World Trade Center

World Trade Center ***

"World Trade Center" passes as a memorial to September 11th, even though it may be loaded with Hollywood BS, and even caused me to roll my eyes a few times. It doesn't suceed in the way that the much more dramatic and artier "United 93" did, but in it's own way, it is something special. It's much more Hollywood, though, especially with the director Oliver Stone helming it. Unlike some of his other films, however, it doesn't offer any of Stone's normal conspercy theories. Stone doesn't make historical films the way history offers it, but in the way that he himself feels about the events. Instead, "World Trade Center" doesn't offer any proof until the credits that he is the director.

Everybody knows about the events of 9/11(well that's not true. When I was putting up the title for World Trade Center on the marquee at the theatre I work at, a little boy asked me what it was. When a passerbyer told him that it was "the true story about the terrorist attacks on 9/11" the boy was just scratching his head. He looked as if he was about ten years old, which means that he was six years old at the time of the attack. I figured that he would know about it.) Anyway, "World Trade Center" follows the tale of two Port Authority officiers, and where they were during the time of the attack. They are called to duty at the towers, to evacuate Tower 1. They are John McLouglin and Will Jimeno. As John's team of men are getting prepared to go up the tower, it falls down on top of them, and they are all pinned under the rubble. Eventually, it ends up being just John and Will, as the other members die. Pinned under a rock, Will can't move, and John, while he appears unhurt, is still stuck under a number of large rocks. Up above, it is simply chaos. Both of the towers end up falling, and the wives and familis of the two men wait for any type of knowledge about the attack, and the two men wait for any chance of actual survival.

"World Trade Center" is certainly an experience. And, I think if Stone didn't pad it down with standard Hollywood cliches, it could have been much better. There are strings and pianos on the score, slow motion, which I had a big problem with. September 11th was a day of total confusion. Things were happening quickly with no time to think. The slow motion gives you time to ponder over what is going on, and really does destroy the flow of things, and it takes away from any realism on that day. I could have lived without some of the dialouge. The way the marines spoke were just laughable, as was a scene where the two wives end up walking past one another in a hospital. They simply give one another a knowing look, and little do they know that they are connected. That was an eye roll too. Stone really does give a realistic atmosphere, and a look of total emptiness. Take the scene where Jimeno's wife is driving down the street. It's the only car on the road, and it's normally a busy city block.

The acting is on par. None of the actors tries to upstage the other, and they all seem on the same level. Michael Pena shows the same type of emotional range that he showed in "Crash," wherein, I felt that he was the best player out of the entire ensemble. Nicolas Cage hasn't disappointed me of late, either, and the beautiful Maria Bello gets to showcase a New York accent. I would have changed her contacts, though, as her light light blue eyes made her look like something out of this world. At times, the actors playing the Marines overdid it a little bit. Sometimes, I felt that they might as well have just shown an advetisement for the Marines smack dab in the middle of the movie, and I'm surprised there weren't recruiters hanging out by the doors. And who can forget the amazing preformance by the boom mikes, which I saw a couple of times, namely at the end during a hospital scene. See if you can spot it.

As for the "too soon" reaction, I don't think it's too soon to offer a film about 9/11 at all, and as much as I usually dislike Stone, I am glad that he made a film about it. In a way, this one is actually more disturbing than "United 93" because this one actually does get right in front of the towers. That film took place all on a plane, and dealt with one set of people on that day. "World Trade Center" involves the masses, and an entire city, really. Under the rubble, Stone doesn't move the camera much. There's alot of close-ups, and feelings of being closed in. I wouldn't recomend it to anybody who in any little way could feel upset by it. Stone doesn't shy away from anything that could have happened. There's even a few close ups of bodies jumping out of the building. I enjoyed seeing this brought to the screen. It's shot well, and has a special look about it. I enjoyed the first few shots the most. Stone sets the stage up on the morning, before the attacks. The sun is coming out. It was a beautiful day that day, and it should have been great. It gives the audience to remember what life was like before the attacks. The carefree existence that we all had, as everybody wakes up for the last time in that state before what happened. It has it's shares of cliches that any typical audience will succomb to an start breaking down, but at the same time, it's a perfectly adquate telling of the events. I just hope that the Oscars doesn't fall for it and nominate it, because as much as I did enjoyed watching it, I just don't think it deserved any kind of award.

"World Trade Center" is the first real "Hollywood" 9/11 movie. I don't think "United 93" was focused much by the big studios. I suppose I can see where Stone was coming from with the major Hollywood cliches-I guess he wants to get back with the big guns after the failure of the terrible "Alexander,"-and I suppose a film like this will only survive with Hollywood cliches. And people will go to see it, and cry, and remember, etc. I have a different mindset of the event. I was young when it happened, and wasn't affected by it in the grand way like most people. I also can't get by some of the Hollywood BS like others, which is why "World Trade Center" made my eyes roll into the back of my skull at times, but not being biased, it's a worthy memorial to the events, and for the first time of my knowledge, Stone manages to make a historical period piece based on fact, and not opinion. It's certainly an experience.