World Trade Center (Movie)

  • Thread starter Thread starter punkybrewster2828
  • Start date Start date
P

punkybrewster2828

Guest
I still havent seen United 93, so I'll have to wait until it comes to video. I'll see World Trade Center at the theater because I've been a big fan of Oliver Stone since I saw JFK. It doesn't sound like this movie will have the conspiracy theories of other Stone movies, so I'm interested in seeing the perspective that is taken.
 
I went to see World Trade Center last night and I thought it was brilliant.

Nicolas Cage was great here, he is on much stronger ground here then he was with 'The Wicker Man'. I loved his portrayal of John McLoughlin, very realistic and not over dramatic in any way. The film itself was brilliant and powerful because it was not dramatized, it was simply telling the heart rending story of two cops trapped under the rubble of the Trade Center.

I liked how Stone concentrated on telling the lives of ordinary people experiencing such a shocking event. I found though that the film is very emotionally draining as I expected it would be. I was impressed that Stone didn't splice real life footage of the crash into the film, he used it ocassionally but the film recreated the towers collapsing, with only very short cuts to actual footage.

The score in the film is incredibly sad and for me, powerful. I knew it would be as it was produced by Craig Armstrong and I usually love his compositions. There were times when I felt that perhaps music wasn't needed to indicate the saddness of the film but other times, it felt right.

A simple, extraordinary tale.

As much as I liked the film, I do agree that perhaps it was a little too soon to make a movie about this, perhaps in ten years or so it might have been better.
 
I don't want to really rain on the "Good/Great/Well done" comments... and I will just say I saw it... (atleast it was worth knowing a part went to survivers/family members)
 
i will probably go see this movie when it comes to theaters. i went to see United 93 and i thought it was nicely done considering what it was about.
 
What you saw on TV was planes crash into two buildings and the two buildings collapse. You didn't FEEL anything -- regardless of what the media or others may have fooled you into believing -- And had no idea what people in NYC, or their families were truly feeling that day either unless you were there, or had family members who were part of the tragedy. I hate to be harsh, but this is something the age of all access media (24/7) has fooled us into believing: If we see it, we somehow are emotionally attached to it which is completely FALSE. Especially, with something as horrific as 9/11.

This movie tries to take what happened that day and turn it into something extraordianary and hopeful in the face of such evil and it does it brilliantly because there WAS great heroism that day... And not just two planes crashing into two buildings and the buildings collapse like everyone's collective experience is mostly comprised of.

If you want to make the case you are arguing, we should never make films about anything historical, terrible or great, since it is bound to be a sensitive subject to anyone who may have been involved in the event, or had family/ancestors involved in the event as well. If we followed these rules, history books would be filled with nothing but "How great __________ is" and show nothing of the struggles and real life hardship which went into making those great moments and photo ops.

For example, all we would have would be the picture of the soldiers raising the flag on Iwo Jima... But not know thousands of American and Japanese soldiers died in order to have that flag raised AND because it was a vital battle during WWII's Pacific Campaign to end the war as America marched toward Japan. You can apply this to 9/11 because as I said, all you witnessed on TV was death and destruction and unless you had family who were effected by the actual death and destruction it is still an emotionally detached event in the strictest sense of the word.

This films tries to bridge the gap between the collective emotional detachment and give audiences a real sense of attachment of what went on that day. The only other way I feel this can be done is if you were A) There on the morning of Sept. 11th, 2001, or B) Have visted Ground Zero in NYC and can physically touch, hear and smell what is left in the wake of such terrible evil... And surprisingly, there is a sense of hope, heroism and triumph, aka the real human spirit which never gave up that day because the city just could not give up in any sense of the word.



He is a director who respects his source material and usually makes films with a lot more substance than most mainstream, big studio directors do. His last film, Alexander, may have been terrible, but that has more to do with casting and the script and just plain no interest from the general public... But if you've seen films like JFK, Platoon, Nixon, Wallstreet and others you'd realize he is a very good director who does interesting character studies and films about subjects he feels are important even when the rest of society does not.
 
I know, I was like I don't need to see this movie, I saw it on TV at school only a few years ago. They should have let 10 years pass or so. This was too devastating for them to start banking on it 5 years later:nono:

What so great about Oliver Stone?
 
Just found these. The more I learn of this movie, the more I want to see it.

http://movies.monstersandcritics.com/archi...ter/3741/videos
 
It's definitely an emotional scar for a lot of people, I totally understand.
Personally, that's one of the reasons I am going to see it. I want to see how they are going to tribute these people that died and partook in the day's events.
 
I agree with you,its probably too soon. For this kind of movies i think there must be an interval (like 30-40 years). I was talking to friends about the movie and they support it,because it helps to understand. Maybe there are more people who have the same opinion.
 
I think this film is going to stir alot of buzz and protests ... I think I'm going to see it, but I too think it's far too soon for them to release this movie. And this is coming from a NYer.
 
But when we all saw this happening... History in the making... None of us knew what was really going on and it was, to coin a cliche, surreal.

This is what I think Childhood Magic is trying to convey.

We all saw the news footage, but unless you were THERE on that day, in NY city, and/or had loved ones who perished, there is still no way to empathize with what people went through and are still going through.

It's the same thing with Hurricane Katrina. Unless you've been to what is left of New Orleans, news footage and documenatries can't convey the amount of devastation and what is STILL going on.

It's the same situation for young soldiers, men and women, who have served in Iraq (or any war). No amount of news footage will EVER convey the sheer terror these men and women have to go through while they are there AND the psychological damage they endure once they return home. In fact, GenerationY/Z are going to be a generation similar to the post-baby boom, Vietnam, generation where most of the medical costs go to veterans and dealing with post-war physical and mental issues as a direct result of the U.S. invading Iraq. However, you never really hear about this because a lot of people's idea of "war" is what they see in movies and TV shows... Which is completely wrong and often sanitized for mass consumption.

This is the problem with our society. Just because we can witness things like 9/11, happen right in front of our eyes via live news coverage it almost makes events of this magnitude LESS personal because our society is so used to be a third-party observer thanks to TV and movies that we forget what happened on 9/11 was in fact the worst terrorist attack in human history and 3,000+ people died that day. All most of the world saw was two planes hit two buildings, a lot of smoke and then the buildings collapse. That can't convey the horror and stories of heroism which happened that day between the smoke and falling ruble and that is why movies like WTC are important for this aspect alone. They give a human face and a more personal link to what really went on just like United 93 did because movies and cinema are a universal medium which lets people share common experiences -- good or bad -- Especially, in this media-crazed, Hollywood obsessed society we live in now.

As far as being "exploitive" -- What movie ISN'T? That's a very narrow definition and I am sure someone like Oliver Stone wouldn't go ahead and do this movie unless he had the families support AND the fact this is a story about the triumph of the human spirit -- The guy Nicholas Cage portrays actually SURVIVED if you hadn't figured it out by now -- And I am sure they had his (the firefighter) and his family's full support because contrary to popular belief, Hollywood isn't some detached, third-party money-grubbing entity that just likes to profit off people's misery at the drop of a hat. Most of the people who work in Hollywood are just regular people with high visibility jobs and bigger paychecks than your average joe and it would be stupid of them to try and do a movie like this WITHOUT the support of the victims for precisely the unwanted controversy which might occur if they went that route.
 
I have no problems with movies which have real life tragedies as their subject, but I don't really think this film is neccessary. Why? Because the event was already documentated and recorded as it happened. We all saw the raw footage...what could possibly trigger a more emotional response.
 
I never liked movies that re-enact real life events. It sometimes makes people believe things that aren't true, which gives everyone their own view. there's nothing wrong with that, I just don't like how they make movies out of horrible events.
 
With all due respect (you know I don't mean this personally), I understand that some people need this to feel anything - I'm not one of them.

I have absolutely no problem remembering the events of that day (I was on my way to the airport for a business trip when the first plane hit the World Trade Center, and it took me a while before I could convince my boss I wasn't going to fly! Thankfully the FAA grounded all flights soon after that).

I also have no trouble envisioning the unbelievably horrific things these people must have gone through - and I KNOW what I imagine can't even come close to the true horror...which means what they went through is more than I could bear.

Why would I need a movie for that?

This is why I don't like films that deal with real-life tragedy. Again, with all due respect, I know there are people out there who lack that sort of imagination or ability to empathize, and some of them post on this board (I don't mean that as an insult - by their own admission they lack the ability to envision the events without seeing them on the big screen), and again, I'm.not.one.of.them.

I hope you can understand that.
 
I saw it, and thought it was AMAZING. Very tastefully done..acting was wonderful.. a story of hope and survival among all of the tragedy.
 
I totally agree with you DSP on how people love seeing blood and gore in horror movies. I think one reason why we humans are like that is because we are curious by it and it does not affect us that much. I saw WTC today and I really enjoyed it. I was totally suprised by how good and emotional this movie was. This movie was really about the heroes on 9/11 and not about the evil that happened that day. Nic Cage was great. Oliver Stone has made controversial movies before but this movie was real and emotional. It really made you think how bad the cops, firefighters, paramedics, survivors and the families of victims had it on 9/11.
 
Well I know that 10% of the United 93 profits went to a fund for 9-11 :look:



I didn't mention anything about the "average" person (whatever that means). I was just saying that people who live across the country may not have felt the effects of 9-11 as strongly as New Yorkers. Think about it, do you really feel the pain of those suffering in other parts of the world as strongly as you did in regard to 9-11? If you do, then I commend your extraordinary capacity to sympathize. Most people can't carry the weight of the world on their shoulders like that.

Then I mentioned something about the film being educational for those of us who were children or teens at the time of the tragedy and couldn't fully empathize with what happened on that day. I forgot to mention the benefits of future generations experiencing the film, but I might as well throw that in there as well. Seeing a movie about an important historical event always has more of an impact than simply reading about it.

Again, even if you were a grown-up New Yorker in 2001 who watched the news on a constant basis, you probably couldn't appreciate the personal aspect of the event, and I think it's tremendous that we have these movies that allow us to learn more about the victims as individuals, not just names. They're gone now, and I think the very least we can do is to honor their memories.

I do agree that maybe it's too early for these movies to be appearing, but as I said, as long as the families of the victims support the making of these films so will I.



The sinking of the Titanic was too long ago for anyone to know any of the passengers' personal experiences in detail, so of course they had to create fictional characters to act as anchors to draw the audience in. I don't know about Pearl Harbor, because I never saw it, so I can't really comment on it.

(Again, this is all in the name of a little friendly debate. I know you won't take it personally.)
 
Back
Top