my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » World Trade Center

Author Topic: World Trade Center Chris Hipp Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1462 From: Mesquite, Tx (east of Dallas) Registered: Jul 2003 posted 08-09-2006 10:34 AM                     The movie itself isn't all that great. If I were born today and watched this in 20 years I would probably get bored with it. Living through the real thing makes it a little different though. I didn't cry, but I choked up a little here and there. I think that is just remembering it and having to see the same images again. It is surprisingly non-political. There are a couple lines that are questionable, but overall they did a good job of just sticking to the story.  |  IP: Logged Michael Gonzalez Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 790 From: Grand Island , NE USA Registered: Sep 2000 posted 08-09-2006 11:27 AM                     I also never really got into the movie emotionally either. I more or less knew that the focal point of the movie was going to be on the two main characters but I think the movie spent way too much time on the wives and families and not enough time on the random acts of kindness and heroics that where happening all around. To me the most moving part of the movie was seeing the "road" of rescue workers when they were moving the stretchers near the end and I would have liked to have seen similar scenes not just the ones involving the two characters. After all the movie is titled "World Trade Center". I agree they did a pretty good job of not being political I guess the only "complaint" I would have is that during the scenes where they are showing the reactions from around the world and citizens from foreign countries watching their TVs in shock and tears, that they obmitted the shots of some Arabs like say the Palestinians, cheering and dancing in the street. I know that those images would not have fit the tone of the movie but if you are going to show reaction scenes from all over the world, then you should be true to the source materal. Otherwise in my opinion they should have left that part out of the movie.  |  IP: Logged Ian Woloschin Film Handler Posts: 54 From: Worcester, MA, USA Registered: Mar 2006 posted 08-09-2006 06:29 PM                        I've yet to see this movie, and I doubt it'll be very popular where I live, Long Island, NY, which for those of you who aren't familiar, sticks out some hundred miles or so into the Atlantic from NYC. We had a lot of EMS and police in NYC helping, and got particularly hard hit (though I'm sure northern NJ and Westchester counties are similar). I have a feeling that most people here would not want to go and see this movie, at least not yet, everything is still way too fresh in their minds, I mean, it hasn't even been five years yet, doesn't Hollywood know the meaning of "too soon"? I know I have no great urge to see it, a lot of the images in that movie I would be perfectly happy never seeing again.  |  IP: Logged Chad M Calpito Master Film Handler Posts: 435 From: San Diego, CA Registered: Apr 2006 posted 08-31-2006 06:10 PM                        Saw the movie today and I thought it was pretty good. The acting was well done. The movie kept me interested throughout it's entirety. There were moments that I got choked up as well, but, overall, it was pretty good. I saw the movie at AMC Theatres Mission Valley Stadium 20 in Theatre #10 in SDDS Digital Sound.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 09-05-2006 10:20 PM                        Pretty good job of filmmaking, but bland as a movie. It would have been more interesting if Stone had put his real sensibilities into it. As it is, it's just a good rescue story. It is more wrenching than a typical movie of this type because we know it's true. Overall, I would say 3.75 out of 5. We saw this opening weekend at some theatre in Denver, on their GIANT SCREEN (or so it was called in the paper). We drove across town because of those two words. The GIANT SCREEN was a disappointment.... couldn't have been more than 35 or 40 feet wide. I think GIANT was referring to the number of seats in the auditorium, there must've been nearly 1000 in there. This made the screen seem even smaller. The paper said 9:45 for a showtime, but when we got there at 9:40 the signage on the theatre said 9:15, so we missed the first 5 minutes of the movie. The one time I was thankful for the 20 minutes of commercials we must have missed. Two teenagers in front of us were talking and making out during the film; my wife (who was closer to them) finally told them to get out or she'd have them kicked out, so they left. (Right on, Lynn!)  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.