World Trade Center (Spoilers)

E.Vi.L.

Well-Known Member
Saw this.

It was solidly made. Good acting, especially on the part of the wives played by Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhal.

The technical aspect was well done. It looked real.

And it was completely apolitical, focusing simply on this story of survival.

And that end up being the problem. It was so focused on just telling the story that in the end this could be just about any other catastrophe/survival tale you have ever seen.

It could be 2 guys stuck in a cave after an earthquake, it'd be almost the same the movie.

United 93 is a far superior 9/11 movie because even though it is also apolitical, it has perspective. In United 93, you contemplate 9/11, not just another airplane hijacking movie. It has context. A child born after 9/11 who sees United 93 will get a sense of what 9/11 was. Not so with WTC.

In WTC, you are so close to the ground that all you see are the rubbles.

2.5 / 5
 
Last edited:

Ultimate MJ

Well-Known Member
Personally, I will not be seeing this.

However tasteful it may be, I won't support Oliver Stone's attempt to milk a national tragedy. If as a nation we are still communally grieving to the point where questioning the President is seen as near treasonous, its still too soon to profit from it.

From everything I have read, sounds like it was fairly well done though. At least its tasteful profiteering. ;)
 

Hibiki

Really is pretentious, no matter what she says. Do
Ultimate MJ said:
Personally, I will not be seeing this.

However tasteful it may be, I won't support Oliver Stone's attempt to milk a national tragedy. If as a nation we are still communally grieving to the point where questioning the President is seen as near treasonous, its still too soon to profit from it.

From everything I have read, sounds like it was fairly well done though. At least its tasteful profiteering. ;)


The last film i saw Stone direct was a film on Fidel Castro and that guy can speak. What a bastard. So is this film worth seeing.
 

Victor Von Doom

Fist of teh Internets.
Ultimate MJ said:
Personally, I will not be seeing this.

However tasteful it may be, I won't support Oliver Stone's attempt to milk a national tragedy. If as a nation we are still communally grieving to the point where questioning the President is seen as near treasonous, its still too soon to profit from it.

From everything I have read, sounds like it was fairly well done though. At least its tasteful profiteering. ;)


By that logic, any movie about Pearl Harbor.......hell--anything where people die is just wrong.

Ain't nothing wrong with profiteering. It's part of the American way....everyone does it.




I was gonna see this....but I'm thinking about holding out for DVD. I'm working all weekend so I might catch it next week during the weekdays or something.
 
Last edited:

E.Vi.L.

Well-Known Member
Ultimate MJ said:
From everything I have read, sounds like it was fairly well done though. At least its tasteful profiteering. ;)

Okay, I gotta say I am tired about this profiteering angle tacked on anyone doing something on 9/11.

No one expect these movies to break box office records, precisely because everyone involved knows full well too many viewers "feel it's too soon" or think it's "profiteering".

Stone and Greengrass (United 93) are respected film makers. If they hadn't spent a year of their lives making a movie on 9/11, they would have spent that year on another project and likely would have made as much if not more money on a safer project. So where is the profit?

No matter what we think of these finished products, Stone and Greengrass made these movies because they wanted to tackle this subject as artists.

So far, the only real profiteering around 9/11 has been political.
 
Last edited:

Victor Von Doom

Fist of teh Internets.
E.Vi.L. said:
Okay, I gotta say I am tired about this profiteering angle tacked on anyone doing something on 9/11.

No one expect these movies to break box office records, precisely because everyone involved knows full well too many viewers "feel it's too soon" or think it's "profiteering".

Stone and Greengrass (United 93) are respected film makers. If they hadn't spent a year of their lives making a movie on 9/11, they would have spent that year on another project and likely would have made as much if not more money on a safer project. So where is the profit?

No matter what we think of these finished products, Stone and Greengrass made these movies because they wanted to tackle this subject as artists.

So far, the only real profiteering around 9/11 has been political.


Bingo.
 

MaxwellSmart

Well-Known Member
E.Vi.L. said:
Okay, I gotta say I am tired about this profiteering angle tacked on anyone doing something on 9/11.

No one expect these movies to break box office records, precisely because everyone involved knows full well too many viewers "feel it's too soon" or think it's "profiteering".

Stone and Greengrass (United 93) are respected film makers. If they hadn't spent a year of their lives making a movie on 9/11, they would have spent that year on another project and likely would have made as much if not more money on a safer project. So where is the profit?

No matter what we think of these finished products, Stone and Greengrass made these movies because they wanted to tackle this subject as artists.

So far, the only real profiteering around 9/11 has been political.
Well said.
 

Ultimate MJ

Well-Known Member
Ultimate MJ said:
If as a nation we are still communally grieving to the point where questioning the President is seen as near treasonous, its still too soon to profit from it.

By that logic, any movie about Pearl Harbor.......hell--anything where people die is just wrong.

I think you missed my logic entirely. Pearl Harbor happened 60 years ago, and no politician is actively using that tragedy for political gain. The WTC is still very much a contemporary topic that is not yet removed enough from reality to be used in fiction. At least not as long as the neo'cons continue to use it to drag us into unnecessary wars and support international aggression.

This movie has very real and undeniable political impacts, which is why I think it is too early to address it. I feel the same way about United 93.

So far, the only real profiteering around 9/11 has been political.

Well, the smiley was meant to indicate my comment was facetious (spelling...), but well said.

Its precisely that political profiteering which is why I think this movie is too soon.

Anyways, like I said, at least both movies sound tastefully done.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

E.Vi.L.

Well-Known Member
Ultimate MJ said:
Its precisely that political profiteering which is why I think this movie is too soon.

I see your POV but disagree.

The fact that some neo-cons and others have used their own interpretation of 9/11 to further their agenda makes it only more urgent for more views to be expressed. Different views.

If everyone else stays silent, the neo-cons might as well own 9/11 and trademark it.
 

Ultimate MJ

Well-Known Member
Maybe... I guess I should just be happy that Stone acknowledged that it was actually PLANES and not cruise missiles that hit the buildings 8)
 

Goodwill

Well-Known Member
Spoilers? I already know the ending to this one...

I'm actually very upset that they made this movie. Not only did they have Nick Cage in the movie, but they are blatantly exploiting the situation. There has not been a movie emotionally moving in a long time... Not since Titanic or Passion of the Christ... They just wanted this one to be THAT movie, where people would respond to it. Personally, I think it's a mockery.
 

E.Vi.L.

Well-Known Member
Ultimate MJ said:
Maybe... I guess I should just be happy that Stone acknowledged that it was actually PLANES and not cruise missiles that hit the buildings 8)

:lol:

I thought the main conspiracy theories involved thermite.

Man, I have had some angry debates in a Québécois skeptic forum on that very subject with some raging idiots.

Skeptic forums always attract lunatics eager to peddle their crappy ideas to people who make it a hobby to debunk them.
 

E.Vi.L.

Well-Known Member
Goodwill said:
I'm actually very upset that they made this movie. Not only did they have Nick Cage in the movie, but they are blatantly exploiting the situation. There has not been a movie emotionally moving in a long time... Not since Titanic or Passion of the Christ... They just wanted this one to be THAT movie, where people would respond to it. Personally, I think it's a mockery.

Titanic?!? If ever there was a manipulative tear jerker...

And any accusations of exploitation directed at WTC can be reworded and redirected at Passion of The Christ. Exploitation of grief VS exploitation of Faith? Gibson made a lot of $ with Passions and he knew he would. If he's allowed, Stone has a greenlight in my book.

Refuse to see WTC, by all means. No point in seeing something that you know will make you angry. But calling this a mockery and putting to creators integrity in question for making this movie is a bit much, IMO.

I'm an atheist so you can guess how I feel toward Passion of The Christ. But beyond not watching this movie, I never expressed dismay at the thought of the movie or anything of the sort, you know? Obviously many people needed that movie to be made and, hey, in the (extremely) unlikely event that I become born again I can always rent it.
 
Last edited:

Goodwill

Well-Known Member
Seriously... I only watched Titanic for the boobs. I was 9 at the time. I know what you mean. But, from reading your post, you seem to understand what I was trying to say, so... :)
 

roguefan

Well-Known Member
I finally saw this today - and it's the most emotional film I've ever seen. That's probably just because its to do with 9/11, not the story, but I was 9 when the attacks happened, and it was the first time I knew what true evil was - not the fictional stuff you get in books. A very strong story, helped by the fact it's true.

Overall:

4/5
 

Latest posts

Top