It is difficult for any American alive and aware on 9/11 to look at this movie clearly. I believe some years will need to pass before we can look at this film as an aesthetic piece, a work of art. As it stands, the feelings are still too close to the surface for a lot of us. It's hard to separate what you think of this movie with what you think of the events being portrayed.
I also think that the one sensible critique I've read of this movie, that it essentially lacks a theme, or some kind of perspective, is an accurate one. In a way Greengrass's achievement is tremendous here: he essentially disappears from his own movie. Much of this docudrama feels about a half step up from something like GUNNER'S PALACE, which was essentially a raw footage documentary with a narrator slapped on it. This strategy has ensured that the movie will be acceptable to the greatest possible audience, and that it won't alienate anybody sensible: it's a mirror, essentially, and will reflect back whatever political opinions you bring to the film. But those who question the point of the exercise ask an interesting and worthwhile question.
All of that said, I found this an absolutely riveting movie, often excruciatingly intense and emotionally draining, yet still compelling. Greengrass's camera work is far more suited to this material then his previous action flick, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY -- he is not good at staging action choreography, but is exceptionally gifted at livening up static scenes, especially of people sitting around talking into microphones (much of the movie). A lot of the moral thrust Greengrass brought to SUPREMACY makes more sense here, too -- the one thing the movie does argue for is the obscenity of violence.
I have a number of intensely-felt opinions about 9/11 and this story especially -- I don't think they're really to the point here. I am glad I saw the movie and think Greengrass has done this country a great service by making it, whatever it's successes or failures as an aesthetic piece.
I also think that the one sensible critique I've read of this movie, that it essentially lacks a theme, or some kind of perspective, is an accurate one. In a way Greengrass's achievement is tremendous here: he essentially disappears from his own movie. Much of this docudrama feels about a half step up from something like GUNNER'S PALACE, which was essentially a raw footage documentary with a narrator slapped on it. This strategy has ensured that the movie will be acceptable to the greatest possible audience, and that it won't alienate anybody sensible: it's a mirror, essentially, and will reflect back whatever political opinions you bring to the film. But those who question the point of the exercise ask an interesting and worthwhile question.
All of that said, I found this an absolutely riveting movie, often excruciatingly intense and emotionally draining, yet still compelling. Greengrass's camera work is far more suited to this material then his previous action flick, THE BOURNE SUPREMACY -- he is not good at staging action choreography, but is exceptionally gifted at livening up static scenes, especially of people sitting around talking into microphones (much of the movie). A lot of the moral thrust Greengrass brought to SUPREMACY makes more sense here, too -- the one thing the movie does argue for is the obscenity of violence.
I have a number of intensely-felt opinions about 9/11 and this story especially -- I don't think they're really to the point here. I am glad I saw the movie and think Greengrass has done this country a great service by making it, whatever it's successes or failures as an aesthetic piece.