re-evaluation after 9/11?
-
pocomarc — 16 years ago(August 11, 2009 07:02 PM)
Bill Clinton turned down THREE offers to have bin Laden delivered into the hands of the US.
What do you think Sandy Burglar was doing at the US Archives stealing Clinton's papers and taking them home and burning them (and then getting no jail time).
Sandy was sent there to destroy the evidence in Clinton's own handwriting that he rejected the offers from Saudi Arabia and the Sudan to deliver bin Laden into the US's hands. -
rlarose — 16 years ago(August 18, 2009 03:54 AM)
You're making many claims and attempting to pass them as fact when they're simply assumptions.
Left-Wingers = Moral conscious of the planet. Bill Clinton is not a left winger and neither is the Obama admin for that matter. -
Scotty7617 — 15 years ago(August 25, 2010 11:02 AM)
"Bill Clinton turned down THREE offers to have bin Laden delivered into the hands of the US."
Sorry. Did not happen. MYTH. One that the right loves to keep spewing out.
Bill Clinton was not by any means a perfect president, but it was a load of crap that he was offered Bin Laden on a silver platter and turned him down.
Reality-In 1996, Bin Laden was taken into custody by the Sudanese government, who then offered to turn him over to either Egypt or Saudi Arabia. Both governments refused to take him. The Sudanese then released Bin Laden, and yes, our government did have a chance to take him then and turned it down. Why? Because they couldn't. It was 1996. Bin Laden hadn't committed any terrorist acts against the US yet.
"Ninja monkeys are meeting as we speak, plotting my demise." -
mypcforums — 16 years ago(August 24, 2009 05:23 PM)
It was known by our government that these types of cells existed in order to blame the Obama regime for the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. Did the US know of it in advance? With US intelligence, how could it not? I believe the US government and agencies knew of it in advance and allowed it, maybe even supported the horrific event. I no longer put anything past our government and government agencies and I no longer vote. I've lost faith in our government . . . it's as corrupt as the mafia. It used 911 to put the American people under its thumb and it's keeping us there. How well I remember when the US opened up the Mexican border for trade with the US and the American people had no say in it. I saw the downfall of the US middle class. How many millions of people lost their jobs because of it? We've been brought to our knees by the American government for corporate gain, and who knows whose hands are in that pot, maybe the same gain that was brought about by the attack on the World Trade Center towers.
-
-
RynoII — 15 years ago(November 09, 2010 06:31 AM)
Aside from the Tony Shaloub character, every other arab character was stereotyped though, especially Samir. I'm commenting on the post made before. Anyway, since the film was made before 9/11, I am going to have to judge it as if I saw it before then.
The movie is just really not that interesting. It relies on a lot of typical thriller cliches for the first two thirds, and never really deals with the martial law/arab terrorist threat issue. There are many directions the movie could have explored and didn't. They didn't even say what group these terrorists came from. How vague. Plus the movie doesn't seem to know whether or not it is for the ends justifies the means or against, it as it has two climaxes, one for and one against. And it is done in a twist ending that you see coming a mile away.
Sure the idea is ahead was ahead of it's time, but the standard thriller ingredients are not. -
DreTam2000 — 13 years ago(July 04, 2012 06:12 PM)
This movie has no twist ending. But, like every story that exists on the planet, it does have twists. Otherwise fiction would have no story to tell. You might not know what a twist is; I'll provide you an example that I remember hearing from dialogue in
The Sixth Sense
.
1)
A guy gets into his car and drives to his grandmother's house for dinner.
Reality
2)
A guy gets into his car and drives to his grandmother's house for dinner. His car breaks down along the way.
Fiction
The second has a twist. Both can occur in reality but the second is suited for an anecdotal retelling. The former is not suited for retelling, because nothing happens to make it an interesting story.
The movie is just really not that interesting.
You are surrounded by people who are intrigued by this film, which makes you a part of the minority (that is, assuming you aren't the only person in the world who finds it "not that interesting.") I saw this movie at age 14 back in 1999, and I have loved it eversince. Today it is simply more significant than it was at the time, but it's always been a great thriller. Could it have been more? Explored more..? Sure. But it is still a good film crafted by a proven director.
They didn't even say what group these terrorists came from. How vague.It's called ambiguity, and leaving things open-ended.
Plus the movie doesn't seem to know whether or not it is for the ends justifies the means or against, it as it has two climaxes, one for and one against.
Again, it's called ambiguity. It's when fiction doesn't fall on one side or the other. See
Munich
or
Blade Runner
for movies that leave things open-ended and vague (the latter leaving audiences to wonder if its protagonist is a replicant or a human, the former leaving audiences wondering if its message is pro or anti). Or try reading
The Exorcist
, a book that leaves audiences wondering if there was a psychological issue at play, or a preternatural one.
Fiction not falling on one side or another is common in the storytelling world. You can't possibly be new to this.
"Sure the idea is ahead was ahead of it's time, but the standard thriller ingredients are not."
The "standard thriller" conventions need not be ahead of their time. They work well enough to make this film a good or above-average thriller. Either way, it is an accomplishment.
I'm not a control freak, I just like things my way -
tramky — 15 years ago(December 20, 2010 11:49 PM)
Yes, this movie plays MUCH differently now than it did in 1998, or in 2000, or in 2005. In the last 2 years there have been 2 dozen attempted violent attacks by Muslim terrorists & thugs in the United States. TWO DOZEN!
Listening to the arguments made by Denzel Washington's character in this story is very interesting. Are those arguments, those appeals to history, holding up?
Another line in the movie talked about 'Freedom from fear' as one of the basic rights of Americans. But look at what has happened in America in the last few yearslook at what happens every day, all day, at airports. And yet our governmentour Army, no lessbrings in a Muslim thug, trains him as an officer, disarms all the soldiers at Ft Hood Texas, and we all get to watch this Muslim thug Army officer murder 13 American soldiers with the only firearm in the place.
There is now a report that the Muslim jihadists in America are now planning to poison the food supply. Easier said than done, probably, but on a small scale it would be VERY easy.
And as our President assured us recently, we can absorb more terrorist attacksguess it was his way of preparing us for our future. This is the one guy that gets all the security assessments, so he probably knows what he's talking about.
It does appear that America IS under siegewe just don't notice it because we are more interested in money, in our Escalades, in our iPads, and in "American Idol". Oh, well, we can take it. -
Muttley007 — 16 years ago(April 27, 2009 04:29 PM)
I think its the greatest movie ever that represents the world as it is.
And never thought about the year of this movie being made until I saw this post.
So hollywood knew what was wrong and how to make it right..
The writer of this script is the ideal candidate for President( or at least for Ministry of foreign affairs.)
-
mddelisle — 16 years ago(June 29, 2009 05:39 PM)
Quite interesting. Watching a few films like this put them under a different light after 9/11. We view it back then, thinking: No way will this crap ever come to our land. America is a superpower, impregnable and cautious.
After 9/11, you say: What could we have done?
Movies like this that were just entertainment, now seem somber.
The similarities are just so circumstantial. Yet you see them and think: Wow.
Back then I'd view this as 3/10. A new perspective puts this as 8/10.
You take a chance getting up in the morning, crossing the street or sticking your face in a fan. -
DevilsAndDragons — 16 years ago(July 21, 2009 10:20 AM)
We all sat and wathced this movie whether pre 9/11 or post and thought at one point, " not here not in our own borders".
What seemed impossible became probable. This movie is alone a good look at the system that allows harm and tries to understand it after the fact.
This movie also showed us mans" darker side,that when the chips are down and the cards are dealt will those who can do something help or harm?
This shows that our governemtn in all our power maybe got to big for our own good. We came from small country and grew to a super power-we lost sight of that and a finatic took advantage.
I dont know what scares me more-this movies almost pure accurate image of what can happen or the on point image of what has happened and what will happen if things remian unchecked.
The imprisonment of the Arabs in the NY area for striaght line fear has happened in this movie just like when WWII hit in the same with the Japanese, are we really to beleive it wont happen again?
No No NO it cant happen again or no that wont happen
Those same words are said before 9-11, now which one seems more real?
We all saw the horror of 9-11 but this movie almost seesm like a prohecy now. Do you think maybe the terrorist knew this too and played that card as well?
stupid was a crime most would get double life and the electric chair -
speedolitec — 15 years ago(August 07, 2010 05:47 AM)
I hate to say it and to even think it, but the reality is we haven't seen the end of things like this, whether it's something huge or something like the Times Square bombing that almost happened. It's almost mind boggling to me now that not even 9 years after the most catastrophic attack in America's history, people have already become so complacent. I hope there won't be another attack, but it's just naive to think that.
-
speedolitec — 15 years ago(October 07, 2010 04:09 PM)
I saw it when it came out, and don't remember thinking that it was far fetched at all.
Well, I guess back then I was guilty of being one of the people who thought of terrorism as one of those things that happened in other countries. I suppose I was still too young and a little naieve about those things.