WHO'S GOING TO SEE UNITED 93? . . . In an intriguing review in the New York Times, critic Manohla Dargis called United 93 the "feel-bad American movie of the year"--

[Its] narrow focus, along with the lack of fully realized characters, and the absence of any historical or political context, raises the question of why, notwithstanding the usual (if shaky) commercial imperative, this particular movie was made. To jolt us out of complacency? Remind us of those who died? Unite us, as even the film's title seems to urge? Entertain us? To be honest, I haven't a clue.

If it's a feel-bad movie, I suppose that's part of its attraction. In yesterday's AP story about the movie's impressive opening over the weekend, one viewer admitted seeing the movie because even though painful to watch, "it's important never to forget."

Doesn't that seem a poor rationale for seeing United 93? As the Times reviewer put it, "I didn't need a studio movie to remind me of the humanity of the thousands who were murdered that day."

As for me, I remain ambivalent about United 93 despite its mostly-positive reviews. I put it in my Netflix queue, meaning I'll see it eventually. But I won't be seeing it at the theater. It doesn't mean I've forgotten or don't care.

Comments

[Rufus]

I can't imagine why anyone would want to see to it. That's not a criticism. I never find art of any kind offensive merely for existing. I just can't see the purpose. Particularly since I'm on planes three round trips a month on average and when I'm home I walk past a giant hole in the ground twice a day. I don't need to be reminded. Maybe for other people.

[Jimmy]

I'll probably take the time, and my wife who is a flight attendant actually wants to see it as well.