I've been anticipating WTC and been a little lukewarm about this.. but the reviews have been amazing, and I definately want to see it now. And because of that, though, it does make me worry about what it's going to be like for WTC. I don't think it's going to get good reviews either and I wouldn't be surprised if it was an Alexander-like flop.

97% COTC is amazing, and the one negative should be a positive.

Yo, Doc - I'm still waiting for clarification...

(I have never been a supporter of judging a film's quality by it's Rotten Tomatoes rating - it's akin to every Mom's favorite advice: "If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you automatically jump off too?"...)

After all the brouhaha over this, I'm finding myself really not even having the desire to see this.. Not sure why considering how everyone keeps going on an on about it and how good it is..

wow

This film was unlike anything I had seen.

I, personally, thought it was great. My one friend thought for the most part, it was boring, but of course the exciting parts were good. And my second friend said she got seriously sick from it (but it had more to do with the camera than the content).

This is not a mainstream movie. IT's going to be quite dull and boring for alot of viewers and it definitely won't be easy for those who were affected by the events to watch. I didn't know anyone associated with the attacks and still felt like the movie was a bit of a roller-coaster.

I liked the realism. I think that's probably why I thought it was a good movie. I think the bottom line for me would be: IF they were to make a movie about this, this was the way to go. And that's that.

However, I'm starting to rethink alot of the stuff now that it's all coming back to me. I'm quite interested in the cover-up conspiracy and wondered why that never really spread nation wide (or maybe I wasn't aware of it).

***1/2 (3.5/4 stars)

Didn't see your quoted post and obviously misinterpreted your original post. I figured by "how true the facts are in the movie" you meant the movie's qulity. Obviouisly, you didn't.

All the great reviews meant jack since some unknown garbage like Stick It did better than this universally praised movie.

This probably does not bode well for World Trade Center.

BTW, props to BKB for predicting the general lack of interest for this movie.

Or it means that it was just a critic's movie - and ordinary people aren't interested in this version of the tale...


I wouldn't be so sure about that. Stone's WTC promises some real human drama, with real actors, and a straight non-political rescue story -- I'd say it'll easily outpace United 93...

I notice that David Poland's decidely ambivalent review of U93 didn't make it onto the Rotten Tomatoes reviews of this film...

I love how you say "version of the tale" as if this is a remake of Cinderella or something.

And, again? United 93? No political agenda. None. Try seeing it before you argue what its political agenda is. Thanks.

United 93 had real actors

I think its typical that the negative reviews accuse this movie of "Trivialising" the events. Right. Whatever.

Actually, United 93 outgrossed Stick It this weekend.