Olvier Stone's World Trade Center - Pointless

For anyone who's seen the recently released World Trade Center, you were probably thinking the same thing as a lot of people. Where's the World Trade Center? This entire movie completely skirted the entire event, and instead focused on two people that were trapped. Now the reason for this is clear and obvious, Oliver Stone knew full well that if he tried to cover the scope of the event, political implications would be inevitable, and would likely cause an upheaval in dissent and anger. So what he did was completely avoid any chance of anger from people by making a movie that completely disregarded the entire event. It felt like a man who was on trial giving his testimony.

"Sir, where did the murder take place?"

"Boy dunkin' donuts are great."

"But where did the murder take place?"

"I can't say."

It felt as though the whole thing lacked a boldness that makes movies great, he completely played it safe, and it felt so run of the mill hollywood that there was really no message to be found. So in the end, what is the point of this movie? To honor 2 out of 2,700+ people? I think it must have been just money, but please, any insight is welcome.

I haven't seen it because I'm in Russia and it takes a couple of weeks for movies to be dubbed into Russian.
Definitely will rent it though, Cage is a great actor and Lord of War was superb.

As a warning for the acting, 98% of the performance takes place from one static angle, consisting of a lot of slurred words and flinching.

From a technical standpoint, it's an excellent film. The direction, the pace, the cinematography, everything. But in the end, if you're going to decide to take a very touchy subject and make a movie about it 5 years after the fact, without ever really touching on it, why do it at all?

For the money?
For the fame?
For the increased Hollywood standing?

Because he's a pretentious fool.

I didnt like it at all. Worst movie ive seen all year

I saw a few good reviews for it, and some other "OK" reviews. Ebert was one of the ok ones. IMDB is good if you want an average of what the plebians think. IMDB WTC (NOTE: 7 or 8 is very good. very few get up to 9)

But I just don't understand, Oliver Stone is a good writer, he wrote Scarface, he could make any movie about any subject to elevate his Hollywood prestige, why in God's name did he choose this topic?

Well, we will probably never know his motives. He will probably say that he wants to honour the few who did survive and such, I don't know. Something along those lines. Also, there could be others involved apart from Mr. Stone, you know.
I hadn't really thought of the subject as a problem at first, but I see now that it can be provoking for some.

I honestly am surprised at the unmitigated gall Stone exhibited by conceiving this movie in the first place! Perhaps this is one of those flicks best seen...NEVER.

Watched it. Was bored. It sucked. Stone did better with Alexander (at least that has some entertaining action).

I miss Gladiator

Still, Spielberg is still doing great, and he had a few flops in between (though if WTC is actually a flop, I cannot say as I haven't been able to see the movie yet)

We can still hope he makes some kick-ass movies in the future.

Originally Posted by MaximiIian

Stone did better with Alexander (at least that has some entertaining action).

Ugh, gag me. Alexander sucked. Whoever did the casting for that should be blacklisted by Hollywood.

I liked Munich.
Certainly original to say the least.

no way I'd see this movie in a million years. I too cannot believe the unmitigated gall of this a-hole to even CONCEIVE of this movie much less actually get it made. the dynamics we have in this country, to even allow such a thing to come into existence... it gives me a headache to even think about how convoluted, perverse, and sycophantic it all is.

wtf is going on around here?

Originally Posted by Orolinwe

no way I'd see this movie in a million years. I too cannot believe the unmitigated gall of this a-hole to even CONCEIVE of this movie much less actually get it made. the dynamics we have in this country, to even allow such a thing to come into existence... it gives me a headache to even think about how convoluted, perverse, and sycophantic it all is.

wtf is going on around here?

What's so wrong with it? To stop hate-mongering and draping the actions of the few like an albatross around the necks of the many, to stop waving the bloody flag to veil the reality, to return to a subject thus far glossed over and forgotten and buried in all the tears and blood and sweat?

The movie is not about the attacks themselves, it is about family and survival in the face of difficulty, it's about the importance of relationships in helping us through. This movie was very well done and I enjoyed it. It wasn't perfect, but it managed to maintain interest and deserved an 8.5 to 9 / 10.

I would sugguest watching it, I thought it was good.

Oh please, Alexander wasn't that bad. Sure, it was a little too long and the accents were weird, but it was okay. It did a fair job at showing Alexander III and the struggles he had in his life, both personal and in war. Anyway, I was saying that Alexander, even if it were as bad as popular opinion makes it out to be, was better than WTC.

One couldn't really call Stone's World Trade Center a "flop". It's gotten decent to great reviews across the board, and made almost as much money as Talladega Nights.