As one of those lucky pre-screeners of the Oliver Stone flick World Trade Center, I really felt the film was apolitical, a reminder of our national unity on 9/11. What made the film so refreshing (after arriving with your teeth clenched for the Stone-cold cynicism and conspiracies) is that it was simple, slightly amped-up re-enactment of what some heroes did that day — even though they didn’t feel they had accomplished anything very heroic. I really wondered if the New York Times would sneer at it, but A.O. Scott today, perhaps with an eye on his local audience, does nothing of the kind.
So here comes Desson Thomson of the Washington Post to take the sneering role. The film is a snooze, he suggests, because its heroes are trapped instead of active, and “the film feels decidedly small-screen, bar a couple of scenes, in large part because the characters feel stock rather than uniquely drawn.” Translation: I’m disappointed because the film doesn’t live up to Stone’s wild reputation. It actually tries to stay true to the story of these men, and finding them to be heroes even though they didn’t feel like heroes. Let’s step aside from the fact that if Hollywood made a movie about heroic action against Islamo-fascists, can we expect the liberal film critics to applaud, or be appalled?
I don’t think, as a film critic, you have to love this movie. You can certainly say it’s not your cup of tea, artistically or politically. But it’s lame to cavil that the film isn’t “unique” and loaded with “half-baked poignancy” and compare it to TV films-of-the-week when it tries to stay true to the story. This is the kind of review that will move average movie viewers to see the film and sneer right back at the sneering critic.
(PS: The funniest Oliver Stone satire ever was on the very short-lived summer-replacement “Dana Carvey Show.” It was a Stone movie about George Washington — played by Antonio Banderas, doing lines of coke while he watched TV. Wait a minute — Stone was played by Stephen Colbert?)