World Trade Center

Back in May there was a fairly negative and short thread about the trailer for this Oliver Stone flick and basically ragging on the idea that someone might be profitting on a tragedy. OK. I won't disagree with anyone on that, but I don't think anyone can complain when the officers the movie tells the story of are allowing (better yet, allowed; the movie is out in theatres today and I will probably go see it with Sass) Stone to make a movie. That's a different part of the issue: when people are trying to tell a story, they can't just make a movie themselves. They have to go to someone else and do it, or someone else comes up to them to help them tell it. That is where, I think, the issue of "profitting" from a tragedy falls apart. And that's why I'll be seeing this movie.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Yeah I agree. As long as the poeple who were affected by 9/11 agree to the movie being made (as in the Flight 93 movie) then it shouldn't be much of a problem. It's their opinions, after all, that matter.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I did not post on the earlier thread on this film's trailer and I cannot say anything about this film having not seen it yet. However, the problem I typically have with films about sensitive historical issues is that the fact that the film is about a sensitive historical issue tends to help the film get ridiculously better reviews than it actually deserves. To me a historical film is still a film no matter whether the subject is about real life or fictional life and a historical film just simply is not good if, divorced from the reality of the event, it is a crappy film. Flight 93, Schinder's List, and many other historical films that were critically praised would at best be considered mediocre films if not for the fact that there are people who will watch it and give it positive reviews regardless of the actual quality of the film.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.