There was something inherently cinematic about 9/11. Something that made viewers of the terrorist attacks on America say, in the words of one Hollywood producer: �It's just like a movie�. The comparison was as crass in its insufficiency as it was recanted or scorned afterwards. Nonetheless, it remains a common early reaction to the tragedy, one ingrained by cinema's prominence in modern times. The aesthetics made people instantly make a connection to the movies: jet planes, skyscrapers, explosions and fleeing masses � all well lit against a clear blue sky. The unrealistic special effects of the disaster movie had just been surpassed by reality, to such an extent that they remained the only point of reference.

The news footage was so reminiscent of Hollywood movies like Independence Day and The Towering Inferno, the industry was accused of being partially to blame for providing inspiration for the means of attack. Indeed, although no real guilt can be laid on Hollywood, proof of the link can be seen in that the attack was planned as such a spectacle by a media savvy al-Qaeda, and the Pentagon is alleged to have since employed screenwriters to envision future plots.

The connection went further in that Hollywood had long since used terrorism as a useful plot device for the political thriller and the action movie. At the time, such movies in pre-production had to be shelved while others, such as Collateral Damage, had their release dates postponed. But as Hollywood took a break for the sake of decency, people knew it was a matter of when, rather than if, the 9/11 movies went into production.

Apparently, five years shows the necessary decorum, as 2006 will see the first Hollywood spate of 9/11 movies. Later this month, British director Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Supremacy, Bloody Sunday) will begin shooting Flight 93 for Universal, about the plane brought down by passengers in Shanksville, Pennsylvania. Meanwhile, Paramount are said to have lined up Oliver Stone (Alexander, Platoon) to direct Nicholas Cage in an as yet untitled movie about the last two survivors to be pulled from Ground Zero. In addition, Universal have bought the rights to 102 Minutes about the interval between the first plane's collision and the tower's collapse by journalists Kevin Flynn and Jim Dwyer who collated the testimonies of 200 eye witnesses

The announcement has been a controversial one, and the Internet is now rife with message boards and web logs asking how soon is too soon. Surprisingly, the films have not triggered the resistance previously predicted, largely because America 's right � usually well known for its conservative advocacy on censorship � sees them as a good thing. The reason being the war on terrorism, and their hope that seeing the horrific events repeated will reinvigorate a war weary populace.

The post 9/11 movie, therefore, is not to be made in a vacuum. September 11th was not an isolated incident but the start of a war, which despite being disparate and ill-defined will have films react to it just as World War II and Vietnam did. It is in this climate that Red Mercury, a British film about an al-Qaeda inspired terrorist cell, is soon to be released.

The film focuses on three British Muslims (Alex Cannn, Navni Chowdhry, San Shella) building a radioactive bomb in a London flat who, after being alerted that the police are about to arrive, flee to a nearby restaurant and hold the customers hostage while they decide how best to use the bomb. On the other side of the cordon, a police commander (Pete Postlethwaite) and Sofia (Juliet Stevenson), an M15 operative, must attempt to free the hostages by finding out what they can about their captors.

Much has been said of the film's timely release. So soon after the July 7th London bombings, had the film been an unconditional political thriller we can only assume it would have been postponed. However, Red Mercury is more timely in its discussion of what would drive three young British Muslims to such an extreme. It does not fully escape the thriller label: it uses the procurement of the doomsday substance red mercury to give the film momentum. Which is frustrating, as the film does not have the production budget - nor apparently the desire - to be such a film. As a result, the bomb aspect becomes more of a distraction to the scenes set in the restaurant as customers attempt to find out why the terrorists want to do what they are doing. The group present an eclectic mix of mind sets: an adulterous couple, a nurse, a children's writer, an American Lawyer and the Greek restaurant owner - played deftly by Stockard Channing � in addition to the three terrorists.

Indeed, it is this aspect that Red Mercury's director, Roy Battersby, sees as defining the film: �It's just a film about 12 people who wouldn't or couldn't spend any time together unless forced to do so,� he says.

Although the investigation outside the restaurant seems superfluous � as well as unbelievable - compared to the discussion within it, it does introduce Sofia 's daughter, Clarissa � a self-harming depressive whose presence compares a more mainstream dissatisfied youth with the terrorists. At one point Sofia argues, albeit hysterically, that maybe British youth is better off training with al-Qaeda in the mountains of Afghanistan than watching reality television. Although it does seem slightly far fetched to blame terrorism on Big Brother, it is a refreshing point-of-view: terrorism as a phenomenon of youth may have something to do with frustration and a lack of purpose. Also, such a comment is indicative of the film's tone, which at times includes black comedy (the reason the terrorists run into the restaurant in the first place is that their car has been clamped). This may be seen as too light hearted for the subject matter but Battersby regards the film as �essentially serious�, and defends the right to �hate speech� at a time when there is a pressure on everybody, including filmmakers, to �consent to silence�.

As for studios' increasing willingness to make films that tackle the climate created by the war on terrorism Battersby speaks of a relief that the work is being taken on, saying: �With reservations and with respect of people killed and injured, it is not too soon but dangerously too late�.

However, ironically for something that directly engages with what started the war on terror, it seems the announced 9/11 movies will have very little to say about terrorism itself. By focusing squarely on events they allow for a very limited timeline � of which 102 minutes is the ultimate example. September 11th as the disaster of one day is morally black-and-white: people needing and wanting to save lives. Such films are unlikely to involve themselves with the root causes and warning signs of the before, nor the anger, deliberation and intangible grief of the after. Recreating by way of testimony or by mirroring reality through Greengrass' proposed use of shaky hand-held cameras, they will be more factually turgid reconstruction than movie, more documentary than polemic, and where they do concentrate on the personal it will be optimistic tales of heroism and attempts to clutch at silver linings.

The release of such films will be controversial but as films themselves they are likely to be anything but. Mainstream cinema appears unlikely to ask awkward questions. Such a silence, Roy Battersby feels is the �worst possible reaction�it's as if terrorism can't be understood. It can be understood�.