I just saw it this afternoon and thought it was a moving portrayal of courage. There probably isn't anything in this movie that you'd find surprising, but it was well done. Police, fireman and other rescue workers (especially that day) are amazing to me and I'm glad this movie focuses on these guys. I totally understand why people wouldn't want to go see the movie, but I'm glad I did.

Little children lose parents tragically and horrifically every day to a variety of events. 9/11 just has the benefit of more TV coverage and a far greater spectacle factor. Some kid in Phoenix who just lost their Mom or Dad to those sniper assholes is just as effected as a 9/11 orphan. One of the things that gets me about 9/11 is how deeply effected everyone is who a) doesn't live or have roots in NY or NJ, or didn't b) lose or nearly lose any family member or friend in the tragedy. Obviously it was a major world event with large-scale geo-political repurcussions, but on a purely human level it's no different than any other mass disaster that claims the lives of thousands (hurricane Katrina, the tsunami in East Asia, recent wars, etc. etc.). Yet those events don't seem to inspire the same pronounced emotional reactions from those of us who were fortunate enough to be removed from them and watched the aftermath from a distance. As caring compassionate human beings we really ought to pray for all the lost brave souls, even the forgotten ones.

Oh and before you get mad themovieguru, I don't mean to single you out personally or denegrate your feelings regarding 9/11. I have no idea what your proximity to the event was or even how you may or may not have reacted in response to any other tragedies. Your post just got me thinking about popular sentiments toward 9/11 and the way we're ultimately all products of our modern "mass media" culture, that's all.

Personally, I think that's a bit harsh.

My reaction comes mostly from actually witnessing the event. Most of the time you hear about these things after they've happened. You don't typically watch thousands of people die live on TV. That coupled with the fact it was a cowardly attack on our country makes it a memorable event, even though of course I know that people die every day.

Anyway, the more I see the trailers, the more I want to see the movie but it's a definite rental. I'll reiterate how glad I am it has been treated respectfully to all of those involved.

The movie was extremely well done. An emotional story of courage that is driven by realistic characters and made all the more powerful by the "family" aspect of the story. Stone was very restrained in his filmmaking style an they really captured a sense of unknowing and chaos, much like the real event.

Even though this and United 93 both deal with similar subject matter, the two films couldn't be more different. United 93 was a lot more intense - presenting the story from different viewpoints (passengers, air traffic, military, terrorists) with very little commentary, no stars and a heartpounding, edge of your seat sense of dread and foreboading. I left the theatre feeling wrecked - like having finished a heavy workout.

WTC is a much more personal account presented from the p.o.v. of the characters (victims, family members, media) and while it was tense, I found it more sad than nerve wracking. More tears in this one for sure... both powerful movies but powerful in different ways.

MATT

Part of the reason that it draws such a strong emotional reaction from so many people is the type of tragedy. It wasn't natural. Somebody did it to those people. Plus, was a pretty big attack on the US on US soil which doesn't happen often, especially outside of war. It was also a terrorist attack. The target also had a far-reaching impact on Americans as a very large number at least had a secondary connection to someone who was either in one of the buildings or in the surrounding block. Not to mention, many of us sat staring at the tv as it happened wondering what will happen next. That is not something we had with the other tragedies.

It was an attack on man by man outside of a declared war and touched personal relations of many, many people. Yes, the others you mention are tragic just the same, but these are reasons why so many feel so much more strongly about the WTC attacks than the others. Its not JUST products of "mass media" culture. Its a fact of our human nature to care more with proximity, personal relations and intent.

3 things make 9/11 different.

1. We all watched the towers burn and collapse on live TV (or watched subsequent news footage of it happening).

2. This was not a natural disaster or "act of God." It was a deliberate massmurder of three thousand people who did nothing wrong by nineteen cold-blooded killers who saw nothing but hate.

3. Many of those who perished died because they raced up those burning towers to help others, knowing full well as they did so that their own ultimate survival was far from certain. That is a nonartificial showing of humanity in the face of tragedy. Those men and women are heroes in the greatest sense of the word.

oscars might be dominated by 9/11

Agreed. Haven't seen it yet, but since it's apparently portrayed with a remotely decent amount of dignity within the recent time frame since 9/11, then it'll hit the AMPAS voters in the heart. Even compared with any other brilliant films that are to be released later this year (which there seems to be a fairly decent line-up), they all still might not stand a chance.

I'm interested to see it, but it'll probably hit me square in the chest as well.

I like the movie, but the performances were a bit meh. Perhaps for cinematography and script, but it does not deserve to be nominated for any of the major acting categories.

Yeah, I understand all that...that's why I said it had the benefit of greater spectacle since we all saw it on live TV and replayed endlessly for months. It was the most covered event of all time. And we didn't have the kind of media and information technologies back in 1941 that we have today, but I think Pearl Harbor resonated as deeply...and probably the Kennedy assassination. I wasn't trying to be cynical or anything...and certainly not callous or uncaring. So if I came off with a "who cares, it's no different than any other daily event" attitude...well that certainly wasn't my intent. I was glued to my TV that day too. I just find it interesting how people (who weren't directly effected) breakdown so easily at the mere mention of this event even after 5 years, yet can be so dismissive about other death and tragedy. It's just a curiosity of mine, that's all. Like at work, several of my coworkers were joking around about the snipers in Phoenix - not in a sick cruel way, just in a kind of dismissive sort of way - yet were all dead serious and solemn when the subject of 9/11 was brought up. I see that attitude a lot and I find it curious. I kind of wonder, if you live in the sticks out in the middle of nowhere and have no personal connection to 9/11, do you feel it more deeply than other tragedies (natural or by the hands of man) because it's so affecting socially and politically and effects you greatly on that (indirect) level, or just because it's presented so thoroughly on TV, in the news, in the movies, etc. that it almost becomes a reality for you in your life thousands of miles removed?

I havent seen the movie but the commercial with the Coldplay song playing is nauseating

I saw the film last night, it was incredible. The film is about the survival of these 2 men in our nations darkest day ever, people have to understand that. This is a movie about 2 men surviving 9/11 where the 2 towers fell, when thousands of innocent people sadly, tragically didn't. I really can't talk more in depth because this subject matter is so deeply disturbing to me. They did this film in as good of taste as possible and I really think it should get a best picture nomination at the Oscars, and maybe best director for Oliver Stone. One of the years best films but it is a dark film that is lifted by the human spirit and a true story about heroism that will leave you with a great feeling that these 2 men survived what is our nations darkest day ever. Really I thought this film would be offensive but it will leave you proud of the men and woman that battled the forces of evil on September 11th 2001.

I thought this was a good film, made to honor those who lost their lives in the attack, as well as those who survived while trying to do their duty, and gave us a view of the uncertainty that the events had on the families in the direct aftermath.

The film features solid performances by the ensemble cast, and Oliver Stone deftly gives the viewer an intimate look into 2 Port Authority policemen's fight to cling to life under the rubble regardless of the odds, while also balancing the families's response to the tragic events that threaten to rob them of their son/father/husband/officer. In the end, the film did move me to tears (as it did others in attendance), and gave me chills in delivering a story of hope, courage, and perserverance in spite of the obstacles from the tragic events on that fateful day.

I give it 3.5 stars, or a grade of B+.

I just read the second page of this thread. I have to disagree with most of what has been said thus far. About an hour into the movie, I thought to myself: I haven't seen a movie this awful in theatres since, well, Alexander.

The next paragraph has some stuff that could be considered to be "spoilers," but this is a review thread and I'm not really giving anything big away anyway.

Acting ranged from mediocre (the big names) to awful (especially that Wisconsin fireman and the "medic" towards the end). The writing was not much better; some of the dialogue was just so trite ("Those bastards"; "What's the world coming to?!"). And I literally rolled my eyes at some parts, like Jay (Cage's kid) throwing his fits ("Don't you care Mom!").

The most powerful parts, I felt, were parts that didn't relate directly to the main narrative. Extreme long shots of the towers, for instance, or the "missing" collage on the hopsital wall. I'll admit that I was still in tears at parts. However, I don't think that is a testament to the film's strength whatsoever. It had a lot more to do with me simply remembering the horror of that day and having such empathy with those who lived it.

So it goes.

Just got back from WTC and I can now say, without a doubt, that United 93 is by FAR the better picture. I liked some aspects of WTC, but it felt too forced for me. I agree with the few critics that say it feels manipulative, like Oliver Stone was force feeding us emotion instead of letting it come naturally. I cried during United 93, but didn't shed a tear during WTC.

Also, as a side note, I think the film had somewhat of a lack of class. I saw no product placement in United 93 that was blatantly obvious. However, in WTC, there were several shots that weren't needed. I don't care if interviews found that Bud Light was one family's beer of choice, but why do we need a shot with the label centered and in clear view. A generic bottle would have worked just fine. Seeing and hearing corporate names, along with the epic sweeping shots of the towers, made this feel more "Hollywood" than United 93. Oliver Stone didn't need to show us people across the nation watching the horrific events on TV. He didn't need to show us the shot of someone jumping from the towers. But he did. Greengrass deserves an Oscar nod well before Stone for their respective 9/11 flicks.

I think Oscar-talk for this film is crazy. What part of this film was Oscar caliber??

Saw it today. I liked it a lot better when it was a TV documentary called 9/11 (http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0312318/), which had Robert DeNiro introducing and was shot by a camera crew that actually followed the firefighters into the Twin Towers.

One crucial difference is that the documentary showed the firefighters going to great lengths to rescue people, while in this movie they run into the WTC and immediately try to run out. Now, I'm sure the two movies, which deal with different fire crews, are both true to facts, but the documentary still had a much more riveting story.

The only part of Oliver Stone's movie that got to me was the wall of missing posters at the end.

I saw it yesterday, and thought it was really well made. I'm not a huge Nic Cage fan, but he did a good job, as well as Michael Pena. I didn't recognize Stephen Dorff and Frank Whaley at first, they were good as well. I hate to compare WTC and United 93, but I also felt U93 was a better film. I'm glad I was able to support both films on opening weekend. So some of my money would go to victim's families.

Saw the movie yesterday. I really enjoyed it. I thought it was done very well and really tributes the heroes of that day. I teared up on and off through the whole movie.