Originally Posted By: Capo de La Cosa Nostra


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.


I ABSOLUTELY agree with you on this point, and if I remember right, I got in serious heat with a BB.Net senior because I had written that I "never made to give a shit about the family's drama," which he interpreted as me disrespecting the real-life 9/11 families....which I absolutely don't at all.

What I thought was weird back in 2005 was how an Oliver Stone cinematic treatment on a subject was the less controversial picture compared to Greengrass' UNITED 93, which had that infamous "Too Soon!" incident in that NYC theatre. Nevermind UNITED 93's trouble with the Screen Actor's Guild because Greengrass had a non-union cast, and if rumors are to be believed, SAG did its very best to blackball U93 at Awards Season, though enough voters came through to land Greengrass a Best Director nod.

The only good thing from WORLD TRADE CENTER to me is that it gave Oliver Stone a rebound of sorts after the great failure of ALEXANDER, and who knows, maybe his controversial W this winter will be his comeback.

Last edited by ronnierocketAGO; 07/21/08 02:28 PM.