United 93: Worst Movie in the History of Cinema

Just saw it. Don't see it.

Will somebody in Hollywood tell the pseudo-documentarians to lay off, I repeat lay off, the hand-held camera technique?

"United 93" was a hideous film. In trying to reenact the 9-11 airliner catastrophe, focusing on the only one of four hijacked flights that did not reach its intended target, it wrecked a historic moment and ruined a heroic moment for the average Americans who gave their lives to save ours that day.

It was reminiscent of Oliver Stone's failed "Alexander," where overuse of close-up, shaking cameras dominated much of the action footage.

As much as I am drawn to historic films, and as much as I wanted to maintain an air of positive feeling toward the heroes of United 93, it was impossible to endure this terrible piece of celluloid.

It made a plausible tale totally implausible. Even when incorporating many characters in the various command centers that day as themselves (those were the best scenes by far, nothing from inside the airplane itself was even viewable), the story deteriorated into an unrecognizeable blur.

It was a relief when the plane finally crashed.

There was a brutal anti-Bush flavor. They seemed to be obsessed with lack of direct contact with Air Force One and Bush, and even the vice president. It does beg the question as to why Bush didn't know anything until the planes were crashing into the World Tarde Center.

What I was looking for were at least a couple of scenes focusing on the people the passengers were feverishly calling on the airline credit-card seat phones and personal cellphones. All we got were the pathetic good-byes on one end. What about the people they were talking to?

Directors should treasure the value of wide shots as well as the all-intrusive closeup. If they do, then more tragedies like "United 93" can be avoided.

<a href="http://www.writingup.com/blog/radicalpatriot"><img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/Radicalpatriot.gif" style="border:0" alt="Radicalpatriot's Latest"/></a>