Nbacher What might seem like a mere stunt, having eleven movie makers from around the world each film a nine-minute segment/story connected in some way to 9/11 has turned into a brilliant prism through which to see various views of this event. By turns horrific, sad, strange, even charming and funny, the finished product proves that the event inspired these filmmakers to come up with some of their best work. Films that present a common theme tackled by multiple directors can often be hit-or-miss, but this film of that genre is pretty much all hit. A diverse collection of short films, ranging from the overtly political, to the meditative, to the allegorical, to the simply personal. Mostly non-American directors and actors thoughtfully and sensitively render all of them. Collectively the film captures the importance of 9-11 as a tragedy for the entire world, not a single country. It often reflects on how the event entered the lives of ordinary people living ordinary lives in Africa, the Middle East, and Latin America. Other times it showed how the tragedy elicited sympathy for the US from people that were otherwise angry and bitter to the US for past injustices. I was surprised and delighted by the entire film. Made right after the attacks, they resemble moods ranging from fanciful to personal to abstract, accented both by the filmmakers' skill and approach and by their nationality, giving each an immediacy and an expansive perspective that may be eye-opening to Americans who see this watershed event only as a domestic phenomenon. I found it very interesting to see different world views and thoughts on this day of infamy. I think this film would be interesting viewing for any group of people. It's a great way to a get a conversation going about thoughts of what 9-11 means today and I think that it's a pretty interesting perspective on the artistic role this historic event will play. I would recommend this film to people who are interested in those kinds of conversations and to people who still like short films.

zio ugo Everybody trying to describe this film using the common categories of cinema would run into serious problem and would, eventually, come to realization that such an attempt is futile. When eleven directors from eleven different countries are asked to comment an event of global resonance in any way they wanted, the result can?t be but inhomogeneous and, I would say, inhomogeneity should be welcome as a success of the operation.Being quite impossible to say what this film "is" as a film, the only key to interpret it might be that of embracing its variety and reading it by comparison.The eleven views of the terrorist attacks vary widely. A couple of them (Penn and Lelouche) are personal to the point of minimalism, reflecting on the impact that the ripples of such an enormous event can have even on the life of people seemingly disconnected from it. At the opposite corner, Loach and Chahine have an openly political reading of the attack as an event in the web of a troubled world (anybody who read these episodes in a purely anti-American "I-wonder-why-they-hate-us" has either not paid attention, or is committing the typically American sins of manichaeism, oversimplification, and historical amnesia).Nair?s episode was interesting, in my view, especially in the light of the words that appear at the beginning of it: "inspired to actual events," a foreshadowing of a plethora of TV movie-of-the-week, those being really offensive and anti-American with their idiotic glorification of the hero and the reduction of the American collective personality to a cartoonish flatness.The segment by Gonzalez Inarritu was maybe the most powerful and experimental: something that you can do only when you have the luxury of shooting an eleven minutes, nine seconds, and one frame segment.I could go on for all the episodes, each one of which has a distinct personality (although the quality of the realization varies quite a bit), and each one of which allows an interesting reading perspective.The film is definitely powerful, interesting, and worth seeing. Although chances are that you will not like all the eleven episodes equally, each one of them will probably put the September 11 tragedy in a different perspective and give it depth and complexity. It is a shame that human stupidity prevented this film from having a wide American distribution.

clehl Take one of the most culturally and globally defining events, give 11 directors the opportunity to make a film interpretation of the event, and you have 11'09"01 September 11. After seeing the film once, I am ready to see it again. Each short is incredible...they each interpret the horrific events of 9/11 uniquely. Each short, from the very first one from Iran to the Japanese short caused me to think about that day in a new light. It is brilliantly done, as each piece is separated by an introduction of the director and country, and each piece really stands alone. The shorts really send the viewer on a roller coaster, from the almost comical short of five African boys' search for Osama bin Laden in their hometown, to the intense short from the Mexican director using predominately the sounds of 9/11. I, who rarely is touched emotionally and spiritually by films, felt the impact of these films not only in my head, but in my heart and soul. This film is extremely intense: some of the ideas depicted are very controversial, and some of the sights and images are somewhat graphic, but I recommend this film to anyone, it is a spectacular documentary of the world today, not just a tribute to 9/11.

NIXFLIX-DOT-COM 9-11 is an innovative film in many ways. But in other ways, it finds itself mired in the personalities of its 11 directors, specifically those anti-American and those who are indifferent. As you can see, there seems to be no pro-American filmmaker in the whole group. A strange lot, if indeed the producers chose 11 filmmakers out of random. (Which is highly doubtful.)The running theme, despite the various styles and stories, is one of moral equivalency. As if to say, "Since America did these evil things in the past, thus the slaughter of 3,000 of their own is justified." It is most telling that not a single story, out of the 11, makes the "bold" statement that slaughtering 3,000 people who has nothing to do with the U.S. Government, who died because they only sought to earn money in order to raise their family, is wrong.Instead, many of the filmmakers go out of their way to prove moral equivalency between these despicable terrorist attacks and the U.S. Government. As the saying goes, "People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stone."Or perhaps the theme the filmmakers should be going for is "Two wrongs doesn't make a right." Apparently according to these filmmakers, two wrongs DOES, in fact, make a right. If this is true, then those in England, Germany, and Japan, with their history of genocide, war crimes, and human rights abuses, really shouldn't make a peep when some sap runs into their shopping mall with bombs. After all, have their Governments not, in the past, committed some acts that can be the basis for moral equivalency?5 out of 10