I can't watch this. I have read everything I could read about that day, from the NYT profiles of the dead to the 9/11 Commission Report -but to see that day re-enacted as a big screen film, I can't deal. I am brought to tears just watching this trailer on my computer screen, I sure as hell don't want it sprung on me during previews of something like "Inside Man".

And it's not just the pain of loss from that day, it's the pain of what the world has become since then.

I'll be curious to see how this movie deals with evidence that United 93 was shot down and that cell phones don't work on planes at cruising altitude.

I would be astonished if anyone who lived through that day will ever be able to watch this. Wait 30 years and then release it, if you must. Not now, not in the forseeable future.

I'm glad that something is being done to remember the passengers and crew of Flt 93, who sometimes seem to get lost in the shuffle of 9/11 reporting. However, A&E beat these guys to the punch with "The Flight That Fought Back".

It all seems a little opportunistic to me.

What is wrong with people? We know the story. We know the principal players. We know how it ends. The families of the victims have been on television for countless numbers of hours. Why keep making this film? Why keep watching these films? Because of "heroism"? The people in the plane never got to the cockpit. They didn't bring the plane down. All that talk of the passengers crashing the plane was "Jessica Lynch Rescue"-style spin. Yes, they tried to do something out of desperation. They had more time than the people in the planes which hit the WTC. They were able to speak to their families from the plane. One man, in fact, called an operator from the plane's bathroom and told the operator that there was an explosion outside of the plane, there was smoke and that the plane was going down. Witnesses in the area reported another, fast-moving plane in the area. Some heard up to 3 loud bangs before they saw the plane bank and crash. Most likely, the plane was shot down. Will they put that in the movie? I doubt it. Will they also claim that the plane was "on its way to the White House" even though every experienced terror expert believes it was headed for the Pentagon, to complete the job? A cardinal rule for terror attacks is to follow up the first attack with a second attack at the same location, timed to kill rescuers and to complete the destruction.

Make a movie about Flight 93 when America is grown-up enough to hear the truth. And they should make a movie about TWA Flight 800 while they're at it, showing that it was shot down by a missile like all those people on the ground said it was. Then portray the coverup.

Until then, stop making the same movies telling the same lies.

(And please don't put Lisa Beamer back on TV again. Hasn't America had enough of Cry-On-Cue Lisa and her line of Let's Roll™ jewelry)

I remember after seeing the movie "JFK" several years ago, I was telling my father about the film and asking if he'd seen it. He said he hadn't, and told me that he remembered exactly what it was like to live through the experience of JFK's death and would have absolutely no interest in watching a movie about it. I didn't fully understand what he meant until now.

Saw the trailer for "United 93" (before a showing of "Inside Man") at a theater just outside of New York. The packed crowd went dead silent, and I personally became emotional to the point that I looked away from the screen for part of the trailer. It was definitely a little much, and I came away feeling strongly that I will definitely not see the film-- I remember 9/11 too clearly to be interested in any reminders about the experience.

If the studios have decided that Inside Man is a good movie to host the trailer for United 93 because they figure that the Spike Lee thriller audience is their core demographic, what trailers will they decide to play before United 93? Because if I can see a trailer for Snakes on a Plane right before watching a movie about Controversy on a Plane, I will DEFINITELY be catching this one at the theaters...

In the field of historic preservation, a general standard is to wait 50 years before determining whether a building is worthy of being deemed "historic." The thought is that 50 years allows enough time for a cooler assessment about whether a building is historically significant and how it should be preserved, interpreted, its associated events commemorated, etc. It ameliorates most of the effects that politics, capitalism, and human emotions often have on these kinds of decisions.

So it should be with the act of "preserving" the memories of 9/11 in cinematic form. It has not even been five years since that catastrophic day, whose events still leave a gaping emotional wound in Americans, and whose ramifications are still being interpreted and argued over by politicians. Even if millions of Americans wanted to watch such a film (which I doubt is the case), the family of even just one 9/11 victim should not have to know that their fictionalized loved one is dying again over the sound of crunching popcorn and slurping sodapop.

Anyone who has seen Paul Greengrass's amazingly evocative and sensitive earlier films, Bloody Sunday and Omagh (the latter of which I believe he only produced and wrote, but did not direct), is probably confident that this film will not be sensationalist. It will not be a flag-waving Bruckheimer-esque popcorn movie.

I suspect that it will be infinitely more about how individuals are caught up -- tragically -- in events much larger than themselves and how frequently ordinary people find wells of extraordinary courage in desperate times. I'd bet money it will be more "Hotel Rwanda" and less "Executive Decision".

The Omagh bombing -- which was an incredibly horrifc and senseless slaughter which occurred shortly after everyone thought peace had finally been achieved -- was in 1998 and the movie was released in 2004. It is tough to take, but also remarkably insightful.

Finally, maybe I am reading too much into this, but the Video Dog blurb almost seemed to be setting the scene to spin this as somehow wrong because it would play to Bush's supposed strength and obvious game plan of "all 9/11, all the time." This would seem to be a bit kneejerk, especially without seeing the movie.

Rove/Bush have worked hard to make 9/11 be about Bush as War Leader. Perhaps a movie which shows truly heroic people sacrificing themselves for others will remind people what unselfish and decisive action is and what our chickenhawk-in-chief did after he finally finished reading "My Pet Goat".