Pajiba

I still can't bring myself to watch anything related to 9/11--the trailers of this movie alone are enough to make me feel sick and sad all over again--but it looks like a good movie. I'm also glad to see the one saving grace from "Crash" in another movie, so I'm hoping people will know Michael Pena as more than the "homie locksmith" from that movie.

Nice Wilco reference.

And now that I've finished reading the review, nice review. I never expected this to be a great film, and I always thought it was too soon for a 9/11 movie for several reasons, but I still really want to see this movie.

the feeling of unity is amazing- but it's not enough for me to go see this movie.
too soon- it might always be too soon.

I well up every time I see even a passing reference to 9/11 or hear one. There is no way I'll see this movie, I would be wrecked for weeks, just like I was wrecked for months in 2001.

But saying that, I am glad that this movie was well-done. Just...no. I can't.

I feel that its sacrilegious to profit from one of the greatest tragedies in American history. I see no point in defending the catharsis that WTC may potentially offer to its audience, however, what bothers me the MOST is that we the people of the U.S. are still massively uninformed about what happened on 9/11. We should demand from our government the truth, and perhaps not be so misguided to celebrate our patriotism through 9/11 because ANY other country in the world would have reacted the same way. We are no different from them, but in the minds of the Administration and Bush we DESERVE the right to force other countries and their people to become "free" and "democractic" with our "guidance" and "leadership" (READ economic exploitation and manipulation). I would prefer a film that explored these hypocrisies and misunderstandings about ourselves as a "great" people in a "great" country. Movies like this make me so angry because they show and offer nothing but an exploitative catharsis from its viewers. In fact, it re-establishes the reason for the New World Order (NWO) and celebrates its existence. Other that that feeling, I enjoyed your review! Thanks!

Too soon? As a historian, I cannot see how this is possible? America's foreign policy is being ran by a pious jackass who has us locked in a death struggle to survive economically, because 9/11 gave him carte blanche over the actions of this country. It is no longer too soon, it is now too late, because we have failed to question our leaders because of the sentiments that go with this tragedy.
We needed this reminder of what really happened and an eye-opener to what should have been done, in order to save ourselves in the upcoming election. This movie should be a reminder of what has not been done for this country in the last 59 months. Too soon?, I hope it was just in time.

The WSJ made an interesting and important point about Oliver Stone's version of events. He treats it like the disaster that could have originated by other means, such as a natural disaster rather than a direct assault on our nation, so the characters could easily be juxtaposed into a different disaster setting with similar action, dialogue and results. Stone is a bit warped, and for that reason alone I am hesitant to see this one, though I do believe the movie is apt to stir up emotions because we know the source of the disaster - and it wasn't no earthquake.

Oh great - people using the comments on this movie review to spew political rants. *rolling eyes*

The thing I was most looking forward to was a non-political approach to this movie. I will probably see it, but it will make me a wreck for sure. It bothers me that the media decided not to show those images of 9/11 on TV anymore - like it will "upset" people? I think they should show it more often, because people too easily forget.

PC --

Trust me, no one who spent those days wondering about the fates of their friends or family is ever going to forget any of it.

I wish I could forget.

By going out of his way to disclaim any political agenda in this movie, Stone is, paradoxically, making a thunderous political statement, one that has attracted the effusive praise of those that usually are his enemies--fundamentalist scum like Cal Thomas, reactionary swine like the National Review editorial board. Sweet Mary's ass, he even brings Jesus Christ into the mix, prompting one right-winger to laud WTC as a "Jesus film."

Customarily, I'm not one to judge films by their trailers, but WTC looks like an overwrought and slick heap of manipulation when something gritty and fierce is called for. I'd much rather see a documentary based on these men's stories, and I'd much rather see Stone be Stone--vulgar, sexist, scatterbrained, but at least with some wild energy that polarizes people. Some critics have said this is more like a Ron Howard film than a Stone film, and I can't think of putdowns that are much worse than that--unless it's compared to something shat out by Joel Schumacher.

"the feeling of unity is amazing- but it's not enough for me to go see this movie.
too soon- it might always be too soon."

Couldn't agree more. The last people that should profit from 9/11 are hollywood studios (not that ANYONE should). It's not that it's too soon, it just feels so exploitative.

Pearl Harbor gets a pass (still hated it beyond measurable levels) because I don't believe it even tried to be anything but an action movie someway related to a historical event. 9/11 movies to me are deliberately or inherently exploitative.

I don't need Nick Cage to feel proud of my country. A documentary could tell me the same thing. Well, not "Loose Change"...

"Customarily, I'm not one to judge films by their trailers, but WTC looks like an overwrought and slick heap of manipulation when something gritty and fierce is called for. I'd much rather see a documentary based on these men's stories,"

Sorry, just read that. Said it way better than I did.

I sort of agree with those who think it's "too soon." I refused to see United 93 for that reason, even. A friend of mine used the movie Titanic as an example of a real-life event-inspired movie happening 80 years later, but really, how many movies about Titanic have there been since the days of black and white? Part of me is almost relieved though that it's done now. The actors and everyone involved are those who experienced it with the rest of the country, not some young Hollywood starlettes thirty years from now who know about it only through their research for a role, through old newspaper articles, through the first-hand stories of those whose memories may have faded slightly over time or pushed out of their minds because it was such a trauma to so many people. We're in the middle of events that could pretty much end up being referred to as WWIII one day. Why is it necessary to argue so passionately over this again?

This was a nice review to read. Very happy to see you able to extol on its virtues to not totally scare me away from it but not afraid to not say it's going to change the course of cinematic history like some may do for fear of looking unpatriotic or some BS. I think I'm going to see this one, despite some of my hestations. I could use a good emotional cry.

I have to agree with some of you guys who think Hollywood is exploiting 9/11 for profit. I try to view the movie in a different way but I just can't get past that thougth. I would be ok with it if they said they were going to donate some of the profits to people directly affected by those events, but I haven't heard anything of the sort. I don't care how good the movie is, I will not see it for those reasons. I can't sit by and pander to these corporations who are the root cause for hatred of the US across the world and many of our problems here at home.

whats this mean--
[i]the Gyllenhaal tears[/i]
please explain.

"I feel that its sacrilegious to profit from one of the greatest tragedies in American history."

My feelings exactly. I will not be seeing this movie. I'm disgusted that it was even made.

I can't believe I'm saying this, even as I type it.

I wonder if the events of today (London plane bombing plot, orange/red terror level alert) will hurt or help the box office on this film.

I can see it going either way. Either a swell of patriotism and raw emotions will drive movie goers this weekend to see WTC, or the raw nerves created by the emotions will stir up the pain to the point where the American moviegoing public just can't take seeing it on the big screen in Dolby surround sound.

It will be interesting to see the commentary on the weekend box office draw in regards to today's events.

Though it is small consolation, some of the proceeds will be going to a variety of charitable organizations. But there is still something bitter in my mouth that ANYONE from Hollywood will profit from it...

But I must agree - still too soon. If I see it, it will be on DVD, at home, wrapped up with my wife close by. For some reason, the idea of seeing it in a theater filled with posters and popcorn and kiddie movies around the corner, and commercialism everywhere around me just creates a dirty little knot in my stomach.

I saw this film at one of the many free screenings that took place in the NYC area. I had to really steel myself because I was afraid I wouldn't be able to handle seeing it (I too cried when I saw the trailer). While the film is very sad, it is also very moving and very well done. While I have my own political views regarding 9/11, I was glad that Oliver Stone did not smack the audience in the face with his views. This is a story about these two men, their families, and the people who helped rescue them on that day. I recommend it to everyone, but please bring tissues.

Propoganda plain and simple. Tug the people's heartstrings and get more support for the war.

See also:

Pearl Harbor

It sickens me that they are milking this for entertainment value. Its still too soon.

"For a few minutes -- before the lights come up, before you re-enter a world full of moving vehicles, Hezbollah, and Jennifer Aniston's engagement -- it's nice to remember what's so great about this goddamn country of ours. And anything that can rekindle that sense of unity, even briefly, is worth the effort of watching."

Okay, I'll be the Pinko Commie - I can't imagine anything that would make me feel any sense of unity with the leadership of this country and the deluded jackesses who elected them.

That said, I think I'm in the minority in thinking that the making of this film isn't that big a deal - maybe because it's so completely what I'd expect of Stone and his ilk. I'd probably be upset if it had some light, ridiculous love affair sequence, but it sounds like it's pretty serious, if a bit overwrought.

Shoogie, for once we are firmly in agreement.

What I don't get about the "it's too soon" camp, is that I hear this about United 93 and WTC only. There have been many horrific happenings in the world before and after 9/11 and many of them have been dramatized or covered in documentary style films sooner than five years out, and I have yet to hear an American claim that it's too soon (for instance, Beslan school siege: 150+ children killed). Is an event only traumatically sacrosanct if it happens in the US and/or sufficient numbers of Americans are killed? No disrespect to the horror of 9.11, but this attitude bothers me. As for Hollywood profiting, yeah, disgusting, but that's what Hollywood does. Why expect them to change now?

"What I don't get about the "it's too soon" camp, is that I hear this about United 93 and WTC only."
I don't know why either, but it's too soon for me too. Maybe because I'm not strong enough yet - everytime I even think about that day and all the events that occurred, I get very emotional. (I had a hard time just typing that sentence.) Was it because we saw it happen live, and it was worse than anyone could have imagined?

"Is an event only traumatically sacrosanct if it happens in the US and/or sufficient numbers of Americans are killed?"

Siobhan - the answer to your question is yes, especially with respect to whether people in the U.S. were killed. Hotel Rwanda - granted, came out about 10 or 11 years after the fact, but the number of people who were killed far, far outnumbered those killed at the WTC. Different circumstances, I know, but it was still humans killing humans.

Again, zero disrespect meant to those who suffered through the horrific (and they were horrific) acts of 9/11.

"Is an event only traumatically sacrosanct if it happens in the US and/or sufficient numbers of Americans are killed?"

I think that we would feel the same way about the tragedies outside of the US if we watched them play out with 24-hour news coverage on EVERY channel for days on end. But they don't--they only make a short appearance at the end of most normal evening news broadcasts. 9/11 stopped the whole country on a dime for at least a week--in my lifetime, that's the only time that ever happened. When you got home from work, you could huddle on the couch with tissues and watch the footage on a continuous loop... There was a mood afterwards that just lingered throughout the country.

Worse things have happened the world over, certainly. But 9/11 was bad, too. Why should we have to apologize for still being scared, frightened and sad about it? I don't want to watch 9/11 Hollywood blockbusters. I wouldn't want to watch a Beslan movie, either, though. And although I've owned Hotel Rwanda for about a year, I haven't been able to make myself watch it...

Maybe for some of us it's too soon because we lived through this, quite literally either trapped in Manhattan that day, or in the WTC, or in a building nearby. If you worked or lived in Manhattan, and were there that day, it was as traumatic as any survivor anywhere.

I wouldn't expect the survivors of any tragedy to be able to sit through a Hollywood version of it 5 years later. Any horrific, chaotic, life-altering, life-taking tragedy.

I don't know what it was like for the rest of the country, so I can't say. But there still are a lot of people in this country who feel that Americans are united, and this happened to all of them. I'm sure other countries feel the same when a horrible event occurs. I don't know, I wouldn't want to see a movie about the tsunami either, and I wasn't anywhere near it.

"Why should we have to apologize for still being scared, frightened, and sad about it?"

And that right there is the crux of the problem. Keep the fear and the mere mention of it will allow people (namely this administration) to lead you around by the nose. I, for one, desperately want to see this movie, if only to face the fear. Eliminate the fear and you will be better for it. I, to this day, still grieve for those that died that day and it continues to bring down my mood and bring a tear to my eyes. That is something that I will never lose, but fear should never enter the equation.

"And that right there is the crux of the problem. Keep the fear and the mere mention of it will allow people (namely this administration) to lead you around by the nose. I, for one, desperately want to see this movie, if only to face the fear. Eliminate the fear and you will be better for it. I, to this day, still grieve for those that died that day and it continues to bring down my mood and bring a tear to my eyes. That is something that I will never lose, but fear should never enter the equation."

And here, my friends, is the most insightful comment yet.

"...if we watched them play out with 24-hour news coverage on EVERY channel for days on end. But they don't--they only make a short appearance at the end of most normal evening news broadcasts."

Why? Because they are not happening in the USA. They are not important enough to warrant 24-hour coverage. Because thousands of people dying in horrific circumstances at the hands of other human beings overseas is not as important as thousands of people in the USA dying in horrific circumstances at the hands of other human beings.

It makes me damn proud to be an Australian.

You know, disliking the bush administration is one thing, but the constant hatred of America is becoming a little tiresome. Like every other country in the world hasn't done much worst (read Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, Castro, Pol Pot) than any american president, and wouldn't do a thousand times more with the power the U.S does have. Sometimes I feel more patriotic towards the U.S than most americans and I'm not even a citizen. I was born in Europe, have lived in Canada and currently reside in the U.S.

There are really three camps out there, those who hate bush and spend their life in constant fear WWIII is coming and spew hatred at America; those who love bush and spend their life in constant fear that WWIII is coming and spew hatred for the world; and the third, those of us who try and gain a little bit of realism and perspective on what's happening right now in the world. Realizing the world isn't coming to an end, focusing our energy on day to day life, and leaving some time to make rational decisions.

Relax, take a deep breath, and do something constructive about what's happening around you. That being said, the only people who really have a right to feel emotional about 9/11 are those that went through it, or had close family go through it. I didn't, and I have alot of respect and sympath for those people as I do for anyone who has gone through tragedy or pain. Everyone else, shut up, and either enjoy the movie or don't watch it. Stop filling the space on a movie review site with your self important political garbage.

"but the constant hatred of America is becoming a little tiresome."

I don't think it's hatred, more despair... despair of a country where 30% of people polled couldn't tell you the YEAR that 9/11 happened in. Despair that the US voted in an unbelievably stupid and dangerous president. Despair that the same country then lets him and his cronies ride roughshod over the constitution.

I lived in the US for many years. I left it in 2002 - even as a white Englishman I began to receive resentment and mistreatment for being 'foreign'. My wife (an American) lives in the UK now - and is giving up her US passport as 'it's not the country I grew up in', and she for one is ashamed of what the US has (and is still) becoming.

""...if we watched them play out with 24-hour news coverage on EVERY channel for days on end. But they don't--they only make a short appearance at the end of most normal evening news broadcasts."

Why? Because they are not happening in the USA. They are not important enough to warrant 24-hour coverage. Because thousands of people dying in horrific circumstances at the hands of other human beings overseas is not as important as thousands of people in the USA dying in horrific circumstances at the hands of other human beings.

It makes me damn proud to be an Australian."

To be honest, and I'm speaking as a first-generation American here, sometimes I honestly don't believe that the large amount of media coverage happened because it 9-11 occured in "America". It happened in New York, which, it can be argued, is home to so many people--maybe home to more people born on foreign soil than American soil. I can almost guarantee that if this happened in Salina, Kansas, it would not have been on the news for as long as it was. But New York? That warrants major coverage.

Also, just speaking as someone who has a little (just a smidge) background in newswriting...it was covered that widely here because, well, it happened here. I mean absoultely no disrespect to anyone who lived through other tragedies (e.g. Beslan as someone mentioned), but it's almost shockingly easy to find people who are separated from that tragedy by one degree (myself included, since my cousin worked in the second tower and was actually with me in my hometown in the Midwest). That said, I'm not surprised that it was covered in such depth here. It happened here, and its effects were ridiculously far-reaching, and, well, add that to America's need to know every detail about certain events...and there you have it. If it happened in Australia, or any other country, that country would have the same amount of news coverage on the story, right? Just my opinion.

Do people really believe that the way they feel is the only way that's correct?

I'm sure that there have been many times in history where the people of this country were at odds with the currently elected govertnment. But time passes and you have another chance to elect someone new. If you don't want to stick around America to help make change, then don't. But take a look at the new country you're moving to and make sure it's perfect.

You can be proud to be an Australian or English, but your countries are far from perfect as well, and there isn't total unity there either. What does any of that have to do with this movie though? It's an American-made movie, made about an event that happened in America. Are you people saying that no one should be effected by it because it's about America? I just don't get it.

deedee--thanks for putting it better than I could.

Those of us who lived through that day in New York City will always think that it is too soon for a movie. On 9/11 I was 19 and living in a dorm 4 blocks away from the World Trade Center. I left my room that day with the clothes on my back and the books in my bag. We had nothing. We knew nothing. My friends and I saw things that day that I hope none of you ever have to see in your life.

If you disagree with the "too soon" sentiment, open your mind. I still think of 9/11 almost daily. This screwed up our lives. So when people say "too soon" I have to agree. The nightmares I still get are entertainment enough.

I was onboard a US Navy Cruiser pierside in Yokosuka, Japan when 9/11 occurred and I couldn't believe what was happening. Everyone in our berthing was crammed around the TV, alternately crying, praying, staring silently at the screen, and raging at the faceless monsters who did this. In the days, weeks, and months that followed, people in Japan and other foreign countries showed a surprisingly candid concern for us and our country. They could relate to the horrors of terrorism. It was strange, almost like America had finally joined some tragic club or something. This was my realization that 9/11 happened to all of us in varying degrees.
For those who wonder at the "lack" of news coverage on world events have to realize that we are Americans and, like it or not, what happens in our country sits in the front seat of the news bus. If you think any other country acts differently, you're just being naive. Appalling events happen everyday across the world and there's only so much space on the front page, so go click the "World News" link on whatever news website you prefer and there it is. The story has to be pretty bad for international news to be prominent on that front page, so I hope I'm forced to click that button on a daily basis.
I don't mind that this movie is out there. It was going to happen eventually, and it's good that Oliver Stone appears to be showing constraint and handling it with some class. I'm sure they'll replay the airplane attacks in order to stage the story in WTC, and I'd rather the ensuing plot revolve around a miraculous survival story in the rubble than us bombing the shit out of Afghanistan months later.
All that said, I can't see this movie. It is too soon for me personally. I watch those amazing TV documentaries that pop up every 6 months or so ("Inside 9/11" and the HBO special where kids talk about the attack are especially gripping) and that's as close as I can get.
And for those who don't want "Hollywood" to profit from it, don't pay the $10 to see it.

This looks very interesting and controversial. Let's hope it doesn't hurt our sensitivities, as you say.
Great blog btw and come see us whenever.

Okay, all this serious stuff aside: Nicolas Cage's "box-office powers"?

I am so puzzled by this. I mean, I don't deny that they exist, because the man keeps getting roles. I just don't understand the fact that he does keep getting roles- he's not attractive (imo), his expressions, his voice- all-in-all, I find him unappealing, and I was irritated that he was cast in this role.

...one of the greatest tragedies in American history.

"Greatest"? Are you fucking kidding?

Boy, do you ever need to catch up on, like, a bunch of American history.

Better just go ahead and count me as someone so cynical and embittered that life is completely wasted on me. Because the trailers of this film just made me sick to my stomach. This seems like nothing but a prettified and glorified faux-recreation of one of the most grotesque, ugly, and tragic events in recent American history. I'm not saying that the events of 9/11 should be off-limits for artist or filmmakers, not at all. I thought "United 93" was a truly excellent film which treated the subject with an incredible decency and seriousness. But it was almost documentary-style, small-scale and with NO HOLLYWOOD ACTORS and NO MUSIC. Just the use of the swelling standard Hollywood shmaltz-soundtrack, the carefully madeup faces of recognizable movie-stars, and the vacuous tagline about "courage and survival" in the face of "EVIL" offends me deeply. To focus on just two guys with the dumb luck to be rescued -- when THOUSANDS died horrible deaths -- and twist that into something "hopeful" -- strikes me as grotesque. I understand that one of the man sees Jesus, who tells him he was meant to live or something. Well, bully for him. I guess Jesus didn't love all the pour souls who threw themselves out of the windows enough to save them... I'm sorry, but really, I think it's ENTIRELY too soon for the mainstream Hollywood treatment of this VERY sore subject. Just think about the making of this movie, with the big stars with their posses and makeup artists and set decorators running around, trying to re-capture all the horror (but not horrible enough to turn the oh-so-sensitive mainstream American audience off)... Just think about people watching this after a trailer of "John Tucker Must Die", whilst stuffing themselves with buckets of popcorn... It's just wrong, all wrong.

There is a 9/11 movie out there that has gone largely unnoticed. It is not in the least exploitative. There are no Hollywood stars. It is infinitely more life affirming that WTC. And it makes no difference how close you were to the events of 9/11, it will still move you, without ever upsetting you. It is flat-out amazing, and I'd recommend it long before I suggested either United 93 or Oliver Stone's World Trade Center.

Nine Innings from Ground Zero. Pick it up next time you're in Blockbuster. Or add it to your Netflix queue. And you don't need to be a baseball fan to enjoy it.

In my mind, it is too soon for a movie of this nature, but perhaps not for the reason you may think. It is not too soon to search for answers, or to question our government, or to share the stories of the lives that were and continue to be effected by the events that took place on Spetmber 11th, 2001. It is not too soon to explore the reasoning behind these attacks, or to reach out to the leaders of the communities intent on destroying life as we know it in America and ask the most simple question of all: why? What it is too soon for, however, is the blatant exploitation of those effected on 9/11. The men and who lived this story deserve to be honored for their strength and courage in that time of peril; both in a public forum and by way of monetary compensation for their time in recounting and in essence reliving the horror each time they are asked to sing for their supper. That being said, the people who do not deserve to be honored by multi-million dollar paychecks and new box office records are the director & stars of the film. From the nature of the beast that is Hollywood, these projects involving a major national/international political/social event spring forth under the pretense of being culturally relevant and important to society; when in reality they are simply another Hollywood machine built with calculating accuracy to ensure the intended response from the nation: big box office dollars. If the studio/Oliver Stone/Nicholas Cage/Maggie Gyllenhaal/ Etc. truly cared about the story behind 9/11; they would have funded a documentary featuring the real people involved in the situation, not some big-budget drivel intended to create a Kleenex shortage in every Wal-Mart nationwide.

Fin.

That was supposed to say September 11th, 2001 up there.

Sorry for the mistake.

I need to proof read next time.

i tear up everytime i see this preview and the coldplay song really kicks my emotions into overdrive...i want to see this movie i just dont know if i can see it in a theatre i may explode into uncontrollable sobbing.

Maybe there will be a sequel - "WTC 2 - Greatest Victims Ever".

Did the WW2 movies produced in the 50's and 60's somehow dishonor the fifty million people who died? There have been SITCOMS made about both the Korean War and Nazi P.O.W. camps. Vietnam films started rolling out before the 1970's were even over, did this statute of limitations not apply back then?

I visited the WTC semi-regularly on business & I was shitting myself in terror on 9/11 and weeping for the many fine people who needlessly died that awful day. I hope I and anyone else for that matter never has to experience anything remotely like that again, no matter where they live. It is higly unlikely I'll ever forget that day or how I felt about it. But I'll be damned if I will let 9/11 become the defining memory of my life. Implying that making a movie about it is somehow sacreligious also implies that it is some kind of "holy" memory. Sorry, but I do not feel I am insulting anyone's legacy when I say it's not a holy memory for me, it's a fucking bad one. Let's try to progess a bit and stop the death-cult bullshit already.

soulonice: brava.

I won't be seeing this or any other Sept. 11 movie. Doesn't matter how well it's done. I was more than old enough (30) when it happened to have it seared in my memory forever. There's no need for me to spend eight bucks to go see a dramatization of it.

It just seems...cheap and tacky. And in the last five years, I've felt beat over the head with Sept. 11 by CERTAIN politicos and a certain political party who love to use it to scare people.

9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11, 9/11 and on and on and on it goes.

"Though it is small consolation, some of the proceeds will be going to a variety of charitable organizations. But there is still something bitter in my mouth that ANYONE from Hollywood will profit from it... "

The same was done for United 93. Rather than give one dollar of my ten bucks to the charity and 9 to Hollywood, I'd rather give 10 to charity and not see the movie.

I saw an ad for a documentary about the air traffic controllers on 9/11. The people who actually heard transmissions, etc. While it seems like everyone is doing the "what ___ occupation was doing on 9/11" its far more interesting to me, far more apolitical, and frankly won't leave a taste in my mouth. Tastes like money. And you should never lick money.

aw man, who gives a shit.

When the movie 'Pearl Harbor' first came out, I (foolishly) asked my grandfather, a WWII vet, if he was going to go see it. He immediately froze up for a few seconds before replying, "No," in a strangled voice. I was about thirteen at the time, and I didn't really understand why he had reacted in that way. Why wouldn't he want to see it? It was a part of his own personal history.
Then 9/11 happened. Now it's five years later, and in a sad twist of irony, I understand perfectly his reaction, because it's like mine, too. I don't know if I'm going to see this film. Watching it live was so horrific, so unreal, it seemed like a movie itself. To see it blown up a hundred times on a movie screen...I'm not sure reliving it again is going to bring any closure.
We all have a right to our own opinions about whether Stone should have made the film or not. Praise it, damn it, or be indifferent. But don't undermine 9/11 itself. Beyond politics, beyond the idea of good vs. evil, think of it as this: 3,000 dead, one of the greatest cities in the world scarred, and the beginning of a war that has killed tens of thousands more. It is a tragedy--and it's not over. That may be the worst part of all.

Maybe it's because I was only 9 when it happened, or maybe it's because I'm just 14 now but it doesn't feel too soon to me. That doesn't mean I'm going to see it though. It looks like a bad movie, and I don't like Nicholas Cage's acting.
I didn't understand the importance of 9/11 when it happened. It made me a little scared, and when I returned a math book to my friend's house I worried a plane might drop out of the sky and kill me. But by the next day I was fine. Kids are resilent like that. The television was left on in our solarium and I learned all I needed to know and more than I could understand. I didn't know who this Osama bin Laden was, but I knew that he was bad. I knew the names of the planes. But I didn't see footage of the bodies. No matter how many times I heard 3000 dead, I couldn't remeber that number.
And so it went away. Sure I gave money to charity, what little a fourth grader had, when they asked at school. I bought the patriotic bracelets, though I never wore them. My only emotional connection to it has always been my guilt remebering how I span around on the playground looking at the cloudless azure sky proclaiming that day as "perfect" before I knew what happened.
Sorrow is personal to me, and the poem I wrote to my grandmother who had died a day ago will make me cry long before any mass marketed tearjerker will. I think it's wrong of Oliver Stone, in a way, to take the personal way 9/11 affected us and market it publically. If those two men the story is about want to publicize their story fine, but make it about their sense of loss, not mine.

I won't see this movie either, my various reasons have been said by others. I would like to say that I am disgusted again by seeing more crap like this come from Oliver Stone. After a generation of Americans have been taught about the cover-up of the Kennedy assasination, I was hoping he would move on to another genre (away from historical dramas). This is entertainment in a medium where getting the audience to cry is a parlor trick and to use this story to accomplish that is downright nauseating. The heroes actions speak for themselves. I feel every time Stone cashes his checks, he's pissing on the graves of all the victims. This is their/our tragedy, who the f*ck is he to profit off it?

"I feel that its sacrilegious to profit from one of the greatest tragedies in American history."

The Patriot (Revolutionary War) - $113,330,342
Last of the Mohicans (French Indian War) - $75,505,856
Gone With The Wind (Civil War) - $198,655,278
Lawrence of Arabia (WWI) - $70,000,000
Saving Private Ryan (WWII) - $216,119,491
M*A*S*H (Korean War) - $73,200,000
Platoon (Vietnam War) - $137,963,328
Jarhead (Desert Storm) - $62,647,540
Blackhawk Down (Somalia) - $108,638,745

I'm guessing you've seen at least one of these. In fact, I'd be willing to bet you've seen at least a handful of the over SIX HUNDRED films about World War II.

Regardless of the backdrop, we are drawn to the human drama of these stories, the triumph of the human spirit in desolate times. In the case of war movies, we are reminded of the atrocities committed by fellow man. The movies make sure "we will never forget".

I went to see Saving Private Ryan because I knew I would walk away from it with a deeper understanding of and appreciation for what my grandfather experienced in the summer of 1944, not because I thought Steven Spielberg could use another yacht.

Don't you think the same might be true for WTC?

"I went to see Saving Private Ryan because I knew I would walk away from it with a deeper understanding of and appreciation for what my grandfather experienced in the summer of 1944, not because I thought Steven Spielberg could use another yacht."

Perfectly said.
SPR is one of my fav. films, because of its power and magnitude. Of all the WWII movies to surface, it's my personal fav. when it comes to showing the human conflicts, stories and interactions of the soldiers we often take for granted.

Oh, and Fubar, if you're still reading this by any chance, "Gyllenhaal tears" = Maggie Gyllenhaal crying in the movie, I presume.

i think it's a disgrace, but no surprise, that hollywood is seeking to profit from such horror and misery. i for one will not see this movie. also, as a sidenote, i think it repugnant they've chosen maggie gyllenhaal to be in this movie, as she has outright blamed america for these attacks. nasty little hypocrites is what she, and they, are.

I can't imagine wanting to see this movie. Seeing the documentary type shows that have been all over cable yes, i have watched a few -- only to reinforce my thoughts that our government, the bullshit political system and the fake umbrella of safety and freedom that they try to force feed everyone is just as corrupt and unstable as any place else -- we just look cleaner on on TV and more "advanced" than the countries with dirt roads and men wearing what look like night gowns.---Ever wonder why they never show the better parts of those countries--do you really think everyone in Iraq, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, etc. walk around barefoot, live in tin huts and parade through the mountains all day in dresses? If your only knowledge of these other countries comes from your local news then you are seriously misinformed--Half of the world is not a desert with camels and unpaved roads. Anyway, it is strange I think for anyone from New York to want to see this movie...like we need someone else to show us that buildings we were in or passed by everyday or just always knew were there collapsed and people we knew were trapped, died or disintergrated in an instant. I really don't need to see Nicolas Cage pretend to be terrified or his (on screen) wife fear the worst and then be so happy he's alive---could she play the part if he was one of the "invisible"---the ones that just disappeared off the face of the earth that day and we still wonder if there will be a call from the medical examiner's office that they found a bone somewhere and we can attend a funeral all over again because now theres something to put in the coffin?....Maybe it is the same thing as movies about historical events like some of the movies listed in someone's earlier post but this DAY is a day people are still feeling and still fighting and argueing about --they are still dealing with the memorial and what to do --It is too soon. I hate this movie.

i loved the movie it was sad and made you what to think about it and how those people sussed...i cant wait to get the dvd...
bye

I think the review of this movie was spot on. I'm glad Dustin also managed to review it for its artistic merits. Predictably, and as shown in the comments section, most wouldn't and couldn't.

On all the comments stated above about the war, if it was the right time to make this movie, if there would ever be a right time, etc I guess you are all right! Different people have different feelings about what happened on 9/11. The movie being produced sooner or later was obviously inevitable. In the "immediate" society that we live in nowadays where want information (and everything else) and we want it now, it is no surprise that the movie was produced just a couple of years after the incident. Personally I had tears running down my eyes while watching it (I'm not American).

For those accusing the 'tear jerkers' that they only are making a fuss because it happened in the USA and not in some other country, it's interesting to point out that a while after the tsunami some social scientists had carried out a study tring to figure out why people donated a lot of money and felt very emotional about the tsunami in the same way as they had done about 9/11 but not about other tragedies happening around the globe. Their conclusions where that you can only hit the people with an enormous tragedy and make an impact once every couple of years. Its like when you're being punched. The first blow is the worst. By the 50th blow your body has learnt how to numb the pain. We read the papers and watch the news every goddamned day. We'd be in a constant trauma if we had to let all the tragedies affect us in the same way. You are only affected again when you have healed somewhat. Which tragedy will deal that fresh blow all boils down to which one is given most importance and coverage by the media. That is why a tragedy happening in the USA is more probably the one than a tragedy happening somewhere in Africa. The regularity of tragedy happening in the same place also has a huge effect on the psyche. Africa and the Middle East are seen by a lot as a lost cause so a tragedy is just another to add to the list. 9/11 happened in a stable and supposedly safe and most secure country on the planet so the shock was a hundred fold.

I'm sure that better films about 9/11 will be produced in years to come. Some of which will probe into the events of the day. Questioning and probing will be what future generations who were too young to understand or live through the experience is what they would be interested. For now an elegaic poem will do (even though some would simply label it as exploitation, and to a certain extent it is). People want to see the positive of it. They want (as the poster promoting this film says) "a story of courage and survival". Its not really about closure. Its about forgetting that thousands of people died and instead focusing on the fact that two managed to survive. Escapism? You bet your ass! Because this increasingly god-forsaken world is nothing if not escape-worthy. This world is too fucked up not to enjoy yourself. So if this isn't gonna work as a means of escape for you, you'd be better off watching something else, going down to the pub, lighting a joint or staying at home with those who you love.

i love the movie!!!!!!!!!!!11111

I will never forget where I was when 9/11 happened... I cried my f...ing heart out. For a British guy you may think that I have no heart for you Yanks! My heart says whoever s..ts on you, I WILL F**K THEM OVER!! WESTERN WORLD WILL LIVE ON!! GOD SAVE US ALL!!"