TimeaSiesta

The amazing thing to me is that after they assumedly read the script, the best-known cast members decided to stay with this awful and generally predictable project. In a story line reminiscent of any and all prior renditions of "The Crucible," "Salem Witch Trials" or "1984," this film's thread was spiced up a bit - perhaps to make it more tantalizing and therefore to sell more broadly.

There are metaphors aplenty portending the slippery slope being espoused by modern forces that seem intent on robbing individual freedoms from the women of today's generation, as well as those in decades and centuries to come. So? Where's the freshest possible representation of that viewpoint? It won't be found here.

My message to the upper-echelon cast members and to screenplay architect Harold Pinter: Whether you chose to, or had to, get involved with this film to repay a studio or any other entity's contractual I.O.U., you could have and should have considered redirecting that indebtedness until you found something much more worthwhile. Did the only ongoing surprises have to be the regular costume color changes? Or the occasional tryst? Or the occasional execution? Finally, the ridiculously recurring women's lavatory scenes made me wonder if the channel which aired it on television in my locality inadvertently repeated some reels.

Too bad; I'm hoping to find all of you in more productive and memorably good, not forgettably bad, endeavors.

This film generally met my expectations, but didn't strike me as well as it might have for the following reasons:

1) The FAA and military dispatch center scenes demonstrating the early confusion on the ground were overly drawn out. So were the scenes of the terrorists in their seats wondering when to strike. Those could have been distilled down and their relevance could have been made just as forcefully. Even if there was some semblance of trying to stay true the actual timelines of those two aspects, and to whatever extent they had to be compressed to fit the film's 91 minutes, there just seemed to be far too much of both.

2) I would have replaced the monotony of those minutes with scenes showing the other ends of the passengers' final phone calls. In particular, I would have wanted to see and hear the call received by Lisa Jefferson, a cellular company's customer center supervisor, who was in contact with Todd Beamer. She was interviewed extensively by the news media once the event ended and the facts were known, so portraying her on screen either by herself or an actress could be deemed "old news." However, if writer//director Paul Greengrass were to prepare a complete a docudrama for future generations, showing her significance and including her actual words could have added much to the context. The same can be said about the loved ones, friends and even voicemail devices on the ground that other passengers reached.

3) Todd Beamer's iconic statement of bravery on behalf of all the other passengers, "Let's Roll!", which I had expected to be treated as a resounding call to heroism, was handled almost as an under-the-breath throwaway line. He might have really said it the way it was ultimately shown, but it called for more of a "Hollywood moment."

4) Among the epilogue's titles, I was left with a quite unexpected negative reaction because it seemed wholly unfair for Greengrass to mention the lack of effective military air accompaniment, thereby implying a sense of ineptness. There was no useful purpose served by such "Monday morning quarterbacking." Had armed military aircraft successfully been scrambled, obtained positions alongside UAL 93 and brought the aircraft down, we as a nation would search our souls for generations about whether the right decisions were made and if the right actions were taken.

On a positive note, Greengrass deserves credit for making this very good decision: Abundant casting of the actual people who were doing their best on the ground under enormous unprecedented pressure. It was a definite plus. After all, who could convey their words, actions and states of mind better?

And that title for this review doesn't simply mean District of Columbia where the setting takes place, it means Deception and Cunning. What a superb script that writer and director Rod Lurie has created. His words drip with persuasive eloquence, calling for one to muster up his or her finest listening skills so as not to miss a single word or phrase of the rich dialog. Ah, if only today's real politicians were that legitimate and Lincolnesque in their deliveries. Nor can I imagine a more cohesive ensemble being brought together for this film. Joan Allen's unwavering resolve and dignity. Jeff Bridges' role as a most nurturing president. Sam Elliott's staunch stand as a loyal adviser. Gary Oldman honing his high art of nastiness. Christian Slater as a relatively new kid on the congressional block. All I can say to all of you and all the rest is, "wonderful, wonderful, you've created one for the ages." If anyone should ever read any review that describes this film's plot as being essentially too linear, don't believe a word of it. This story line has numerous zigs and zags, including several fast-paced mind re-routers near the very end. One last point: This film does have a not-so-subtle leaning that those aligned with the political left or political right might find to be either refreshing or repulsive. I'll entrust readers of this review to determine which is which.