I don't know about awful, but....

Rating: 4/10 (29 August 2006)

I'm drawing a long breath before I gather my thoughts to comment on this film. I am a native New Yorker that grew up with the Twin Towers standing in my bedroom window, something you can count on even from the distance of my humble apartment in Brooklyn to Manhattan. In fact, the only time one couldn't see the buildings from my place was during a snow storm and a bad thunder storm. On September 11, 2001, I was rushing through the crowds flowing from the bridges, armed with my 35-mm still camera. I was running into all sorts of people, from co-workers to people I haven't seen in eons. On my way to Manhattan, when a co-worker informs me that the Twin Towers had collapsed, my heart sank. Not only was the inspiration of my life destroyed and gone forever, I remember thinking about all of the people who perished as well.
So, when I heard that Hollywood was making a film about 9/11 and the World Trade Center, I recall hoping that "they better get it right." Getting it right means capturing the life altering changes in the lives of everyone due to this tragic event, mainly the untold stories. This film missed the mark.
Granted, the moments Stone was able to photograph in lower Manhattan was stupendous. One didn't have to be in New York City at the time to see that his vision was carried out in full respect to the moments in lower Manhattan. When the buildings collapsed upon our heroes Cage and Pena, it felt real enough for me personally as if I was experiencing it with them. Also, the depiction of Ground Zero was right on the money. I worked a few blocks from the WTC and when I went back, after we were allowed to, I would linger in the area, absorbing the sight of the mountains of twisted steel in quiet shock.
I also can't deny Maria Bello's performance as the grievous wife of Cage, dealing with her anxious sometimes rude children and family members as they struggle to remain optimistic of Cage's chances of survival. And that crisis towards the end with Pena making a request, sacrificing himself in some way for Cage wasn't due to the great screenplay writing but more to one of the actual stories revolved around the event, a script that only God Himself can pen using Pena's character as this symbol of courage and faith. So, to say that the film was awful is unfairly disregarding all of the many complimentary aspects about the film that I had just mentioned.
However, the film also suffered in major departments that keeps it from being considered a great piece of cinema in my humble opinion.
Stone and the screenwriter failed to show how the event changed the characters. That would've taken it to the next level. Instead, they tried to show us uneventful moments of their lives through flashbacks. For every flashback, there could've been moments that started with fears that were keeping them from obtaining their life's wishes, along with failures at stubbornly doing things their own way, glimpses into the lives they aspire to live, models of people actually living the life they're aspiring for, obstacles, etc.
There was no moment of truth that solidified the character's arcs, but then again, there wasn't much character in any of them to arc.
Also, there's not much of a story you can tell cinematically through the eyes of characters lying still for two hours of film while being buried under two million tons of debris. It worked in the "English Patient," as we journeyed with him on his past as he lies in bed with third degree burns. At least in the flashbacks of the "English Patient" there was a beginning, middle and end, which is the best way to use a flashback. In this story, the flashbacks were mostly portraits of tender moments, little smiles and characters silently saying "I love you" with adoring eyes -- none of which had anything dramatic going on.
I also agree with most people in here that at times, if felt as if the filmmakers were capitalizing off of sentimental moments with melancholy music to underscore. They felt like cheap shots I couldn't help but roll my eyes at from time to time.
And if it is true that the Marine guy that first discovered them was someone of color, that would automatically take a star away from the film for me. If we're telling an honest depiction of what had happened then why will the filmmakers leave that vital information out? Bad enough the media plays the events some times as if people of color weren't really affected. Until I know the truth, my rating remains a four for now.
Overall, I see that the story of 9/11 can be compared to horrific moments in world history like the Holocaust and the African-American slavery period in relation to Hollywood's portrayals of these dark times. It's going to take a while before a great film will be released dramatizing the events of 9/11 accurately and powerfully. "United 93" was very good, almost vastly superior to "World Trade Canter." However, it's just that one story of the thousands. It took a while for "Schindler's List" to come out since the end of World War II. And African-Americans are still waiting for the great story that can take the world's understanding of American slavery to a higher, more enlightening level. This is the same for 9/11. There are thousands of stories revolved around the event. All these producers have to do is find the best one, keeping in mind that they need to be honest and considerate of the victims, their families and the nation.