This is stupid...its a movie. Get over it...everyone in some way had their lives affected that day, even me all the way up in Canada. Though i will not get into it. But you know i'll go see this movie..no problem. And i bet that if i was to as my godfather who works and lives in new york, and his brother (my cousin) who also works and lives in New York to watch this movie with me...they probably would. It was a sad day. I agree. We want the dead to be honoured. If Schindler's List honoured people..why can't United 93 or the Oliver Stone pic do the same?

Of course not. That's why I suggest that we wait until the film comes out before criticizing it.

As I said....

Key words: "According to them it is not being done in a truthful or tasteful manner."

"Tasteful" is a matter of opinion, so I won't even go there.

"Truthful" remains to be seen, and if the films proves to be un-truthful then Stone will be subject to the same criticsm from the same detractors who felt that the fact that JFK wasn't completely truthful detracted from the film because filmmakers have an obligation to be truthful about their subject matter.

Personally, I don't.

I believe that filmmaking is an art form and, as such, can be a bit freer with the facts than a history book, for example.

Well, if that's the case then the problem is with these two guys who are the "consultants", not with Stone.

Yeah, if it happened the way you're describing it, I personally would be grateful to these guys for saving my life and I would do everything I could to honor their memories, and yes, it would be the respectful thing to do.

But what I don't understand is this:

Is Stone being misled by these guys? Did Stone have a pre-conceived notion of how he wanted to tell this story? And if he did, why hire these two guys as consultants in the first place?

What is their role as consultants? To describe the events, or simply paint a picture about what it was like to be there?

Do we know for sure what role Ameroso and Pezzzulo played that day, and exactly how that role is being depicted which is contrary to the facts?

A lot of unanswered questions here.

Wait a minute....

I'm no lawyer, but I don’t think you are correctly stating the facts here with respect to the legalities.

Yes, because “public officials” are involved here, their real names may be used in a film because as public officials they are considered to be in the “public eye” – and just like actors and actresses, sports stars, politicians, and other celebrities, the use of their real names by others “comes with the territory” so to speak.

HOWEVER…..

The fact that they are public officials does not exempt Oliver Stone from abiding by the libel laws.

Just because they were public officials, that does not give someone the right to write or say libelous things about them and be exempt from a lawsuit.

The problem, though, is that the protection of our libel laws does not extend to people who are deceased, the reasoning being that you cannot defame the reputation of a person who is already dead (as illogical as that may be).
Our laws have precluded family and friends from filing a lawsuit in cases like this because defamation is viewed as a personal injury to a reputation, and the law has pretended that a “reputation” dies with the individual. Obviously, it does not, and the reputation of a dead husband or father should be considered important to their spouses and children.
BUT…..

There are various legal avenues open to the survivors here.

For example….they can sue Mr. Stone for intentional infliction of emotional distress, like if it can be proved that Stone knowingly depicted events falsely

Also, family members could bring an action against Mr. Stone for economic damages arising from an injurious falsehood.

Suppose, for example, that people see the movie and come away with the false impression that these guys acted in a cowardly manner on 9/11, which causes them to withhold contributions that they were planning to make to some type of “Widows and Children of 9/11 relief Fund”.

There are also criminal liability laws which may be applicable here, but I’m not sure how they work vis a vis lawsuits involving monetary damages.

Well, I actually agree with you here -- thank you!

And now I don't have to read the rest of your post. *whew!*

But yeah... just tonight I saw the trailor, and said to my buddy, "That's not about 9/11, is it??" Couldn't believe it, so soon. BUT - I haven't actually SEEN the movie, so who am I to judge its merit or message? Who is anyone to prejudge its merit or message??

But, it seemed a little too soon to me. Regardless of the message. And, of course, the fact that NO ONE living actually KNOWS EXACTLY what happened on that flight, it's subject to extreme over dramatization....

Well, I actually agree with you here -- thank you![/b][/quote]Jeeze.....

That must've killed you, huh? :p

You have NO idea!!!

As a matter of fact the answer is yes to the first part of your question, and from what's been presented and so far not changed in the script, then yes to the second part of your question. Hopefully the script will change to reflect the truth and the wishes of these widows.

Look, it is quite obvious that many people here have honestly missed the point of this whole article and my comment on what is taking place.

No one, including these widows is denying that a movie should be made and no one, more than these widows want their husbands to be honored and the world to know what true heros that they were.

But these widows want the truth to be told, and they want their husbands stories to be told the way things really happened, and only wanted a say on how they are going to be portrayed. They weren't ever looking to stop this movie, they just asked the consultants on this movie along with Mr. Stone to allow them, the wives, to give their input on how their husbands would be portrayed in the movie, that's all. And these consultants along with Mr. Stone flat out denied them. THAT"s the travesty here and that is why I personally will not go to the movies to see this film. Out of respect for those two widows and their children who have been stepped over by Stone and his consultants. Unless of course Mr. Stone changes his tune and respects the wishes of those two widows.

As for the legal issue here Plaw, well yes, you are partially right about suing for pain and suffering and stuff like that. But they cannot sue Stone for his using their names itself because being that these two men were public servants who died in the line of duty, these wives are not entitled to any money based on the fact that Stone and these consultants have used their names. Nor are they seeking any money for his use of their names. They just ask that the truth be told.

These two consultants have screamed all over the local papers here and the local news that they are in NO WAY doing this to make money, that it is about honor. Yet when they have been challeneged to donate any monies that they make from this movie to a charity of their choice, they do not reply to that challenge.

One of these guys befriended these widows, and here and there picked their brains about their husbands, all the while acting as if he was sincerely curious in learning about their personal lives, in caring about what was going on in their lives, when in reality he had quietly already made a deal with Stone to consult on a movie and was obviously trying to find out info for the making of this movie.

You see, there is a lot of personal deceit going on here that the press has not reported.


Don Cardi

Well, I actually agree with you here -- thank you!

And now I don't have to read the rest of your post. *whew!*

But yeah... just tonight I saw the trailor, and said to my buddy, "That's not about 9/11, is it??" Couldn't believe it, so soon. BUT - I haven't actually SEEN the movie, so who am I to judge its merit or message? Who is anyone to prejudge its merit or message??

But, it seemed a little too soon to me. Regardless of the message. And, of course, the fact that NO ONE living actually KNOWS EXACTLY what happened on that flight, it's subject to extreme over dramatization.... [/b][/quote]Again, you are talking about the Flight 93 film here, one where the filmakers embraced the families to consult for them and the film where the families are not against the makers of the films.

My comments and arguement is on behalf of the two widows who are fighting over Oliver Stone's movie " THE WORLD TRADE CENTER" and has absolutely nothing to do with the flight 93 movie.

And just for the record, the PORT AUTHORITY itself is NOT endorsing OLIVER STONE'S film, "THE WORLD TRADE CENTER" which is about the port authority officers and the film that I am talking against here.


Don Cardi

Why cant Oliver Stone and these people honor the wishes made by these woman like the other movie maker did with the flight 93 movie? These woman are not wrong. What's so bad about asking Stone to show respect to these ladies and there kids? How can a man who was saved by one of these brave men who wound up dying go against the family of the man who saved his life? It makes me sick.


DS

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but I would like to say that I am looking a lot more forward to Oliver Stone's movie than this one.

The answer is easy Smitty, Some people have no heart. Some people let the almighty $$$$ cloud their judgement. This is just sad.

Passions run high on a subject like this. As they should, perhaps...

The thread has fetched up a few burning questions in me. I will refrain from saying how I would answer them; but if somebody could take some time and shed some light as to their own opinions, I'd appreciate it.

What if somebody wrote a book on this subject? Would you be against that, too?

Is Oliver Stone's upcoming film a work of art? If not, then what is it?

Should Art ever be censored?

Should Art ever be restricted because of the society in which it exists?

Should money ever be made from anything?

Who is to judge when a film on a certain subject is acceptable?

Is Time a consistent enough measurement of how wounds have healed?

Before answering, consider the following quote:
"Moralists have no place in an art gallery."

America isn't the most capitalist country for nothing...

America isn't the most capitalist country for nothing... [/b][/quote]You say this like its a bad thing...

I'm not going to see this because I could care less. Secondly, anyone that listens to that hypocrite Oliver Stone should try reading a book (though I love JFK).

No, not necessarily. But you, me and most other people on this world live in a capitalist country. And that means we can benefit from all the good things in the system, but we also have to accept the downsides. Like this film...
So what I meant was that if you live in a very capitalist society (USA), that you also have to accept the not so nice things about it.

Is the problem with Stone wanting money, or the willingness of the masses to give him it?

Both.

Is there actually a problem at all?

Putting aside the fact that this movie may be made too soon for some, understandably, it sounds as though the fact that Stone is directing, being a known liberal, is what is really bothering many of you. Am I right? If anyone else was involved in this project, would you feel differently?

There was a thread earlier about a movie titled, I think, Flight 11 that was shown on A&E and seemed to get a lot of praise from those who have seen it. I guess, although I understand it may be too soon, I don't understand trashing a movie before it's seen.


TIS

I think TIS is right on point. A&E showed two movies on 9/11 - one about the last hour of Flight 11 and another about Flight 93 earlier this year. I watched both, even though the content was difficult and extremely emotional. I don't remember any uproar on these boards or in the media about those movies. To trash the Stone movie before it has even come out is silly. I don't think he's a particularly great director. The only films of his that I enjoyed were JFK and Nixon. I think some of his other stuff just plain sucked.

I think I personally will not like Stone's 9/11 film because I think Nicholas Cage is one of the worst actors on the planet. But I won't know for sure until I see it. For those who are opposed to this film, they have the choice of not going to see it. But if there are those who are protesting this film solely on the basis that a liberal like Stone made it, I don't understand that rationale. Would that mean the same people would find the movie acceptable if, instead of Stone, a neo-Con was the director? What if, God forbid, Hannity or Limbaugh started making films - would it be ok if they made a 9/11 film?

I remember the controversy two years ago of whether Passion of the Christ was anti-Semetic. One of my co-workers, a Jewish male, was arguing that the film cast the Jews in a bad light. Then in the next breath, he had the audacity to say that he had not even seen the movie. To me, he had no credibility towards his argument since he hadn't even bothered to watch the film.

Anything surrounding 9/11 is bound to cause some controversy and stir up some deep emotions. That is completely understandable. But we should also be able to go back and learn from our mistakes so we can avoid repeating the same mistakes. And if any of the films made or being made in the future can help us, then I think some good can come. I hope that the Stone film is not an negative exploitation of 9/11. If it is, Stone deserves to be criticized. But let us not forget, we have already seen many of our own political leaders exploit 9/11 in far worse ways during the 2002 & 2004 elections.

I don't believe that political party or view has anything to do with this. As said in several of my posts in this thread : No one, including these widows is denying that a movie should be made and no one, more than these widows want their husbands to be honored and the world to know what true heros that they were.

But these widows want the truth to be told, and they want their husbands stories to be told the way things really happened, and only wanted a say on how they are going to be portrayed. They weren't ever looking to stop this movie, they just asked the consultants on this movie along with Mr. Stone to allow them, the wives, to give their input on how their husbands would be portrayed in the movie, that's all. And these consultants along with Mr. Stone flat out denied them.


Again, for the reasons given by these two widows, I don't think it matters to them who does this movie. The truth is all they really want told.

That's because these two movies were done truthfully and with respect to the families involved as to make sure that the true story was told.

To you maybe, and maybe to me also. At first these two woman weren't even allowed to see the script. Now finally these two widows somehow were able to see some of the content about their husbands written in the original script and they obviously are objecting to the way that Stone & co. are going to portray their husbands. And again, Stone KNOWING that these two widows asked for the truth about their husbands to be told, decided to basically say to them " too bad " and is going to disreagerd their input and decided to portray them his way. With this being the case I don't think that these two widows are being "silly." here.

I agree with that in general. But that is not the case here as to why these two widows are protesting his film.

I f a neo-con, Hannity or Limbaugh were the one(s) making this film and REFUSED to allow these two widows to give their husband's stories to them, then NO, it would not be ok for them to make this film either.

All it comes down to here is that the two widows who lost their husbands, do not feel, according to what was written in the script, that Stone is telling the true story about their husbands. And quite frankly, I don't understand for the life of me why many of you here, not all, but many, still cannot comprehend the fact that these two widows are not PRE-Judging Stone's film without knowing the content. They KNOW the content and the KNOW that what is going to be shown is NOT factual as far as the portrayal of their own husbands.


Jimeno disputed Pezzulo's account, saying she told him she did not like the movie but would not go public if the account was truthful.

Obviously Mrs. Pezzulo and Mrs. Amoroso do not feel, by what they've been shown and may have been told, that the portrayal of their husbands, in STONE'S movie, is not a truthful account.


Don Cardi

I admit I only knew a short synopis of what this film was about, so I thought I'd try to get more info.

The way I understand it, Jimeno & McLoughlin were with the husbands of these widows on 911. Jimeno befriended the widows trying to get tidbits, without telling them that they were getting paid as consultants to this film. I certainly can understand why they feel betrayed, and can understand why the don't want to see this movie, or have their children see the last hours of the fathers' lives.

I too would defend their right to protest the film and have not participation in it at all. They are greiving and deserve respect for their feelings. Can't say if I were them I wouldn't react the same way, I just don't know.

What I don't understand is this: Jimeno & McLoughlin were there that day, and I assume would know to a large degree, what transpired right? I understand that more than likely Stone will use some "artistic license", as many do. And I understand they are using the real names of these men against the families wishes (personally, I don't see why they couldn't uses different names). Are Jimeno & McLoughlin lying in their story?

I will have to see the film first to actually judge it, but if Stone (and everyone involved) portrays any of these people as anything less than heroes, I'll be very surprised and disappointed. I simply have to see it first.

Btw, here's another article,(sorry had to copy/paste, as I couldn't get the link to paste ) very similar to what DC posted. According to this and a couple others I have read, there isn't going to be much (if any) of the personal lives of these men, but moreso what happened in a 24 hour period.


"2 widows of 9/11 cops say WTC movie is 'complete exploitation'



BY ADAM LISBERG
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

Two 9/11 widows are furious their husbands' deaths at the World Trade Center are going to be dramatized on the big screen by Oliver Stone - and there's nothing they can do to stop it.
The wives of Port Authority Police Officers Dominick Pezzulo and Chris Amoroso say it's too soon to have their pain and loss offered up in movie theaters when director Stone's new movie "World Trade Center" opens in August.

"It's a complete exploitation. It's too soon. It's too much," Jeanette Pezzulo of the Bronx said. "The poster's in movie theaters, and my family's being bombarded by this."

They're also furious with ex-PA cops Sgt. John McLoughlin and Officer Will Jimeno, who were each paid more than $200,000 for their stories.

"If Will Jimeno wants to make this movie for himself and his family, fine," Pezzulo said. "Then leave me and my family alone."

The four cops, together with Officer Antonio Rodrigues, were caught in the south tower collapse, killing Amoroso and Rodrigues.

Pezzulo survived and was trying to save McLoughlin and Jimeno when the second collapse fatally injured him. In his final words he told Jimeno, "Don't forget I died trying to save you guys."

Paramount Pictures says it won't depict either officer's family, but defends the movie as an honest portrayal of the cops' courage. Neither McLoughlin's nor Rodrigues' widow could be reached for comment.

Jimeno said he knows the movie could raise painful memories for his fallen comrades' families, but said it shows events as they happened.

"Unfortunately, we are not going to see eye to eye on this," Jimeno said. "I did this to honor my teammates."

Chris Amoroso was immortalized by Daily News photographer Todd Maisel, who captured the moment when the brave cop - already burned over his eye - shepherded a woman to safety before heading back into the inferno.

His daughter, now 6, recently saw the picture for the first time.

"She said, 'Wow, he really is a hero,'" widow Jamie Amoroso said."

Originally published on April 10, 2006





TIS

No, more like the fact that Stone's movies often portray events in a truthful manner, yet are factually incorrect (Under Fire, for example). He's a hypocrite, and I don't care for him as a person or as a filmmaker.

Though Ebert gives out four stars like candy, these two paragraphs in his review sparked some interest in me seeing the film.

But the film doesn't depict the terrorists as villains. It has no need to. Like everyone else in the movie they are people of ordinary appearance, going about their business. "United 93" is incomparably more powerful because it depicts all of its characters as people trapped in an exorable progress toward tragedy. The movie contains no politics. No theory. No personal chit-chat. No patriotic speeches. We never see the big picture.
................
There has been much discussion of the movie's trailer, and no wonder. It pieces together moments from "United 93" to make it seem more conventional, more like a thriller. Dialogue that seems absolutely realistic in context sounds, in the trailer, like sound bites and punch lines. To watch the trailer is to sense the movie that Greengrass did not make. To watch "United 93" is to be confronted with the grim chaotic reality of that autumn day in 2001. The movie is deeply disturbing, and some people may have to leave the theater. But it would have been much more disturbing if Greengrass had made it in a conventional way. He does not exploit, he draws no conclusions, he points no fingers, he avoids "human interest" and "personal dramas" and just simply watches. The movie's point of view reminds me of the angels in "Wings of Desire." They see what people do and they are saddened, but they cannot intervene.

Yeah but didn't Ebert give bad reviews for Dead Man and The Graduate?

Who cares what he thinks?

Uh, yeah, I've blasted him many times on both boards, but every now and then he does write good reviews. I'm still worried United 93 might be overly melodramatic but still, those two paragraphs are interesting.

Personally, I never understood 'The Graduate'.

Pleasant enough to watch, and wonderful performances by Bancroft & Hoffman. Of course, Simon & Garfunkel's music is terrific.

But the movie as a whole...what's the big deal.

Apple

Troy Anderson, the webmaster of AndersonVision.com, has seen the movie, and he'll review it soon enough.

He gave it 3 stars out of 5.

Just saw it, fucking amazing. 5/5 Stars. I'll post a more detailed review later.

Highly highly recommended.

I hope to see it this weekend. I have to put myself in the mood for it though. For those interested, Larry King has some family members of that flight and actors from the movie. It's just starting if you're interested.


TIS

All the family on the show really liked the film. That's good.

I probably won't be able to see it this weekend, but I want to check it out.

I just came back from United 93, and I think it's a great movie. All of the characters are genuinely human. Even the hijackers aren't made into stereotypes. The passangers on the plane weren't portrayed as heroes exactly in a cliched way, but as people who found themselves in a very difficult situation and did something about it. I loved the fact that it doesn't stereotype anybody. There is a particular scene where passangers call relatives and friends and tell them they love them. Had it been an inexperienced director, the scene would've come off as cheesy or corny, but Paul Greengrass makes it genuine. I truly recommend this movie. However, if you simply cannot stand slow movies perhaps this one isn't for you. The first hour, though vital to the story, moves at a very slow pace. Although the last hour more than makes up for it.