Excellent but underrated film

Instead, you get a movie that's enjoyable enough, but leaves you feeling like it could have been much, much more.

The film may be flawed, but its message is not.

Blistering performances.

This is a very interesting project which could have been quite brilliant. Gathering 11 prominent international directors and allotting each of them 11 minutes, 9 seconds and 1 frame to create a segment of their choice; each short exploring the global reverberations of 9/11. Without using any spoilers, I would say that Ken Loach's piece is the jewel in the crown, and Mira Nair's short (segment "India"), based on a true story, deserves to be made into a full feature film. One also realizes, while watching his short, why Alejandro González Iñárritu is one of the best directors in the world today – he simply is a master of the medium, who has also a profound understanding of the subject matter. Unfortunately, not all 11 parts are made as well. Youssef Chahine, in his segment "Egypt", assumes the Arab stance of the self-inflicted collective guilt, which piece could have potentially been the most interesting one. He fails miserably. Chahine's short is poorly written and badly executed, at least enough to stand out amongst other, superior chapters of the film. Despite the imbalance in quality, I would still give the film 7/10 for concept, if not for execution.

This collection of eleven short stories in one movie is a great idea, and presents some great segments, but also some disappointing surprises. Based on the tragic event of the September 11th 2001 in the United States of America, eleven directors were invited to give their approach to the American tragedy. The result of most of them is not only an individual sympathy to the American people, but mainly to the intolerance in the world with different cultures and people.Ken Loach (UK) presents the best segment, about the September 11th 1973 in Chile, when the democratic government of Salvador Alliende was destroyed by the dictator Augusto Pinochet with the support of the USA.The other excellent segments are the one of Youssef Chahine (Egypt), showing the intolerance in the world, and the number of victims made by USA governments in different countries along the contemporary history; and the one of Mira Nair (India), showing a true story of injustice and prejudice against a Pakistanis family, whose son was wrongly accused of terrorism in USA, when he was indeed a hero.Some segments are beautiful: Samira Makhmalbaf (Iran) shows the innocent Afghans refugee children preparing an inoffensive shelter against bombs, while their teacher tries to explain to them what happened on the other side of the world; the romantic Claude Lelouch (France) shows the life of a couple in New York nearby the WTC; Danis Tanovic (Bosnia-Herzegovina) shows the effects of their war in a small location and the lonely protest of widows; Sean Penn is very poetic, showing that life goes on; and Shohei Imamura's story is probably the most impressive, showing that there is no Holy War but sadness and disgrace.The segment of Idrissa Quedraogo (Birkina Faso) is very naive, but pictures the terrible poor conditions of this African nation.The segment of Amos Gital (Israel) is very boring and manipulative, showing more violence and terrorism.The segment of Alejandro González Iñárritu is very disappointing, horrible, without any inspiration and certainly the worst one.My vote is seven.Title (Brazil): "11 de Setembro" ("September 11")

Definitely a spoiler or two, or three.....As a collection of films about how the world reacted to the September 11th terrorist attacks, this film is as mixed a bag as can be, and shows both the widely ranging views but also the aspirations of their directors.The two pieces that I thought really addressed the issues about 9/11 were the Afghanistan and Egyptian ones. The Afghan piece, showing the children not having a clue about 9/11, and dismissing much of it as god's will, was somewhat unnerving. The children's easy assumptions all too easily can also be seen as the hardened voices and ideology of adults.The Egyptian piece was the one that focused the most on the underlying conflicts behind 9/11, and the director was obviously involved in a lot of soul searching and questioning, seeing things in the larger context of world affairs and who's really right or wrong. I commend him on his honesty, even if his words are addressed across an impassable chasm. Suicide bombers are equated as freedom fighters, and very few people outside the Muslim world will accept that point of view. The Indian piece focused on 9/11 the event, (The Egyptian one did start off there) and presents the juxtaposition of a Muslim aid worker who went to help at the twin towers and dies, and is mistakenly believed later to have been a terrorist. It addresses well the conflicted emotions right after the event, but it is set in New York, and doesn't look at what India's views on 9/11 were at all.Others vary from good to simply awful. The one everyone talks about, the Mexican section by Inarritu, was an interesting film technique but didn't add much else narrative or discussion wise. The French and Burkina-Faso sections looked like the director's effort to show their skills and make a movie only incidentally about 9/11. The Burkina-Faso is really more a moral fable but adds some humor and levity in the midst of the more serious clips.Sean Penn's section was on the surface a good character study, and Ernest Borgnine turns in a fine performance as an elderly man living a life of routine with little to look forward to. However, the heavy handed symbolism is too much, Penn might as well cut to a shot of himself with a flashlight in the camera shouting, "Open your eyes! Can't you see?"The Israeli movie was a flop, it wasn't done very well and the director tries to keep up the hectic pace of a post-bombing chaos for the whole 11 minutes. The result is a camera panning back and forth across some obviously staged wreckage and the same four or five people running back and forth into camera view. It had a notable statement, but a poor execution.The British clip was the one that made the most people upset and caused some people at the showing I attended to walk out. I had to go home to look up who Allende was, and I wonder how long the good times in Chile under him would have lasted. There's no doubt Pinochet was a bad guy and the CIA was involved in putting him in power--but completely missing from the furious British director's movie and his UK located Chilean expatriate's narrative is how Pinochet went to Britain for medical treatment in 1997-1999 and several countries tried to extradite him for his crimes, which Britain refused to do. A movie so heavily casting the blame should look at the whole thing, not what fits the view best.The Japanese movie was the most different and confusing, and relates to 9/11 at best allegorically. Like the French and Burkina-faso pieces it too seems a flex at movie making over issues.Overall this movie will likely leave you feeling as conflicted as it's various shorts, and thinking about things for a long time after.

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