World Trade Center

Ein kleiner kitschiger und rührender Film, der vor sich selbst Angst hat und nicht mehr als nur eine primitive Soap-Opera-Interpretation der ganzen Sache ist. Wenn er nur eine Fiktion gewesen wäre und nicht die erstklassigen Schauspieler*innen gehabt hätte, wäre er total uninteressant gewesen. Er wäre auch nicht in die Kinos gekommen. Einige Szenen sind stark, manche rührend. Das alles gab es aber auch in Im Feuer, der genauso sentimental ist, aber ein ausgefeilteres Drehbuch hat. Ich behaupte nicht, dass die Drehbuchautoren die Realität den Bedürfnissen des Films anpassen sollten. Sie hätten aber wenigstens eine oder zwei Nebenlinien hinzufügen können. Wenn man sich zwei Stunden zwei betende Kerle in Trümmern und zwei weinende Ehefrauen, die zu Hause warten, anschaut, muss man sehr geduldig sein. (17.08.2006)

I remember this well. A colleague at work said “something’s going on in America.” At home we were shocked to see the devastation and in the evening we went to the pub for a drink, and the guys were talking hysterically that there would be a war. In short, it affected every person with an ounce of empathy, even if they were thousands of kilometres away; let alone the Americans, for whom it was a hit right on the trigeminal nerve. And, I believe, also for the provocateur by nature Oliver Stone, who, for once, put the boisterousness behind him, because – frankly – here it would have been like a punch in the face. He took up the subject with reverence, I understand him and will not join the herd and their criticisms. Am I supposed to laugh – despite my perspective as a heavy atheist – at those two brief appearances of Jesus, knowing how important faith in God is to Americans? Our Central European atheism may be equally incomprehensible to Americans, so I give up all mockery on this subject, typical of the Czech nature to ridicule everything. I know it's easy to be swept away by the crowd and "he who wants to beat a dog will always find a stick", but frankly, I was searching in vain for the "unprecedented stupidity" or "tastelessness" throughout the film. The tear-jerking scenes were within the norm, although the scenes with Gyllenhall and Bello left me cold and were, I think, the only weakness of the story. I digested sentences like "tell my wife that I love her", uttered several times in the anticipation of death, with understanding and I didn't feel any emotional cynicism from them (should they have said "Tell that bitch that she pissed me off this morning when she burnt my toast!"?). Moreover, after a few years I was able to believe Nicolas Cage in a role again, and the first half of the film – the crashes, the general chaos, the collapse – were an example of perfect "Stone" filmmaking. This film is simply a celebration of human bravery and selflessness, without the chest-pounding and shots where you can count the stripes on the United States flag in detail. I don't think Stone has anything to be ashamed of. (15.05.2007)

WTC disappoints in every way, surprisingly so because Paul Greengrass, at the same time, captivated the audience with the amazing United 93, which had atmosphere and could move even viewers unaffected by the subject matter. But how could anyone think that a drama about being trapped and rescued would work, where the most serious moments unintentionally provoke ridicule from the audience and where the second return to the heroes is only annoying? The premise was perfect, but the film has almost nothing in it. Two stars for Maggie Gyllenhaal and the stunning burial scene, where I truly felt tight for everyone involved. The rest is a huge disappointment. (08.03.2007)

A pathetic borefest that I couldn't finish. I might give it another chance some day, but after a very long time. That one star is for "based on a true story". (13.09.2008)

The basic question is quite clear: Is WTC better than Paul Greengrass's United 93? The answer is absolutely simple. Not by chance. Oliver Stone's epic film is not mainly about that gigantic tragedy. Rather than the plane attack, it deals with the problems within the families of the firefighters who were buried under tons of debris and essentially condemned to death. That wouldn't be a big problem on its own, but the way Stone serves these sequences to the viewer is at least embarrassing. Not to mention the ton of flashbacks depicting every triviality. The acting is quite poorly executed, and the pathos, combined with bad performances by the main actors, and bland direction, is truly catastrophic. Where Greengrass managed with a handheld camera, the interior of a plane, and a few unknown TV faces, Stone offers clumsy dialogues, giant camera shots, and one celebrity actor after another, who are absolutely unnecessary. Nicolas Cage is recognizable for about the first 15 minutes, but even then, it doesn't make much of a difference in the end. The film also fails to shock the audience when it comes to the actual attack. Although it is a fact that Stone has one advantage over the phenomenal British director in one aspect: the visual aspect – though it should be noted that it depends on how you look at it. Where United 93 incorporates thrilling restored footage of the attack captured by amateur cameras, Stone goes his own way and, with expensive visual effects, he shows us the huge buildings up close, and the result is stunning. It appears much more cinematic, but how effective it is, is debatable, because the impact eventually fades away, as the intimate scenes are truly dull and poorly shot. They are overly weepy, sentimental, and full of clumsy, even silly dialogues. I was completely confused by Maria Bello. What on earth were those crazy blue contact lenses supposed to mean? No, that's not the right way to go. A huge disappointment, which collapses in the last few minutes at the same speed as the dominants of New York City did a few years ago. (15.08.2006)

I know that those guys had it tough. Anyone who survived, or who was dying in those towers, had an incredibly difficult time, but can't we pay them tribute in a way that will... I don't know, be worthy of their heroism. They were willing to sacrifice their lives to save others, and almost did. But for once, Oliver Stone didn't realize that it's not enough to just make a movie, you need to give it something more. What Paul Greengrass did with the movie "Flight 93", Stone didn't accomplish at all. The emotions in this film feel forced. Though the story alone would be enough to evoke them in us. It's not necessary to portray them so starkly. It's as if Stone is compelling us to cry, as if he wants us to understand just how horrifying it was. But we've understood that a long time ago, I just think that this film abandons the tribute to those people, it doesn't build a monument for them. It would require a little more for that. I think that if Oliver Stone had chosen a documentary style, it would have turned out better. He could have interchanged real testimonies with staged sequences. It would have had its power, it would have hit the viewer hard. But like this, we're essentially just watching a film about terrible events. If we didn't know what events these were, if we didn't know that it was based on reality, it would just be a kitschy film without a story, one that didn't even want to capture the true suffering. Damn it, even the poster is terribly pathetic. I expected more from Stone. Maybe in 2006, it could be forgiven because the events were still fresh. Today, his film is just a sad example that an expensive film was made about events that were better captured by TV cameras. The fact that the film didn't make much money proves that even the Americans understood that tribute should be paid to the heroes in a different way. More: http://www.filmovy-denik.cz/2012/12/wtc-yes-man-mary-max-zambezia-cerna.html (02.03.2013)