Note: If you did not watch the news around the time of 9/11 you might not know how this movie turns out. Therefore, this review contains spoilers for you. "World Trade Center" is a movie I went into not expecting to like but wanting to see anyway (just not willing to pay for it), and once again my instincts did not fail me.
Now before you tune me out and call me insensitive, let me preface this rant: most of the filmmaker's nitpicky reasons I did not like the film will be the same ones that make others love it. For one, it is a typical Oliver Stone movie, which basically means he gets the performances and works with great actors, but he lingers on shots too long and treats the audience like they are not paying attention, therefore drilling every last little bit home.
"World Trade Center" can best be described as a docu-drama. Unlike "Titanic," or even "Pearl Harbor" (which I acknowledge is a bad example because it is a bad film), the relationship between John and Will cannot stand alone: if you took away the historical tragedy that serves as the backdrop, you would not have a story. There is no exposition to John and Will before September 11 (and I actually think the movie should be called "September 11" because of that): you meet them separately on the morning of the events. You never see them before: two men of different generations and ranks performing the same job, working in the same precinct, but not really knowing each other. Instead, you are thrust into hell with them.
I don't know what was actually said under the rubble, nor do I think either John or Will can recall exactly, as lack of oxygen and mind-numbing, bone-crushing pain must have made them pretty delirious, but I do not believe it was as written in "World Trade Center." If you watched the news after September 11, you knew the story of John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno: therefore, the ending of "World Trade Center" is no surprise. You go into the movie knowing exactly how it will turn out, and what keeps you in the seats are the performances. However, Oliver Stone still felt the need to create drama and suspense: will they die? Will one live? Which one? It felt fake and forced, which is the worst way to bastardize such an emotional story.
When Dave Karnes, the rogue ex-Marine who ultimately found Will alive, streams past the police officers and firefighters packing up for the night at Ground Zero, he actually looks around and says: Its like God created a sheet to shield us from what we shouldn't see. There's Hollywood writing, if I ever heard it. Fake and forced clichés. Like I said: unrealistic dialogue.
"World Trade Center" is rated PG. The studio wants kids to see it; they want them to remember and to understand just what could have been lost that day. No one curses in the movie: even when they should have, even when they did in reality, they don't in the film. But just like in "JFK," Oliver Stone utilizes real news footage to tie the narrative together, and one of those clips is of an extreme close up on the burning hole in Tower One, as someone jumps to their death. Children need to remember; we all do, but that was uncalled for, especially considering the whole first act leading up to that point was from John and Will's perspective. As members of the Port Authority PD, they were uptown when the first plane hit: neither of them saw it. As they bussed down to the site, no one knew what was going on. There were conflicting reports, and it wasn't even confirmed that the second plane hit. So thankfully the audience was spared certain visuals. But not everything.
The most interesting element to the film was one line within the first ten minutes-- one that was fleeting and unremarkable and even unnoticed by most: "Look out for this girl, she's eleven years old and a runaway out of Rhode Island expected to be on a bus to Grand Central this morning." The police chief holds up a picture at the morning's briefing, before everything goes awry. In the midst of the chaos, I wondered about her: did she actually come into NYC that day? Did her bus get in Grand Central or did she take a train to the World Trade Center? Was she found? Did she live? Is she home safely with her family now? Thats a new story amiss something I lived and then saw time and time again. And I want to know more about THAT. But it was dropped because they weren't out to create a fictional storyline, and they don't know what really happened there.
I think overall I was disappointed because it was not extraordinary. I wanted to see the sets recreated: I wanted to see how real they looked, and unfortunately so much was done with green screen, that fell short for me. In this case, the truth was the best narrative this story could possibly have: the real footage of people emerging from the burning buildings is ten times more powerful than anything staged could ever be. The personal memories and images are enough to feel, to be pained, to cry: this movie isn't necessary. In twenty or thirty years, maybe it will be. Maybe when everyone has started to forget, to move on, Ill break out World Trade Center and see it in a new light. But with all of the countless documentaries (including but not limited to the two I already mentioned), I doubt that Ill even need it then.
Don't get me wrong, I believe every story is worth being told, and every film is worth being made, but I reserve the right to criticize them all, too.
Now before you tune me out and call me insensitive, let me preface this rant: most of the filmmaker's nitpicky reasons I did not like the film will be the same ones that make others love it. For one, it is a typical Oliver Stone movie, which basically means he gets the performances and works with great actors, but he lingers on shots too long and treats the audience like they are not paying attention, therefore drilling every last little bit home.
"World Trade Center" can best be described as a docu-drama. Unlike "Titanic," or even "Pearl Harbor" (which I acknowledge is a bad example because it is a bad film), the relationship between John and Will cannot stand alone: if you took away the historical tragedy that serves as the backdrop, you would not have a story. There is no exposition to John and Will before September 11 (and I actually think the movie should be called "September 11" because of that): you meet them separately on the morning of the events. You never see them before: two men of different generations and ranks performing the same job, working in the same precinct, but not really knowing each other. Instead, you are thrust into hell with them.
I don't know what was actually said under the rubble, nor do I think either John or Will can recall exactly, as lack of oxygen and mind-numbing, bone-crushing pain must have made them pretty delirious, but I do not believe it was as written in "World Trade Center." If you watched the news after September 11, you knew the story of John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno: therefore, the ending of "World Trade Center" is no surprise. You go into the movie knowing exactly how it will turn out, and what keeps you in the seats are the performances. However, Oliver Stone still felt the need to create drama and suspense: will they die? Will one live? Which one? It felt fake and forced, which is the worst way to bastardize such an emotional story.
When Dave Karnes, the rogue ex-Marine who ultimately found Will alive, streams past the police officers and firefighters packing up for the night at Ground Zero, he actually looks around and says: Its like God created a sheet to shield us from what we shouldn't see. There's Hollywood writing, if I ever heard it. Fake and forced clichés. Like I said: unrealistic dialogue.
"World Trade Center" is rated PG. The studio wants kids to see it; they want them to remember and to understand just what could have been lost that day. No one curses in the movie: even when they should have, even when they did in reality, they don't in the film. But just like in "JFK," Oliver Stone utilizes real news footage to tie the narrative together, and one of those clips is of an extreme close up on the burning hole in Tower One, as someone jumps to their death. Children need to remember; we all do, but that was uncalled for, especially considering the whole first act leading up to that point was from John and Will's perspective. As members of the Port Authority PD, they were uptown when the first plane hit: neither of them saw it. As they bussed down to the site, no one knew what was going on. There were conflicting reports, and it wasn't even confirmed that the second plane hit. So thankfully the audience was spared certain visuals. But not everything.
The most interesting element to the film was one line within the first ten minutes-- one that was fleeting and unremarkable and even unnoticed by most: "Look out for this girl, she's eleven years old and a runaway out of Rhode Island expected to be on a bus to Grand Central this morning." The police chief holds up a picture at the morning's briefing, before everything goes awry. In the midst of the chaos, I wondered about her: did she actually come into NYC that day? Did her bus get in Grand Central or did she take a train to the World Trade Center? Was she found? Did she live? Is she home safely with her family now? Thats a new story amiss something I lived and then saw time and time again. And I want to know more about THAT. But it was dropped because they weren't out to create a fictional storyline, and they don't know what really happened there.
I think overall I was disappointed because it was not extraordinary. I wanted to see the sets recreated: I wanted to see how real they looked, and unfortunately so much was done with green screen, that fell short for me. In this case, the truth was the best narrative this story could possibly have: the real footage of people emerging from the burning buildings is ten times more powerful than anything staged could ever be. The personal memories and images are enough to feel, to be pained, to cry: this movie isn't necessary. In twenty or thirty years, maybe it will be. Maybe when everyone has started to forget, to move on, Ill break out World Trade Center and see it in a new light. But with all of the countless documentaries (including but not limited to the two I already mentioned), I doubt that Ill even need it then.
Don't get me wrong, I believe every story is worth being told, and every film is worth being made, but I reserve the right to criticize them all, too.