Should I see it?
Yes.
Short Review: This is the first Oliver Stone film where I didn’t walk away shaking my head, asking everyone else, “Its not just me, that guy is nuts right?” It is striking that proven conspiracy nut Oliver Stone’s film about 9/11 goes out of its way to avoid the actual conspiracy at the heart of that murderous day. Besides some distant remarks on televisions and curses thrown by a hefty skulled man from Wisconsin, the events of 9/11 seem like a natural occurrence rather than the results of a terrorist plot. I’m not saying Stone should have had a gaggle of undulating, burka-laden women shuffling through the wreckage or wild-eyed Islamofacists mincing about with suicide belts. What I was looking for was any clear statement that the two planes steered into the World Trade Center buildings, along with the ones flown into The Pentagon and another into the ground were piloted by Islamic terrorists. Acknowledging this conspiracy would have made some difference. As it stands, this is like watching a better version of The Towering Inferno. The buildings may as well have been knocked down by the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man.This huge issue aside, the film itself serves its purpose. It is there to be the more comfortable 9/11 film. Following the French documentary 9/11 which showed the actual events as they happened, and Paul Greengrass’ stark and realistic United 93, Stone brought Hollywood dramatics to the subject. We have the big star (Nicholas Cage) supported by melodramatic music and good lighting going through the day. The narrative of three trapped port authority cops is rolled out in a systematic, almost mechanical fashion. The end of the film provides an effective emotional reunion between the men and their wives. This isn’t a bad movie, I’d actually recommend it for the most part. Again, it serves its commercial purpose and provides an emotional arc. The problem is not that this is a bad movie, it is that it isn’t an important one. Film is one of the great forms of communication. It has deep impact on our lives because one of its many purposes we use it for is to memorialize people and events. Schindler’s List, Saving Private Ryan and Roots are just three examples. One of the great honors in our civilization is to have a movie made about your life. Given this, the first big Hollywood movie about 9/11 should have provided more. There is a lack of depth to this piece that serves to pull the historical importance from the day. I understand Stone was attempting to show the real life, the individual impact of the terror attacks. The problem with this is that this was an act of war and the World Trade Center buildings didn’t just happen to a group of people, they happened to the free world. The structure of this film should have followed the framework of most war films. Tell the story of individual sacrifice and pain in the midst of an ensemble presence. You get your individual impact while expressing the wider results. This story of these survivors of 9/11 provides many moments of interest, but without the overall picture being shown, they don’t have any lasting impression.Given that the audience brings in their own memories and impressions on 9/11, this film does give enough to make it worth seeing at least once. The final verdict has to be that many will probably not have any reason to see it a second time.Related Reviews:
Terrorism movies
Dirty War (2004)
Right at Your Door (2006)
Other Critic's Reviews:
Happy Catholic
ReelViews
Labels: film, Maria Bello, movie review, Nicholas Cage, Oliver Stone, terrorism
1 Comments:
I concur generally, though I don't find it necessary that it follow the "grand movie" scheme that you'd like to see. Per the review at my place ... I really appreciated the personal feel of the piece.
Post a Comment
<< Home