World Trade Center

Paramount Pictures | Release Date: August 9, 2006

5.6	USER SCORE Mixed or average reviews based on 162 Ratings

USER RATING DISTRIBUTION

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Watch Now

Stream On

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Review this movie

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.

Check box if your review contains spoilers

0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User score By date Most helpful

KenG.Oct 2, 2006

I realize there are those who think that to dislike a movie like this (that celebrates the heroes of 9/11) is almost "un-American", but those people can go away as far as I'm concerned. A poorly made movie is a poorly made movie, I realize there are those who think that to dislike a movie like this (that celebrates the heroes of 9/11) is almost "un-American", but those people can go away as far as I'm concerned. A poorly made movie is a poorly made movie, regardless of the subject matter. Unlike "United 93" (one of the year's best movies) which was told in a very matter-of-fact manner, "World Trade Center" is busting at the seams with reverence for what it is doing, and thus comes off as somewhat ponderous, and also somewhat full of itself. It also has some bad dialogue, and some moments that come off more corny then poignant (which considering the subject matter, was probably actually kind of hard to do) there is also something really generic about this. Much of movie focuses on Cage and the other guy trapped in the rubble. But this feels like a lot of other movies we've had about people trapped in cave-ins. Then you had the very familiar, formula scenes of their families standing by anxiously waiting for word, which could have been taken out of a lot of movies. And the flashbacks also could have been taken out of a lot of movies. Bottom line is that this film never captures the scope of the unbearable tragedy of that day, or the overwhelming poignancy.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

RobertM.Aug 10, 2006

Throughout this movie I kept thinking that I was watching people talking and emoting like, well, like actors, and not like actual people I know. Also, iIn focussing on the pitiful number of survivors of the attacks, the movie tells the least Throughout this movie I kept thinking that I was watching people talking and emoting like, well, like actors, and not like actual people I know. Also, iIn focussing on the pitiful number of survivors of the attacks, the movie tells the least typical and most user-friendly of the stories of that day, which to me is a cop-out. If you want to get a better sense of the attrocities of 9/11, go see the far more realistic and grim "United 93".… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

DrewF.Aug 14, 2006

Did anyone else come away from this film with a sense that it was actually a satire of the US of A, and in particular the events of 9/11? Cause i sure did. It's the only way to explain what Stone was thinking with all the overwrought, Did anyone else come away from this film with a sense that it was actually a satire of the US of A, and in particular the events of 9/11? Cause i sure did. It's the only way to explain what Stone was thinking with all the overwrought, over the top characters.The previous poster who suggested that the marine was gonna fly into space and reverse time like superman: HA! I had a similar thought, though my fiancee and i joked that he seemed as if he was just as likely to SHOOT any survivors that he found as he was to save them! And BEWARE OF MARIA BELLO'S CREEPY BLUE-ALIEN EYES! "United 93" was superior in EVERY regard, though i'll still go on believing that this was actually a satire. If it was, this film automatically jumps into my top 10 favourite movies EVER.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

GeorgeB.Aug 10, 2006

Charged, emotional film. But focused mostly on 2 or 3 individuals and their families. What about the other 3,000 people. A very one-sided characterization, but nonetheless awesome visuals.

0 of 0 users found this helpful

LindaL.Aug 12, 2006

A cathartic experience that will bring tears to your eyes about nine times, it's meant to tell just a narrow part of the 9/11 story. In that, it succeeds pretty well. I thought the film had an elegant look, actually subtle in a way, A cathartic experience that will bring tears to your eyes about nine times, it's meant to tell just a narrow part of the 9/11 story. In that, it succeeds pretty well. I thought the film had an elegant look, actually subtle in a way, with just one really spectacular shot. It's a relief to have the human angle of 9/11 with no politicking. I would've added a point had the Irish cop been played by anyone other than Nicolas Cage, who seemed ridiculously wrong for the part.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

JosephG.Aug 3, 2006

This one reminded me of The Perfect Storm. Not exactly a good thing. [***SPOILERS***] We cut back and forth between the two NYPD cops stuck beneath the rubble of the WTC (if you are claustrophobic, you might have a hard time watching these This one reminded me of The Perfect Storm. Not exactly a good thing. [***SPOILERS***] We cut back and forth between the two NYPD cops stuck beneath the rubble of the WTC (if you are claustrophobic, you might have a hard time watching these scenes) and their distraught wives. Oliver Stone also gives us some typical, sentimental flashback sequences showing the two couples together, doing cute happy things. My real problem with the film has to do with the tone. It's too self-important. In United 93 (a greatly superior 9/11 film), you get the sense that things are truly unfolding NOW. No one is ready, no one is prepared, all hell breaks loose. In WTC, on the other hand, it doesn't feel as if the characters are living in the moment. Police officers talk about "the attack" before anyone else was calling it that. Bottom line, the film felt very insincere. The steely-eyed Marine character is irritating and nauseatingly heroic and burly. He might as well have been dressed like Rambo. My wife and I were joking that he was going to fly into space and reverse time like Superman. See United 93, a much more honest, reverent, and cathartic 9/11 film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

ShaunM.Aug 11, 2006

Not as cheesy as I thought it was going to be. However... it is insanely overwraught and weak in its overall structure. The plot and ideas within mediocre, and the execution is barely above average. What sinks this movie, though, is the Not as cheesy as I thought it was going to be. However... it is insanely overwraught and weak in its overall structure. The plot and ideas within mediocre, and the execution is barely above average. What sinks this movie, though, is the overall weak acting and sense of self-importance, which confuses the audience when it tries to be reverant. In addition, it is my opinion that it is too soon for THIS type of 9/11 movie (not to mention how obvious it is they're trying to make the bucks of the sentimental demographic). In about twenty years we'll have the first truly classic 9/11 movie that takes on this angle. STORIES - 6 ACTING - 3 CINEMATOGRAPHY - 7 DIRECTING - 3 Rounding down for overall content, feel, and presentation...4.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

LewisP.Aug 11, 2006

It occurs to me that the story of the rescue of two Port Authority cops during the World Trade Center Disaster should have been one of perhaps 30 smaller scenes in a larger and grander movie. When Stone depicts the technical aspects of the It occurs to me that the story of the rescue of two Port Authority cops during the World Trade Center Disaster should have been one of perhaps 30 smaller scenes in a larger and grander movie. When Stone depicts the technical aspects of the disaster (such as the implosion of the Towers from within) as well as the actual rescue of the policemen, the film is quite gripping. All the stuff in the suburbs with the wives takes away from the film since there's little dramatic tension in those scenes. Stone starts his film off artistically with cinematography hinting at the approaching dread. But he drops the ball when he fails to show the horror of the day in detail. We need more agony before the relief of the rescue of the cops otherwise the film descends into sentimentality. The "agony" scenes should have included the last moments of people in Windows on the World, the frantic cries of the stewardess as she realizes the first hijacked plane is dipping too low, the young man who evacuates from Tower 2 but decides to go back upstairs and is trapped when the second plane hits, the jumpers, etc, etc. In addition to the tough stuff, Stone could have included a few of the other "survivor" stories, finally culminating in the resuce of the Port Authority cops. Because of the film's narrow focus, the audience is short-changed and one fails to experience the full impact of the World Trade Center Disaster.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

BradB.Aug 13, 2006

The best part of this film is it's first 35 minutes. The visceral energy of the special effects combined with the emotion of the moment bring the filmgoer to his knees - being caught up in the moment, as a good film should. But the The best part of this film is it's first 35 minutes. The visceral energy of the special effects combined with the emotion of the moment bring the filmgoer to his knees - being caught up in the moment, as a good film should. But the remaining hour and a half is nothing more than a sentimental journey with really nothing to say - the film boggs itself down with constant fade ins and outs, and the dialogue of the wives and family would make a great "Father Knows Best" television episode, but not great feature filmmaking or screenwriting. I find Nicholas Cage difficult to accept as the Irish cop, as I find him out of place in many of his roles - he seems to be Hollywood's hottest actor right now and I can't figure out why - the guy weighs about 120 pounds, which, you would think would limit his roles. The marine wandering around ground zero just struck me as creepy. Overall, I give the film 9.0 for the first 35 minutes, and a 3.9 for the remainder of the film.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful

beingryanjudeAug 24, 2014

There's a certain unique emotion surrounding this film--perhaps, because it is the first major film to depict that tragic day. Nicolas Cage along with director, Oliver Stone, give a very respectable take on two survivors and their future.

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

CineAutoctonoJun 2, 2017

"World Trade Center" was a very good film, especially the beginning was very good, what followed was slow, and turned off the excitement a bit, but we liked the plot, and the atmosphere of the worst attack in history, the fall Of the Twin"World Trade Center" was a very good film, especially the beginning was very good, what followed was slow, and turned off the excitement a bit, but we liked the plot, and the atmosphere of the worst attack in history, the fall Of the Twin Towers on September 11, 2001.… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews

Vitor007Sep 2, 2018

Without much to show, "World Trade Center" becomes slim and stuck. Not much of a surprise. But Nicolas Cage's status improves after his performance. 5.3/10

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews