Reviews

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.

Altered States is not everything that it could be, and that's because director Ken Russell was more interested in assaulting the viewer with a series of startling (by 1980 standards) images than he was in exploring the stories subtext. Eddie Jessup is a scientist so introverted and afraid of human connections that it's not enough to abandon his family, he also has to further deprive himself of any and all stimulation, performing sensory depravation experiments on himself to attain better understanding of "ultimate truth." Jessup proclaims himself to be an atheist, but the visual content of his hallucinations reveals him to be a man who's more at war with God than a man who disbelieves. His descent into a more primal state of being is an obvious metaphor for how easy it is for a man with commitment issues and fear of intimacy to turn completely inward, leaving the real world behind. Some of what the character says early on about family and love make his motivations clear... Jessup is a man shattered by his father's death and unable to accept the vulnerability of the human condition. A viewer has to really work to absorb and enjoy these metaphors, though, as Russell never slows his onslaught of special effects. The movie also suffers from smart but unrealistic dialogue and ham-fisted performances from some of the principle characters (watch Blair Brown's over-the-top breakdowns in the last act). Altered States isn't the total package, it doesn't combine the visceral and the philosophical as well as movies like Jacob's Ladder or Natural Born Killers. But it's better than most of today's equivalent movies (Donnie Darko, etc) that want to stimulate and provoke the viewer and don't quite pull it off.