Nowhere near being the bold film that it should be

Rating: 6/10 (3 February 2007)

Even thinking about it days later, World Trade Center is a terrible disappointment. I was not feeling overly excited to watch the film in the first place, but the obvious idea of the subject matter is captivating. September 11, 2001 was a day that everyone can remember, and no one will forget. So having been the second film in less than six months about the subject, it had big shoes to fill. Sadly, it is not up to the task.
The film, directed by controversial Oscar-winner Oliver Stone, focuses around two PAPD officers trapped under the wreckage of the World Trade Center following its collapse. Will Jimeno (Michael Pena) has a wife, Allison (Maggie Gyllenhaal), and a child with another on the way. John McLoughlin (Nicholas Cage), is an expert on the towers, and has a wife Donna (Maria Bello), and four children. The film goes back and fourth between these four characters, simultaneously showing the pain that Jimeno and McLoughlin are being forced to face, and their wives, hoping and waiting to hear that their husbands are alive.
The storyline is very simple, and I think this is where the film finds itself in trouble. When it starts out, it paints itself to be about the towers. Many blatant scenery shots of the New York City skyline have them both emblazed in the background almost like a huge target. They are totally in your face, and even if you have no idea where to look for them in really far shots, you can still find them right away. When the planes hit, we do not actually see the impact, but the chaos taking place on the ground does feel authentic, and well done. I liked the shadow of the plane on the huge skyscraper moments before it hit, but was less impressed by the unrealistic CGI shot of the burning building. Likewise, when the police crew watches a person tumble to their death, the poignancy and meaning to this person's ultimate death is so contrived that it almost looks like we should laugh at as a CGI effect, it looks awful. As well, out of a just over two hour film, the trade center only appears in less than the first thirty minutes.
Another thing I disliked was how the movie was based entirely around the two characters, with little to nothing being actually about the trade centers, other than the event that causes their problem. If the movie is going to be called, World Trade Center, you would assume the film would be about the event a whole lot more. Yes, there are the media coverage scenes, and the very well captured early moments of on-the-street chaos. But as the film goes on, there is really nothing to distinguish that the film is about the trade centers at all. It is almost as if it could be about any other disaster, maybe even a fictional one. It just feels half there, and half not. United 93 was actually about that plane and the people on it. The World Trade Center does make a small appearance in the film, but after that, is not really what the film is about anymore. I understand the poignancy and the human emotion the film wanted to evoke, but it could have been called something much different since it is about something much different.
Where United 93 excelled at its fast-paced editing and its heart-racing thrills, Center just fails. Its opening is fairly fast, and almost as fast as you can snap your fingers, the trade center comes down. From there, it just kind of drags on. The characters are bland, and really have a lack of definition among them. The men want to get out, and the women want to ensure the men are alive. Okay, you can only convey that so many ways on screen before it becomes repetitive. I know they were going for some authenticity, but just having the actors do the same thing over and over again becomes tedious and loses the emotional focus at the heart of the film. We, as the audience, know the ultimate outcome of the situation, and need to have something interesting going on while the film progresses to hold our attention.
United 93 shifted focus from the effect the media had on everyone watching the news footage, to the knowledge that terrorists were holding the plane hostage. We know what is coming, but director Paul Greengrass draws us in, and makes the events seem fresh and not drilled into memory. Here, Stone just wants to tell the story, and does not bother looking back or even caring whether the audience is paying attention or not. No subtext, no shift in focus, no good editing, it just stays the same and drags itself out.
The acting is okay at best. Cage has seen far better days, and has put a whole lot more effort into other performances. Bello looks and feels subdued. She is clearly being held back, and her role suffers as a result. Pena is excellent, but only to a point. I really enjoyed Gyllenhaal, but like Bello, she feels like she is being held back, and not giving the role everything she has. Supporting turns from Jay Hernandez and Stephen Dorff are well done, but are barely shown. And despite his character actually being a real person, Michael Shannon takes his role far too extreme and becomes too propagandist for his own good. His over-the-top character is a real low point in the film, and had I not found out he was real, I would have assumed he was put in on purpose by Stone.
On the whole, the film is just a disappointment. It has an okay storyline and a good message, but is just not the powerful film that it should have been. You are better off sticking with the far superior United 93.
6/10.