It's a simple true-life story that could have been set in any building anywhere; its title, specific to 9/11, is only because of the historical proximity to the actual events (it may as well have been called "Towering Inferno", or "Rubble Film"). I agree with you, RRA; United 93 presented a much wider, more intelligent handling of the events in both humane and political terms, and on aesthetic grounds it aped Stone's TV drama (though to compare the films too much would be unfair, with their very different intentions).

To be honest, it isn't horrendous. My problems are thus (written at the time):

Stone's film has no real energy, no real explosive or electric rhythm, no narrative drive. It's not a bad film by any means - in fact it's rather watchable - but it's decidedly ordinary. It looks like a TV movie, viewable to all, with intentions of inspiration and shortcomings in production value. Two moments of mild effect - when the first tower falls, with the men inside, and when the two survivors first hear help above on the ground. It's a conventional film, though, about an extraordinary event; and what is it that makes Nicolas Cage far more enjoyable to watch when he's deliberately and physically disabled under a pile of rubble, as opposed to a pro-active, no-shit member of the emergency services...? Flat.