World Trade Center (2006) Poster

User Reviews

Review this title
631 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
5/10
Good intentions and some powerful moments but overall a disappointment
imaginarytruths10 August 2006
I honestly didn't think it was very good at all, though I respect the intentions of the filmmakers. Whatever one wants to say about Oliver Stone, he showed a commitment to faithfully telling the story of these two Port Authority cops trapped in the wreckage of the World Trade Center and their worried wives.

I liked a lot of the scenes in the beginning, the little mundane details like when Michael Pena's character is going about his everyday street beat. But the scenes at the WTC itself are really awkward, especially the cross-cutting between real footage and the actors. They just don't match, neither the film stocks nor the actors' reactions. A couple of moments with Pena standing there on the concourse were effective in creating a sense of horrific surrealism, and the moments right before the collapse were sudden and chilling...but overall it was not as powerful as I was expecting. For a film called World Trade Center, I guess I was expecting a little more context and not something focused so narrowly on these two Port Authority cops and an ex-Marine from Connecticut (as the only person outside these two cops' families whose story is told in the film, the focus on him reeks of jingoism in a GI Joe/Rambo vein).

I know it's a little unfair to compare this to United 93, but I need to in order to illustrate the point. U93 told a specific story (the experience of the passengers on the plane) and placed it within a context (what was happening with air traffic control and the military). The lessons that are demonstrated in the actions of the passengers are enhanced by contrasting them with the helplessness of the "professionals" responsible for their safety. It's telling a dramatically powerful story, conveying a theme , AND providing a larger historical context of what happened that day. Oliver Stone, by comparison, has failed to effectively tie the experiences of these two trapped cops with the larger events of the day, and his film suffers as a result. And in the end the film largely shortchanges the stories of the 2749 families who didn't get good news that day.

OK, so the film focuses on a narrow story of these two trapped cops and their families (and the gung ho marine, but he has limited screen time). Was their story well told? The scenes amidst the wreckage were compelling, but the back-and-forth with their wives became annoyingly schmaltzy. Yes, Maggie Gyllenhaal gave a strong performance as the pregnant wife and a lot of the moments with her family (esp the brief scene with the Colombian mother-in-law praying) were emotionally poignant, but so much of the family stuff was lame melodrama. And to be honest, even Maggie's performance was a little generic. I understand that these characters are all closely based on real life, but it still felt very Lifetime movie of the week. As for Maria Bello in the role of the other wife, I loved her in A History of Violence, but she was bland in this. The kid actors playing her children were mostly awful, and the film dragged whenever their story was on the screen. The resolution is mostly handled well, I really like what Oliver Stone is trying to convey about these small gestures of heroic goodness in the face of such desolation. But the power of these scenes is undermined by his tendency to pour on the sappiness while largely ignoring the greater horror of the day. It feels like a soap opera set against the greatest tragedy of our age, and that just doesn't work for me.

In short...not intense enough, not enough context, too much melodrama, not enough of a sense of reverence for what happened, highly impressive job of recreating the debris field, a charismatic performance from Maggie, overall a mediocre film.
340 out of 500 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
5/10
National tragedy as formula storytelling
anhedonia2 September 2006
Something surprising happened while watching Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" - I realized how much more I appreciated Paul Greengrass' "United 93." Greengrass' film was lean, stripped of any backstory for any of the characters. Very simply, it told what happened that horrible day on the plane - though he used some license - and didn't wallow in needless sentimentality.

Stone, on the other hand and rather surprisingly, seems to have gone out of his way to make something that would be so palatable and inoffensive that it would turn out rather bland, above anything else.

The 45 minutes of "World Trade Center" are terrific. After offering us quick glimpses into the lives of Port Authority cops John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Pena), Andrea Berloff's script gets us right into the attacks on the Twin Towers.

The crumbling of the towers, which still is incredibly difficult to watch, let alone fathom, is handled with taste, but also is awfully gripping. We get a real sense of the terror and panic and then Stone gets the claustrophobic atmosphere right. With close-ups of Pena and Cage amidst the ruins, he gets us so close, we can almost taste the rubble and concrete dust.

But that's the last time we really see or feel any sense of genuine, gripping storytelling in this film. I realize criticizing a film about 9/11, especially one that displays its American stars and stripes so blatantly, is tantamount to treason these days. After all, as this administration and its minions love to point out, if you disagree with them, you're not only unpatriotic, but also an appeaser of the villains. It's poppycock, of course. Dissent is undoubtedly American, but these chaps so love draping themselves in the flag that jingoism overwhelms all reason. Why bother with rational thought when you can scare people?

What struck me while watching the film is realizing how much goodwill was channeled toward the United States after the attacks and what's ultimately sad is how this president took all that goodwill and squandered it by launching an utterly pointless war in Iraq. We could have done so much good in the world, instead of now being one of the most hated nations in the world. And Bush has now turned 9/11 into a political slogan for political (and personal) gain.

The problem with Stone's film isn't so much the story, but how Berloff chose to tell it. According to Berloff, cops, rescue workers, even family members tend to enjoy speaking in exposition. There are moments that surely someone of Stone's calibre should have realized needed to be rewritten because the dialogue seems mediocre at best.

Where the film suffers is when the story cuts between the two trapped men and their families, especially their wives. Maria Bello as Donna McLoughlin and the always wonderful Maggie Gyllenhaal as Allison Jimeno never get much to do with their sorely underwritten roles. It's a true testament to Gyllenhaal's talent that she turns a rather sour role into a passionate, moving performance. Poor Bello, on the other hand, isn't that fortunate. She's relegated to spending more time than she should weeping.

The trouble with these scenes is not that Berloff tries to wring some emotion out of them, but that they come off as unabashedly sentimental. And the emotions are entirely unearned.

Pena proves, just as he did in "Crash" (2005), that he's able to be something special on screen. His character is far more engaging than Cage's; Pena's emotions come off without any artifice.

I can't help but feel that "World Trade Center" could have been the gut-wrenching experience Stone intended it to be had he and Berloff approached the story much in the way Greengrass did "United 93." Stone's movie is far from lean. It's padded with needless sentimentality and moments that just try so hard to earn some emotion, any emotion, that they come off as utterly false. And that's unfair to the people whose story is being chronicled here.

Watching Cage and Pena trapped should be gripping stuff. But even their dialogue is reduced to exposition. And when Berloff finally leaves the two men and their families, we get Dave Karnes (Michael Shannon), a man so moved by what he saw that he came down to the Twin Towers and proved to be McLoughlin and Jimeno's miracle. We all know Karnes is a real person, but I very much doubt that he speaks in bumper stickers. But that's exactly what Berloff has him do.

The first 45 minutes of the movie showed what Stone truly is capable of doing. The rest is rather tepid. And unbelievably forced. Who knew that Oliver Stone, of all people, would resort to formulaic storytelling. Perhaps he's been so stung by conspiracy accusations and was so keen on appeasing his critics and forgetting the execrable "Alexander" (2004) that he opted to make the kind of movie Ron Howard would make. That's not a compliment.
150 out of 244 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A surprisingly good film
kyle-florence13 August 2006
I went into this film without expectations. I saw Flight 93 and enjoyed it and I am very interested in all events surrounding September 11th, so this film appealed to me. Now, I must say that I am not an Oliver Stone fan, however, upon hearing this movie was nothing like an Oliver Stone film I decided to check it out.

The storyline for the film, as stated, was based on the stories of a few Port Authority police who survived the collapse of the building while being trapped for hours in the rubble. At the beginning we are introduced to each of the characters and their families. It's enough to get us involved with each of them but leaves enough room to elaborate as the film unfolds. The film moves rather nicely without going too fast or slow. The vast amount of the film takes place after the towers collapse while the men are trapped in the rubble. The story is told through the trapped police officers current situation as well as what their families are going through at the same time.

I felt this story to be very natural and not Hollywood-ized, something I had been worried would happen. All the events seemed plausible, they didn't throw anything in for added drama. All of the characters were completely believable and you ended up loving all of them by the end. I will caution you though, there are some intense scenes in this movie so if you are unable to deal with some of the events from that day you may not want to see the film.

The cinematography and sound really aided this film. All of the filming was crisp and clean, the special effects were great and you could hardly tell this had been filmed after the towers were gone (the shots containing the towers that is). There were some great scenes from life in new york; shots of the skyline and the subway as well as some breathtaking aerials. The sound was spot on, you could feel the building collapse as the scenes unfolded on the screen. It was a great job all around.

Overall I was pleasantly surprised at how good this was, it lived up to Flight 93, although it has an entirely different feel to it. This film is not ground-breaking work, but it wasn't meant to be. It was meant to tell the story of a few brave men and their families and their experiences during September 11th, and it accomplished this very well.
136 out of 242 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
A reminder of that fateful day.
lewishamilton-359619 December 2018
This is an excellent film on a very touchy subject. World Trade Center makes an excellent companion piece to United 93. The films have different styles and they present diverse perspectives of a day that has limitless faces. Both are thoughtful, intelligent, and emotionally potent. They provoke and challenge, asking us not only to face our memories but to question our future. By being less political than he has ever been, Stone offers a movie that can be embraced by movie-goers who sit on the left side of the theater, in the center, or on the right. It's an achievement, and it makes one hope that future feature films about 9/11 will exhibit the same mix of dramatic force and tasteful restraint.
6 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
A Great Drama
imajestr28 July 2006
I saw an advanced screening of World Trade Center last night, and I was very impressed. I went into it unbiased, deciding that I would indeed like to hear the story of what happened to the two officers this movie is about, and I would take it for what it is, regardless of whether or not people think it's still too soon.

This is a very moving and intense look at the story of the officers' ordeal as well as what their families had to go through. Of course, the viewer is reminded of a lot that happened on that day, and it is disturbing, sad, and angering just as the real events were. However, the movie makes no attempt at all to explain what happened or give some great message to the world about terrorism, government, or war. It's more of a character study and simply a look at a terrible event from several perspectives.

The acting is superb, and I have more respect for Nicholas Cage after this movie than I did going into it. There are some very intense moments, and moments that, as I've said, are angering and disturbing, but not to make the viewer want to walk away, but simply to be angry that these events had to occur in the first place.

Thankfully, there are several moments of humor throughout the movie, to give the viewer a break perhaps, but they work well.

I gave this movie a 7 out of 10 because the writing at times was not all that it could have been, especially some of the dialogue. Overall, the acting is great and the characters feel real, but in some scenes you may feel like the sentimentality is being forced and doesn't feel genuine.

I will recommend this movie to people who are not dead set against it, or someone who is just looking for exactly what it is: a movie made for entertainment and as a tribute to those that died.
41 out of 71 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
a good film,I don't understand the negative reviews.
ib011f9545i7 September 2021
Warning: Spoilers
British person,Scottish.

I saw this film on the big screen when it came out.

I watch the dvd of this and of Flight 93 most years in September.

The 9/11 attacks were important events in world history,you don't have to be an American to appreciate how important they were.

This is a moving and well made and acted film.

It is not perfect,the timeline is not always clear for example.

But the critics on here saying the film is American propaganda best consumed by Americans are totally wrong in my view.

Non Americans,even people who know little of the real events can get a lot from this film.

It really is not a rabble rousing film,compare it to Patriot Day for example.

One critic on here complains it tells the story of 2 men not 2700 people.

Well obviously you can't make a film about 2700 people.
8 out of 11 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Surprising in many respects *MILD SPOILER*
mstomaso23 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
There seems to be a great deal of confusion in the varied interpretations presented here on IMDb about what this movie attempts to depict. This is not about 9/11, nor is it about heroism, nor is it about terrorism, nor politics. This is, remarkably, a very simple story about survival, the will to live, and the responsibility that goes along with being human. There are a number of nuanced sub-themes (all of those listed above) as well, and the most important of these, from my unique perspective (and I welcome contrary opinions as opposed to labeling them WRONG), is the power of love.

What we are given by a refreshingly invisible Oliver Stone in WTC is a story based on objective facts in the lives of two men who remained trapped in the World Trade Center debris for longer than anybody else. The story remains faithful to most of this story, though the Marine who refused to give up on finding survivors was ethnically miscast. Concerns about poetic license aside, the film takes a subject which could have easily fallen into the abyss of exploitation or the minefield of political commentary Stone sometimes flirts with, but instead, WTC tells the story from an appropriate perspective - that of the men themselves, their families, and those attempting to cope with their apparent loss. This is a film which, if mishandled, could have been boring, offensive and pathetic. It is none of those things, though it is also likely to annoy a lot of people who enter the theater with misbegotten expectations.

I believe Stone accomplished what he set out to do. I believe Michael Pena was wonderful, and Nicholas Cage, Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal were all very good. And, though his skin color was not historically accurate (and I wonder about the racialism that makes this seem to matter a great deal to some people), I enjoyed Michael Shannon's brief but crucial performance. Moreover, I applaud Stone for doing something many people didn't think he could pull off - making a film without leaving his own ideological signature everywhere in it.

Now - back to love. WTC is not a love story. But love permeates its substratum. The love between the two victims whose predicament becomes ours throughout the course of the film; the love within their families; the love of Americans for each other; and the love of a hero for the deity which inspires him. If there is any particular message I took away from WTC, it is that love is often fleeting, always strong, and always in need of maintenance, but that more than any force in the world - religion, politics, or even war and hate - it can help save us all.

Set against the backdrop of an American cataclysm which has, at least in some people's historical imagination, outweighed the Great Depression, the bombing of Hiroshima and Pearl Harbor, the hope this movie promotes - and the reminder of that feeling of desperate hope so many of us felt after the day this all really happened - is well worth the price of admission. In this way - while the film really does not treat 9/11 as its major subject - it does capture the spirit and feeling of that fateful day quite wonderfully.
25 out of 45 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
See the documentaries instead
danielletbd30 July 2006
Warning: Spoilers
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.
35 out of 69 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
A classless play on emotions
hugodinwitty12 August 2006
I know that many people who don't like this movie say so just because they thought it was made at an inappropriate time. Personally, I hated this movie on its own merit as poor film-making. It seems that Oliver Stone just decided he wanted to make a movie, any movie, about 9/11, and didn't care about the content of the movie. The end result was a movie of such pitiful quality that one could go though the script and replace the term "police officer" with "miner" and "World Trade Center" with "a coal mine" and the entire script would work perfectly as a cave-in disaster movie. It's that generic. Stone tries to carry the movie just by showing how sad the families were and how scared the policemen were, meanwhile allowing the audience no interesting plot points to hold on to, nor any significance to the tragedy. In the end, I have to conclude that Oliver Stone just wanted to get some cheap emotional reactions from the crowd, because at one point the movie says that it is about the potential for good in humanity and how strong we can be in the face of adversity. Stone quickly forgets this, because only about 15% of the movie even shows people coming together to help one another. The other 85% of the movie is spent watching the families argue or seeing flashbacks to their happy memories, which is a good way to get audience reaction but hardly lends any significance or depth to the plot. I don't in any way want to belittle the pain that these families had to endure, which is why I am disappointed that that pain was exploited to make a bad movie. September 11 was the most important and tragic event in my lifetime, and I think it deserves more respect than to be made into a generic, poorly-written disaster movie less than five years after it happened.
487 out of 856 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Drawn out
briancham199421 August 2020
This film is a mostly compelling story of the 9/11 attacks but the problem is that it's too drawn out. There is a lot of the time when nothing much is really happening. It tries to focus on the lives of particular individuals who are portrayed as heroes but this also means that there is not much material to work with.
12 out of 20 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Shadows the truth of the day.
jhf348815 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
Before you brush this review off as someone that is just looking to cause problems or badmouth a movie let me give you my background. I live in NJ less than 5 minutes from the city. My family is heavily in twined in the Port Authority of NY/NJ. My grandfather is a retired Lieutenant and my uncle has been a PAPD officer for 12 years and I have both friends and family that worked in the world trade center in the PA executive offices.

The movie itself concentrates on two PAPD officers, Will and John. It follows their ordeal up to the point of rescue. OK. Seems good. But what about the 2700+ people that were lost on that terrible day. The writers spent too much time basing the movie on two men and their "story of triumph" that the true events of the day were left in the shadows.

There were times during the movie that I almost forgot what I was watching because it seemed like these were the only two men (along with their families) affected by the tragedy. The ordeal seemed no different than that experienced by the miners that were rescued in pennsylvania several years back. There was no rescue of other people even mentioned until the ending credits, at which time they finally acknowledged that people were actually lost.

The movie gives the impression that September 11th and the days following was an uplifting experience because two men were found alive. It fails to document all that was lost and never recovered. If a movie must be made about such a tragedy then the movie should show it like it is. There should be no dramatic rescue with uplifting music. The day was terrible, the events were terrible, and the story was terrible. Lets not make the worst day in our country's history into an uplifting "happy ending" version of titanic.

Throughout the movie there were 3 mentions of lost people other than the main characters. The first of an unnamed elevator operator, the second was a quick clip of "missing person" posters, and the final was the ending credits that gave the true numbers. Those three scenes are what September 11th was. It was not a love story. It was not a triumph. And more than anything it was not material for a Hollywood movie.
284 out of 552 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Stone Salutes
ccrivelli200510 September 2006
Oliver Stone salutes the ordinary heroes of this extraordinary circumstances. He puts himself way behind their stories, so far behind in fact that he is almost imperceptible. In Italy, the academics, snobs and other fauna dismissed it as rhetoric and banal. I have the words of the laid back "opinionist" Barbara Pallombelli accusing Stone of "inventing" How silly really. The ignorance between the cultures seems insurmountable sometimes. The story was told by the two men under the rubble and their families. They were working people, not professional "opinionists". They will hum the theme from Startsky and Hutch to keep themselves alive. I wonder what pseudo intellectual would have done.The film is a gripping depiction centered mostly on two men and their families. The event caused a catastrophe that is still growing, based mostly in personal interest and massive inter cultural ignorance. The film is not about that. The film is about the tiniest enormity of the domestic drama. I wept and longed for a private happy ending. The rest, well the rest is still part of our daily existence. Most of the detractors accuse World Trade Center of not being an Oliver Stone film, if he had done a classic Oliver Stone film he would have been accused of that. Stone will be controversial even for standing still. My hat to you Mr Stone, please keep going your own way.
69 out of 104 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
I was surprised about negative reviews
jacksonmeddows20 May 2022
A lot of the reviews are criticizing the film's focusing in on 2 officers (Nicholas Cage & Michael Peña, playing Officers McLoughlin and Jimeno respectively), and failure to contextualize it in the bigger picture (or something like that). I don't know, maybe they're right, but to be honest with you, I perceived it to be a strength of the film that the movie narrows in on the experiences of two men.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Another Pearl Harbour
morc-49 August 2007
Warning: Spoilers
I knew this was going to be utter hail America bull even before watching it. We have a club of 10 people, who regularly attend the theaters and watch random movies. Believe me, if I had a choice, I would have never had any interest in watching this. But anyway, as I predicted, well as we all predicted, actually, we were bored through the whole film. Except for those moments where we along with the rest of the theater were laughing at especially the marine and the other cheesy moments in this disaster of a film. When it was finally over, people just stood outside laughing at how bad the film was and talking about this marine, who wanted to dig through tons of rubble with his super fantastic American marine knife!! "Don't worry, I won't leave you! I'm a marine!" Yes! He actually says that! And then we are told, that he goes to Iraq for 2 years to get revenge. I ask then, was he one of those enraged psychos who raped Iraqi women and murdered their families down there then ? And what has Iraq to do with WTC ? What a joke.

What an insult to the people who died or had friends or family members who died at this terrible tragedy. I will never see a Nicholas Cage film again nor an Olive Stone one. What maniac thought up the lines of that marine ? I'm baffled.

1/10.
93 out of 178 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
well-made movie
I was afraid this movie would be over Hollywoodized like Pearl Harbor was. However, the movie was made in good taste and was very emotional. It was the first time i had ever teared up at a movie. It captured that period very well and it brought back a lot of memories of that day for me and the days that had followed. The acting was pretty good, especially Michael Pena, who seemed to actually be living the experience instead of acting it out in a movie. When the movie ended the audience was silent(pre screening)and didn't clap, not because they didn't like it but out of respect. I felt really in-touch with the characters and while i teared up in some parts I also smiled and even laughed at some parts as the characters tried to cheer each other up. Expect it to win some awards.
148 out of 280 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
When Kindness and Sympathy Supersedes Evilness
claudio_carvalho4 March 2007
On September, 11th 2001, after the terrorist attack to the World Trade Center, the building collapses over the rescue team from the Port Authority Police Department. Will Jimeno (Michael Peña) and his sergeant John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) are found alive trapped under the wreckage while the rescue teams fight to save them.

"World Trade Center" is based on the accounts of the people evolved in the aftermath of this tragedy and tells the story of two of the survivors. The dramatic narrative is careful in details, and gives scary statistics inclusive that only twenty people were rescued alive from the debris, and Jimeno and McLoughlin were the eighteenth and the nineteenth survivors. This apolitical movie gives a message of hope and love and I particularly liked the conclusion two years later, when the optimistic John McLoughlin sees the kindness and sympathy of his people superseding the evilness of the murderers. My vote is seven.

Title (Brazil): "As Torres Gêmeas" ("The Twin Towers")
9 out of 16 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Good enough
michael_holst24 September 2006
I totally agree with the first review of the film on some issues but we will have to remember, that the film is made because it wants to tell the story of two brave men. We all know that many people lost their lives that day and we all know how they were lost.............what we do not know is how these two men managed to do their job under such difficult conditions. Many other firemen worked that day but here we get the story of two of them. When you see the movie, keep all the hearts and souls that America lost on September 11th, 2001 in mind and then you can enjoy a truly good film. Hollywood certainly makes awful movies from time to time but this one is not bad at all, disaster or not!
9 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
The events are unbeatable, but after an hour the movie falls into boring clichés
secondtake22 September 2010
World Trade Center (2006)

You can't argue with the story line--it's based on the facts--and you can't help but shiver and even cry over some of the imagery, burning buildings and rescued policemen.

So how well put together is it? As a movie, as a two hour plus story?

Very well, with some slow spots, and eventually a feeling that the story lines are in place early on and don't waver or turn as the movie goes. (In fact, if you haven't seen the movie but know the history, you might guess what happens even now, before you start.) It's obviously a movie about survival, about ordinary people doing what they can to help each other, and individuals rediscovering what really matters in their lives.

For me, all of these elements are a given, and were maybe unavoidable in an Oliver Stone film (he's a director who embraces Hollywood's emotional ability to sway and move a viewer with sights and sounds). What was most chilling and worthwhile were the recreations of the falling buildings, both from the inside and the outside. This also is one of Hollywood's strengths, creating illusions. And I'm going to guess they had to make it far less dramatic and horrifying than it really was.

Nicolas Cage is good, and his fellow cops, including the other lead, Conner Paolo, are fine, but I'm not sure anyone really raises the movie up by their performances. The events are the point, and the retelling of what actually happened from one small, poignant point of view. It's frankly slow and repetitive by the end, but the first half hour or so has some moments that are worth seeing if you are willing to relive that day.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Puzzled about the movie
meltodd226 August 2006
I just came back from the movie and found myself being very angry. While it was a very good movie, I don't understand it's purpose. If the reason Oliver Stone made this movie is so that proceeds can go to the victims of 9/11, that I can stand behind. If they are going in his pocket that is not right. Normally I don't think like that. I don't see the benefit of it other than to open old and in some cases still raw wounds for people. Does anyone know if money is going to the victims family, or if this movie helped victims and there families in some way? If I knew there response it would help me understand the reason for this movie to have been made.
4 out of 7 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Reality over Hollywood
tybrands-15 July 2017
Many good critical points have already been made about this film, but I'll just add that some historical events are better portrayed through documentaries and viewing real time news footage other than a Hollywood script.

This movie is an example of that.
22 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
oliver tones it down centre
pookey5615 August 2006
Warning: Spoilers
well; maybe Mr stone feels somewhat humbled by his big budget mess, Alexander, but here we have a toned down (for Mr stone) made for TV film about the WORLD TRADE CENTRE on that fateful day on sept 11. this film appears to be receiving very good reviews, and i admit that it's hard to criticize this film, because of it's fine production values and technical work.the cinematography, the sounds and sound editing were very good. for me, the performances by the women, two of my favorite actors, Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal, is what made this film bearable. it was great seeing Patty d'Arbanville again too, although she had precious little to do in the show. we have seen this before; the women, waiting, hoping, anguished, to hear anything about their loved ones and their men....it is done superbly here, and very much what it must have been like for everyone; not really sure about what was happening; what to do or what to think. this aspect of the film was crafted and performed very well. Nicolas Cage was amazingly believable and subdued. but then, when you are trapped below a ton of rubble and can barely speak, this seems logical. it was great seeing Michael Pena, from CRASH again too. but ultimately, i found this film claustrophobic (albeit much less so than the officers caught below!)dull, and one-toned. except for the vision Pena sees of a Christ figure with a bottle of water, this film seemed like a well-done Sunday made for television effort. i wouldn't pay to see this again, although perhaps it will translate better on the small screen. i give oliver credit for doing his homework and bringing this film down to a microcosm and story of two courageous survivors and their families. it was also tasteful that he didn't graphically show us what the world saw again and again on that day. the film did a fair job of recreating what it must have been like for the police and the fire-fighters, and the hawk marine, at ground zero, through their eyes, which were full of horror, sorrow,and disbelief. having said that, i wouldn't recommend that anyone rush to this film. it seemed by the numbers, regardless of how well it was done. i would rather have seen an oliver stone film about such a controversial and pivotal event in global politics with the flair that is oliver stone. i would say, put Alexander away and sock it to us. was this film "controversial"? no way. But, that can be a good thing sometimes. *ok. i watched it again on DVD and liked it better the second time...
7 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This was awful
JamesD24913 August 2006
This is the first movie I've ever got up during the showing at a theatre and walked out. Yeah I know some people are going to panic and whine that I'm a horrible person for not liking the World Trade Center movie, but this was just annoying. The previews show a bright, outdoors thing with lots of police and firefighters and such, when in reality most of the film is just two guys trapped in the dark, in the rubble, talking in strained voices about their family, while their family acts upset at home. Don't get me wrong, I respect the event, but the importance of a historical event doesn't mean everyone should go see a poorly done movie about it. So in conclusion, the film is very repetitive, constant poor lighting and typically unchanging scenery make it unpleasant to watch for a long time, and it was very hard to connect with the characters.
112 out of 218 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
9/10
A life-affirming movie about courage
jmoney-226 July 2006
It's a little known story from a day we know all too well. "World Trade Center" tells the gripping true story of two of the last men pulled out of the rubble of Ground Zero alive.

Nicolas Cage and Michael Pena play Port Authority Police officers. In the film's heart- pounding opening minutes, we watch the attack unfold through the eyes of these first responders. As the routine morning becomes anything but routine, the officers glimpse news reports (we are thankfully spared any images of the plane striking the towers) and get bits of information from cellphone calls to family members as they race downtown. But what's most striking is how little the men know about what's really happening. As the officers prepare to the climb the North Tower, they are unaware the South Tower has even been hit. Communications gear is failing, and there is confusion all around.

Through impeccably detailed sets and flawless special effects, director Oliver Stone and his film-making team recreate these hectic moments in all-too-realistic detail. You're right there, on the street, looking up and watching the chaos unfold in 35mm and THX surround sound. If you didn't know any better, you'd think Stone had a crew shooting in Lower Manhattan that day. You have to struggle to remind yourself everything you're seeing was recreated on a sound stage on inside a computer.

Screenwriter Andrea Berloff further enhances the realism with believable dialog. She not only effectively captures the "cop talk" (half the time, there's so much lingo being bantered back and forth, you don't understand what the heck the characters are saying -- as it should be), she also delivers a truth and honesty to the conversations and interactions. The words never feel contrived.

The quality cast does the script justice. It's remarkable how well Cage, a major movie star, disappears behind the mustache and hunched shoulders of Sgt. John McLoughlin. Pena (last seen as the locksmith in "Crash") is instantly likable as Ofc. Jimeno. Their performances are even more noteworthy considering they spend the majority of the movie flat on their backs. They are also well supported by Maria Bello and Magie Gyllenhaal as their respective wives, who spend much of the film enduring an agonizing wait to learn the fate of their husbands.

Stone's storytelling is also more methodical and straightforward than it's been in recent years. He mercifully ditches the frenetic editing style he's employed in films like Natural Born Killers and Any Given Sunday.

***Not Political***

When one hears that Oliver Stone, director of such politically charged films as JFK and Born on the Fourth Of July, is making a movie about 9/11, your first tendency is to say, "uh oh." But this may be the least political movie Stone has ever made, one both red states and blue states can agree on. It's not about the roots of terror, or who's to blame for what. It's not about villains. It's about heroes. Though set during one of America's darkest hours, it tells a life-affirming story of courage, love and the strength people can summon inside. The movie reminds us how we all felt that day, how we all came together. Some say it is too soon for a movie like this. But as our nation sits so sharply divided, it's not a minute too soon to remember the unity of purpose we all had on 9/11 and ponder whether we can ever get it back.
285 out of 484 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
Taseful And Poignant Story from the Perspective of Two Police Officers and their Families
bsilvesq9 August 2006
For some, it may still be too soon to go to the movies to watch a tale of 9/11. For those who are ready, World Trade Center is worth watching. The film is tastefully made, casts minimal attention to the more sensational aspects of the fateful day, and devotes the lion's share of the picture telling a gripping, true-life, story of two port authority police officers who were trapped in the rubble. There is no discussion of how or why this tragedy occurred. The film is simply a tribute to the chaos on the ground as the day unfolded, and the heroism of the police, firefighter, and others, who literally risked their lives to rescue others. Although the story is set in and around the World Trade Center complex on September 11, 2001, it could just as easily have been set in the Sago Coal Mine, or some other place where people are trapped below ground in a dangerous setting. The real story here is about the camaraderie of the two stars as they struggle to survive, and the emotional difficulties endured by their families and friends and events unfold. As the attack on the World Trade Center becomes more of a part of history, and less a part of the current news, more sensational movies about the events of that day are likely to be made. It will be interesting to see how this movie holds up.
8 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Like watching paint dry
ronnay_barkay3 February 2007
Im just after pulling myself away from the TV and that awful movie, World Trade Center, to write this review.

Now. This is like watching a snuff movie. It depicts the events that happened on September 11th,2001 and we all remember so vividly because it was only a few years ago.

Most of the time you're watching Nicholas Cage screaming in pain. and when you're not watching that you're watching another guy scream in pain.

Shall I go on? It's badly edited, although well made, but who cares. It's not entertaining or thought-provoking or funny. It doesn't spark any debate. World Trade Center is just a very bland, uninspiring piece of film making.
54 out of 99 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed