Saw this two weeks ago at a free preview screening (full capacity, probably 75% are aged 35+, 50/50 gender split).

A few negatives

• There were several instances where I felt very uncomfortable and felt an urge to not see the rest of the movie, though I continued on.
• I can't describe how, but a few of the scenes felt a bit exploitative and brought out some of the negative emotions I felt five years ago and I did feel that I would be more ready to see this film 20 years from now instead.
• The incident of the first plane crash as well as people's reaction shots were quite poorly done, but the movie gets better after the the Nicholas Cage goes into the building.
• The subject matter is very narrow in scope, focusing only on certain individuals while ignoring many other stories during 9/11.
• Felt much longer than the 2 hour running time due to the weight of the subject matter.
• Some dialogue may be overdramatized, but makes for a more emotional picture.

Main thoughts

• This is one very dramatic and emotionally involving film. Much, much, much moreso than United 93. Many people were audibly crying during this movie.
• As an emotional rollercoaster, this ranks up there along with Schindler's List and Titanic, except we can relate to this even more due to the proximity of the events.
• Absolutely stunning production values and action sequences.
• Spectacular acting from all the major cast members.
• A groundbreaking movie-going experience that will go down in cinematic history.

I give this film a very solid A though I don't think I want to see this film again for at least another five years. I see Oscar nominations for Picture, Director, Screenplay, Original Score, Sound, Sound Effects Editing, Art Direction, and Editing. Outside chance in Cinematography, Makeup and some acting nods.

First and foremost, this is a great film. Stone went the conservative and ultimately, the smart route in making the film not about politics or conspiracy theories. Just like United 93, the film is about survival and the fight to live.

However for me personally, the film didn't have the same emotional impact for me like United 93 did, and that's because of the actors. For me, with people like Nicolas Cage, Maria Bello, Jay Hernandez and Maggie Gyllenhaal, it was more along the lines of "Hollywood Presents: World Trade Center" instead of just World Trade Center, if that makes any sense.There is one reason why I left Steven Dorff. He was almost unrecognizeable as John Strauss. He has a small role in the film, but he's good when he's on screen. The same can be said for Frank Whaley. I think if this had gone the same route as United 93, in hiring unknowns for the leads, it would've benefited overall. Still though, this is a minor complaint, but a complaint nonetheless.

However, what Stone and company wanted to accomplish is accomplished in the long run. The film is unforgettable and emotional. The CGI effects are pretty amazing, and the set locations made me feel like I was at Ground Zero. Like United 93, it took me back in time to that Tuesday, while I was sitting in Spanish class in my third week of freshman year of high school, when I first learned of what happened. Although it's not as great as United 93 (That's in a class with the likes of Schindler's List in my book), it's a great film. Stone and company should feel pretty good about what they did.

A

A though overly dramatic at times

Solid Movie, and very emotional. Drags alot. Seems alot longer then what it is, but still a good, emotional movie. B+

United 93 should have remained the only 9/11 film.

Slow, overly melodramatic, and surprisingly poorly acted, WTC is a bland piece of filmmaking that definitely isn't worth your time. Gyllenhaal was especially awful.

Solid but very unsatisfying filmmaking. The problem with World Trade Center is that it is a very cliched, shallow story that is made grander simply by being set to real world events. There are many problems herein though. For one, it feels exploitative, it doesn't feel right because it doesn't really give any sort of new insight in to the events.

Unlike fellow 9/11 film, United 93 which at least felt like it had a reason to be made, World Trade Center feels unneeded and ultimately very cliched. Both films are stories of courage, both films take stories that have become steeped in legend and attempt to make them more real to average people. United 93 did a better job at this, though at times it steeped a bit too much into sensationalism and Hollywood-ization.

World Trade Center is not a bad piece of filmmaking. Apart from some sub-par acting and cheesy dialogue it is techinically solid, but that can't make up for what it is missing elsewhere - a justification for its existance. In the end, World Trade Center is just another bland rescue story. Being set against the backdrop of 9/11 and using real characters makes the story more impactful but doesn't do much to make it a better story. It is all the more exploitative and all the more uncalled for.

C

September 11th, 2001. It's a day most American's would like to keep locked up in the back of their minds, and throw away the key. For the day is one of the most disturbing, and depressing day's in America's history; the day terrorists struck the Twin Towers in New York City. Five years after the attacks, three films have been made about the day; Flight 93, a made for TV film that premiered in January 2006, giving A&E their highest ratings of all time. In April, we were given United 93, which was the same basic story as Flight 93, without all the cheesy, melodramatic dialogue. Now as the five year anniversary of the Twin Tower's collapse, Oliver Stone has made World Trade Center. The story focuses on two policemen stuck in the rubble, as well as their families reactions of the attacks, and not knowing where their missing family members are.

Oliver Stone has made a powerful film. While I don't think it's as great as United 93 (to me, that is one of the best films of the year. It's so emotional, and is extremely well made), World Trade Center is still a heart warming crowd pleaser. Yes, you heard me right, I said "heart warming crowd pleaser." This film doesn't focus on why these attacks were made on our soil, and it doesn't focus on the war, or the terrorists. It focuses on how two men try to survive in the rubble. Throughout the film's running time, there is extremely powerful acting on display. The stand out of the cast is Maggie Gyllenhaal. I loved her performance the most out of this wonderful cast. It was so real, and so heart breaking. One of my favorite scenes in the film was when she was trying to get home from the drug store, and she didn't want to wait for a red light to change. It's little scenes like this that make a film like World Trade Center care about the film's characters. Nicolas Cage is good in his role, but is vastly underused. He doesn't have much to do with the film, except for before they're stuck in the rubble. Still, it's a great performance, from an already great actor. Michael Pena was great as well, turning out the best supporting male performance of the year, thus far. Though he does have a few cheesy bits in the film (the Jesus hallucination, the 'I love you' bit). Maria Bello is also great as Nicolas Cage's wife, giving a great supporting performance.

As good as this movie is, it could've been great. The cheesy dialoge was sometimes eye roll inducing, and the cheesy scenes (there weren't as many as I figured there would be) could've been cut. I do think that people bashing the Jesus scene are right, it doesn't fit the movie at all. It could've easily been cut. Still, it wasn't a horrible scene, a bit laughable? Yes. I think that was the point, though. Especially since the lines following the hallucination were comical. Also, the film runs too long. It could've been cut by about fifteen minutes, and it would've been a bit better. My favorite scenes were the scenes the dealt with Cage and Pena's wives, they were extremely interesting, and at times heart breaking. One of the best scenes in the film is when Maria Bello is waiting for her husband, and there is a black woman talking to her about how he's missing, and the last time she spoke to him, she yelled at him. These are the kind of things that tug at my heart strings the most. Just like in the far superior United 93, when the families knew their fait, and they were calling their loved ones to say goodbye.

Overall, World Trade Center is a very good film. Far from Oscar worthy, far from one of the best of the year, but still a deserving motion picture. It's one that will for sure please audiences, and bring tears to their eyes. I definitely recommended it.

8/10 (B+)

the acting is great though all around.

I would have never guessed this grade after reading your review...

How come? I mention it's well made, and has great performance, but it's brought down by the cheesy moments and the extremely long running time.

It is more then brought down, it is completely destroyed.

It is nothing more then a cheesy movie set against real world events.

Agree... Even a real movie about cheesy world events is better...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ewood

Well put.

Now when are you going to go see a movie with me fellow Atlantean?

Grade B

I'm not good at writing long reviews so I'll just drop that I felt the film could have been much much more than it was but maybe the scope of the attacks on the WTC is just too big for one film to tackle. I think there could 20 other films dealing with the specific stories of some survivors but that would dilute the whole message that one should take from a film like this. Focusing on just these two men is okay but again it feels like it cheapens the meaning of the day for me.

Not showing visual recreations or footage of the crashes into the buildings also felt a bit cheap imo. Why leave that out? The event is much to important to gloss over with shadows and just showing the after effects.

I did appreciate the effects of the crumbling of the tower and all the material gushing forth and into the lobby. Then we have the rest of the film with our leads stuck in the rubble trading time with their families personal emotional struggle as well. I personally preferred the scenes in the rubble.

The main problem is that the event of that day is just used to showcase the story of the survival of 2/20 people pulled from the rubble. It just minimizes that day to limit the story like that, so we have a typical survival film that just happens to be set in the backdrop of 9/11. A complete miss imo. The film is certainly not horrible it just doesn't live up to my own personal expectation. Also, maybe a future film will focus on who, what, when, where and how next time other than this minor personal story.

i actually walked out. pretty much the first time i remember doing that. i hate it because, a, im cheap and i cant stand not getting what i pay for and b, i dont really feel right judging a film without seeing all of it...if asked, i doubt i would even tell people i'd seen it. however, it turns out there was only about 20 minutes left in the film anyway and i know pretty mcuh what had to have happened, so i feel reletively comfortable saying it's garbage. (ps - i didnt leave cuz i was offended or any crap like that...the two old ladies next to me smelled like old ladies and one of them was sobbing and coughing the hwole time and the mexicans to the right were on the fone and had a two yr old baby who "wants to go home! daddy!". plus, the film /really/ sucked).

im kinda glad it sucks, cuz when i first saw the trailer i thought it was a joke. it just looked sooo cheezey and yknow, silly and stuff..and thats exactly how it turned out. it was about as deep and emotional and well acted and interesting as the everyday lifetime flick. its just like a giant silly flat bore/cheese fest. i dunno...just nothing worth watching/talking about i guess```lol i meant to press the tab buttton but i was up one :O

I'm shocked at how boring WTC is. There's no easier way to say it: World Trade Center sucks. After a promising opening 20 minutes, the film comes to a screeching halt, and stays like that. Is it wrong to say that the film loses anything it had going for it once the towers fall? If so, I apologize, but that's how I feel. It's a people story, and it should be. But I can't help it if I don't feel for any of the people in this movie.

Grade: D+

Stick with United 93 for a good story about 9/11.

someone said that the movie fails to bring you back to the on-the-edge feeling of not knowing what was happening that day and how those two officers must have felt being trapped in rubble for almost 27 hours. They're right.

I thought it was well-crafted, had some beautiful acting (Gyllenhaal being the best of the bunch, I say), and I felt strong emotions while watching the film, emotions of dread and sympathy similar to those evoked during United 93.

But afterwards, reflecting upon the film as a whole, though, I felt more ambivalent than moved.

Stone, as it's been said, is entirely respectful of his subjects, but there was actually a lot more shown to the audience than I expected: I most certainly did not expect to see such scenes as the characters actually inside the building, running to the elevator shaft as it imploded upon them. Gratuitous or insensitive? No. But something rubbed me the wrong way about it, maybe because such depictions are inherently Hollywood-ized. I felt uneasy.

The film concludes with text detailing the number of lives lost at the WTC that day, and I guess this is where my main problem with the film lies: With nearly 3000 people dead, the glamorization of a story detailing the lives of the living does seem insensitive. Of all the stories brought forth this day, why choose this one? As a sort of catharsis by way of inspiration? Though it evoked emotions from me, I was left with a sort of "well that's good that they were rescued, but... what about all the other people?" sort of feeling. The inspiration and triumph of that story, I guess you could say, didn't outweigh the sadness of the others.

A hard one to grade, but I'm in the B/B+ range. Skillful filmmaking, modest delivery.

When I was watching the film, I was affected and touched by what is depicted on the screen. It's visually stunning, and the images felt real. However, once I had time to reflect on it, I realized there is really no substance, and my grade has dropped accordingly. What's the point of the film? We saw two people who were just walking, hadn't helped anybody to escape before getting stuck under the rubble, and they spent the next couple of hours talking to each other to keep themselves alive, and they got rescued. They are survivors, not heroes, and that shouldn't be the spirit of a 9/11 film. When I think of 9/11, I thought about heroism, chaos, and people who were killed on that day. United 93 touched on all, while World Trade Center showed very little. The story Oliver Stone told could very well be about two mine workers who got stuck and rescued after a random mining accident instead. The approach and end-result dilute the significance of the event. B-.

I agree.

The film ends with a narration that states (roughly), "On September 11, we saw what men were capable of -- not just the bad, but the good, the honorable, and the brave. We need these stories to be told..." and so on.

It's not that I think that the film is devoid of substance; I think a lot of it ends up being an ode to the resilience of the American spirit (*sniff*) and is successful. But when the film itself states its main goal -- to tell the stories of courageous men -- it brings up the points that you made, that courage isn't really what this film is about. Not really.

(And, by the way, if they're basing the whole "courage" thing on the Marine who feels it his duty to help and heads down to NYC, then I must give even less credit to the film, as the depiction of his character is a little slight.)

I think the film partially succeeds, though, in that despite the conventional and nearly inconsequential nature of its story, it's still a solid yarn that conjures true emotion. Scenes such as Maggie Gyllenhaal hearing the news that Jimeno's alive, them walking past the "missing" signs in the hospital, even Cage's last line to Bello all got to me and made me appreciate the film as more of a general exploration of initial 9/11 trauma and emotion. (And resilience of the American spirit!)

Some big negatives, but a lot of positives.

I think that's the part of the movie where everyone in the theater started to tear up ("You kept me alive").