Movies about September 11th, 2001, are not easy to watch, nor are they easy to review. On a lesser scale, they are this generation's equivalent of Tom Brokaw's Greatest Generation watching World War II films. I remember my grandpa discussing "Saving Private Ryan", and he was always hesitantly uncomfortable, acknowledging that it was a well done, but he didn't enjoy it much. In a like vein, the fact that its viewers lived through the described day both abets and ails "World Trade Center", Oliver Stone's emotional story about two emergency workers trapped in the rubble of the twin towers.
Speaking of "Ryan", "WTC" also faces the same quandary as "A Thin Red Line", in that it follows a similarly themed movie that might be the year's best film, "United 93". Like "Line", "WTC" differs widely from its chronological predecessor even though the general subject material is the same. Though set at Guadalcanal, "Line" wasn't really about war, while "Ryan" was precisely about the horrors of war. "United 93" told a story from a primarily objective standpoint, allowing the audience's own genuine emotions to affect their viewing experience. Differently, WTC is about specific experiences on 9/11, looking to share the feelings of a the trapped officers and their left-in-limbo families. Those people certainly have their moments of primal emotion that can only stem from situations of life and death. The most touching ones spring from the family members left on the outside, forced to wait and wonder. For whatever reason, imagining the loss or endangerment of loved ones is more potent than imagining one's own physical danger, and the portrayal of that blistering boredom cuts to the quick of anybody with a heart.
As soul-wrenching as these events are, and despite the fact that they are true, they still feel like movie moments. Strong and good movie moments, yes, but even the best of those cannot match someone's personal feelings from that day, feelings created by actually being there. Make no mistake, the movie is very well made. Although Oliver Stone did direct it, none of his trademarks are present here. There is no kinetic editing ("JFK"); there are no flashy visuals ("Any Given Sunday"); there is no agenda of any kind ("Platoon"). Were his direction not so publicized, one would have no idea of his involvement. He wisely lets the story tell itself, using a straightforward story-telling method that gently weaves together the disparate experiences of the two men and their families.
Perhaps I erred in seeing this on September 11th, after a day spent reliving my own emotions and those of actual people who were there on that day. "World Trade Center" is a good movie that contains raw human emotion more powerful than most put on screen. But even that drama simply cannot match what we personally experienced when living through that day, regardless of the dire circumstances. That makes the movie less compelling than it should be.
Bottom Line: Better drama than most, but missing an extra dose of passion to push it to the next level. 7 of 10.
Speaking of "Ryan", "WTC" also faces the same quandary as "A Thin Red Line", in that it follows a similarly themed movie that might be the year's best film, "United 93". Like "Line", "WTC" differs widely from its chronological predecessor even though the general subject material is the same. Though set at Guadalcanal, "Line" wasn't really about war, while "Ryan" was precisely about the horrors of war. "United 93" told a story from a primarily objective standpoint, allowing the audience's own genuine emotions to affect their viewing experience. Differently, WTC is about specific experiences on 9/11, looking to share the feelings of a the trapped officers and their left-in-limbo families. Those people certainly have their moments of primal emotion that can only stem from situations of life and death. The most touching ones spring from the family members left on the outside, forced to wait and wonder. For whatever reason, imagining the loss or endangerment of loved ones is more potent than imagining one's own physical danger, and the portrayal of that blistering boredom cuts to the quick of anybody with a heart.
As soul-wrenching as these events are, and despite the fact that they are true, they still feel like movie moments. Strong and good movie moments, yes, but even the best of those cannot match someone's personal feelings from that day, feelings created by actually being there. Make no mistake, the movie is very well made. Although Oliver Stone did direct it, none of his trademarks are present here. There is no kinetic editing ("JFK"); there are no flashy visuals ("Any Given Sunday"); there is no agenda of any kind ("Platoon"). Were his direction not so publicized, one would have no idea of his involvement. He wisely lets the story tell itself, using a straightforward story-telling method that gently weaves together the disparate experiences of the two men and their families.
Perhaps I erred in seeing this on September 11th, after a day spent reliving my own emotions and those of actual people who were there on that day. "World Trade Center" is a good movie that contains raw human emotion more powerful than most put on screen. But even that drama simply cannot match what we personally experienced when living through that day, regardless of the dire circumstances. That makes the movie less compelling than it should be.
Bottom Line: Better drama than most, but missing an extra dose of passion to push it to the next level. 7 of 10.