World Trade Center

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Here's my review:

The end of the movie sees the dedication of it to those who perished, and lists the names of the Port Authority Police Department. After the movie ended, my girl and I sat there and didn't move. And neither did the rest of the staff screening the movie. It took a moment, and then it hit us.... wow. One would assume this movie had added drama to make it more movie-friendly, and thus before scoring it, it is necessary to know the stories behind the families involved, including the two PAPD officers. Watching documentaries of the filming of the movie helped, as it was explained that the extras who rescued the trapped people from the rubble in the movie were real rescuers from that dreadful day, and the two officers were on set and said that Nicholas Cage and Michael Pena played the roles perfectly.

That is good news, as one might say that Cage was dry, but as the movie plays on, the dry-acting Cage grows more and more on the viewer, and it becomes understood that is what the officer was like. Drama isn't necessary to add, as the families involved had every bit of drama life could throw at them. The movie isn't as much about the events of 9/11 as it is about the effects of 9/11, and how that day changed the families.

One should not watch the movie expecting a documentary of the events, but rather the story of the hell the two officers visited, and the life-changing hours that followed.

A good portion of the movie is in the rubble, but this is not a negative. This is where the story shines, as you truely learn the lives of the officers, and how little everyone involved truely new.

8/10

A gripping movie, one that if I hadn't already wanted to bash the skulls in of the terrorists in the middle east, I would want to now. I bleed red, white, and blue.. and the story of 9/11 only makes that blood bleed truer.
 

TraumaRN

Diamond Member
Jun 5, 2005
6,893
63
91
In comparison to United 93 which do you think was the better movie??

I still believe United 93 was the best movie of 2006 so far, so this movie has a tall order to live up to in my mind.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: DeathBUA
In comparison to United 93 which do you think was the better movie??

I still believe United 93 was the best movie of 2006 so far, so this movie has a tall order to live up to in my mind.

honestly, I have yet to see United 93. I will soon though.
I will probably have to say that United 93 was better, and that my rating should actually be an 8/10 for the fact that U93 has had strong praises.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: Xylitol
By the previews i wouldnt give it a 9

previews from critics mean nothing. they likely don't know the story of the movie's production and the people involved. knowing the truth behind the set has made the movie a much more enjoyable experience.
 

aswedc

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2000
3,543
0
76
I said it with the last film and I'll say it again, I won't pay money for a movie like this unless a significant amount of profit goes to some sort of charity.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,080
136
Originally posted by: aswedc
I said it with the last film and I'll say it again, I won't pay money for a movie like this unless a significant amount of profit goes to some sort of charity.
I guess I missed your last argument.

Why do you feel this way?
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: aswedc
I said it with the last film and I'll say it again, I won't pay money for a movie like this unless a significant amount of profit goes to some sort of charity.

well 10% of the opening box office sales of United 93 went to a 9/11 memorial fund. Not sure what Oliver Stone had in mind for World Trade Center, if anything.. but it would be nice. Charity is hard for movies because there is so much they gotta pay for as well, like actors and the set. U93 was FAR cheaper than WTC.
 

aswedc

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2000
3,543
0
76
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Why do you feel this way?
Don't you think it's a bit exploitive to use one of the biggest disasters in US history to line pockets, only five years after?
 

aswedc

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2000
3,543
0
76
Originally posted by: destrekor
well 10% of the opening box office sales of United 93 went to a 9/11 memorial fund. Not sure what Oliver Stone had in mind for World Trade Center, if anything.. but it would be nice. Charity is hard for movies because there is so much they gotta pay for as well, like actors and the set. U93 was FAR cheaper than WTC.
WTC is giving 10% of the first five days. Charity is hard for movies? Please. No one is asking people to work for free. This film will net the studio tens of millions in profit more than they invested.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,080
136
Originally posted by: aswedc
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Why do you feel this way?
Don't you think it's a bit exploitive to use one of the biggest disasters in US history to line pockets, only five years after?
Yes but why is this special?
Hasnt Hollywood been making profits off of misery since WWI?

I know it sounds a bit cold, but why should this one be different from all the rest?
And what does 5 years matter? I dont think theres a Statute of Limitations on exploitation. Hell, I'm suprised Hollywood didnt cash in less than a year afterwards.
They are not nice people but we already know this. It isnt news.
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: aswedc
Originally posted by: destrekor
well 10% of the opening box office sales of United 93 went to a 9/11 memorial fund. Not sure what Oliver Stone had in mind for World Trade Center, if anything.. but it would be nice. Charity is hard for movies because there is so much they gotta pay for as well, like actors and the set. U93 was FAR cheaper than WTC.
WTC is giving 10% of the first five days. Charity is hard for movies? Please. No one is asking people to work for free. This film will net the studio tens of millions in profit more than they invested.

well thats a studio's problem if they can't bear to break even. but thats the corporate world, no corporation wants to do any work if they can't get anything out of it.
dont blame any of the execs behind the movie, blame the execs that run the studio.
i don't see them cashing in on the disaster, I see them cashing in on a good story. and its one that needed to be told anyway.
 

aswedc

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2000
3,543
0
76
Originally posted by: shortylickens
Yes but why is this special?
Hasnt Hollywood been making profits off of misery since WWI?

I know it sounds a bit cold, but why should this one be different from all the rest?
And what does 5 years matter? I dont think theres a Statute of Limitations on exploitation. Hell, I'm suprised Hollywood didnt cash in less than a year afterwards.
They are not nice people but we already know this. It isnt news.
Sure, they can do it. I just don't think it's right. Especially when so much of the advertising casts it as a civics lesson, sort of a way to honor what happened on 9/11. I'm good so far. But they forget to mention the part where it puts a couple million more in Nicholas Cage's pocket.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,161
43,277
136
Originally posted by: aswedc
Originally posted by: destrekor
well 10% of the opening box office sales of United 93 went to a 9/11 memorial fund. Not sure what Oliver Stone had in mind for World Trade Center, if anything.. but it would be nice. Charity is hard for movies because there is so much they gotta pay for as well, like actors and the set. U93 was FAR cheaper than WTC.
WTC is giving 10% of the first five days. Charity is hard for movies? Please. No one is asking people to work for free. This film will net the studio tens of millions in profit more than they invested.

Those first days willl likely be the higest grossing of the film's run. The vast majority of films burn out most of their grossing potential in the first two to three weeks.

I have no problem with them trying money on the film. I say trying since they are going nearly 3000 runs on this film when 1000 would cover the market well enough. Everyone still needs to get paid including Paramount's shareholders.
 

aswedc

Diamond Member
Oct 25, 2000
3,543
0
76
What would be so hard about 50% of profits? Everyone still gets paid, and has some extra to take home. If the film doesn't make money, no one loses. The way they are doing it proves profit is the primary motive. Not that I expected otherwise.

Overall these movies are probably good for the country, and I'm happy they are apparently well made. I just don't feel comfortable paying for them.
 

K1052

Elite Member
Aug 21, 2003
51,161
43,277
136
Originally posted by: aswedc
What would be so hard about 50% of profits? Everyone still gets paid, and has some extra to take home. If the film doesn't make money, no one loses. The way they are doing it proves profit is the primary motive. Not that I expected otherwise.

Overall these movies are probably good for the country, and I'm happy they are apparently well made. I just don't feel comfortable paying for them.

If the film doesn't make money the studio just flushed $150M+ down the toilet never to be seen again. They assume the risk so I have no problem with them profiting if it pans out.

I'll also be damned if they are going to take that chunk out of me in additional film rental.

 

Zolty

Diamond Member
Feb 7, 2005
3,603
0
0
I still think movies about these events are being made to soon. It seems like they are just capitalizing on our grief.
 

purbeast0

No Lifer
Sep 13, 2001
53,455
6,301
126
Originally posted by: aswedc
What would be so hard about 50% of profits? Everyone still gets paid, and has some extra to take home. If the film doesn't make money, no one loses. The way they are doing it proves profit is the primary motive. Not that I expected otherwise.

Overall these movies are probably good for the country, and I'm happy they are apparently well made. I just don't feel comfortable paying for them.

OMG THOSE BASTARDS MAKING A MOVIE TO MAKE MONEY! WHAT A BUNCHA ASSHOLES!!

:roll:
 

destrekor

Lifer
Nov 18, 2005
28,799
359
126
Originally posted by: Zolty
I still think movies about these events are being made to soon. It seems like they are just capitalizing on our grief.

you may think so, but all the families involved in both movies wanted the movies to be made.
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
9/11 has been completely played out for 4 years, 11 months already. Give it up, people !!

EDIT: OKAY FINE, 3 years and 11 months. Still, IT'S OVER, GET ON WITH YOUR LIVES DAMMIT !!
 

rivan

Diamond Member
Jul 8, 2003
9,677
3
81
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Zolty
I still think movies about these events are being made to soon. It seems like they are just capitalizing on our grief.

you may think so, but all the families involved in both movies wanted the movies to be made.

Somehow I doubt it was as unanimous as you seem to think. I think both movies are in poor taste and are capitalizing on other people's tragedy. The only right way to have done these is with a business model that benefits people other than the studios and fat-wallet actors and execs.
 
Jun 4, 2005
19,723
1
0
Originally posted by: rivan
Originally posted by: destrekor
Originally posted by: Zolty
I still think movies about these events are being made to soon. It seems like they are just capitalizing on our grief.

you may think so, but all the families involved in both movies wanted the movies to be made.

Somehow I doubt it was as unanimous as you seem to think. I think both movies are in poor taste and are capitalizing on other people's tragedy. The only right way to have done these is with a business model that benefits people other than the studios and fat-wallet actors and execs.

It's their job to capitalize on anything and everything possible. They're doing what they're supposed to, and making billions because of it.

With that being said; I'll probably go see it soon.