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...

siddiqui247 I saw this movie back in Dubai last year during its premiere in the Dubai International Film Festival.The thing I liked most about this movie was the fact that it wasn't biased towards a certain point of view, and even though I believe that you can't have complete objectivity in anything, I think this movie did a superb job in trying to portray the entire process of how those students became suicide bombers, which is something I'm sure people wonder about nowadays, especially in the west. At the same time, it also shows the intelligence mishaps that were played out by the US government before 9/11.What I found amusing was that the entire Arab audience that watched the movie was angry and started singing their song..."it shows all Arabs as terrorists...etc" whereas half of the other audience (non-Arabs) didn't feel it was like that at all, and naturally the entire audience ignored the actors and the producers during the Q and A session and started arguing amongst each other. Which basically shows how controversial this movie is and why it hasn't really been released yet. A shame really. I think the American audience (and the rest of the world) could use a little more light on the incident.In conclusion, I hope it can be released soon so I can own it on DVD asap. It's definitely worth watching again and again.

ahmed_kafafi As soon as The Hamburg Cell, a British television production was screened at the Dubai International Film Festival 2004 ( DIFF), many voices echoed in the spacious hall of Madinat Theatre to ask the same question : ' What is the intention of producing such a film? It still remains a big question why the movie had to be shown in an Arab country-based international film festival even when its screening was expected to trigger trouble rather than promote understanding. It was fortunate that the educated cultured Arab expatriates who viewed the film were not stirred beyond certain limits. Egyptian born actor Kamel, interestingly declining throughout the event to reveal his family name, told news agencies that he feared that the audience's reaction could have erupted into violence. " I thought somebody could throw something," said Kamel. " When I was coming up the stairs I thought this could be the moment." He also expressed concern that one day he would have to confront the hijackers' families. Even though the movie was screened elsewhere, it was in the Dubai that kamel came to view it for the first time. But back to the question of intentions, it was hard to say that the production was basically directed against the culprits or their countries as much as it was against their crimes. But the film in its totality came lacking in several respects with regard to in-depth analysis and cultural facts that made it appear more like a suspense movie rather than a dramatic treatment. But after all the 9.11 attacks were definitely possessed of a high suspense element and could inspire a perfect disaster genre. However, Finola Dwyer, the film producer who was also present, played down the suspense aspect, stressing the political and the social dimensions of the issue. Considering the film from that latter perspective, it is worth underlining the factor of timing: it is as yet too early to produce a movie about that mammoth terrorist happening. Not all facts relating to the disaster are available and we expect much more to be unraveled in the future. Dwyer refused to recognize the question of timing and went on to add that for the film to avoid appearing tilted towards the West, a team of Arab actors were selected to cast in the film. But how would that matter when the actor is not the one who constructs the screenplay! Claims came that the movie was accurately researched with some of the facts provided by the CIA. But the viewing of Hamburg Cell still didn't add much to what came in the media reports throughout the last three years. In Hamburg- the coastal German city- where the terrorists were said to have started planning for the deadly operations which claimed 3,000 lives, we encounter bearded fundamentalists who brain-wash young students with secular tendencies. In one example, that of Atta, there is a fleeting scene in which we understand that pressures by his father to get a PhD might have driven him towards such activities. But at no point are we enlightened about why those students succumb to the fundamentalists' wishes while their Saudi accomplices were pushed to the sidelines!On the cultural platform we are told that the attackers, besides the political motives, were disgusted by the Western materialistic lifestyle in which an individual's goal is no other than property like a villa, a car and other perks that accompany an executive position. The political motive was hardly there, only a short fight and a dispute between Jarrah and a Palestinian mate remain one among a few other details highlighted to accentuate the political aspect of the terrorists' motive. No images of their original background in their home countries was ever there. No images of Israeli and American aggressions on Iraq and Palestine were directly cited, although these are still the only excuse left for people in the Islamic world to express sympathy for the cause of the terrorists.It is important to note that the Arab and Islamic countries have undergone similar terrorist attacks by extremists in their recent history. What makes 9.11 different is the magnitude of the aggressions and their target being the US, the sole superpower. The production and related articles, however, are not primarily meant to turn the discussion into a political controversy. It is more about the drama and whether it fits into the subject matter. Karim Saleh said that every one has reacted to the 9.11 attacks, so why not the cinema. Right, but more daring would have been a documentary in which the producers could have focused on the attackers as well as the victims' families, the ground that breeds fundamentalism, the ambiguity that still surrounds the operations. It is understandable that this would have been a cumbersome task with much being kept as top secrets. But again if this is the case how could the Hamburg Cell be realistic if a lot of information is still in the realm of secrecy! At this stage we need a down-to-earth version of the disaster. In drama a lot can be added or deleted as in Titanic and other disaster films. At least in a matter as sensitive as the 9.11 attacks, still one of the main players on the political scene, a sensational like Hamburg Cell should figure at the bottom of the list. More than a suspense, in these troubled waters marking the world's political scene, we need works that provide more understanding than ones which increase tension. And at a film festival meant to bridge cultures the Hamburg Cell should have been excluded, just for the sake of peaceful moments enjoyed amid the conflicts that endanger world peace, stability and a prosperous future for humanity.-----( ENDS)

Dilophosaurus THE HAMBURG CELL has been praised for managing to be "a strictly non-partisan film". This is a difficult thing to achieve, considering the subject matter, and I don't think the makers of this story manage to pull it off. It's interesting to note that only fleeting glimpses of the damaged twin towers and a crashing plane are shown: there are no shots of the World Trade Center workers falling to their deaths, or re-enactments how how the hijackers slit the throats of airstewardesses. This is supposed to be a non-partisan film, remember? But wait, close-up footage of murdered Bosnian Muslims IS shown earlier in the film. We see a murdered Muslim woman, shot in the back, in close-up. I detect some bias here...