How graphic is the beheading scene in F 9/11?

[Lex]

In his review of the film, Roger Ebert (gives it a thumbs up) but says frankly there is a beheading scene and other graphic violence. Such as a dead child being thrown in the back of a truck?

How bad is it?

Listen, I'm going to see it no matter what. And I know there are horrible things we should see to educate ourselves about how bad it is.

But just to prepare myself, how graphic is the beheading? Or any of the other stuff?

Thanks in advance for your opinion.

[qanda]

1. It wasn't very graphic at all

I am still scratching my head as to why that movie was rated R. :shrug:

[jackstraw45]

6. Because the GOP wanted it that way

And Jack Valenti made it so.

Lord of the Rings (FABULOUS movies, btw), with non-stop violence, was PG-13.

Remember that when watching F 9/11.

Hypocrisy at work.

[bkcc]

13. I think it was because of the F word.

Shocking, I know.
No one with any class would EVER use that word.

:wow:

[MadAsHellNewYorker]

2. The shot

is from a distance and if you dont find the action fast you may miss it....of course it is bad, its a beheading, but not like the NIck berg Video at all...its the other stuff that is gut-wrenching and graphic...

[GreenPartyVoter]

18. Welcome to DU :^)

[mhr]

3. The Shot Is From Very Far Away - Really Hard To See Details

Not that bad - certainly not bad enough to keep people away.

[Neecy]

4. well...

It's a wide angle shot, so he have to really scan around to see it. And yes, I found it graphic. It's not um, a clean cut.

The scenes of the mutilated/dead Iraqi children were the hardest to watch, but I forced myself to. This was done in our names, and we HAVE to understand just what horror we've brought upon these people.

[nostamj]

5. the beheading is very mild

not very sharp and at a distance. BUT.....

the horribly maimed children and screaming wounded soldiers are much harder to take.

[monarch]

7. Not nearly as bad as I feared

The beheading is from such a great distance that you would have had to be looking for it to even see it and the rest of the graphic violence is similar to the pictures that have been on this website.

The movie was great, by the way! It kept my attention all the way through.

[cjbuchanan]

8. You really can't see much

As already mentioned, it is a very distant shot. I would guess more then a few people will miss it because there is so much in the frame.

[louis-t]

9. R rating for language

I heard.

[Ilsa]

10. I saw dead bodies dumped into mass graves in a WWII movie made for TV.

I've seen worse than that on tv.

[stellanoir]

11. as an aside. . .

today on Here & Now (WBUR Boston) Robin Young referred to a recent beheading that her colleague had stumbled upon inadvertantly on the internet. She described them using a blunt knife a sawing away through horrific screams. They are not using guillotines folks. I was multitasking so didn't catch which beheading it was.

The other question sho posed was, "at what point do we become desensitized to these atrocities. . .?"

[nostamj]

12. that sounds like the Nick Berg video n/t

[Cannikin]

14. The wounds to our own soldiers was much more graphic.

[Lex]

15. Thanks for the information.

Thanks everyone who gave me a little insight on where the violence is in the film and what to be prepared for along those lines.

I appreciate the perspective on this.

[cureautismnow]

16. Not to Worry...

It's only a few seconds of grainy black and white (at least I don't remember any color!) video of a Saudi public execution from way up in the grandstand.

I, too, was a little apprehensive about watching this inhumane scene, but it's barely more graphic than watching a silhouetted murder. The rating should have been PG-13 hands down.

IMO, MM actually went easy on Bush-boy by showing very little of the innocent spilled blood that Junior is responsible for.

[KayLaw]

17. And animals?

I read that some of the soldiers were torturing and killing pets. Was that in the movie?