Did you see "World Trade Center"...?

Question

...and what do you think about it.

The profits are going to the families of the port authority police that lost their lives.

I am talking about the movie just released, that's why I put it in parentheses...

Answer 1

Oliver Stone's 'World Trade Center' has promised to be the definitive 9/11 movie, but it turns out to be the 9/11 movie we really didn't need. April's 'United 93,' by Paul Greengrass, is infinitely better, but that movie was the first big-screen dramatization of 9/11 (Hollywood has waited exactly five years) and therefore Universal and its makers had to practically walk on eggshells in presenting it. It seems that 'World Trade Center' is being welcomed with open arms, and it dances on those same eggshells with platform shoes.

This is not to suggest that Stone brings his trademark hyperkinetic, bulldozer style to the proceedings. Stylistically, he's quite restrained here. But Stone is not an innately sensitive director, and ironically, that has never been underscored more greatly than it is with 'World Trade Center.' A sensitive director is Paul Greengrass. You can watch 'United 93' and recognize the discretion that was used. Greengrass used a lot of it. He imposed absolutely nothing on his recreation. It's hardly even a recreation. It builds with great intensity to its inevitable conclusion with an immediacy that all but removes the barrier between the audience and the events. It is a heartbreaking experience. In fact, the events of 9/11 had never resonated more strongly with me than it did while and after watching 'United 93.' Oliver Stone, on the other hand, and screenwriter Andrea Berloff ('Domestic') show us that they don't trust the events alone to resonate. They must be maudlin, manipulative, and they must apply ad nauseum the tired techniques of melodrama to render their drama dramatic.

'World Trade Center' is a sentimental film, and I feel it has no right to be. Unlike 'United 93,' it tries to tap into the emotional consensus of the American populace, and it ices its cake with what it believes is the average tone of middle-America's grief over the events of 9/11. It is a movie of devices, familiar devices such as slow-motion, children running into open arms, expository flashbacks to happier days, false-alarm phone calls and police visits, and a portentous score (this time by Craig Armstrong) comprised entirely of overt emotional cues. The familiarity of these devices, the fact that they are easily recognized as clichés and emotional cues, undercuts and minimizes the emotional punch that does exist (I was not unmoved by this movie, but to say so in this case warrants no mention outside of a parenthetical).

Stone essentially reduces the rubble of the just-collapsed WTC Tower 1 as a set piece whereby Port Authority NYPD officers John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno (Nicolas Cage and Michael Peña, respectively -- both good, although Cage's New York accent clearly taxes him) are trapped, badly injured, and hoping to be rescued, meanwhile desperately fighting to stay awake as a means of staving off death. Much of these scenes do maintain a certain horror, and this is largely thanks to the sound design, which often carries the film and will probably win an Academy Award.

And speaking of Academy Awards, this movie is made like it wants to be nominated for a bunch. Like 'United 93,' it wisely avoids contextualizing these events with hindsight and it foregoes political bias. Stone never shows the impact of the planes, which is a good move on his part; in fact, we never see a single plane, only the shadow of one, which is an artistic decision with an evocative result. But hindsight indeed colors in the emotional weathers of this film, given the degree to which heroism is sentimentalized here. There's a lot of dramatic pauses, which are intended to give gravity to terse lines of dialogue that immediately follow and are punctuated with more emotional cues from Craig Armstrong's score. For every creative decision that works, there's about ten that don't. There are certain decisions, in fact, that are glaringly questionable, with disbelief resulting from at least two, one of which is a hallucination/dream in which the silhouette of Jesus Christ appears against the sun, holding out a bottle of water, and the other of which is a conversation McLoughlin imagines having with his wife, as he's being rescued from the rubble. There's also a cut-away to a Wisconsin diner that's quite reckless and is only redeemed from being a non sequitur by a cheap payoff moment toward the film's end. In instances like these, Stone is absolutely shameless.

I've been unable to avoid comparing this film to 'United 93,' and I suspect this will be the case for many who write about this movie. Greengrass subtly employed the techniques of cinema to ultimately subserve the events his film depicted, while Stone employs the techniques of cinema to shape the events into a narrative that's palatable and marketable, and to cue the viewer on how to feel. Stone's film exudes a certain degree of obligatory respectfulness, but nobility is absent because of an obvious bid to be seen as noble. What disappoints most is how Hollywood everything is. This is a formula movie. And not only is 'World Trade Center' a disappointment, it's also disappointingly minor.

Answer 2

no iv never bin to america but i heard it was a magnificent building,i heard that if u stood in fron of it from a great distance and u tilted your head right back u still couldent see the top,a shame about what those scu m did to it and our american freinds,i dont like your goverment and some of your people cause there to arrogent and think everything they do works, but britain and the u.s will stand together toe to toe for a long time,for example america said to carry on the attacks in the mid east and britain said that they demand it to cease fire,so the british goverment took it through the u.n to cease fire,now that has happened it has bin a lot better through the past couple days,i dont like our goverment much but i think mr bush shoud take a leaf out of blairs book for once.

Answer 3

I JUST SAW IT TONIGHT, I THOUGHT IT WAS REALLY GOOD, I'VE NEVER WATCHED A MOVIE THAT MADE ME CRY SO MUCH--IT WAS JUST THE REALITY OF IT. I THINK THAT IT PROBALY RECAPTURED ABOUT AS MUCH AS IT REALLY COULD HAVE WITH THE CHAOS, EMOTIONS, AND MISCOMMUNICATIONS. IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO SEE A TRAGEDY HAVE A POSITIVE ENDING FOR SOMEONE. I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR THAT THEY ARE DONATING SOME OF THE MONEY TO THE RED CROSS OR SOMETHING THOUGH.

Answer 4

It was ok. You can feel their pain and suffering. it's like a flashback all over again from 9/11. I liked it but I think it was released too soon.

Answer 5

I saw it over and over again on T.V. Read it so many times in the newspaper and...well...I think I kinda know how the movie is going to end..So no I'm not planning on watching it.

Answer 6

No, and I have no plans to see it.

I think it is an unnecessary film with people profiting off a horrific incident!

Answer 7

I saw it and jsut as I expected I loved it. There were no political vies and no terrorists.

Answer 8

me........ i cryed it was so sad when one of the rescuer wrote 'i love you' with a heart it was a sad movie but it got the point out to every one but than again that is my oppinion

Answer 9

Jews will try to make money out of anything, I guess

Answer 10

yes. on tv. it's been destroyed. It's past.