Earlier this year, another movie came out that had to do with the events of September 11, 2001. That movie was "United 93," and after I saw it, I said that so far, it was the best movie of 2006. Now we have "World Trade Center," a much bigger, much more Hollywood movie about 9/11, and to my surprise, the movie has gotten really good reviews. Well, I saw it, and I gotta tellya, the reviews are justified, "World Trade Center" is a damn good movie. However, as of this writing, "United 93" is still the best film of 2006.
I have to admit that up until a few weeks ago, I was very skeptical about "World Trade Center." I figured that it would be pure Hollywood exploitation, and the fact that it was directed by kook filmmaker Oliver Stone didn't help. Don't get me wrong, I think that Oliver Stone is a great director, but let's be honest about it, he's a kook. As the film's release date neared, I read some reviews, and it seemed as though the movie was actually quite good. More importantly, Oliver Stone kept his kookiness in check. I think it's fair to say that the last thing anybody wanted to see was a movie featuring Oliver Stone's dramatized conspiracy theories and political propaganda.
When "United 93" came out, a lotta people said that it was too soon for a 9/11 movie. I disagree. I think it was too soon for some, and not too soon for others. To generalize and say that it was too soon for everybody was presumptuous. That being said, although I liked "World Trade Center," and I think it's an extremely well-made movie, it left me feeling a little bit uneasy. It's a big Hollywood production starring an A-list celebrity, it has all the moments to make people cry (I heard a lotta sniffling in the theater), and it has an ending that makes people happy. I dunno, I just think that it comes across as somewhat manipulative. Still, I liked the movie, and if it was manipulative, then I was one of the manipulated.
"World Trade Center" has a pretty big cast, and I was surprised with how many familiar faces are in it, even in small roles. The entire cast does a fantastic job, but it's the four leads who really deliver phenomenal performances. The four leads are Nicolas Cage, Michael Peña (you may remember him from "Crash"), Maria Bello, and Maggie Gyllenhaal. The four of them are the emotional center of the film, and they're excellent in their respective roles. There are also some fine performances by Jay Hernandez, Frank Whaley, Stephen Dorff, and Michael Shannon.
By the way, the scenes involving Michael Shannon (he plays "Staff Sergeant Dave Karnes") seem like they're too unbelievable to be true, but apparently, all that stuff IS true. I don't know what the guy is like in real life, but in the movie, he's a bit of an oddball (to put it mildly). Still, I can't help but respect a man like that, even though it's likely that he's a little on the scary side (as in, a little TOO religious).
Oliver Stone has made some great movies over the years, and of the ones I've seen, I've liked most of them. I liked "JFK," "The Doors," "Wall Street," and "Platoon." I also liked some of his less controversial movies, like "Talk Radio," "Any Given Sunday," and "U Turn," but those kinds of movies are few and far between from him. The only Oliver Stone movie that I truly disliked was "Natural Born Killers," but despite not liking the movie, I loved how it was shot. He also directed "Born on the Fourth of July" and "Nixon," but I didn't see them, nor did I see his most recent film, "Alexander." Then again, most people kept away from that one. Oliver Stone has been courting controversy for years, even back in the early 80s when he wrote the screenplay for "Scarface." Oliver Stone seems to be attracted to provocative subject matter, and "World Trade Center" would seem to be no different, but with that film, all the controversy is on the surface. In actuality, this is one of his least controversial movies. It may be controversial because of the timing, or because it's slightly exploitive, but the key here is that the controversy in the film has less to do with Oliver Stone's message (which is usually the source of controversy), and more to do with the kind of movie it is. That being said, "World Trade Center" is very well directed, Oliver Stone is an extremely talented filmmaker. I'm not sure why he wanted to direct this movie, but he did, and he kept his usual kookiness out of the way, and I thank him for it.
The screenplay for was written by Andrea Berloff, and this is her first feature film script. Supposedly, Paul Haggis (he wrote "Million Dollar Baby," and he directed and co-wrote "Crash") did an uncredited rewrite, but I'm not sure how true it is. That factoid was taken directly from the Internet Movie Database (which is an awesome web site), so take that for what it's worth. Oh, and the screenplay was based on the true story by John McLoughlin & Donna McLoughlin and William Jimeno & Allison Jimeno. They actually get an onscreen credit for that, which is pretty cool.
Although "World Trade Center" is a very good movie made by a talented filmmaker at the top of his game, I have to wonder why the movie was made. "United 93" seems like a tribute to heroes while "World Trade Center" seems more like Hollywood capitalizing on a tragedy. I could be completely wrong, but that's how it seems. And yes, it does come across as a little exploitive. Nevertheless, it's obvious that Oliver Stone went out of his way to ensure that respect was paid to the heroes of 9/11 while also making a damn good movie, and "World Trade Center" is indeed a damn good movie.
Scale of 1-10: 8