Own the rights?
65 out of 106 people found the following review useful: Gripping, fairly objective stuff - so says a Brit, 12 September 2006 Author: Jeremy Liebster from United Kingdom
No this isn't factual history but since when has that particularly bothered US filmmakers?! The point is if you want an exact version of events read a book on the subject, it is very clear you cannot provide a full and 100% accurate account in the amount of time allowed by a film. Once you get over this point I felt that The Path to 9/11 was a well made drama which covered some very key episodes in the buildup to 9/11 and had some wonderful acting. The atmosphere of impending doom was beautifully handled and there is no doubt that one is left to dwell on some appalling mistakes made in the handling of terrorism prior to 9/11. What I find as a Brit remarkable is that so many on here are accusing the programme of rabid right wing bias. I have to say that I completely disagree. Yes the Clinton administration was made to look weak and irresolute, but I hardly think that the makers of the programme covered the Bush regime with glory either. The fact that the film ended with the lack of progress made since 9/11 means it is hardly a pro-Bush piece, but at the same time since it was the Clinton administration in power during most of the preceding events, it is only natural that it should shoulder its fair share of the blame. So why don't you lot get off your political bandwagons and just agree that the whole thing was one great big screw up (not that Britain would have done any better I assure you!)
66 out of 109 people found the following review useful: A rare case of TV fulfilling its potential, 11 September 2006 Author: Joe Smith from Minnesota
I have read The 9/11 Report all the way through and 2 of al Qaeda expert Michael Scheuer's books and, as I watched part 2 of "The Path to 9/11", I couldn't help but think how much better it was AS A MOVIE (forget the politics) than Spielberg's docudrama, "Munich", which I saw on DVD several days ago.I was hoping for a movie that presented the events leading up to the attack in a reasonably accurate, understandable, and interesting way. I never would have expected a TV network to produce something of this quality. What I saw was one of those very rare cases where TV lives up to the potential we once expected but have very rarely seen. Beginning with the first bombing of the World Trade Center in 1993, it relives the events leading up to and including what many of us remember as possibly the worst day of our lives. Most importantly, it reveals the hard work done by American intelligence agents and the frustrations they experience as politicians repeatedly find what some would call reasons and most of us would call excuses for not acting. The portrayal of events is first rate with an outstanding cast led by Harvey Keitel as FBI agent and al Qaeda expert John O'Neill, and is quite consistent with the reports of the 911 commission and others such as Michael Scheuer.Concerning the politics: I think this should be seen as a commentary, not on one individual or political party as opposed to another, but on how difficult it is to operate in a governmental system that encourages avoiding mistakes (that the media and political opponents can use to destroy one's career) more than taking needed action for the benefit of our society.
71 out of 120 people found the following review useful: Excellent, 11 September 2006 Author: Bob_Downe from Australia
I can't believe how many have commented and bagged it out without actually seeing it! This movie was simulcast worldwide on the 10th and 11th, with myself being an Australian we get to see it before you guys in the USA. I just finished watching the second part and for a TV movie i was impressed. I learned a lot about the event that i never knew from the time it happened. I honestly don't think that anybody will ever know the truth in detail, there's too much speculation and cover up. This film had me glued to my seat from the moment it started... Don't judge until you have seen the whole thing from start to finish. I know this is a very touchy subject for some, i remember watching in absolute disbelief when those planes struck the towers, one of the most horrific things i have ever seen.
86 out of 152 people found the following review useful: It was good, 11 September 2006 Author: s_gman2002 from Sydney, Australia
Having watched this docudrama, I can safely say that it was well produced, with good moments of dramatic tension and by-and-large the acting was top-notch. However, despite the excellent production standards there appears to be a flame war going on with people complaining about anti-Clinton bias while other contend that these people were silent with Mike Moore. Let me remind both sides that this docudrama portrays both sides as failing but that because Clinton was in power over a full eight years obviously there would be a greater focus on that period.But looking away from the political issue, what the production showed was that those who operated in defending the United States each were complex characters. Some wanted immediate action while others wanted more time, looking at the legal issues while there were other characters (Clinton, Albright) who looked at the wider issues in play. This accurately reflects, in my opinion, the different nature of people in our world and it reflects accurately the different level of priority given to terrorism but both the Clinton and Bush Administrations over the period from 1993 to September 11 2001.
60 out of 106 people found the following review useful: A rugged 'Path' airs--deserving more than political interest, 10 September 2006 Author: jqrogers from United States
The first night ended (20 minutes?) early, and appeared to have some ragged edges from the last minute appeasement edits. Still it gave an ominous chill--particularly for a small-screen viewing.The Path's story was taught despite the long historical time-line and extensive list of players in the actual events. Political junkies--you could not tell any story this complicated without combining characters and events. The movie would have been over 10 years long.The lead characters, O'Neill and Kirk (CIA operative) kept me emotionally charged; aptly venting my frustration in their roles. It made the audience's small rewards, catching the bomb maker and arresting the blind sheik, more authentic and satisfying. With terrorists portrayed so personally and tangibly, their ultimate deeds take on a new sense of betrayal--to their religion, to their world.Some may not prefer the hand-held feel of the camera work. But I felt it gave an jarring look that suited the content; especially when juxtaposed with wide crowd scenes in Kenya, Afghanistan and other distant locales. The world music accents and Islamic prayer calls provided lyrical moments that let the tension ebb for an instant...only to return with throbbing drums and stick-and-move camera viewpoints of a world in disarray.You may try to call this film a political mudfest, but you shouldn't deny the artistry. And why draw conclusions until you see the handling of Bush's administration? Ultimately I believe many will be rallied to see this for the controversy, but instead will leave with a sobered moment of remembrance and a vivid look at the gaping holes in our national defense.
15 out of 21 people found the following review useful: Wonderful display of blending entertainment and factual history, 22 August 2007 Author: chris_s_elam from United States
The film makers use of the 9/11 commission report to compile a movie that is so entertaining and educational is simply magnificent. The fact that this film is based on such a boring and hard to read report is a tribute to the makers abilities. To the liberal conspiracy theorist, that thinks President Bush was somehow involved in the tragic events of 9/11, this is truly a bust. The liberal mind set is to ignore facts when they are presented to refute their ideas, no-matter how crazy they might be. As an American that lets the facts do the talking, this film exposes the ineptitude of the U.S. Government to successfully combat terrorism during the Clinton years. I can't wait for this to come out on DVD!!!
17 out of 25 people found the following review useful: Terrifying and gripping, so why alter the facts?, 15 September 2006 Author: bigdex101 from United Kingdom
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
I watched "The Path to 9/11" in awe and horror. A superb piece of television: serious, thought provoking. It somehow managed to reflect the horror whilst retaining respect for those who paid with their lives. Harvey Keitel's face as he hears the sickening thud of the top floors of the WTC beginning to pancake; the prayers of the firefighter's Chaplain; the depiction of the incredible phone call between the United 93 passenger and his wife: I won't forgot those scenes for a long time. I'd also like to mention Martin Brody who plays Atta. It can't have been easy to play such a perverse character The look in his eyes as he headed for the cockpit chilled me to the core but he somehow managed, in a few minutes of screen time, to make the character three dimensional.So I am saddened to read, in sources that I know and trust, that the film makers let some glaring inaccuracies spoil a superb script. I can well understand the anger of Madeline Albright and other members of the Clinton administration. But why did the makers let these mistakes stand? I really don't understand. They didn't add to or detract from the overall message: there was a huge failure of intelligence and defence. We simply weren't prepared. We didn't see it coming. Those who did, their voices were ignored or drowned out. Not by evil people, but by people like us who couldn't imagine that the USA would ever be subject to such a "successful" strike on its own soil, at the heart of America.It makes me uncomfortable to think that our collective memory is subject to such false accounts of history. It is disrespectful and damaging to those who lived through the events, and more importantly, to those lives horribly snuffed out by the events. They deserve better.
34 out of 61 people found the following review useful: Gritty, powerful television, 12 September 2006 Author: info-3125 from Canada
As someone who finds most television incredibly boring, I have to say I was completely gripped by this mini-series, perhaps because it was so unlike what you normally get on the tube. I loved the gritty film-making style, and I thought the casting and performances were great. David L. Cunningham is not a well known name right now, but that should change after this mini-series. Too bad he'll probably go on to direct features, because we could use more guys like him on the small screen.In terms of all the political flak this series has attracted, I can't see what all the fuss is about. Yeah, the show throws a few barbs Clinton's way, but every show has some point of view. If the Democrats don't like it, they can always respond to the truth as they see it.Congrats to ABC on having the guts to show this in spite of all the threats and criticism they received.
43 out of 80 people found the following review useful: It asks some good questions..., 10 September 2006 Author: LeavesOfGreen from Memphis
I'm currently watching the film right now, and I have to say, it's quite enthralling. I remember that morning so clearly, the past few years just seem to fade away all in a moment. I was 16, and making up the chemistry test that I had missed. Before then, I'd been at my locker, and I overheard my principal whispering to one of the teachers about the plane that had hit the World Trade Center in New York. It didn't dawn on me at first how big a deal this would soon be, or the depth of pain that this even would cause for so very many.The fact is that this day affected each of us, and if someone wants to show what they feel needed to be addressed about the reasons it was allowed to take place, then I think that it should be allowed to be at least up for consideration. And from what I've seen, there were wrongs on both sides. And one of the big reasons these men pulled this off was our own petty squabbling. And how often can Hollywood be trusted to produce a wholly accurate portrayal of anything? Exactly.But this film raises some good questions about how much we could have prevented.
44 out of 82 people found the following review useful: Why did it take so long?, 11 September 2006 Author: Dick Chester from Los Angeles, California
When the WTC was attacked in 1993 - Iwas shocked that this could happen. Why did it take so long - 8 long years - before we took this threat seriously? Treating it as a crime instead of as an act of war? This movie (& it is only a movie) goes a long way to explaining some of the events of that period. It is clear that there were many good people on the ground doing their job - like the Filipino cop, the border crossing guard, the Harvey Keitel character - but that there were many higher ups who did not connect the dots and left the country vulnerable. There is much to be learned here. As Tony Blair said recently - many of the world's leaders are aware of the danger of Islamic fascisim but that for some reason the general public seems blissfully unaware of the danger. The WTC was not one wake up call - it was two wake up calls.
Add another review
