a much larger film, I would have forgiven the underdeveloped terrorists. Unfortunately I cannot, but it still does not make it a bad film, not at all. I just wish it was written differently, and honestly, in another dimension, I would have loved to have seen the hijacking and the details of the disaster covered within the first 15 minutes of the film, so that we could get a better look behind the scenes, because in the end, we don't know for sure what happened there exactly. This is a very emotional picture, and I think for the most part it does pay tribute and respect to the victims on all 4 planes that crashed that fateful day and their families. I think Americans should see this because it is an important part of their history, but hopefully the more naiive ones can keep in mind that (you saw this coming) not all muslims are terrorists (Blah blah blah) and they are not all savages (womp womp womp woooooooommmmmmmmmmpppppppppp)....there I've done my part.

Overall, it is a solid picture, and Paul Greengrass deserved the Oscar nomination.