214 replies to this topic

[Hambil]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0469641/

I guess it's out this weekend.

I have no plans to watch it. Actually, it makes me sick in the pit of my stomach.

I saw the real thing live on TV, I don't need a stylized hollywood movie that despite whatever they may claim is made to ENTERTAIN. There is nothing, nor will there ever be anything entertaining about 9/11 to me. I really hope this movie flops massively.

[Tricia]

Not sure I want to see it either as I've seen the A&E movies which were pretty good if painful

But I am surprised that Oliver Stone has made a movie that does not involved some big conspiracy theory.  Or at least that's what I understand from teh reviews I've read so far.

I didn't know he knew how to make a movie that did not involve any kind of conspiracy

[gsmonks]

Oliver Stone is a businessman who knows a good subject to exploit when he sees it.

In other words, having him make a movie on the World Trade Centre's fate is a bit like putting a pedophile in charge of a kindergarten class.

[DWF]

Movies are going to made about 9/11 I don't really think it makes much of a difference who makes them though, it's no different than John Wayne making The Alamo or Michael Bay making Pearl Harbor, history generally takes it on chin in such movies.

[Delvo]

I'd have no interest in seeing it anyway, but one move they show Nicholas Cage doing in every ad is just so silly it's laughable and would probably turn me away from the movie even if I did want to see it. It's only a second or two long. It starts with his back to the camera as he faces a group of cops, then he turns around and starts walking as if to lead them, apparently toward the towers. But he doesn't just turn around and walk. Instead, he has to strike his Hero Pose™ first, which he apparenlty based on a Revolutionary War era painting: twisted at the waist and abdomen to walk sideways with one shoulder in front, also pointed up because it's held a few inches higher than the shoulder in back, with the head angled a bit upward too. And to get there, he's got to turn almost all the way around because of the directions he's facing before and after. Then, right before he takes the first steps of the Hero Stride™, he does the pause-after-twirling-and-look-up...

Not just the fact that that scene was done that way, but more importantly the fact that they're featuring it in all the ads as if for it to define the movie for us, tells me the movie will be a bunch of shallow pretentious oversymbolized cliché sap.

[gsmonks]

Oh, but the heroic action figures will be great! Get yours while supplies last!

There's:

-the singed but otherwise unscathed couple jumping from the window

-the crispy guy who stays inside and is burned alive

-the secretary whose hands are melted on to the stairwell doorknob

-the in-love young fellow who talks to his fiancee on his cell phone while he can

-oodles of body parts ejected from the two aircraft

-realistic-looking bits of paper sticking out of plastic made to look like cement, to simulate the office paper that was hurled with such force that it became imbedded in concrete

The marketing angles are endless.

[offworlder]

I think I'm not going to be 'in the spirit' of this thread with this, but I just wanted to note: I saw Oliver in an interview, he explained that this movie is not meant for entertainment, is not entertainment, it is to show us how the people trapped and those rescuing them acted and felt through the crisis, the extraordinary rising to the challenge, if you want to call that heroism or valour or not, and an inspiration to us, how with that catastrophe beyond words we lived the challenge and ansered it in the moment; so, inspiration.

now maybe some will call me driveling out some drivel here, and those above are my words not his since I didn't record it and I don't remember his exact words : but that is what it is, more or less a memorial or monument to those of us, most of us, like you and like me, who didn't know exactly what went on down there , and what the trapped ones thought and felt, and what the rescuers thought and felt; and it's all based upon extended visits, even staying with them together, with the actual survivors and surviving rescuers.

I'll wait for the dvd, but I will in time see this; I think it'll be cathartic for many of us.

[gsmonks]

That doesn't change the fact that he's a businessman trying to make money.

If his motives were altruistic, he'd give away his wealth and put all his time and effort into helping children dying of AIDS in Africa.

Edited by gsmonks, 09 August 2006 - 05:53 PM.

[Hambil]

And all the actors would have worked for free. And they'd let you see it for free. Instead they probably have special 9/11 popcorn deals at the theater. For an extra 50 cents you can get the large popcorn in the World Trade center shaped box with a giant heroic picture of Nicholas Cage on it.

[offworlder]

well like I said perhaps I'm not in the spirit of this thread, I think this whole thread is just for entertainment purposes, or maybe just vinegar and 'not happy with some people in the world' type of a thread?

yes it's true that Oliver, who is not a documentary guy or a pbs maker, could have said 'you know I have a good idea for this, but I'm not gonna do it, I'll wait for a docudrama type pbs maker to do it up, and put it on there, at least that's some amount of an audience ... because they can do it without being accused of a business motive even though , let's face it, most of what happens has a business involvement, investment drives almost everything these days, and investors want a return.'

he could have said and done that ... if that would make some people happy. But, he's a movie maker, and he makes movies you just cannot do for altruistic pursuit; so yes there is the investment funding angle; he's not the guy for the pbs Frontline type of thing, he'd have to leave it to them. But why shouldn't he do his, and they can also do theirs, eh?

I am sure not the type, having seen a great deal of movies that are not the pbs thing though I see a lot on pbs too, to degrade him or dismiss him and his movie out of hand, No Sir Should Not have been made, terrible idea, not gonna see that in a thousand years. I'm not. I'll give that a chance, just have other cinema on my list this year, but he can sure make it, and others can sure get a lot out of it.

I wonder, what would happen to the movie world, if you can only make a movie that does not have to pay for itself, no investors, get in debt, no return, and it must show only at free events or on a lower funding place like pbs? actually pbs gets plenty of good movies thank you very much, but if that were ALL there was out there? no one in the movie world, the movie biz, could make a movie anymore on American issues? I don't want to see what that world would look like.

[MuseZack]

gsmonks, on Aug 9 2006, 10:52 PM, said:

That doesn't change the fact that he's a businessman trying to make money.

If his motives were altruistic, he'd give away his wealth and put all his time and effort into helping children dying of AIDS in Africa.

What the hell kind of argument is that?  Oliver Stone is a filmmaker-- he makes movies, sometimes about things that happened in recent history-- the civil war in El Salvador, his own experiences as a soldier in Vietnam, and the go-go world of 1980s Wall Street.

The guy was practically crucified by the right wing press when it was announced that he was directing this movie-- he was pre-emptively accused of everything from inserting conspiracy mongering to anti-semitism into the film.  And now that it's coming out and it appears by all accounts to be a respectful, non-political, even patriotic telling of the story of two Port Authority officers and their miraculous survival in the WTC rubble, the complaints seem to be that he's not donning a hair shirt and giving away all his money.  The guy can't win.

[Tricia]

I have to agree with Zack....

What kind of argument is that? It is a non-issue.

No one said that Oliver Stone was trying to be altruistic in making this movie...he's simply trying to tell a story.  If it makes money great....if it doesn't ---okay.

But it is a matter of telling the story.

I have to admit that I am one of those who was unsure of how this movie would turn out based on what I know of the man's previous work.

And from what the reviews say, I am pleased to actually be wrong.  I assumed and we all know what happens when you do that...

I would not be surprised to find this movie nominated come Oscar time....(of course that is based on the buzz)

But was that what Stone was hoping for?  I doubt it.  He just wanted to tell one of the many stories that happened that day.  And from all accounts he has done a great job.

I probably won't see it in the theater tho....I'll wait for DVD as I am not comfortable crying in public, even in the dark of a theater.


BTW there was one guy who helped save the two main characters that day who was never identified.  They wanted to thank him....Stone wanted to talk to him and get his story too.  But no one could find him.  On WNT on ABC they had a story of how they had found him now. He has no desire to see this film as he lived it and is unsure of how he would feel seeing it relived onscreen.

Edited by trikay, 09 August 2006 - 07:47 PM.

[Themis]

This movie is getting incredible reviews - incredibly good.

Themis

[Hambil]

Hey, make a movie about whatever you want. But, I personally don't like this one. It has nothing to do with being a good movie or not - it's a subject I do not believe should be a movie - not yet. Its the same reason I didn't watch a single episode of Over There, or the recent movie Jar Head.

9/11, the 'war on terror', the war in Iraq, these are serious events and making them into entertainment doesn't sit well with me.

[gsmonks]

MuseZack, on Aug 9 2006, 05:41 PM, said:

gsmonks, on Aug 9 2006, 10:52 PM, said:

That doesn't change the fact that he's a businessman trying to make money.

If his motives were altruistic, he'd give away his wealth and put all his time and effort into helping children dying of AIDS in Africa.

What the hell kind of argument is that?  Oliver Stone is a filmmaker-- he makes movies, sometimes about things that happened in recent history-- the civil war in El Salvador, his own experiences as a soldier in Vietnam, and the go-go world of 1980s Wall Street.

The guy was practically crucified by the right wing press when it was announced that he was directing this movie-- he was pre-emptively accused of everything from inserting conspiracy mongering to anti-semitism into the film.  And now that it's coming out and it appears by all accounts to be a respectful, non-political, even patriotic telling of the story of two Port Authority officers and their miraculous survival in the WTC rubble, the complaints seem to be that he's not donning a hair shirt and giving away all his money.  The guy can't win.

What the hell kind of argument is that?

Well . . .

You seem to have the terms "filmmaker" and "documentarian" confused in your mind. You can make a documentary about something that happened, but a film is just a story based loosely upon or inspired by events. The main difference between a documentary about a movie is that a documentary is a recording of live events, whereas a movie is a form of entertainment that's part of the entertainment business. Documentaries are produced using grant money. Films are made with the intention of making money.

What the hell kind of argument is that, trikay?

Well . . .

There's story-telling, like Goldilocks and the Three Bears and Anne of Green Gables and Lethal Weapon 3, and then there's whoring the jazz associated with real-life events, and manipulating people through that jazz to spending money on a commercial product.

In the first instance, buy the book or the movie and you're supporting the author or movie-maker. In the second instance, buy the movie or spend money seeing it and you're supporting a rather crass, manipulative, exploitive individual.

[Tricia]

gsmonks, on Aug 9 2006, 06:59 PM, said:

What the hell kind of argument is that, trikay?

Well . . .

There's story-telling, like Goldilocks and the Three Bears and Anne of Green Gables and Lethal Weapon 3, and then there's whoring the jazz associated with real-life events, and manipulating people through that jazz to spending money on a commercial product.

In the first instance, buy the book or the movie and you're supporting the author or movie-maker. In the second instance, buy the movie or spend money seeing it and you're supporting a rather crass, manipulative, exploitive individual.

My, oh my....

So now you know exactly what is in Oliver Stone's heart?  

There are stories of real-life events that are told in order to inspire one....or to illustrate optimism, patriotism, emotional frankness.  There have been many true stories told of tragic events and death, heroism etc.  

How do you separate the two descriptions you gave above?  Are you going to rage against the two very real individuals portrayed in this movie for sharing their story...no doubt for money...?

The only commercial product available here is the movie.....

Whether it is too early to have a film about this event that affected our whole nation.....that is up to each individual to decide for themselves.  Like I said I'll watch it....if I do...at home.

I think we should all be glad that they have held off as long as they have in making movies about 9/11.....I am sure there are many of us who remember the old days of the "Movie of the Week". No sooner had some event happened before the individuals were descended upon by Hollywood or the networks.  Bakc then if they got the people involved to cooperate great...if they couldn't then they just went ahead anyway.

At least there has been some restraint in this compared to then

Edited by trikay, 09 August 2006 - 09:04 PM.

[Natasha Bennett]

I just want to point out this was inevitable. People have been doing documentries on historical events for decades. WW1, WW2, Gulf War, etc, etc. We're getting upset because...why, it's more closer to our century then anything else? Let me tell you, fifty years down the road few people are going to care whether or not there's a movie about 911. Where people upset just after WW2 that people were making movies about WW2? Probably. Most people aren't now. In any event, it's happening, and not just with this movie-tv shows are starting to pick up the 911 trend too. They waited a while, now they're doing a movie. It's inevitable, there's probably going to be about fifty more movies about 911, so there doesn't seem to be much point in protesting the unfairness of it.  

Edited by Topaz, 09 August 2006 - 09:04 PM.

[BklnScott]

I don't think it's too soon.  (I'm pleasantly surprised they waited as long as they did.)  For some people, it will always be too soon--Those people should simply avoid the films, not try to stop them being produced, or distributed, effectively attempting to censor my choice of whether to see it or not.  

That said, of the two, this is not the one I want to see.  I was more interested in United93, and even that was mostly to see how they portrayed Mark Bingham.

I don't get the Oliver Stone bashing.  I mean, he was always going to make a movie about 9/11.  C'mon: it's Oliver Stone.  This is right up his alley.  Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the last word on 9/11 from him.  Someday, maybe he'll make W.  

Edited by ScottEVill, 09 August 2006 - 09:11 PM.

[gsmonks]

Yes, I agree: people have been exploiting and profiting from human misery for a very long time, and some see it as an acceptable way to make a living.

That doesn't make it any less crass or immoral.

As to what's in Stone's heart, I would guess the usual muscle, valves, chambers, maybe a stent or two.

But as to what's in his mind? Filmmakers are businessmen before they are artists. If filmmaking was art, then the industry wouldn't concern itself with such niceties as marketing, distribution and product placement.

As to representing real life and respecting this fellow is concerned . . .

Please, don't make me laugh. Are you forgetting that this is the same Oliver Stone who exploited the paranoia kept alive by the conspiracy theories surrounding JFK's demise?

Edited by gsmonks, 09 August 2006 - 09:21 PM.

[Natasha Bennett]

Well, there's a ton of things in life that are unfair and morally wrong. Making movies based on historical events...eh, it's kind of wrong, but the more historically accurately it is the less wrong it is, I think. My point is that there are so many bigger fish to fry in terms of what's wrong with the world that this hardly registers, and if the better movies remind the world of our mistakes and highlight some people in history who did extraordinary things, I don't think it's so bad.

In any event, I probably won't see either film. Historical movies are not my thing.