It's starting to get ugly...
I didn't really feel the heat turning up until today's reviews of "World Trade Center" hit full blast, of course, but it seems the "United 93" vs. "World Trade Center" dispute is going to get nasty. Real nasty.
Let alone the fact that those out to disaprove of Oliver Stone's film are beginning to see their destinies self-served, or that vacant criticism the likes of comparing it to "United 93" runs far too rampant considering these are drastically different films. I have a lot of respect for each effort and simply consider one film to be "fuller" than the other. But each is effective and a testament to Hollywood handling themselves accordingly with this event, so much so that it seems foolish in retrospect to have assumed otherwise, no matter the past.
Ultimately I had hoped there would not be a "this versus that" story this year (last year's racism vs. homophobia battle in the form of "Crash" vs. "Brokeback Mountain" was pathetic and a disservice to both films), but it looks like we might have one after all, whether Oscars are involved or not.
Oh well. At least we get to see Sam take care of a bunch of mother fuckin' snakes on a mother fuckin' plane, right?
Comments
Ugh. Don't get me started with "SOTP." Samuel L. Jackson is alright in my book, but geez, this is yet another shitty movie on his resumé.
But back to the WTC movies: I guess it stems from how they're perceived. Some might be put off by the semi-"Hollywood"-ization in "WTC" (or just on the sole fact that it's directed by Stone) while others are forgetful of the subtly in "U93."
Maybe it's the cynic in me, but I have a feeling they'll cancel each other out by split votes.
Posted by: Andrew L. | August 10, 2006 03:28 AM
I really liked both 9/11 films. I mention United 93 in my review (on my website) for World Trade Center... but I don't really compare the two.
Posted by: McAllister | August 11, 2006 01:36 PM