The events are unbeatable, but after an hour the movie falls into boring clichés

Rating: 6/10 (22 September 2010)

World Trade Center (2006)
You can't argue with the story line--it's based on the facts--and you can't help but shiver and even cry over some of the imagery, burning buildings and rescued policemen.
So how well put together is it? As a movie, as a two hour plus story?
Very well, with some slow spots, and eventually a feeling that the story lines are in place early on and don't waver or turn as the movie goes. (In fact, if you haven't seen the movie but know the history, you might guess what happens even now, before you start.) It's obviously a movie about survival, about ordinary people doing what they can to help each other, and individuals rediscovering what really matters in their lives.
For me, all of these elements are a given, and were maybe unavoidable in an Oliver Stone film (he's a director who embraces Hollywood's emotional ability to sway and move a viewer with sights and sounds). What was most chilling and worthwhile were the recreations of the falling buildings, both from the inside and the outside. This also is one of Hollywood's strengths, creating illusions. And I'm going to guess they had to make it far less dramatic and horrifying than it really was.
Nicolas Cage is good, and his fellow cops, including the other lead, Conner Paolo, are fine, but I'm not sure anyone really raises the movie up by their performances. The events are the point, and the retelling of what actually happened from one small, poignant point of view. It's frankly slow and repetitive by the end, but the first half hour or so has some moments that are worth seeing if you are willing to relive that day.