World Trade Center

Oliver Stone's new movie, "World Trade Center," has many successes and many failures. On one hand, it tells the touching story of rescue workers who were buried under WTC rubble following the attacks on September 11, 2001. One really gets an appreciation for how harrowing and brave the rescuers and the rescuers of the rescuers were. On the other hand, focusing on two or three people tended to shrink the audience's concept of just how devastating and grand in scale September 11 was. Additionally, the optimistic and restrained feel of the film is very uncharacteristic for Oliver Stone, who is at his best when he is angered by the Vietnam War or befuddled by the JFK assassination. Wouldn't Stone be better suited in making an anti-Bush or an anti-Arab film? Those two problems aside, "World Trade Center" is a movie worth seeing.

The movie begins with an introduction to the lives of three or so Port Authority policemen. They get up in the morning and leave their families to serve New York City every day. I believe the preceding plot line, which continues throughout the film, is the first wrong move by Stone. It is well known that every character in a movie has families, whether it be a wife and kids, a mom and dad, or a close uncle or cousin. Plus, isn't the movie about what the policemen did rather than who they were? Does having a family make their feats more amazing and courageous? Giving your life to help others is the same sacrifice no matter who you are.

The extended scenes involving the families wasted valuable time that could have spent on expanding the story to other people who were trapped in the building. While the story of the two policemen trapped under the rubble is admirable, it is not the whole story. What about the other 2700 people who died? What about their stories? How did it feel to jump out of a window to escape flames? How did it feel to see a plane coming right at you? How did it feel to be trapped inside the WTC until it caved in? These are the more interesting questions that represent the aggregate experience of those involved. The 20 or so people who survived the collapse are not the norm; they were the unexplainably lucky. Why are their stories more important than the fireman who died on the top floor trying to save people? Oddly enough, the cops depicted in the movie did not even accomplish anything before the collapse. They were on their way into the building! True to the rest of the film's concept of time, many of the main characters stand around and meander before they actually do anything to save people.

Besides the small scope of the film and the unnecessary emphasis on the character's personal lives, the other problematic aspect of the film was the fact that it did not show the planes hitting the buildings. Stone assumes that we are all a bunch of babies who could not possibly handle seeing what truly happened on that day. We are shown shadows and big kabooms in place of a powerful picture. Perhaps if the audience did see the planes hit, they would have better understood the magnitude of the catastrophe. One final note: while we are on directing style, the scenes in which the police first find out about the attack and travel to ground zero were very poorly done. For a reason that I cannot understand, Stone fades in and out of slow moving shots. Instead of feeling paranoia and confusion, the audience gets a slow disjointed build towards arriving at the WTC.

The above problems are joined with very good filmmaking depicting the actual entrapment and rescue of the cops. Personally, I did not know how difficult it was to retrieve survivors. Rescuers dug 40-50 feet under unstable rubble and slowly guided the victims through twists and turns of metal and rock. If Stone' goal was to show you the goodness and determination of people in times of crisis, he was a great success. However, as stated above, I still think his story is unmistakably incomplete.

In the end, I do recommend "World Trade Center." You will see the beauty of survival and rescue. More importantly, you will see a director who has progressed from making "Alexander," one of the worst movies in recent memory to making a very decent and often powerful film.

3.8

Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby

"Talledega Nights"is just like every other Will Ferrell movie; even though it has hilarious parts, it just can't go the full mile to make a good comedy. Ferrell has loomed large over the comedic landscape over the past few years. He made his leap from funny supporting actor (a la "The Ladies' Man) to engaging superstar in "Old School." A few months later, Ferrell was back to star in "Anchorman," a jocular romp that had its moments but not its hour and thirty-five minutes. With "Talledega Nights," Ferrell is back to make...well....a remake of his previous films. The plot to these movies are not important--as long as it can be an overall excuse for Ferrell to indulge his weird brand of comedy in small skit-like snippets.

Ferrell plays Ricky Bobby, a southerner, who from birth, dreamt of being the fastest. He rises to the highest echelon of race drivers and is endorsed by Wonder Bread and Fig Newtons. In between boring race scenes, Ferrell and his buddies relentlessly parody the stupidity and uselessness of NASCAR culture. His family eats KFC and Taco Bell. His sons are named Walker and Texas Ranger, respectively. By the way, the segments dealing with the two sons are among the funniest in the movie. Let's just say that they have quite a pair of mouths on them.

At the apex of his career, Ricky Bobby is challenged by a stereotypically French driver aptly played by Ali G. Ricky competes with the Frenchman and eventually gets in a car crash. The recovery time provides ample opportunity for Ferrell to conduct his ridiculousness---"I am paralyzed!" or "Nothing is more scary than driving with a damn cougar in the car." The ending is what you expect, maybe with a surprise or two.

All in all, "Talledega Nights" is a good but not great comedy. As always, Ferrell carries the movie with his unavoidable sense of humor and charm. I may have liked "Anchorman" a little bit more. Then again, the jokes are the same in both movies. The question is: what's next for Will Ferrell? He has conquered the "I am funny because I commit to absurdity" genre. I would like to see Ferrell in a more artsy movie, where the script and directing is of more quality (maybe an independent movie). Until then, we are at least guaranteed cheap laughs.

3.5