There’s a recurring theme in this morning’s newspaper reviews of World Trade Center — the majority of which seem to paint it as a well-intentioned, albeit imperfect film — and it’s a curious one: Critics can’t quite believe it’s an Oliver Stone film. EW’s own Owen Gleiberman noted something to the same effect in his review of the film (he gives it a B) when he wrote that United 93 ”was exactly the sort of film you might have expected Oliver Stone to make, but World Trade Center isn’t a great Stone film; it’s more like a decent Ron Howard film.” And he’s not alone; ch-ch-check it out for yourself — and let your fellow readers know what you think if you happen to see the film.
Christopher Borrelli, Toledo Blade: "Oliver Stone made this? The same Oliver Stone who made JFK, Wall Street, Salvador? It says here in the press notes, he did; it says there on the cover of Newsweek, he did. But it’s still hard to believe, and I don’t necessarily mean that as criticism. World Trade Center just lacks his usual attention to corruption and politics; for a director best known for running a fever at all times, the shock is how conventional World Trade Center plays."
Mark Rahner, Seattle Times: ”The result is unrecognizable as Stone’s, stylistically or thematically. Based on the ordeal of two of the only 20 survivors pulled from the rubble, it’s a narrowly focused and reverent celebration of the human spirit, with some powerful moments. But noble intent and adherence to real events don’t necessarily add up to success onscreen; it’s also often tedious and schmaltzy.”
Geoff Pevere, Toronto Star: ”While much of Stone’s customary sturm und drang is absent — and has been replaced by an effectively eerie subtlety best exemplified by the fleeting glimpse of an airplane’s shadow on a building wall and the sound of distant explosions — so is the possibility of engagement outside of a kind of dutiful surrender to the sheer tidal force of sentiment."
Amy Biancolli, Houston Chronicle: "The unthinkable has happened. Oliver Stone has made a film that is unrecognizable as an Oliver Stone film. Beyond a manifest passion for the material, nothing about World Trade Center suggests Stone is its director. It boasts evidence of no outsize ego, no conspiracy theories, no virtuoso overkill, no epic length. It displays optimism, patriotism, emotional frankness and faith. Detractors might call it sentimental. Most of all, it exhibits no political slant whatsoever, injecting only heartfelt empathy for the day’s many victims and heroes."
William Arnold, Seattle Post-Intelligencer: "Anyone looking for a multilayered, Syriana-like exposé from Hollywood’s most suspicious A-list filmmaker could reasonably feel disappointed. There’s no subtext whatsoever, and the script never aspires to be more than a well-done television movie."
James Sanford, Kalamazoo Gazette: "Given director Oliver Stone’s reputation as a risk-tasking renegade and an unrepentant liberal, it wouldn’t have been terribly surprising if he had turned World Trade Center, his portrait of the Sept. 11 attacks, into a fierce anti-Bush-administration screed starring Sean Penn, Jane Fonda, Warren Beatty, and Susan Sarandon — with a love theme performed by the Dixie Chicks. The World Trade Center that Stone has made, however, is startling in an entirely different way: It’s probably the most conventional film in Stone’s body of work."
And finally, I direct your attention to a review by Richard Roeper in the Chicago Sun-Times, only because, amazingly, he manages to use its opening paragraphs as a setup for calling Ann Coulter ”an unconscionable pig.” Whether you love or loathe the conservative she-beast, you’ve got to admire Roeper’s moxie.
Comments (1-18) of 18 Add your comment
Just saw the film and was very touched and emotionally involved. Oliver Stone has made a “small” picture about a huge event. Not only do you feel what these brave men endured, but you vicariously feel what it must have been like for everyone at ground zero that day. I went in with no agenda or expectations, but I have to say well done to Mr. Stone and all those involved in the making of this film.
“Narrowly focused and reverent celebration of the human spirit” is about the only way this movie could have been made in 2006. The regular Oliver Stone film on the subject will be released in 2036.
I’m fascinated by what the LA Times reviewer wrote: “Looking for all the world like the kind of completely deranged individual you would expect to be hanging out with Freddy Krueger, Karnes turns out to be one of “World Trade Center’s” heroes. After telling his pastor that he is literally on a mission from God, he gets his hair cut short, breaks out his old Marine uniform, sneaks into the World Trade Center site and becomes instrumental in saving the two buried men.
Then comes the coup de grâce. “They’re going to need some good men to avenge this,” Karnes says ominously, and the next thing you know, a title card tells us that the man reenlisted in the Marines and served two tours of duty in Iraq. Even the conspiracy theories that Stone floated in “JFK” pale beside this blatant support of the big lie linking Iraq and Sept. 11″
This from the man who directed “JFK”? Just who IS Oliver Stone?
Oliver Stone is one of the most overrated directors of all-time. Interesting that the reviews say WTC isn’t an Oliver Stone kind of movie. Still not seeing it, though. It just doesn’t look very good. And I’m tired of Nicholas Cage. And I can’t stand Maggie Glaygshcbkl.
Plan on Netflixing United 93…
Wow, Craig, tell us what you REALLY think. Have you even seen Platoon or Born on the Fourth of July? I think Stone’s take on 9/11 is exactly what the country needs right now: in an increasingly dangerous and uncertain world, we can push aside our differences and still look to our patriotism, faith in one another, and everyday heroes to remind us that all is not lost.
Bravo, Richard Roeper!
(And thank you Michael Slezak for calling AC a “she-beast.)
And thank you, Slezak for compiling this list and drawing my attention to Roeper’s column.
Will you let me know what you think of my review? http://www.moviemartin.blogspot.com
Thanks a bunch!
I, for one, cannot wait to see this film tomorrow. I’m not necessarily expecting Stone’s best (Salvador & Platoon), but it will probably be one of the most emotional experiences I’ve had from one of his movies (or any other for that matter).
Always admired Stone. Born on the Fourth of July is one of the best takes on war and its after-effects (and Tom Cruise’s best performance)
Can’t wait to see WTC.
After the giant turkey that was ALEXANDER, WTC is posed to be the next CASABLANCA.
I don’t care it this is an “Oliver Stone movie”; to me it looks very good, and I will see it this weekend.
Platoon was good, not great. Never saw Born on the Fourth of July. I have, however, seen parts of Any Given Sunday (pulled the plug halfway: awful), the mediocre U-Turn, the bloated Natural Born Killers and Doors, and didn’t bother with the disaster that was Alexander. JFK and Wall Street are probably his best, but don’t age very well. Sorry, not a big fan…
Actually I have already seen it, and think it is an extraordinary film. Not as good as UNITED 93, but stirring nonetheless.
Today Scotland Yard uncovered a terrorist plot to blow up US-bound flights from the UK.
This chilling news – as well as Stone’s movie – should be reminders that we are sadly living in a dangerous time.
Terrorism is a real and concrete threat, today as well as that awful day depicted in WORLD TRADE CENTER.
My opinion, take it or leave it. I already hated Nic Cage, I think he’s just a horrible horrible actor. I didn’t care for Stone either, and I feel that after Alexander he didn’t care what the movie was about, he needed/wanted a mainstream hit. What is the perfect way to get people to see your movie and make them care? A 9/11 movie. I watched the MTV special about this movie where they interviewed the stars and director and they represented themselves terribly. I don’t agree with them making this movie at all, I think its always going to be too soon for a 9/11 movie (how many years did it take to make pearl harbor? and the titanic movies?). But if they were so inclined and determined to make it, why not make it more of a documentary style, like United 93? In the MTV special they were asked this, and it would make sense because they have the survivors that the movie is based on to tell what happened firsthand. INSTEAD, they get hollywood writers to make up what the guys said under the rubble, hype the movie to be the summer love blockbuster and go for the ‘emotional connection’ which Stone said was better if they did it as a fictional movie. BULLCRAP I say! There already is an emotional connection for every single person who woke up that day and saw the television images, and who is still dealing with the fallout today in Iraq. I was against this movie from the second I saw the previews and it makes me believe that nothing is sacred in Hollywood, especially to hacks like Nic Cage and Oliver Stone.
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY (depicting Pearl Harbor in the end) was made in 1953, but a great many World War II movies were made in the early 40’s while the war raged on. Granted, these movies took place overseas, but everyone in America knew families who had lost loved ones (or ones of their own) in the Atlantic/Pacific.
And just so you know, I was born in Manhattan and I think the time is right to be reminded of what we all went through that terrible day (9/11) and to remind us of some of the heroic Americans that were there.
And continuing on bashing that point… there were Titanic movies dating back to the 1940s. Don’t really think you have a good comparison there….
I’ve just returned from seeing WTC and it was outstanding. I can only hope that people won’t judge it (without seeing it) based solely on actors/director they may not care for.
um, math majors, if a Titanic movie came out in the 1940s and it crashed in 1914, that is…wait for it…26 Years. It took Hollywood 5, even less if you consider the planning and preparation for this movie, to capitalize on it. It’s still a valid point, in that its something that happened so soon that we all haven’t forgotten anything about that day and every time we hear something about terrorist or a new plot this point is proven even more. And I was referring to the big Hollywood treatment of Pearl Harbor, which isn’t really comparable to movies that might have come out in the 40’s or 50’s. Either way, I’m still against this movie.
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY with Frank Sinatra, Burt Lancaster and Montgomery Clift wasn’t a big hollywood treatment???You need to go back to film school, darlin’, cause they don’t come much bigger than that!
As far as timing, if it’s too soon for you to see this film (WTC), I understand. I can tell you that it might make you feel better as I found it to be therapeutic myself. Will you cry? I did. Will you feel better? I think so, as it was a very positive moviegoing experience and a beautifully acted/directed film.