World Trade Center better than United 93

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Ok, I think that Stone's movie is a better piece of entertainment than U. 93. Both are good, but for me 93's problems is that its pure conjecture. We don't know what happened, and we don't know for sure if these people are as heroic as they are portrayed. The tension is real, but so are the sequences of the men trapped within the rubble of the Twins.

I won't be surprised to see both films honored with best picture nominations.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

WTC looks to me like a glorified Disaster movie, served up with a dab of "American Hero" sauce.

Stone should stick to making films about Vietnam or disgraced U.S. Presidents.

[JMan 0]

Hope to see the World Trade Center this weekend! Really looking forward to seeing it.

[Saxman717 22]

I'm torn about this film.......it was good but not great, in a "movie" sense. Some of the acting, especially John's family members (kids mainly) was not believable and stale. Some of it seemed artificial, and wrongfully seemd to be trying way too hard to elicit an emotional response.

It was good, but I have no idea why it was called "World Trade Center". It definitely needed a different name, geared more towards the story it was actually telling, which was centered around two men buried in the rubble of the towers. Even something like "Beneath the Towers" would have been more fitting, even though that is a bad title as well. It at least is respectful enough to focus on its story...."World Trade Center" is WAY too general, given how much went on that day at that site. This didn't cover a fraction of it. I can only imagine that Oliver Stone chose this title to get the word out to EVERYONE in the public that "Hey! I'm making a 9/11 movie! Come and watch it!".........the title "United 93" is incredibly powerful and respectful........."World Trade Center" borders upon being disrespectful with its blatant aim at commercialization. OK, I'm done with that rant.

I didn't cry. I was moved by some parts, but at times I felt wrong because it seemed like it they were REALLY trying to play off the emotional feeling that the event brings up in everyone, because it is very fresh in all of our hearts and minds.

There were also a few parts that I'd probably deem as cheap bag cliche cinematography and lines of dialogue. In a movie on this topic, there is NO room for that......everything must be done respectfully and not over-the-top.......see Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan, United 93 etc. for successful movies that do this.

The parts that really worked for me were the first 30 minutes and then all the parts covering the two buried men and their recovery. A sparse few parts of the other storylines were OK.......the occasional family grief scene was done well.....but much of it was either cliche, poorly-acted, or convoluting to the pace of the film.

As a final thought, I was impressed by most of Nicholas Cage's performance --- I groaned when I first heard about him being cast, but e proved me wrong and my faith in him as an actor is renewed --- great job Nick.

I give it 3 out of 4 stars................which to me is extremely disappointing, because in my opinion, ANY movie made about this recent deep wound in our nation's history must make sure that it is hands down 4 stars by virtually any opinion, and must strive to be as far from commercialized/Hollywoodized as possible. This move failed in that, in my opinion. It is worth seeing, however, for the story of the two port authority officers trapped in the rubble and their rescue.

***Also, no offense to Joe here, but request to the board mods: can we make an "Official World Trade Center Movie Discussion" thread for this and move these posts there? The title of this thread is based on 1 person's opinion, and I strongly disagree with it.***

[Eric_JWFAN 11]

I'm gonna disagree. I just got back from seeing WTC tonight, and while it was quite an experience, it wasn't as good a movie as United 93. Not to take anything away from WTC, but United 93 just affected me more for some reason.

I don't have much to say about Craig Armstrong's score, other than it was non-intrusive and served its purpose. It was mostly a simple piano chord here and there over a sustained single note in the strings. I'm not sure any more could have been done musically, it's just a very difficult and sensitive subject to score, so I give him props. At it's most developed point, it reminded me of some Gorecki threnody music.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I think people should notice I didn't say better film, I said better piece of entertainment, which is a far different thing.

One fact is undeniable, World Trade Center portrays actual events with more realism than United 93.

[Saxman717 22]

Joe, how can you say that World Trade Center portrays actual events BETTER than United 93? Everything in United 93 except the on-plane scenes were actual events from eyewitnesses and from interviews with the REAL air traffic controllers and leaders onhand that day. Everything in that movie based on verified information was done at least as well as in World Trade Center. Unlike World Trade Center, none of it was Hollywoodized --- especially not the actual events that it portrayed. They are at least on par with each other in that repsect........I can't think of any real way that World Trade Center trumps United 93, except in ways that could be considered bad....

[JoeinAR 1,949]

so much of U. 93 takes place on the plane, and that is total conjecture, thats how I can say that, and I am 100% correct, there is no point in arguing because you'd be wrong.

[tpigeon 3]

Why would anyone go to a movie about 9/11 seeking entertainment?

Ted

[JoeinAR 1,949]

why would you not, it is a movie afterall, not a documentary.

[Vaderbait1 1]

Both are good, but for me 93's problems is that its pure conjecture. We don't know what happened, and we don't know for sure if these people are as heroic as they are portrayed.

Actually, we know more about United 93 than we do about what two men went through in the towers. We have their word forthat, but with United 93, we have actual telephone conversations. I really wouldn't call United 93 conjecture, as there's probably more solid fact in that then there is in Stone's movie. There were so many records consulted that United 93 plays out basically like an itinerary of events.

WTC may be more entertaining because it's been Hollywood-ized. But a film about 9/11 doesn't need to be dramatized. That's what people liked about United 93. There was no need to heighten the drama or have any dramatic one-liners to emphasize anything. There was enough drama that day without having to tweak it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

damn Vaderbait, you destroy your own arguement, thats was cool to see you do that.

We have the mens word for what happened they are alive. All we have for U93 is phone calls, which are not representative of everyone onboard, and many of those calls are still unreleased. What happens on the plane is pure conjecture, not solid fact.

[AI 0]

I think the data was a bit more than just a few phonecalls Joe...

Why do you think the plane crashed then?

[A24 4,335]

why would you not,  it is a movie afterall, not a documentary.

Joe in the cinema: "Wow, cool! See these people die! Now this is what I call entertainment! I'm having fun!"

[Indiana_Fett 0]

Action, adventure, explosions and death do not equal entertainment. Scindler's List entertains me becuase it keeps me interested. I care about the character, and tells the story well.

[Saxman717 22]

so much of U. 93 takes place on the plane, and that is total conjecture, thats how I can say that, and I am 100% correct, there is no point in arguing because you'd be wrong.

LOL --- Joe did you seriously just post that?

1) Probably at most HALF of United 93 takes place on the actual airplane --- at least half of it deal with the air traffic control stuff which is all FACT

2) TOTAL conjecture? You are 100% correct about that??? You are 100% wrong that the plane scenes were TOTAL conjecture! Phone calls toloved ones, over-the-air transmissions from the hijackers who didn't know how to work the aircraft comm system etc.

Funny how you're being so arrogant about this....not sure what your point is

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I sense another turd from Stone.

[Vaderbait1 1]

We have the mens word for what happened they are alive. All we have for U93 is phone calls, which are not representative of everyone onboard, and many of those calls are still unreleased.

What? Since when is mens word more reliable than phone calls? You are aware that we have strict records for what happened when, and actual phone calls? I fail to see how I destroyed my own argument by stating there are extensive records that backed up United 93 and that that is more reliable than a few guys telling their own stories, which history shows us usually means the final product is inaccurate and exaggerated.

I'm really not sure what your point is, or why you're so aggressively defending your untenable position. It doesn't matter if the phone calls are representative of all onboard, because the movie primarily focuses on a few passengers who we DO have extensive records for. There was very little conjecture in this movie. If they didn't know something, they generally stayed away from guessing. The people with the largest screen time were the ones who we have the most accurate records for, and we know exactly what went on outside the plane.

So right off the bat, 50% of the movie is accurate. Add in another 30%or so for on the plane, because we know the exact words used for much of it. So you have a movie that is 80-90% accurate. No extra drama was added. What I hear from WTC is that extra drama was added to Hollywoodize it. So, again, not only is your argument hugely flawed, I fail to see why you defend it so.

[tpigeon 3]

Just because the story of World Trade Center is confirmed to have happened, in that two men were trapped under the rubble and rescued, that doesn't make it a better movie. I don't understand the mentality that something that is more factually based on a true story is somehow better or more authentic. Film is a manipulation, simply put. Everything you see on the screen is deliberately positioned for some kind of effect. Images cannot just exist; they are created, positioned, and manipulated. And they create meaning. World Trade Center is no more "real" than something that is believed to be based on a true story. And personally, I find United 93 to be a much stronger film.

And the cinema is meant for much more than entertainment. Whether or not World Trade Center is more entertaining is absolutely irrelevant.

Ted

[Sandor 797]

I don't think either film has to be 100% accurate to get its point across.

Just like Schindler's List, Gandhi and virtually ALL films based on an historic incident or person are NOT 100% accurate.

[tpigeon 3]

That is correct. We cannot determine with any real accuracy just how authentic a film's portrayal of a historic event really is.

Ted

[Saxman717 22]

The key is that such films need to

1) Strive to be as historically accurate as possible

2) Strive to be as minimally-Hollywoodized as possible and as well-acted as possible

Both of these must be done to uphold the necessary respect that is due to the people who actually were involved in the situation under reenactment (be it WWII, Sept 11th etc.)

[nicholas 1]

We won't see the film for a while here in the UK, sadly.

No-one seems to have mentioned the role of the score in the film. Is it prominent? or more subdued as, apparently, in United 93 (which I also haven't seen yet)?

[tpigeon 3]

John Powell's score for United 93 was nearly perfect; minimal, yes, but also capturing yet never overstating the emotion of the people on the plane, all of the people. The combination of image and music in the montage of phone calls and the intercutting of the praying moved me to tears. And the final note of the film as it moves into the credits is absolutely striking and still memorable to me, despite having seen the film about four months ago.

Ted

[Ollie 1,059]

I really can't fathom trying to be be entertained by a film about 9/11.

[Vaderbait1 1]

I don't think either film has to be 100% accurate to get its point across.

Very true. 9/11's point was pretty hard to miss. Although for some people it still hasn't quite registered...but that's for another thread.

I don't remember any music in United 93, actually. I know there was, but you don't even notice it in the movie, you're so caught up in the events being portrayed. As for WTC, I agree with an above poster that it looks like a disaster movie, so it may have sad moments, but it won't have the stunning silence that followed showings of United 93.

[A24 4,335]

In Stone's film we probably get slo-mo scenes accompanied by the ballades of Whitney Houston. I guess that's the cue to reach for our hankies and cry.

[Vaderbait1 1]

I still can't get over how inappropriate one of the TV spots was. It had lighthearted music playing with images of the towers falling. Go figure.

[Saxman717 22]

In Stone's film we probable get slo-mo scenes accompanied by the ballades of Whitney Houston. I guess that's the cue to reach for our hankies and cry.

There are a few family-member moments like that, especially at the very end of the film. The collapse parts and subsequent parts about the two men trapped didn't stoop to that level and were well done (except for near the end when one of them hallucinates that he's seeing his wife talking to him, and she says a really cringe-worthy/George Lucas-worthy sappy line ---- I forget exactly what it was, but it was very cliche.

The music was alright, except it was a little too pop-ish when the guys were carried out of the rubble near the end (hope that's not a spoiler.....it's probably common knowledge) --- it was part of the music from one of the recent trailers for the film. It borderlines being over-the-top/Disney-esque/Hollywoodized, but I won't go so far as to say it was a blatantly wrong cue for the scene.

I still can't get over how inappropriate one of the TV spots was. It had lighthearted music playing with images of the towers falling.  Go figure.

Yeah I know what you're talking about ---- between the title of the film, and many of the recent trailers, it seems pretty disrespectful / Hollywoodized.

[A24 4,335]

It borderlines being over-the-top/Disney-esque/Hollywoodized, but I won't go so far as to say it was a blatantly wrong cue for the scene.

I guess 200 violins and Whitney Houston singing on top of a skyscraper is exactly what Joe needs to understand the gravity of it all. Anything less and the hanky remains in his pocket.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

We have the mens word for what happened they are alive.

And people never lie, embelish the truth or remember things differently from how they really went?

All we have for U93 is phone calls, which are not representative of everyone onboard, and many of those calls are still unreleased.  What happens on the plane is pure conjecture, not solid fact.

WTC is based upon a true story, which in Hollywood is a very flexibel statement.

[Alejandro 26]

I'm sorry, for a character driven piece, WTC is pretty forgettable, and that's a shame. We needed a bit more to these characters' backstories beyond painting and naming a child, Olivia.

Craig's score was disappointing. Kept thinking, "I wonder what Williams or Horner would have done here."

I have yet to see United 93, but everyone who has seen both that I know prefers United 93, mainly because of the air traffic controllers.

MySpace Film Music Group:

http://groups.myspace.com/filmmusiccentral

[bondo 33]

Why do characters have to be given extensive backstories for us to sympathize with them? Is this true of real life? I sympathized with the soldiers and the civilians in Black Hawk Down, and they were given little to no backstories.

[Alejandro 26]

Black Hawk Down doesn't masquerade itself as a character-driven film.

If WTC had been a drama film about the terrorist attacks, or about a group of rescue workers working around the clock to pull out two unknown police officers from beneathe the debris, at all costs, then that would have been a more interesting film.

MySpace Film Music Group:

http://groups.myspace.com/filmmusiccentral

[Red 75]

The previews have given me the impression that WTC is a sappy melodrama, but I can't judge it because I haven't seen it.

[JMan 0]

A very honorable film. Wonderfully done! Loved World Trade Center.