World Trade Center Review
by Marshall Garvey (marshall AT wizardsofaahs DOT com)August 10th, 2006
"World Trade Center"
By Marshall Garvey
As Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" arrives in theatres, some critics and film journalists have predictably dished out laments over Stone "gone soft." How can the man who brought a new form of brutality to Vietnam films with "Platoon," carved out a new aspect of the JFK conspiracy with "JFK," and directed "Natural Born Killers" (no explanation needed) make a 9/11 film without tapping into the dense web of conspiracy that has since surrounded the infamous day? Not to mention, the picture is hitting home with right wing pundits, unthinkable in the vein of the director's career. Stone does indeed take a controversy-free approach to the story of two Port Authority police offers trapped in the rubble of the collapsed towers, and cynics may lambaste the director for sentimentality with the making of this movie.
Before seeing it, however, I had a discussion with my father about the accusations of Oliver lightening up, and he accurately pointed out that Stone has almost always had an underlying sentimentality in his films. He had sentimentality for his platoon, and the soldiers who served with him in Vietnam; he had a great sentimentality for President Kennedy, and the loss his death represented to the 60's generation; even in "Nixon," a portrait of a president less favored in public opinion, he was human in showing the conflicted times of Richard Nixon. Thus, "World Trade Center" could be seen as the manifestation of Stone's sentimentality, albeit without any controversy to stoke flames amongst the moviegoing public.
And it's thanks to this approach that "World Trade Center" is a success. Had Stone tried at all to be shocking, or so much as slightly tapped into 9/11 conspiracies, the film's focus would be diluted (He doesn't even delve into the details of the terrorists, and Osama Bin Laden's iconic mug is nowhere to be seen.). Stone lets the amazing power of the story carry itself, and with this movie he has crafted an inspiring salute to the heroes of that day. This is by no means a film that I will beg every last individual to see; the recreations of the events are real enough for anyone, and will leave many in shock (I felt my own body become numb during certain scenes.). Seeing it, however, will remind one of the importance of remembering not only the events, but the people hurt and lost in them. It's tough but humanizing; I left the cinema with a feeling of utter admiration for New York's policemen and firefighters. They're inspiring to think of, and Stone succeeds thoroughly in his tribute to them.
The story follows the true tale of Port Authority policemen John McLoughlin (Nicolas Cage) and Will Jimeno (Michael Pena, the Hispanic father from "Crash"). McLoughlin is a 21-year veteran of the force, while Jimeno is a charming rookie. They set out for duty as usual on Tuesday, September 11, 2001, expecting mostly to deal with hookers and pimps or a runaway child from Rhode Island. But when history sets in and two planes strike the towers of New York City's World Trade Center, McLoughlin heads a squad down to the danger zone to evacuate people from the building. John, Will, and a few others head in to one of the towers, but when it collapses they are helplessly trapped beneath a mass of rubble and twisted metal. As the "Ground Zero" they are trapped in continues to disintegrate, John and Will are the only ones left alive.
After the collapse, the film shifts gears to incorporate two more stories. The first is of the officers' wives (Mario Bello as Donna McLoughlin and Maggie Gyllenhaal as Allison Jimeno) and families nervously awaiting the word of what has happened. The second regards Marine officer Dave Karnes (Michael Shannon), who becomes wholly determined to make it to Ground Zero and look for survivors. In-between those subplots, John and Will struggle to stay alive beneath the wreckage, reminding one another of their loving families to keep themselves from falling asleep for good.
One of the first questions to address in reviewing "World Trade Center" is how it compares to Paul Greengrass's excellent "United 93," released earlier this year. The stylistic differences are obvious: While "United 93" was documentary-like and neutral in its realism, "World Trade Center" is admittedly more "Hollywood"-esque, employing epic cinematography and playing up emotional attachment in a much more dramatic manner. While "United 93" contains its intensity mostly in the confines of an airplane, this film captures the jaw-dropping scope of the horror at the two towers. I personally struggle to decide which is better (I think I'd lean towards "United 93"), but while their differences are easy to pick through, one should also note just how well they go together. With both pictures released in the same year, they perfectly complement each other and come together as potent reminders not to forget either struggle they portray.
Amidst the buzz of Stone's shift towards an emotional, sentimental story, one should not forget that that doesn't mean "World Trade Center" is a sugarcoated portrait. It's as real and brutal as a movie regarding this subject should be, and Stone inserts moments that will likely be too much for those who were emotionally wounded by 9/11. We see people jumping from the windows, a bloodied woman crying as she staggers away from the towers, police officers returning from duty completely covered in powdery ash and blood. All these images we remember from the graphic news coverage, clips of which Stone fluidly inserts as the families await further word of their loved ones. It's not for the faint of heart to absorb, but those seeking a riveting portrayal of the shocking spectacle won't be disappointed.
It's fortunate that someone of Stone's level of expertise and experience as a director has taken on this project. He starts brilliantly with glowing, captivating shots of New York early on that fateful Tuesday morning, the two towers still adorning the skyline. Cars and people shuffle through the streets the same as ever, while citizens riding the train discuss the amazing home run Derek Jeter hit for the Yankees the night before. When his camera arrives at the towers after they're hit, the sights and sounds are faultlessly captured. Stone and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey ("The Hours") strive for indelibility in many moments, and they attain it. One breathtaking shot pulls out from the depths of where John and Will are trapped and carries upward to a satellite beaming the unfortunate news across the world. Another shot that has become unshakable for me shows Karnes walking down a desolate New York street clouded with brown ash from the debris of the collapse, as if a dust bowl had just hit the city.
The weight of "World Trade Center" doesn't fall squarely upon Stone's shoulders, as it is certainly a demanding task for the actors involved as well. They meet the challenge. Nicolas Cage does a good job not letting his star power overcome his job in playing McLoughlin, although the quality of his performances wavers after the collapse. He stumbles a bit on his accent as he tries to capture the character's unbearable exhaustion, although he does succeed at that. Maggie Gyllenhaal and Maria Bello are solid as the wives, and give credible efforts in capturing the deep uncertainty about their husbands' survival. The true star of the film, though, is Michael Pena. Loved by many viewers as the Hispanic father in "Crash" last year, he shows tremendous charisma as Will Jimeno. Those who applauded him in Paul Haggis's Oscar-winner will rise again for him here.
Even as "World Trade Center" settles in as the second stake for 9/11 movies, the question still persists: Is it too early for them? That is a question that is hard to answer assuredly, and it's a resounding no for those who can't handle revisiting the day (Especially in a crowded movie house.). But for those who are ready, the time is right. On a personal note, I found it nearly impossible to confront the facts and memories of 9/11 in the years that followed. It was such a sad and emotionally unsettling day for me, an attack on my country that was, especially at the age of 11 then, hard to absorb. But with this film and "United 93," I have slowly begun to revisit and learn about it. Many others may find themselves in my camp, and on that level these films have every reason to be in movie houses. Intense as they are, they're healing. And with recent summer disappointments like "A Scanner Darkly" and "Clerks II," "World Trade Center" asserts itself as true excellence. See it and take a moment to reflect afterwards.
Final Rating: **** out of *****
Rating scale:
*****-A masterwork. This is as good as it gets. If it's in theaters, see it right now. If it's on DVD, rent it in a flash. You can't miss it.
****1/2-Outstanding motion picture. You'll be missing something special if you don't catch it.
****-Excellent, be sure to see it.
***1/2-Good. Not one you have to rush to see, but fully worth the ticket price.
***-OK. Barely recommended, but too flawed to be worth seeing. **1/2-Just plain average.
**-Pretty bad, but with some redeeming elements.
*1/2-Bad. Skip it.
*-Awful. This is the kind of film critics brave so audiences know to avoid it.
1/2-Offensive. Picket its release.
0-The unimaginable bottom of awfulness. Never, under any reasonable condition, take it in. You'll regret it.
More on 'World Trade Center'...
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
