The Reeler

More criticism of what the film isn't as opposed to what the film is.

You've in no way backed the assertions of halucinations, flashbacks and Wisconsin lingo being "patronizing." Patronization is a form of activity. Whether the film hides behind "it really happened" or not, the bootm line is, "it really happened." Why, then, is the actual dissection of the military's failure to be prepared, something that "really happened," not patronizing by the same token when critquing "United 93?"

I think this review, as well as a number of negative critical assessments of the film, simply suffers from the notion that critics tend to disregard feelings when viewing a film and lock into how it should be engaging them mentally. The brain is not the only entity at work when taking in an art form, and there is a lot to be said about putting together, quite professionally, a series of visuals that actually occured and, manipulative or not (the very essence of cinema, in any case), using those visuals to make someone feel.

"World Trade Center" is more effective than the most fringe of contemplative cinema, and that such a film came from someone like Stone who has been so rooted in that tier of filmmaking for so long goes to say less about his fear of himself (a rather absurd notion - how does one gauge such a thing?) than it does about his abilities as a working professional.

Kris, no offense and with all due respect*, that's bull.

Almost all of the movies that I've ranked highest are the ones that have the most effect on me emotionally, and that includes movies like V For Vendetta, Sophie Scholl, The War Tapes, United 93 and HIdden Blade, all of which affeted me emotionally as well as mentally. If you look at my Top 10 in past years, it's the same thing.

World Trade Center did neither. It just was this basic story that seemed perfect for the "Hollywood treatment" given the "Hollywood treatment" by a director who you would expect to do something more than that. Stone took the easy route on everything, always going for the most obvious way to manipulate emotions rather than trying things that might make people really think about how they should feel...which is what Paul Greengrass did..and because of this, United 93 will always be more effective.

(*I learned that one in Talladega Nights )

I have a tremendous amount of respect for Stacy Sher in her resolve to go through with this project, regardless of the swarm of dissent that she knew would follow. I have no doubts that this film was made out of passion, and not out of some greedy capitalistic desire as some have suggested. Shortly put, there was nothing easy about making this movie. To see it reach the point of release, it surely took its toll on everyone involved.

However, I completely agree that the finished product confirms what many would have expected "Hollywood" to do with the event. Poland's argument that Ken Turan's review is rooted in some sort of stereotypical film critic elitism (the kind that states any film from France gets a 'pass') neglects to acknowledge that he's perfectly entitled to state whether the film feels phony or not. As great as the production value is, it feels like just that. Oliver Stone decided to present the events of the story in a very neat, composed and glossy way, with sweeping crane shots into outer space and opting for dolly movements over handheld. Problem is, like anyone who's been caught in a fire before and smells smoke, it's almost hardwired into our nervous system what feels real or not by this point. Maybe that's why Paul Greengrass' verite approach personally caused a significantly stronger visceral response in me, much the same way that smelling smoke in a house causes my heartrate to go ballistic every single time.

Totally agree, Jack...while I think United 93 addressed the fear that everyone had post 9/11-of their plane being hijacked--done in such a realistic way that it really hit hard.

I think the events depicted in WTC are so singular towards the experiences of those two men that it just couldn't be as effective no matter the approach.

It's baffling that someone could seriously say they liked and were moved by the atrocious V FOR VENDETTA yet dismiss WTC because they wished it was some other kind of film.

Like many cultural critics who pose as movie reviewers, you don't review the film itself, but rather an "ideal film" that you came up with in your imaginination, and that has nothing to do with the film at hand.

Oliver Stone's WTC is a momument to the bravery and sadness we witnessed on 9/11. Just because you wanted him to make a polemical doesn't mean what he made has any less value. I, for one, am thrilled that Stone decided not to make a political film aimed at a small audience, but rather made a populist film aimed at a large audience - the kind of thing everyone could watch and feel, regardless of their political denomination.

Just calling it a "bad film" is also patently rediculous - especially if you think V FOR VENDETTA is "good"...

Get thee some taste, fearless blogger!

I'm sorry, but someone calling him/herself "The CarpetMuncher" is advising someone else to "get some taste"? That's rich.

I fully agree with The Reeler here -- "WTC" was absolutely irresponsible, and beyond that, shockingly flat filmmaking.

And I much preferred "V for Vendetta" as well -- I found it to me far more thoughtful, engaging, and audacious than it had any right to be, a right that "WTC" did have but chose not to execute.