11 settembre - Tragedia annunciata

I'll be honest. I didn't know this movie was made until all the talking heads started complaining about it, or defending it, whichever the case may be. So I decided to watch it. Not bad. Not bad at all.

In case you've been actively trying to avoid the hype as I had, "Path to 9/11" uses various sources, including the official 9/11 Commission Report, to portray the events leading up to the 9/11 attacks. The movie delves into the bureaucratic pissing contest that took place among many government agencies.

As a thriller, it was good. Harvey Keitel played special agent Jonh O'Neill, who followed the growth of terrorism for over eight years. Newcomer Prasanna Puwanarajah played our inside man, Ishtiak, a smart but nervous Islamic snitch who gave the CIA dirt on Ramzi Yousef (played with much anger by Nabil Elouhabi) and Osama bin Laden. And Donnie Wahlberg was totally believable as "Kirk," a CIA secret agent.

Also good was the make-up jobs, particularly Penny Jerald Johnson (as Condaleezza Rice) and Shirley Douglas (as Madeline Albright), who looked just like the characters they played.

My biggest problem was the length of the movie. at five hours without commercials, it's pretty damn long. It dragged on in several spots.

Another note: Did anyone notice that a vast majority of the votes are either 1 or 10? A bit of partisanship, maybe? Those of you who voted 1, did you see the movie, or did you hear that the Clinton staff was angry about it and refuse to watch it?

The ruckus raised by Clinton supporters and leftists over this movie has been surprising.

In a previous comment, IMDb user "Ed" wrote "Regardless of ones political leanings, I think it is despicable for 9/11 to be fictionalized and history rewritten simply for political gain." I'd ask Ed a number of questions: How does broadcasting a movie qualify as rewriting history? In your opinion, do movies such as "Fahrenheit 9/11," for instance, qualify as rewriting history? Have you seen this TV movie, read the script, read a treatment of the script, or had any access to this material prior to the movie's upcoming broadcast? For years, the American left has been sympathetic to any artistic expression that offends conservatives or religious people. Now there's a movie that, according to some, might portray their Golden Boy, Clinton, in a less than amorous light. None of us have seen the movie yet, but at the mere suggestion, the left is up in arms.

I'd suggest that those on the left take the same advice they've given others for years: "If you don't like the content, don't watch the movie." I'd also suggest that you'd be ahead to see the film before you decide if you like it, if it's factual, etc. Meanwhile, there are many people who are interested in seeing the film, who remember the historical events (pre and post 9/11) that it proposes to portray, and who are capable of checking other resources and deciding for ourselves if the movie is accurate or not.

Any movie about this subject matter is going to encourage debate. I'd ask those on the left who don't want this movie shown to consider the transparency of their actions. Why is the prospect of debate so threatening? Why do you want the debate strangled before it starts? Are you afraid that it's a debate you can't win?

Ed writes: " But to completely falsify information, and then LIE about falsifying it, especially about an event still so painful to many people, is just way below acceptable." I'd like the chance to see the film and decide for myself if that's the case, Ed. Why do you find that prospect so threatening?

Honestly, Ed, the idea that Hollywood (of all places) would really do anything to tarnish the legacy of their favorite President is, at best, amusing.

As a lengthy TV movie, "The Path to 9/11" makes for rather compelling viewing at times. It's a polished, well mounted movie that begins with the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, and then backtracks to the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. The story essentially is a set up to what led up to the 2001 attacks.

But, frankly, it works better as a piece of fictionalized truth than an authentic telling of the official 9/11 Commission Report. ABC might be insisting that their film is a "docudrama" rather than an accurate portrayal of the report's findings, but they and the filmmakers have gone a long way in promoting this as a definitive depiction of that report. In addition to the 9/11 Report, opening credits state the film is partly based on "The Cell" by John Miller and Michael Stone, while closing credits list "1000 Years For Revenge" by Peter Lance and "Relentless Pursuit" by Samuel M. Katz.

A disclaimer at the beginning says the film compresses time and some characters, but altering facts for dramatic purposes might not have been the best thing to do with this story.

Although there are several hundred characters in this $40 million film, writer Cyrus Nowrasteh, who, apparently OxyContin Limbaugh likes to call friend, wisely chose to concentrate on a few, especially John O'Neill (Harvey Keitel), an FBI agent who helped track down the 1993 bombers, relentlessly tracked terrorists and died in the 2001 attacks when he was WTC's security chief.

The performances are good - from Keitel to Penny Johnson Jerald as Condi Rice to Mido Hamada as Northern Alliance leader Ahmad Shah Massoud (assassinated two days before the 9/11 attacks) to Donnie Wahlberg as a spy (likely a composite character). Some characters, however, seem tossed in for no reason, including the American ambassador to Yemen, whose motives are inexplicable and not explained.

The film bounces back and forth in time, but wasn't confusing. I wasn't bored, though how Nowrasteh opted to tell some of the story is utterly perplexing. The film also has a gritty style, reminiscent of Steven Soderbergh's "Traffic" (2000).

Where the film completely falls apart - I've no idea why Nowrasteh did this - is in crucial scenes so clearly made up for dramatic effect and to take potshots at the Clinton administration. I realize Nowrasteh calls himself a conservative, but the liberties he takes are preposterous.

Did a film about 9/11 and the events leading up to it really need additional fiction for dramatic effect? Reminded me of the 1929 film version of "The Taming of the Shrew" with the credit, "By William Shakespeare with additional dialogue by Sam Taylor."

By now, almost everyone knows the major issues in Nowrasteh's script. He intercuts scenes of federal agents working hard and being stymied in their efforts with footage of Clinton during the Lewinsky scandal, including a bit from the former president's grand jury testimony.

(Odd, isn't it, that we spent $40 million to prove our president likes sex, but the same people who clamored for justice and truth then now conveniently ignore that we've spent billions fighting a senseless war on false pretenses and that not a single person in the Bush administration has been held accountable for all the failures leading up to the invasion of Iraq and since then. Instead, Bush honored people who completely screwed up with the Medal of Freedom.)

Nowrasteh clearly implies Clinton was too distracted by the scandal to pay attention to terrorism. Nowrasteh conveniently forgets that during that period, the Republicans pounced on Clinton and said he was using missile attacks against terrorists to distract the nation from Monica! He also accuses Clinton officials of balking when the CIA, with the help of the Northern Alliance, literally were a few feet from nabbing a sleeping bin Laden in Afghanistan. We all know this is pure fiction and is nowhere in the 9/11 Report. So why put it in? The same applies to an indictment of ex-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who Nowrasteh accuses of thwarting the missile attack on bin Laden's camp.

I don't know what changes ABC has done for the final version. I oppose attempts to get ABC to pull the film. That's asinine. But ABC should not - as it has clearly done - promote this film as factual. Clearly this film has an agenda, one that spurts forth from the imagination of someone who seemingly decided to put almost the entire blame for 9/11 on a popular president conservatives despised and still despise.

What's strange about the furor is that the conservatives who are crying foul over some liberals being upset about the film are the same people who were livid beyond description and successfully got CBS to cancel the airing of the TV movie, "The Reagans" (2003), on the network because of one line of dialogue in the film. And remember when conservatives asked theaters not to screen "Fahrenheit 9/11" (2004)? I suppose it's too much to expect Mr. OxyContin and his dunderheads to acknowledge their own hypocrisy.

As a thriller, "The Path to 9/11" occasionally clicks. Hence, me giving it a 5-star rating. It keeps the viewer interested and intrigued. But it's outrageous for ABC to imply this film sticks to the facts. Nowrasteh and Cunningham have taken the 9/11 Commission Report, tossed in a smidgen or two from other books, and then added their own imagination to a story that is still fresh in everyone's mind.

There's plenty of blame to go around regarding the government's failure to connect the dots that led up to the 2001 attacks. The commissioners attributed the inability to make the links to a lack of imagination.

You can't accuse Nowrasteh or Cunningham of lacking imagination, that's for sure.

Wanna see an accurate film on the lead-up to the attacks? Watch the History Channel's documentary, "The 9/11 Commission Report."

How can one comment on something that hasn't been released, or even been completely edited yet. When one admits that he hasn't seen the film in question, it's a bit ridiculous to comment on it.

And then, one wonders, where were these same objections when Michael Moore released his prevaricating monstrosity? Or, when a movie is released as a "How to" assassinate our President. Or... or... or...

Let's assume that something of this nature cannot be completely factual since many of the principals would be inclined to either a) not tell the truth or b) stretch the truth in order to make themselves appear in the best light.

This is where the term docudrama comes in; in fact, why it was invented.

From an outsiders perspective, both this film and F9/ll scare me senseless.

You are the largest superpower in the world (hopefully not for long) with the most power and influence across the globe. Yet the two films highlight serious flaws in decision making ability of your governments.

If a film like F9/11 was released in Britain which reflected so poorly on our government and essentially made such harsh and frightening accusations, our public would at least expect an enquiry, or questions to be answered.

in the US, asking questions of your government who swear blindly that are protecting you is deemed unpatriotic. Its as if your government can draw the shutters and say 'we're not listening to you, you traitors' It just wouldn't stand over here. Our government is picked apart on the smallest things. Tony Blair's popularity has fallen so much over the Iraq debacle that people haver expected him to resign, or have at least asked him to. I may be wrong, but it doesn't look like there is any chance of GWB being asked to resign or leave office after starting an unjust, and lets face it, a never-ending war. Do you not hold him accountable? Why do you allow your government to ignore you? If allegations that Tony Blair had called off our military from killing a known terrorist when they had him more or less trapped, there would be absolute outrage. there would be riots in the street.

"i really didn't spend that much time thinking about him" GWB talking about OBL when they lost him.