United 93 movie

[abcdefz]

...whoa. I just watched the trailer. There's a bit of footage when the planes hit the Trade Center, and I got a little teary-eyed. That surprised me.

Anyway. It looks like they've made this movie about as well as you could do such a thing -- casting mostly unknown faces, shooting cinema vérité. Early word is that it's really powerful.


Trailer (http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/united93/)


Pretty well-written review (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23020)

[TurdBerglar]

thy're just using 911 as a gimick

[iceygirl]

^yeah


i think its too soon

[Freebasser]

Mmm... nice and morbid.

[TurdBerglar]

^yeah


i think its too soon


yeah maybe in another 50 years. it's pretty disrespectful

[Mr Films]

all this talk of 9/11 as a gimmick and "too soon" is kinda ridiculous when it comes to these movies (Oliver Stone's got one coming in August).

I look at it as nobody really knows what happened on that flight so any movie on it is entirely fiction. Sure, they used a catastrophic event as a back drop but how is the whole thing really any different than say....Life is Beautiful?

I think the movie looks fantastic and a few months ago I'd sworn to never see it for the same reasons you peeps have mentioned above.

[Mr Films]

yeah maybe in another 50 years. it's pretty disrespectful

60 years didn't change how unbelievably disrespecful Pearl Harbor is.

[TurdBerglar]

all this talk of 9/11 as a gimmick and "too soon" is kinda ridiculous when it comes to these movies (Oliver Stone's got one coming in August).

I look at it as nobody really knows what happened on that flight so any movie on it is entirely fiction. Sure, they used a catastrophic event as a back drop but how is the whole thing really any different than say....Life is Beautiful?

I think the movie looks fantastic and a few months ago I'd sworn to never see it for the same reasons you peeps have mentioned above.


nope


you're wrong

[iceygirl]

yeah maybe in another 50 years. it's pretty disrespectful



$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ overrides any sort of respect, integrity, taste or honor these days

very tacky methinks

[iceygirl]

60 years didn't change how unbelievably disrespecful Pearl Harbor is.


pearl harbor was crappy because ben affleck starred in it and they threw in some corny ass love triangle into the mix

unnecessary

same with titanic

[Mr Films]

nope


you're wrong

how so?

[YoungRemy]

TNT made a made for TV one as well a couple of months ago...

apparantly the families of flight 93 are behind both films...

this one is screening at TriBeCa FF, appropiate for a film about 9/11 on TFF's fifth year, a festival started in response to 9/11 and to help rebuild lower manhattan...

[abcdefz]

...it all depends on how it turns out. It doesn't look like they went movie-of-the-week with it, so bully for them on that score.

Is it inherently "too soon"? I dunno. I don't think so.

[Echewta]

If its too soon, don't see it.

If it bothers you, dont see it.

USA#1

[YoungRemy]

some theaters have removed the trailer for the because audience members couldnt take it...

[Freebasser]

Considering the fact that the relatives of the people who died on that plane didn't even want the audio of the fracas to be played in court just a few days ago, then I don't really see how making a big budget film about how their loved ones died horribly is going to help matters.


apparantly the families of flight 93 are behind both films...

Although...

[iceygirl]

...it all depends on how it turns out. It doesn't look like they went movie-of-the-week with it, so bully for them on that score.

Is it inherently "too soon"? I dunno. I don't think so.


thats just the way i feel about it. doesnt mean it wont bank in the theatre.

it happend, it was a terrible time. i dont feel like paying money to relive the entire thing again through the eyes of the victims no less. for me, its too soon. im not in the mood for a painful movie right now.

thats just my opinion.

[kaiser soze]

art imitating life?

Personally I think this movie is too soon, the reason being...9/11 is still a crutch for the fear mongering and foreign policy wreaking of this administration. Isn't it still fresh in our minds? Why do we need a movie to show what some movie makers think happened when the truth is still being questioned, while there is still a war being waged in response to that day, while families are still trying to heal from the horrors brought upon their family members? Who pockets the cash from this movie? What little will we learn if at all anything?

Out of respect, I refuse to watch these 9/11 movies, i'd rather watch a well researched documentary, I still question why our leaders failed to see this coming and fell very short from protecting us.

Why hasn't someone made a movie about Challenger? There is a new generation who know very little of that day, but are still overwhelmed from 9/11.

Just another blockbuster disaster movie.....but this time the players were real.

[abcdefz]

You know, I hated when the public outcry after the events was to erase, cut out, and never show an image of the towers ever again. Its cut out of a repeat for the Simpsons for god's sake.

And to be perfectly honest, the way it seems like this film is done seems to be dead on the way to do it. Would you rather have a Jerry Bruckheimer/Micheal Bay Pearl Harbor meets Con Air movie with Ben Affleck and scripted one liners about freedom with Guns n' Roses doing the soundtrack?
That would be more disrepectful then anything.


100% (y)

[iceygirl]

No matter how long ago these events happened, somebody is going to be offended saying its "too soon".

Let's just forget it ever happened. I'm sure thats healthy.

And you know guys, some film makers make film because its an art,to examine the human condition, not because they want the benjamins.


when a person says that it is too soon for them to want to see it on film, that does not mean in any way that it has been forgotten, quite the opposite.
too soon can also mean that the feelings are still at the surface in a way that a person doesnt feel like sobbing for 2+ hours. i doubt even the hermits in this country have forgotten. nobody will ever forget.

[iceygirl]

p.s.

any of you who will stand behind that big budget blockbuster movies, independent movies even these days, are made for the sake of art ---- get a reality check. its all about the bank. they are all salespeople and puppets.

[Mr Films]

the film we should really be discussing is Oliver Stone's World Trade Center. Have you guys seen Any Given Sunday? Natural Born Killers? That same director is making a 9/11 movie set in the actual towers during the attack starring Nicolas Cage.

That's about 1 and a half steps from a Bay/Bruckheimer joint.

And, oh yeah, it opens one month before the 5th anniversary of the actual event.

At least, as a-z said, United 93 looks like it approached the material with some respect.

And as far as why these movies are made.....because people will go see them. I'm not talking about money, it's about the fact that people want to see these movies as much as we love to sit here and talk shit about them. We want to see a bunch of white bread Americans take down the evil terrorists to remind us how powerful and awesome the u.s. of a. is.

As ironic as it sounds, i think these movies are meant to trick us out of remembering that 9/11 proved nothing but how vulnerable we are.

[iceygirl]

the film we should really be discussing is Oliver Stone's World Trade Center. Have you guys seen Any Given Sunday? Natural Born Killers? That same director is making a 9/11 movie set in the actual towers during the attack starring Nicolas Cage.

That's about 1 and a half steps from a Bay/Bruckheimer joint.

And, oh yeah, it opens one month before the 5th anniversary of the actual event.

At least, as a-z said, United 93 looks like it approached the material with some respect.

And as far as why these movies are made.....because people will go see them. I'm not talking about money, it's about the fact that people want to see these movies as much as we love to sit here and talk shit about them. We want to see a bunch of white bread Americans take down the evil terrorists to remind us how powerful and awesome the u.s. of a. is.

As ironic as it sounds, i think these movies are meant to trick us out of remembering that 9/11 proved nothing but how vulnerable we are.

yup.

oliver stone is such a joke. same for nick cage.

[kaiser soze]

I was just about to say that iceygirl

[abcdefz]

I have no problem with art being a commercial vehicle. Who wants to lose money? But when it's just exploitative claptrap with not the slightest pretention to be anything but a wallet sucking machine, that's a problem.

[Echewta]

How can we even think that a United 93 movie is disrespectful compared to the crap that has actually happened after 9/11 such as same problems in Homeland Security, Iraq, Iran, lies...

Nobody has to go see this movie but we have to deal with 6 percent cargo inspections, 1 to 2 soldiers, and 100s of Iraqi civs dying each day.

[iceygirl]

I have no problem with art being a commercial vehicle. Who wants to lose money? But when it's just exploitative claptrap with not the slightest pretention to be anything but a wallet sucking machine, that's a problem.

i had a reply to you and echetwa...but ll cool j just took off his shirt on tv so now im at a loss....

umm yea well i mentioned pearl harbor and those crap movies above. i didnt say this one was like those are because i havent seen it obviously. i wish turd didnt bail on this topic because now i feel like i have to back up and explain every fruckin detail of what my point was.
which is only my point. i dont try and speak for all of humanity. good god.

as for you echetwa
duhhhhhh no shit sherlock.

[Echewta]

Thank you. I'll send you the bill when you are done dicing your veggies to LL Cool J.

[abcdefz]

i had a reply to you and echetwa...but ll cool j just took off his shirt on tv so now im at a loss....






...it's too soon for LL to be taking his shirt off!!!

Oh, well. It's all about the bank.

Glad you don't support anything exploitative, iceygirl. :D

[iceygirl]

...it's too soon for LL to be taking his shirt off!!!

Oh, well. It's all about the bank.

Glad you don't support anything exploitative, iceygirl. :D


:)

p.s. i never used the word expoit, that was turd


p.s.s.
its not my fault ll cool j is a baldie with a hot body

:)

[abcdefz]

:)

p.s. i never used the word expoit, that was turd




I know. I was just being a shit.

[iceygirl]

I know. I was just being a shit.


really? thanks, i didnt get that (that is me being a shit) :P

p.s. i dont like that when i do a : with a ) together it puts the yellow generic smiley up. i am against expoiting those smilie guys.

[marsdaddy]

It was too early to declare victory, but we got a cool action figure to commemorate the event.

It doesn't matter what anyone thinks, the movie(s) about 9/11 have an audience. I wonder how they'll do internationally.

[abcdefz]

Here's another review from AICN. (http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=23078)

Six paragraphs of apologia, then the review starts:

"It’s brilliant. Absolutely, positively, unquestionably brilliant. Paul Greengrass handles this material with such reverence, such unbelievable care that it simply floored me. This is not propaganda trying to push some view of the events of that day. This is neither right wing nor left wing rhetoric on the events. There is no viewpoint but that of a fly on the wall, watching the build up, the confusion and ulitimately the terror of the events in the air that day. Greengrass simply shows the events. He never tries to lay on the pap or the sentimentality - because he knows he doesn’t have to. There are no American flags blowing in the wind, no firey speeches about rebuilding and overcoming. And there is absolutely no focus on the characters in an attempt to endear us to them. We don’t need that. We already feel for these people, there’s no reason to get to know them in a very artificial and emotionally manipulative way. The passengers are presented in a way that feels very real, very genuine – like the people you’ve flown with dozens of times on dozens of flights. They smile and make pleasant conversation. They recite the standard raka-raka we all have memorized for such situations, when we’re trying to pass the time on a boring, run of the mill flight. We know these people already, and Greengrass knows that all we need to see is those people and how they react to what was to come. But not as heroes, not as patriots. As people, real people, trying to save their own lives and that of those who might be in their path."

[abcdefz]

Rotten Tomatoes (http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/united_93/)


100% with five reviews up.

[roosta]

the Saudis did it.

[abcdefz]

the Saudis did it.



...apparently the Saudis make good movies, then. (y)

[abcdefz]

...I think you're thinking of World Trade Center. :D

[abcdefz]

World Trade Center is the movie Oliver Stone is making starring Nic Cage.

[abcdefz]

...two this year, yeah.

United 93 comes out in a week or so; World Trade Center comes out near the anniversary.

[DandyFop]

This is a pretty interesting debate.

The "too-soon" thing is a hard thing to call. Why do we react like that exactly? Are we waiting untill 9/11 jokes are okay (Nazi/Hitler jokes are always heard nowadays). When will that occur...when the generation that remembers this even is too old to really care or recall it very well?

If it's well-made, kudos to them. I'll decide if I want to see it depending on that.

[monkey]

when you close your eyes and you see the images still imbedded in your head from seeing it happen a few hundred feet away from you, you realize why there's an outcry from ever showing the images again.

but it's a choice whether or not you want to see the movie. if the images bother you, dont see the movies. easy.

[DroppinScience]

This movie is directed by Paul Greengrass, who also directed "Bloody Sunday"... which depicts another tragic event in Northern Ireland. He handled that one excellently, so I really don't think that the word "exploitative" or "poor taste" is really going to factor into this movie, because if you know his style (which is more documentary-style than a slick Hollywood/Bruckheimer movie, as some of you seem to think this is), that's just not going to happen.

As for the "too soon" thing, that's an interesting question, but I'll have to ask: "If not now, when exactly?"

Like it or not, there's going to be a movie about some kind of historical tragedy ("Munich," "Titanic," "JFK," etc.) made at some point, the only thing to hope for is that it's done well and by someone who really cares about the subject at hand and is interested in informing/enlightening the public.

If we're going to talk "distasteful" why hasn't anyone brought up the made-for-TV movie about 9/11 that came out a few years back. I didn't watch it, but I'm 99% sure it was in poor taste (an actor who normally does Bush parodies played Bush as a SERIOUS role, for godsake).

Bottom line: watch "United 93" and decide for yourself.

[enree erzweglle]

Who can say when a thing is too soon. It's subjective.

I don't particularly enjoy watching accounts like this of events like that. I remember enough about 9/11 without a movie.

My dad and sister have been planning how/when they're going to see this movie. They feel like in doing so, they're honoring the victims. I don't need to see a movie to pay honor to anyone.

I might go to see something like this if I think I could learn a thing from it--I'd maybe see it as a documentary. But I don't know what I could get from it (in the movie form) aside of a cinematic experience and to me, that's the degrading thing. Not that it's too soon, but that it's maybe reiterating what we know already, maybe adding to that as well and that feels sensationalistic.

[adam_f]

edit: nevermind it.

[DroppinScience]

I might go to see something like this if I think I could learn a thing from it--I'd maybe see it as a documentary. But I don't know what I could get from it (in the movie form) aside of a cinematic experience and to me, that's the degrading thing. Not that it's too soon, but that it's maybe reiterating what we know already, maybe adding to that as well and that feels sensationalistic.

Again, I say just look at the source. Jerry Bruckheimer isn't behind the movie, it's Greengrass (who knows a thing or two about dramatizing tragedies), so I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's not interested in fucking things up.

[DroppinScience]

we're still at war over what happened on 9/11 and there making a movie about someone we havent even caught yet?

I think it ridiculous.

There were MANY movies about WWII that were made during the war (when the outcome was uncertain), so what does that really matter?

[abcdefz]

Okay, this probably means something. He's a good critic, and from the New Yorker:

“United 93” (review)
by DAVID DENBY
Issue of 2006-05-01
Posted 2006-04-24

“No one is going to help us. We’ve got to do it ourselves.” Those plain, unarousing words, spoken by a man ordinary in looks but remarkable in perception and courage, are a turning point in “United 93,” Paul Greengrass’s stunning account of how a group of airline passengers, almost certain of death, decided on the morning of September 11th to fight back against hijackers on a suicide mission. But Greengrass doesn’t build the moment as a turning point in any conventional way. The words of the anonymous passenger, a round-faced man who has been studying the hijackers ever since they made their first moves, are spoken firmly but without emphasis, and no dead air is placed around the statement to give it extra weight. The hijackers have taken over the flight at knifepoint and murdered a passenger in first class, and everyone else, appalled, has gathered at the back of the plane. By this time, both the passengers and the crew understand what is going on. Many of them have spoken by cellphone to friends and relatives, and they know that the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have been hit. The hijackers aren’t going to land and hold them hostage; they are going to slam them into another building. The only issue—for the flight controllers and the military people we see at other points in the movie, as well as for the people on board—is what can be done to take control of a situation both terrifying and unprecedented. Greengrass’s movie is tightly wrapped, minutely drawn, and, no matter how frightening, superbly precise. In comparison with past Hollywood treatments of Everyman heroism in time of war, such as Hitchcock’s hammy “Lifeboat,” or more recent spectacles, like “War of the Worlds,” there’s no visual or verbal rhetoric, no swelling awareness of the Menace We All Face. Those movies were guaranteed to raise a lump in our throats. In this retelling of actual events, most of our emotion is centered in the pit of the stomach. The accumulated dread and grief get released when some of the male passengers, shortly after those few words are spoken, rush the hijackers stationed at the front of the plane with the engorged fury of water breaking through a dam.

A fair amount of distaste for this movie has been building in recent weeks. Would the heroic event—which ended when the plane crashed in Pennsylvania, killing everyone aboard—be exploited in some way? And why do we need to take this death trip? But “United 93” is a tremendous experience of fear, bewilderment, and resolution, and, when you replay the movie in your head afterward, you are likely to think that Greengrass made all the right choices. Born in England in 1955, he has directed, among other films, “Bloody Sunday,” a re-creation of the British Army’s massacre of Northern Irish protesters, in 1972; and “The Bourne Supremacy,” a franchise action movie in which a near-silent Matt Damon tears up Europe. What unites all three films is a dynamic use of the camera. It’s handheld and thrust into the tumult, yet somehow—and this is the essence of Greengrass’s art—we see what we need to see.

The movie begins slowly, with the morning prayers of the sweet-faced young men who will become the terrorists; the drowsy routine at Newark airport, where Flight 93, bound for San Francisco, began; the passengers amiably settling into the plane; the puzzlement at the Federal Aviation Administration command center, as first one and then another flight veers off course. When Flight 93 is hijacked, the passengers initially respond with panic, while the flight controllers on the ground, burning through their disbelief, try (without success) to rouse the military. Steadily, the editing becomes quicker, the language grows more terse and peremptory, and we begin to pick up details in a flash, out of a corner of the camera’s eye.

The hijackers kill the pilots, but Greengrass doesn’t show us their deaths; we just see their bodies being dragged across the cockpit, from the point of view of a flight attendant in the middle of the plane. Rejecting standard front-and-center staging, Greengrass works in half-understood fragments. When the passengers revolt, the violence is not an artfully edited fake but a chaotic, flailing scramble, and it’s not performed by charismatic types displaying their prowess. In a story of collective and anonymous heroism, we don’t want Denzel Washington leading the charge or Gene Hackman wrathfully telling the military to get on the stick. Greengrass uses real flight attendants, air controllers, and pilots, and mixes them in with little-known or unknown actors. As an ensemble, the players are stolid, but in a good way—they exhibit a combination of incomprehension and intelligence, befuddlement and alertness, that feels right. They live within the moment without overdefining it.

Flight 93’s departure, scheduled for 8 A.M., was delayed. By the time the plane got off the ground, the attacks on the World Trade Center were only a few minutes away. In the movie, once the flight is aloft Greengrass sticks to real time, and the passing minutes have an almost demonic urgency. This is true existential filmmaking: there is only the next instant, and the one after that, and what are you going to do? Many films whip up tension with cunning and manipulation. As far as possible, this movie plays it straight. A few people made extraordinary use of those tormented minutes, and “United 93” fully honors what was original and spontaneous and brave in their refusal to go quietly.

[enree erzweglle]

I was at the gym a couple of weeks ago, using a machine and reading a book. A woman asked me what I was reading and I told her that it was a book about history of Islam. She said that it was a good thing to do, to learn about the world's religions. I agreed and said that given the climate today, it's important to be educated about at least the fundamentals of the Koran. She agreed and asked if it was light reading--I told her that it was although it has its moments. It's part of a curriculum, she was interested in that for other reasons. We talked about that and then she came back to the book itself and reiterated that learning is a good thing because people are quick to judge without benefit of having all of the facts.

So I was listening, nodding, agreeing, and then she said (and I'll try hard to paraphrase this accurately) "I saw United 93 last night. It was well done. But after having seeing it, I find it hard to sympathize with Muslims. That movie makes you think twice about those people."

Later that week, I heard a woman say that a friend of hers saw United 93 and it made her realize that the hijackers were coerced into doing what they did.

I wanted to understand these things more, so I went to see it.

I don't know what those two women were taking or if they saw some other movie, but seeing it did not make me feel hatred for Muslims or empathy for the hijackers, or, for that matter, pity for the passengers. The movie did little to interpret anyone's motives--in fact, I don't think motive was addressed at all and that was probably the first smart thing about this movie.

It was perfectly balanced--no one was demonized, nor were there attempts to make the movie or any of its characters inoffensive. It was terribly respectful and yes, everyone should see it, even if (like me last month) you think you don't need to see something like it because you already Get That about the world. So many poignant scenes, never over the top, not at all exploitative. Unquestioniably, the right tone and treatment and probably one of the most effective movies I've ever seen.

[na§tee]

i've just read this review (http://film.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/Critic_Review/Guardian_review/0,,1787616,00.html) from peter bradshaw in the guardian and i'm booking my ticket now. some soundbites -

"This is an Anti-Titanic for the multiplexes - a real-life disaster movie with no Leo and Kate and no survivors: only terrorists whose emotional lives are relentlessly blank, and heroes with no backstory...."

"When the lights go down, your heart-rate will inexorably start to climb. After about half an hour I was having difficulty breathing. I wasn't the only one. The whole row I was in sounded like an outing of emphysema patients..."

"Every last tiny detail is drenched with unbearable tension, especially at the very beginning. Every gesture, every look, every innocent greeting, every puzzled exchange of glances over the air-traffic scopes, every panicky call between the civil air authority and the military - it is all amplified, deafeningly, in pure meaning...."

"It is the film of the year. I needed to lie down in a darkened room afterwards. So will you."

i can't remember the last time i saw a film which made me feel so strongly. looking forward to it.

[enree erzweglle]

i can't remember the last time i saw a film which made me feel so strongly. looking forward to it.
A friend of mine was physically ill (sick to her stomach and everything came up) right after she saw the movie. She was prepared for it--she'd read about it and several of us warned her that it was intense and it still got to her.

[abcdefz]

It's a terrific movie. It's great that there are no real stars in it and no heavy plot exposition, because you really don't know who to look at to expect what -- except the terrorists. Which really gets you in the gut.

What's also great is it gives a much, MUCH better impression of what was going on on the ground -- air traffic control and army and an absent President. Much, much better than I could've imagined -- that sort of helpless confusion.

When the worm turns and the passengers start to take back the plane, it's very, very primal. Animal. Very powerful.

My eyes leaked a couple of times, but when the movie was over and I was leaving, something hit me and I had an actual sob. Just one, choked up out of me. That humans can do these things -- good and bad, ambitious for heroism or stumbling onto it so accidentally.

Easily the best movie I've seen this year.

[na§tee]

enree, a-z: wow, that hard-hitting huh? yikes. it's exciting though. says a lot about the power of cinema - and of course individuals. have you read what the survivors' families have said after seeing the film? see here (http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1784076,00.html). very interesting.

ooh. i just hope my flatmate comes with me. he's such a lazy arse. i don't want to be sobbing all by myself. actually, maybe that would be a better experience for this film. might just do it.

[enree erzweglle]

ooh. i just hope my flatmate comes with me. he's such a lazy arse. i don't want to be sobbing all by myself. actually, maybe that would be a better experience for this film. might just do it.Yeah, I was prepared mentally for it and I forgot to prepare physically--I didn't bring kleenex. Fortunately, the guy I was with had a napkin left over from dinner. I did sob and so I was grateful that we were in a theater with only a few other people. We had seats where you could pull the center armrest up and so I did that and it made things a little easier. Yes, it's intense and thought-provoking. I posted a long thing about it in this thread a couple of weeks back.

[abcdefz]

enree, a-z: wow, that hard-hitting huh? yikes. it's exciting though. says a lot about the power of cinema - and of course individuals.



It's pretty powerful. Not as bad as, say, the first time I saw Gallipoli, but the veracity (unknowable details notwithstanding) and immediacy kind of give it a unique aesthetic and power. It's about an A- movie, in my mind.


have you read what the survivors' families have said after seeing the film? see here (http://film.guardian.co.uk/features/featurepages/0,,1784076,00.html).



I've read some stuff, but not that. thanks!

[na§tee]

so i went to see it tonight at a late showing, with my flatmate.

i didn't cry.

it might have had something to do with everyone munching popcorn around me, but it's a strange sort of feeling.

i was extremely tense and, like the guardian reviewer, was finding it quite difficult to breathe at some parts. i think it was so tense and there was no opportunity for release of emotion that you would see in normal drama films (the director could have milked it a bit more with the phone call scenes, for instance) that i just didn't know what to do with all that pent up energy. so you know what both me and my flatmate did when the credits rolled? we laughed.

no, not in a ha-ha-hee-hee that was hilarious! laugh.
a weird, really confusing "that was horrific and i wasn't so manipulated as an audience member as i would in traditional films of this sort that i couldn't cry openly because it was simply so unspeakably.. something" had-to-release-some-of-this-strange energy sort of laugh. you just had to do something. and making this sort of "ha!" sound when we both looked at each other sort of was the easiest thing to do. does anyone understand what i mean? there certainly wasn't any comedy in the film, don't get me wrong and think we were disrespectful.

it was just weird. a very strange experience.

fantastic film, though. (y)

[abcdefz]

Kind of a gasp/laugh? I think I know the sort of thing you're talking about.

Glad you got to see it in the theater. I think that movie's going to look too small on e TV screen.