VeteranLight I don't have all the words right now but this film is a work of art.

Matialth Good concept, poorly executed.

Konterr Brilliant and touching

ShangLuda Admirable film.

yduric I saw 'The Hamburg Cell' for the third time a few days ago and read all the 20 comments written so far. What struck me the most is that the comments on this film (I will use the term 'film' because the term 'made-for-TV movie' seems a bit pejorative to me in this case)are, in my opinion mostly (though not all) polarized around two things: the film is considered either as biased or as underdeveloped, bringing nothing new. I will try to show that it is neither biased nor simplistic. First, a few words about director Antonia Bird: as everyone can see from her complete filmography available on IMDb, she is not a 'Michael Moore-type' director specialized in political films, nor is she known to be affiliated to any radical group whatsoever. Now, if we examine the film closer, although it immerses us in the intimacy of the terrorists, it can definitely not be argued that it shows sympathy towards them: with the exception of Ziad Jarrah, (to whom I will come later) all of them are portrayed as intolerant, full of hatred and completely fanatic, which is what they were, because it must not be forgotten that their way of thinking is considered extremist by the vast majority of the Muslims themselves. For example, at one moment in the film, Mohammed Atta, when discussing with two young Muslims who accuse him of using the same hateful words against the Jews as the Nazis, replies: 'Well, it might be true that they have been slaughtered by the Nazis, but finally, it was to their advantage, they gained a lot out of it!!!' Or later in the film, when he is giving instructions for his funeral, he insists that no woman be allowed to come to visit his grave. Portraying such an individual hating and despising everyone (including women) who is not a Muslim thinking like him and his fellow fanatics, is definitely not showing sympathy towards him. Now, for what affects Ziad Jarrah's depiction, it is true that he is portrayed as more human and much less fanatic than the others, what he indeed was at the start. Here comes, in my opinion, the most frightening element of the film: this man underwent a virtually complete lobotomy from part of his 'fellows': I'm using the term 'lobotomy' on purpose, because contrarily to brainwashing,which consists of making you accept everything a given 'leader' says without discussion, lobotomy only targets a portion of the brain, the one needed, while still giving you the illusion of free choice. How is this lobotomy performed? Gradually, in a very insidious way: if we examine the film carefully, we can see that Ziad Jarrah is not sent to Afghanistan training camps straight away, but that he first starts doing some charity work, dispatching food to Palestinian children from Germany. Here, they have touched his 'sensitive string'(According to numerous sources, he was involved in several social welfare programs in Lebanon prior to coming to Germany,a fact certainly known to Al-Qaida members). Moreover, at several moments during the film, Mohammed Atta says: 'Ziad is not ready yet'So, by showing him the 'positive' aspects of their work, they gradually persuade him that he could do 'more for the Muslim cause'. This is how you turn a basically good-hearted man into a terrorist. He feels 'he has to do it' as he writes to his wife just before the 11th of September 2001. Now, for those who might think that the film is one-sided, it must be also underlined that 'The Hamburg Cell' is no way tender with W's administration. While carefully avoiding any allusion to alleged acquaintances between it and the terrorists or people supporting them,which would be a new, but unverified element, it thoroughly enumerates various facts which have been well known: apart from some famous purposefully ignored memos, it mentions various reports made to Condoleeza Rice, meetings of high ranking CIA officials with the White House Staff giving warnings that civil aircraft may be used as weapons, and the presence on U.S. Soil of Cheikh Mohammed, Al-Qaida's chief of operations, several times during the year 2001, all known to W's administration, with always the same answer: no action to be undertaken. So, why set up a complicated 'conspiracy'when you already have a band of crazy fanatics ready to 'do the job' for you? Just do NOTHING and both sides will be satisfied. The first one will promote and glorify its so-called 'holy war', the second one will promote and glorify its so-called 'war on terror'. And, seriously, what do the lives of more than 3000 innocent people mean to crazy fanatics or cynical calculators? Nothing. This is why this film is so disturbing to many people...

ericdetrick2002 I was waiting for a public service announcement at the end saying, "Terrorists- they are not bad people, just mis-informed". Ugh. You know, I am a well educated person; I am in no way "close-minded". Don't serve me a platter full of dung and tell me it is actually desert. I don't like it when writers and/or directors pull the emo trip on their audience, especially with this particular subject. Hitler was a bad guy, I don't see any films about him being mis-understood.These terrorists (and don't forget to call them what they were) were not mis-informed. Nor was this something that they did out of panic, instinct, or defense. This was one of the most well planned, and yes, thought out, murders in history. There's more blame insinuated on the American leaders then the terrorist (who are indeed made out to be martyrs). For a film maker to put out such a piece of propaganda, in hopes to make people understand what these poor mis-guided people had to go through, reminds me of why I own a DVD player- I don't have to worry about crap like this coming through my video monitor.On a technical level this film worked. In fact, if this tragedy had not happened, and this was just a story it probably wouldn't have bothered me as much. But I know the reality of this, and unfortunately there are people who are actually forgetting the truth and reality behind it. Film can do that. Which, is why i'll stick to my own viewing collection. What's on tonight's list...I think i'll watch "Cannibal Holocaust"...

Richard Brunton There is no doubt about it, this is a controversial movie, and it took me a while to see it. Missing it at the Edinburgh Film Festival really got to me but I managed to see it just recently.I understand that it doesn't yet have a US\Canada release and although there have been talks, nothing has yet been signed up, and no wonder. The subject matter is focused on one of the hijackers of the September 11th Twin Towers attack. Yes. Very controversial and highly emotionally charged topic.The first thing I'd say about the movie is it is portrayed as an unbiased movie, however that isn't quite true but it's clear to see why. The movie solely rests with the hijackers and the lead up to those terrible events of September the 11th but doesn't concentrate on the events of that day, there are a few shots that remind you of the actual attack, but detail isn't entered into and I think that actually is a good thing.There's a lot of strong feeling about that day, and very rightly so, but in a movie which tries to take no sides, concentrating on the events would clearly fill any sane person with great sadness and a strong anger against the hijackers and the groups to which they belong.Okay, so let's put that part to the side and try and concentrate on the movie itself. Antonio Bird has carried through Ronan Bennett's story very well, documenting the process of the main character, Ziad Jarrah played by Karim Salah, transforming from a Western Muslim living the life of a typical student, to a Muslim extremist.Salah portrays the role excellently, carrying with total believability, the slow change. He starts as a typical student, interested in his own life and ignoring his initial upbringings looking at love and life as a Doctor. Slowly, he is indoctored into a group of Muslims, rediscovering his religion, and from there an extremist pulls him across to their cause and the change in the character is small but obvious. He becomes strong, self assured, and angry.This carries on for much of the movie, but when the realisations of what is happening and what he is committing to become more apparent, his love for his wife and their Western life come into contention.From the outset this movie shocks, and it does very well in showing what was behind one of the hijackers. What isn't so good is it doesn't quite hit the mark on this very change. I could see what changed him, and I could understand the peer and religious pressure around him (this is very eloquently shown in the movie) but you still find yourself asking why? A vital few steps are missing, and this may purely be down to the lack of historical information, or the complexity of the subject.Although an even more difficult subject, I felt the religious and Jihad side could be tackled more, but that might have made the film more inaccessible to the mainstream Western audience.In the end, the movie condemns what these people did with an extremely loud voice, but not from the extreme Western view that can often be heard today, but from the characters words and actions throughout their brief history. Indeed some of the victim support groups from that day have applauded the release of a film to understand the fundamentalist mindset.This movie is well worth watching, believe me when I say it isn't all from the side of the hijackers, and it does not attempt in the slightest to justify events, it is an attempt at understanding.

Theo Robertson Director Antonia Bird and scriptwriters Ronan Bennett and Alice Pearman have made this year's most controversial drama production which deals with the terrorists behind 9/11 . It's also the most pointless production of the year down to the fact that it's a work of fiction . Okay it's based on true events and characters but that doesn't mean there's any truth in the details . Take for example when terrorist to be Ziad Jarrah discusses Lebanon his country of birth to a Jihadist . The Jihadist mentions the atrocities carried out by Christian phalangists at the Shatilla and Shebron Palestinian refugee camps in Southern Lebanon in September 1982 which seems to motivate Ziad . But ask yourself this . Why would a Muslim be motivated to become a terrorist through this conversation ? These Christian phalangists were under the command of the Lebanese Christian government at the time , while the civilians they murdered were vaguely associated with relatives who were in the PLO , a secular Marxist Leninist organization . Christians murdering atheists , now why would that stir Muslim feelings of revenge ? We also have no proof this discussion took place and is almost certainly an invention on the part of the scriptwriters I do feel there is an agenda with this movie as portraying the hi-jackers as too human , as if they were victims of indoctrination misguided by more extreme world jihadists who were using them as pawns and that they weren't fundamentally cruel . There's a point where this view should be allowed but THE HAMBURG CELL over steps the mark . Take the scene where the terrorists are being shown physical methods on taking over the jets . " Surprise is your greatest weapon " says one of the instructors as he grapples with a volunteer showing him restraining methods . From what we know of the hijackings themselves surprise wasn't the greatest weapon - Sticking knives through the eyes and throats of the cabin crew were , not unarmed combat . Shock and horror was used to intimidate the passengers , not surprise . Trying to tell me someone capable of stabbing a air stewardess to death is misguided ? That they never had the potential to become a cold blooded murderer all along ?As stated there's no scenes of the terrorists murdering anyone ( The footage of the twin towers negates to show the shocking scenes of people trapped jumping hundreds of feet to their death ) but shows Bosnian muslims with their heads and limbs blown off . The Balkans conflict was terrible especially for the muslims living there . Perhaps I should point out if it wasn't for NATO intervention in Bosnia in 1995 and Kosovo in 1999 there would have been few if any muslims left in the Balkans today . What country leads NATO ? The same one that suffered on 9/11 There are a few positive points to THE HAMBURG CELL . One is that the script via one of Ziad's relatives points out that these Islamic terrorists are corrupting the words of Allah , but I feel this is down to political correctness where the producers don't want to be accused of showing all muslims as terrorists . It's also Antonia Bird's best film as director which considering her volume of work is only a backhanded compliment . I will also give faint praise to the script for pointing out that Osama Bin Laden was behind the atrocity . Even today some people deny he had any involvement despite all the evidence I'm sorry if this review isn't as complex as it should have been . I had planned to make it very analytical but I'm not really in the mood since I spent the afternoon seeing a real life horror show coming out of a school in Southern Russia where as many as several hundred schoolchildren have been murdered or mutilated by terrorists . The only happy story I have heard today is that some of the fleeing terrorists were beaten to death by Russian mobs . I'm not proud of these feelings