Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center": Why no Oscar nominations?

If anyone does find them, please link them if possible. I'm interested in seeing them.

 

I have yet to see United 93 and I saw WTC this past Sept. 11. I thought WTC was alright, but I've heard so much more praise for United 93. I can not wait to see this movie.

 

Because Stone just made 'Alexander?'

 

Oliver Stone did just make Alexander. It came out 2 1/2 years ago and it was a boondoggle.

I think you could argue, quite convincingly, that United 93 is pop art - a staged recreation shown through the various angles of director's camera lens. I question whether some - not all - viewers are conditioned to appreciate the power of it simply because it plays like non-fiction. I'd also argue the movie is hard to understand unless you are pretty aware of that day's event. I assure you, people in front and behind me at a screening couldn't tell, by the movie, whether there were seven or four or three or six planes that day. The movie doesn't take the time to underline the distinction. It underlines very little, in fact.

 

Not to out anybody, but I've long believed that Alma actually is Oliver Stone. Just a theory.

Haven't seen either film under discussion on this thread. Both too close to home.

 

But it's no "Bloody Sunday," Mr. Jones.
And, Junkie, I'd say Preston Sturges, just for a start.

 

What I think of WTC the movie is unrelated to why I think it didn't get much support from voters But here it is: The movie is has an unmistakable Christian/patriotic bent. The visions of Jesus. The marine. The Cal Thomas seal of approval. It turned voters and the media off when the controversial movie they were expecting from Stone turned out to be a flag-waver.

 

Wouldn't ever see either movie, or any movie dramatizing a 9/11 attack. Would feel too quesy about it. And I think Hollywood is pretty much done with Stone as a figure to bow to.

 

Because it sucked. That's why.

 

I'll respectfully disagree, Alma, although I know you know your shit.

In my mind, because United 93 plays out in real time, we see the confusion of that morning first-hand -- it's not supposed to be crystal clear. The audience isn't told whether there are six or four or three planes, because at that moment, on that morning, nobody knew how many planes there were. For me, that helped remind me of that sense of shock, of watching these incredible events unfold without really knowing what the hell was going on. Remember that there was a fire on the Washington Mall? Or that a plane had crashed in Denver? It was total confusion, and I think the ground scenes in United 93 serve as a reminder of that.

For instance, the confusion between American 11 and American 77. I can see how that happened, given the digits. Somewhere, wires got crossed. I can't imagine what it was like for those ATC guys that morning. But United 93 definitely gave me a sense of what it must have been like... The panic, the confusion, the feeling of helplessness. It felt very real to me.

And sure, it feels like non-fiction, too, and that helps make it powerful. I like that the actors are unknowns, and that a lot of folks played themselves. I think that's the only way to make this kind of movie. It's too close to the bone to dramatize it. Play it simply and cleanly, and remind your audience that what they saw playing out on their TV sets that morning was happening in real time to real people.

 

Was about to write virtually the exact same response, though probably not as well.

 

And he left out the My Little Pony scene. Unforgiveable.