Okay but fails to capture the gravity of 9/11.

Rating: 6/10 (1 July 2007)

Unexpectedly the biggest problem with World Trade Center is how mild it is. Most of the dramatic moments are weak and quite predictable (though not by any means bad) compared to the power and resonance they could have had. It's as if the filmmaker's decided that the only way to make a movie about 9/11 without offending too many people was to soften it's impact and focus on story lines that don't tread too far from what's already been done countless times before. What's the point of making a film about 9/11 if it doesn't explore any of the things that made 9/11 unique?
I think it may have been a bad idea to cast relatively well known actors in the main roles. Part of the horror of 9/11 was that it could have happened to anyone and once we see famous actors, we know they're going to be the stars of most of the scenes. United 93 was wise enough to use unfamiliar faces and present a fairly objective glimpse of each of their characters.
In most technical areas, World Trade Center is pretty good. The acting's strong, the script does its job, the directing doesn't get in the way but it just doesn't seem to amount to much. By steering away from what made 9/11 the tragedy it is, the film loses almost all of it's potential power. For me, the most powerful part was the statistics shown at the end of the film (this doesn't spoil anything). So reading some text with some nice music was the most powerful moment in the film. Not a good sign.
Furthermore, it is not incredibly entertaining. There's basically no humour nor are there many subplots or back stories. Vague details are given but not enough to be fulfilling. Still, it's by no means bad and perhaps worth seeing just to better understand what some of the people involved went through (and for the generally good music). But if only Oliver Stone had had the courage to dive into the subject matter head on it could have been a great and very powerful film.