Thursday, April 06, 2006

Movie (p)review: United 93

Have you seen this trailer...?

In case you've been living under a rock, they're making a movie about United Flight 93.

If you don't know what United Flight 93 is, you haven't been living under a rock, you've been living in a coffin.

So, not surprisingly, this new trailer is causing quite a stir. And of course, it's meant to.

I dropped by Denis McGrath's blog yesterday, as I do most days, and he had posted about it. It caused a stir there, too. Now, in recent times I've been getting a little tired of Denis' condescending attitude towards Canadians (he was born in NY, dontcha know) and other human beings in general, so I was contemplating abandoning his blog altogether - but this one drew me back in. I agreed more or less with what Denis had to say. I have to admit, it's always nice to hear an American berate George Bush - it gives you faith in humanity. Or at least in Americans.

I'm not going to re-post my comments to Denis, but you can find them here.

Basically, I explained that while I believe the passengers of Flight 93 were heroes (and yes, the word actually applies here - not like in those evening news fluff pieces) I am hesitant to laud the fact that a movie is being made of their efforts. See, I fear this is going to be a dramatization filled with conjecture and hyperbole, as opposed to a documentary-style re-enactment of the facts. And I fear that this dramatization will only serve to galvanize the Right in their suport of that utter f***ing moron, George Bush.

I'll reserve my judgement until the movie comes out.

Then you can bet I'll have something to say.

7 comments:

max said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
PS said...

Wow.

I mean...wow.

Max, in case you're unaware, is a crazy little guy who sometimes swoops down on Denis' blog and posts an ultra-Righty comment. Since I linked to Denis' blog on mine, well, the rat followed the cheese.

Max is nuts. I don't particularly like giving him a forum for his opinions on my blog, but I believe in free speech and his comments help illustrate how scary our world has become - and the kind of people who support the current governments on both sides of the 49th.

Wow.

Here's what I write to Max (I'd post it on his blog, but I don't want an infestation of rats coming the other way - I shudder to think at the kinds of people who read HIS blog:
-----
Hey Max,

Just wanted to stop by and thank you for proving my point about insane right-wingers. Man, you are really nuts.

It's amazing how you go on and on about "Chicoms" and Saddam torturing folks all the while ignoring Gitmo and the rendition practices of your buddies to the south. (Hiroshima anyone?)

Pot, meet kettle.

As for me, I consider myself a "blue-Liberal" (financially conservative but socially liberal) and believe that war is a necessary evil at times (so long as you are WILLING TO DIE for the principle and issue at stake - oil? Not so much) - not a convenient way to establish dominance over lesser-armed nations. (Why doesn't the US take on North Korea or China, by the way...? Or African warlords for that matter?)

I'd go on, but I've suddenly realized you simply aren't worth the effort.
-----

I'm suddenly very depressed to think that there are peopple like Max in our world.

There goes my mojo.

max said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
max said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Char said...

"It's that bitch, Max! GET HIM!"

PS said...

*sigh* I grow weary...

You know, Max replied to a bunch of my posts and I realized that he's not COMPLETELY nuts.

"He's only MOSTLY nuts." (in Billy Crystal accent)

I don't wish to engage Max in a philosophical/political argument because:
a) I don't have the patience
b) I don't like blogging THAT much
c) neither one of us would convince the other that they are right (well, philosophically speaking Max is WAAAAY 'Right'

But I would like to respond briefly, in case Max comes back (which he said he wouldn't do). *sigh*

Of course Hiroshima saved lives. That's not the point. The point is that the only principles worth fighting for are those worth DYING for. While the US government has bombed/invaded numerous countries since Hiroshima/Nagasaki, it has not risked LOSING a war since then. They picked on the little countries while only showing a brave face to the big threats. If you really believe in your cause, then you should be willing to die for it (and you shouldn't be surprised when the enemy takes the fight to you on your turf - why do battles always need to happen overseas?). Why is it that there is so much opposition to this invasion of Iraq as opposed to the last? (At least that one had the Kuwaiti angle) And why is it that when the casualty count starts rising, the protests mount? If the cause were as just as Bush would have us believe, then surely the protests would be more tame. But when Bush circumvented the United Nations, insisted Saddam was amassing WMDs and tried to make Iraq synonymous with Al Quaeda (read: lied repeatedly), he lost all credibility and tarnished the reputation of the US worldwide forever.

And that truly is a tragedy.

An ideal was lost.

Right-wingers should be the ones LEADING the charge against Bush - they should be ashamed that a moron like him is waving their flag.

Has there ever been a President who has DIVIDED a nation - a world - more than Bush?

This "war" (don't you need two sides for that? I don't think the Iraqi 'resistance' qualifies) is about oil, not democracy. If it were, the US should be taking on China. Are you willing to die for oil?

If you aren't, leave the bombs at home.

(and Max, what does posting the blogger names of 30 of your closest friends/wardmates have to do with anything? As if this is some sort of "proof" that right-wingers are the majority. Speaking of which, just because the Conservative Party has a MINORITY government in Canada does not mean right-wingers are the majority here, either. Maybe YOU should try reading a book - on Canadian politics. The Conservative Party received 36.3% of the votes cast, the second-lowest proportion ever for a winning party, after the Progressive Conservative party in 1979. This when the Liberal Party was at its fattest, its most corrupt. And the last time I checked, the NDP was not considered "right-wing". And remember that 64.9% of registered voters cast a ballot - who was more likely NOT to vote (35.1%): disenchanted/complacent lefties or militant righties? ...Who's the majority again?)

Let's stick to talking about beautiful women, Max.

max said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.