56 - United 93 Review

United 93 contains many haunting moments, but one comes of great surprise. At an air traffic command center, the staff stands about, confused over reports of a hijacking. A plane has disappeared from the grid, and they don’t know what to make of it. Someone brings CNN up on the large viewing screen, they stand, baffled, at the image of a smoking hole in the north tower of the World Trade Center. Reliving the beginning of the attack, only armed with the knowledge we have now, is shattering in a very unexpected way.

British director Paul Greengrass’ has put together a look at 9/11 with a narrow focus, but with searing strength and focus that puts the viewer in the center of the action in a way not seen since Saving Private Ryan’s D-Day assault sequence. We already know the terrible outcome, but watch with curiosity and suspense, secretly hoping that perhaps history can change, if just for this one movie. Just because we know it won’t doesn’t make the final passenger assault any less gripping or heartbreaking.

Shot in the British docu-drama style that severed the Greengrass-directed The Bourne Supremacy so well, the film never once feels like fiction, but an omnipresent insider’s view of the action. The plot moves quickly but with great dread, scenes inside air command inter-cut with the doomed flight, where the four hijackers anxiously await their time to strike. On the ground, chaos runs rampant, with hundreds of people frantically trying to coordinate a response, ounces of clarity coming bundled with pounds of confusion.

Many of the air control and military personnel are played not by actors, but by the real people, which some have said augments the authenticity. I instead offer the argument that the plane sequences seem so realistic, that Greengrass could have effortlessly pulled off the same effect using a cast entirely composed of actors. The film’s accuracy stems from its incredible power, not the other way around.

Much has been made about the film’s lack of a political stance, but all films are political, whether or not they know it. The hijackers are shown as real people, true, but it seems childish to imagine that evil men don’t form relationships, shave, or get nervous. The sympathy rests exclusively with the victims, who each receive as much screen time as they require, and no more. I struggled to hear names and hints of who each passenger was, but the only one I recognized for sure was Jeremy Glick, a judo expert who the film theorizes lead the charge. Most of the passenger dialogue involves planning the attack, or very painfully, final phone calls home.

One shocking moment that has received little press (as of now) comes towards the end, where a German passenger tries to alert the hijackers to the rebellion before being restrained. I researched the incident, but could find nothing to support the event, except that a German man was in fact on the plane. Was Greengrass trying to portray Americans as the people who stand up and fight back against terror, while cowards like the Germans would rather negotiate and surrender? Maybe not, but the argument could certainly be made.

If the takeover of the plane is gruesome, the passenger’s assault serves as a moment of bloody catharsis. It would be hard not to feel a small piece of joy as the hijackers panic, terrified that instead of becoming part of a holy missile to destroy the U.S. Capitol Building, they are going to be quite literally torn to pieces by furious passengers. I suspect that after the horrified screams of the passengers, the film’s most talked about sound effect will be the sickening crunch of a fire extinguisher caving in a hijacker’s skull.

Endlessly talked about in the mainstream press, United 93 interestingly hasn’t received as much buzz as it might amongst audiences. Many feel the film comes too soon after 9/11, while others are apprehensive about having to view the event through the eyes of the dead. Is United 93 too soon?

United 93 not only isn’t too soon, it hasn’t arrived quickly enough. It succeeds at honoring the victims of 9/11 beyond the wildest expectation. Appropriately harrowing and terrifying, it instantly reaches a realm of importance that few films do. To avoid this genuinely important and amazing film out of fear would be a disservice to oneself and the memory of those portrayed within. Mark my words, there won’t be a more important work of art made for a long time to come.

5 out of 5

55 - The Sentinel review

How does one explain Michael Douglas’ success playing leading men in thrillers? . Cocksure and sleazy with a permanent smirk plastered across his surgically altered face, he makes an odd choice for a hero. Nonetheless, he works, and very well. Douglas has a peculiar way of capturing our sympathy by transmitting that despite his flaws, a decent guy lurks underneath, or at least one who wants to do the right thing.

There may have been a better choice than Douglas for The Sentinel, but surely not by much. He plays Pete Garrison, a Secret Service agent who took a bullet for Ronald Reagan. Despite his heroism, he never progressed beyond ordinary field agent. This doesn’t seem to bother Garrison much, as it affords him plenty of time to bang Sarah (Kim Basinger), who happens to be the First Lady. Perfect Michael Douglas hero; cocksure, sleazy, smirky, decent guy nonetheless. To Douglas’ and the director’s credit, his age barely seems ridiculous, which can’t be said of Harrison Ford these days.

After running through some stock character introductions, including Kiefer Sutherland and Eva Longoria(A good running joke springs from her impossibly beautiful looks) as Secret Service investigators, the plot kicks into gear, with Garrison being framed for plotting to assassinate the President. He makes an easy target for a frame-up, as he needs to prove his innocence, but doesn’t want to confess to nailing the boss’ wife, either.
Director Clark Johnson, who also helmed SWAT(2003), knows how to put together an efficient thriller, and makes the material work, albeit with as little personality as possible. Plot details whiz by like bullets, with superfluous details such as explanations and character development landing on the cutting room floor. The lack of detail can be off-putting at times, but it makes a perverse sense; everyone in the audience has already seen a hundred thrillers like this one, so why not acknowledge that and skip to the stuff we paid to see?

Consider Garrison’s escape from custody. Although a large force of agents pursues him, the film skips the usual obligatory scenes where he ducks in and out of alleys and outwits government goons. Instead, we see his pursuit of the bad guys, and even when chased, it is by the Sutherland character, who he does not so much outwit and defeat as he does convince. The terrorists themselves are given no motives whatsoever, other than they are foreigners who must dislike the President. At first I scoffed, but later realized the wisdom of the omission; to a Secret Service agent, the terrorist’s motives would be of no consequence, only that they want to kill the President matters.

Still, the lack of enthusiasm towards its own material also places an early cap on the film’s impact. What should be a thrilling finish instead comes across as fun but emotionally vacant, the film gliding off of the screen like a roller coaster that comes to a halt. Like that roller coaster, you get what you pay for. The Sentinel is fluffy, precise, refreshingly non-pretentious entertainment. It knows what it needs to do, does exactly that, and could care less about anything else.

I started this review by talking about the film’s star, and I’ll finish it by discussing the supporting actor. Kiefer Sutherland gained fame in the 80’s with roles in pop flicks such as The Lost Boys and Stand by Me. He never landed a truly great role, and his career faltered throughout the 90’s. Nearly five years ago, he scored the role of a life time as the hero on the phenomenal TV series 24. His performance on the show effortlessly ranges from intense, brutal, sympathetic, and even heartbreaking. If I were able to give one line of advice to the filmmakers, it would be this: Michael Douglas is cool, but he’s no Kiefer Sutherland.

3 out of 5

54

Just read a script review for the upcoming Bond flick, Casnio Royale. The writer wasn't entirely enthuaistic, but it sounded awesome to me.

A dark Bond flick where the super-spy is doubtful, feels remorse for his kills, and learns that to love is the greatest thing of all, even if it could cause an earth-shattering loss? It actually reminds me of what I've been trying to do with my screenplay, except Paul Haggis probably knows more about writing for film than I do (Crash opponents chime in). Seriously, I can't wait for this one.