I will not watch this movie. From this review, it's good to know that the movie attempts to be non-exploitative. But at the end of the day, someone is making money off of this. Profits are neither going to charity nor the families of those lost in the tragedy - which, to me, is the only justifiable use of it.

Ick.

I distinctly recall saying to my husband on the afternoon of 9/11, "Someday someone is going to make a movie about this. And I am going to be outside the movie theaters protesting." It seemed unfathomable but inevitable at the time that someone would make the Titanic or the Pearl Harbor film of 9/11; I had no idea it would be within 5 years. I was picturing 20 years, maybe.

Anyone who volunteers to subject themselves to this film, in my opinion, has not been deeply touched by tragedy ever and is seeking an artifical experience, a vicarious dramatic intensity.

I'm not being articulate enough. I am just so dumbstruck by people's willingingness to finance, perform in, and otherwise support this project.

I will not go see this movie. I think it is a movie that should be made, but not now. Nothing is resolved, nothing really makes sense in any historical perspective. It would be like making a movie about Pearl Harbor before the tide had turned in favor of the Allies.

If anything this shows how little progress we seem to have made in this so-called war on terror. Pehaps that is the most damning thing of all.

But since it was, and since Greengrass is such a paragon of political and artistic virtue, I'm sure he will be willing to donate his hefty directing fee to a fund set up to help the families of those who died that day on that plane at the hands of those Godforesaken monstrosities. In fact, everyone involved in this film, from the producers to the stars to the crew, should be willing to pony up. That is the only act of contrition that will cleanse them of the taint they currently carry with them.

One of the other letter writers wrote that at least twenty years should have passed before such a thing as this was even attempted. I couldn't agree more. Other people, in other debates on other forums, have pointed to the films made immediately after World War II, like "The Best Years Of Our Lives", as proof of the appropriateness of this film. That's a false analogy, because we won that war. In New York, and in Washington D.C., and perhaps most especially in that lonely Pennsylvania field, we most definitely lost. And we needn't be reminded of it just yet, when Osama bin Laden is not only free but plotting anew, and so the dead lay in unquiet graves. No, this film should never have been made.

I would hope that the people saying how wrong and distasteful they find the making of a film about 9/11 is would also say the same about films such as "Hotel Rawanda", "The Killing Fields" or any of the hundreds of movies made about recent real world events in which large numbers of people suffered and died and to which grieving survivors remain.

The events of 9/11 constitute a horrific, monsterous, murderous crime, however sometimes one could be forgiven for thinking that some people see it as being so much worse because it happened to Americans. I hope I'm wrong about this.

David Edler

What is it with all these people declaring that a movie shouldn't have been made? And somehow if someone disagrees with that, it makes them less affected by 9/11 than others? That's arrogant.

Isn't it obvious? The entire LIE that's been constructed around 9/11 exists to perpetuate exactly the type of society that exploits and squeezes even its own horrible self-defeat for profit.

Put another way: Since the official story behind 9/11 is false, this movie is false; it's pure propaganda. Of course it's going to exploit the victims. But if their graves are unquiet, it's not because they've been capitalized upon by B-rate re-enactors. It's because they were murdered by, and are still being capitalized upon by, an American police state that needed their deaths as an excuse to launch a permanent war.

I think it's great that another LW brought up the possible hypocrisy of not criticizing a film like Hotel Rwanda for exploiting a tragedy too soon, while saying that United 93 is "too soon" or should never be made.

However, I think we need to look at the nature of the tragedies and the reasons the films were made. Hotel Rwanda depicts a tragedy that most Americans are ignorant of, in terms of the scope, motivations, and outcomes. The filmmakers of Hotel Rwanda were trying to get our attention; to be more aware of the atrocities would potentially make us more responsive to these kinds of seemingly distant and irrelevant crises in the future.

Obviously, United 93 is not trying to raise awareness or bring 9/11 to an audience unaware of something that ought to have been more on its radar.

Every time a trailer for United 93 comes on TV, my stomach clenches, my mind starts racing. I dealt with a severe fear of flying after 9/11; it took years to fully overcome. This movie shoves 9/11 back in my face and in everyone else's face-- is this good? Is this appropriate? I have started having nighttime anxiety attacks about my cross-country flight to NYC next week, something I haven't dealt with for years. I can only imagine what people who experience 9/11 more directly are dealing with as this thing is shoved in their faces.

And for what it's worth-- I love Stephanie's conflicted, thoughtful review.

I agree with Joshstrike. Since the official story of 9/11 is a lie, making this movie based on a lie, aimed to spread fear is damaging to those who view it. In September of 2001, no cell phones would work at 30,000 feet so most of the calls that were made were NOT made by the passengers of Flight 93. And do you really think that anyone would have been able to use the plane phones if there was a hijacking taking place? Utter nonsense. Go to http://www.physics911.net/ if you want to know more about how duped we've been, those of us who've bought the "official version" of 9/11. Once you know the truth, I doubt you'll be supporting an exploitative film such as this.