Critical Consensus: A Brave New "World," A "Step" Down, And No Screenings for "Pulse" and "Zoom"
This week at the movies, we've got Oliver Stone paying tribute to the heroes of 9/11 ("World Trade Center," starring Nicolas Cage); two youngsters trying to start a dance dance revolution ("Step Up," starring Jenna Dewan and Channing Tatum); a school for young superheroes ("Zoom," starring Tim Allen and Courteney Cox); and an evil website ("Pulse," starring Kristen Bell). What do the critics have to say?
Oliver Stone has never been the subtlest of directors, nor has he shied away from controversy or conspiracy-mongering. So it's something of a surprise to critics that with his latest, "World Trade Center," he has tackled a subject (the 9/11 attacks) rife with talk of dark machinations and created a straightforward, apolitical tale of heroism. Based on a true story, "World Trade Center" stars Nicolas Cage and Michael Pena as a pair of Port Authority police officers who became trapped in the ruins of the World Trade Center while attempting to rescue others. Critics say the narrow human focus is one of the strengths of the film, along with its stunning visuals and an old-fashioned sense of resilience and heroism. At 70 percent on the Tomatometer, "World Trade Center" may be a cut below Paul Greengrass' 9/11 film "United 93" (90 percent), but it's a worthy examination of a day that will live in infamy. It's also Stone's best-reviewed film since "Nixon."

Nicolas Cage as real-life officer John McLoughlin in "World Trade Center"
"Step Up" tells the story of a hip-hop dancer from the wrong side of the tracks (Channing Tatum) and a privileged ballerina (Jenna Dewan) who overcome their differences to make beautiful music together on the dance floor. Sound familiar? It should, if you've seen "Saturday Night Fever," "Save the Last Dance," or "Dirty Dancing." Perhaps the Bee Gees presciently spoke for the critics of "Step Up" when they sang, "You should be dancing," for the scribes say the film is at its best in its electrifying dance sequences, but dramatically flat otherwise. At 21 percent on the Tomatometer, the critics are putting this baby in a corner.

"Step Up": Do fries come with that shake?
The studios apparently believe "Pulse" is pretty lifeless, and that "Zoom" is full of cinematic gloom. What else could explain the fact that the Kristen Bell J-horror remake and the Tim Allen superhero comedy, respectively, were not screened for critics? It's time to bust out those crystal balls and guess those Tomatometers, people.

"Sometimes when we touch/ the horror's just too much"
Also in theaters this week, in limited release: "Half Nelson," starring Ryan Gosling as a troubled inner city teacher, is at a whopping 95 percent on the Tomatometer; the Czech surrealist horror film "Lunacy" is at 80 percent; "House of Sand," a visually remarkable Brazilian epic, is at 80 percent; "Conversations With Other Women," a tale of a romantic reunion starring Helena Bonham Carter and Aaron Eckhart, is at 70 percent; "The Trouble With Men and Women," a low-budget Brit relationship drama, is at 50 percent; "Poster Boy," a drama about the gay son of a senator, is at 43 percent; and "The Ordeal," a dark Belgian horror import, is at 43 percent.
Recent Oliver Stone Movies:
-----------------------------------
16% -- Alexander (2004)
50% -- Comandante (2003)
48% -- Any Given Sunday (1999)
51% -- U-Turn (1997)
74% -- Nixon (1995)
Recent Nicolas Cage Movies:
------------------------------------
61% -- Lord of War (2005)
59% -- The Weather Man (2005)
42% -- National Treasure (2004)
82% -- Matchstick Men (2003)
90% -- Adaptation (2002)
Films Not Screened For Critics In 2006 (Best To Worst Tomatometer Score):
------------------------------------------------
28% -- Silent Hill
27% -- Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion
24% -- Phat Girlz
16% -- Grandma's Boy
15% -- Underworld: Evolution
11% -- The Benchwarmers
10% -- Ultraviolet
10% -- When a Stranger Calls
7% -- Date Movie
7% -- Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector
6% -- See No Evil
5% -- Doogal
5% -- BloodRayne
5% -- Stay Alive
Oliver Stone has never been the subtlest of directors, nor has he shied away from controversy or conspiracy-mongering. So it's something of a surprise to critics that with his latest, "World Trade Center," he has tackled a subject (the 9/11 attacks) rife with talk of dark machinations and created a straightforward, apolitical tale of heroism. Based on a true story, "World Trade Center" stars Nicolas Cage and Michael Pena as a pair of Port Authority police officers who became trapped in the ruins of the World Trade Center while attempting to rescue others. Critics say the narrow human focus is one of the strengths of the film, along with its stunning visuals and an old-fashioned sense of resilience and heroism. At 70 percent on the Tomatometer, "World Trade Center" may be a cut below Paul Greengrass' 9/11 film "United 93" (90 percent), but it's a worthy examination of a day that will live in infamy. It's also Stone's best-reviewed film since "Nixon."

Nicolas Cage as real-life officer John McLoughlin in "World Trade Center"
"Step Up" tells the story of a hip-hop dancer from the wrong side of the tracks (Channing Tatum) and a privileged ballerina (Jenna Dewan) who overcome their differences to make beautiful music together on the dance floor. Sound familiar? It should, if you've seen "Saturday Night Fever," "Save the Last Dance," or "Dirty Dancing." Perhaps the Bee Gees presciently spoke for the critics of "Step Up" when they sang, "You should be dancing," for the scribes say the film is at its best in its electrifying dance sequences, but dramatically flat otherwise. At 21 percent on the Tomatometer, the critics are putting this baby in a corner.

"Step Up": Do fries come with that shake?
The studios apparently believe "Pulse" is pretty lifeless, and that "Zoom" is full of cinematic gloom. What else could explain the fact that the Kristen Bell J-horror remake and the Tim Allen superhero comedy, respectively, were not screened for critics? It's time to bust out those crystal balls and guess those Tomatometers, people.

"Sometimes when we touch/ the horror's just too much"
Also in theaters this week, in limited release: "Half Nelson," starring Ryan Gosling as a troubled inner city teacher, is at a whopping 95 percent on the Tomatometer; the Czech surrealist horror film "Lunacy" is at 80 percent; "House of Sand," a visually remarkable Brazilian epic, is at 80 percent; "Conversations With Other Women," a tale of a romantic reunion starring Helena Bonham Carter and Aaron Eckhart, is at 70 percent; "The Trouble With Men and Women," a low-budget Brit relationship drama, is at 50 percent; "Poster Boy," a drama about the gay son of a senator, is at 43 percent; and "The Ordeal," a dark Belgian horror import, is at 43 percent.
Recent Oliver Stone Movies:
-----------------------------------
16% -- Alexander (2004)
50% -- Comandante (2003)
48% -- Any Given Sunday (1999)
51% -- U-Turn (1997)
74% -- Nixon (1995)
Recent Nicolas Cage Movies:
------------------------------------
61% -- Lord of War (2005)
59% -- The Weather Man (2005)
42% -- National Treasure (2004)
82% -- Matchstick Men (2003)
90% -- Adaptation (2002)
Films Not Screened For Critics In 2006 (Best To Worst Tomatometer Score):
------------------------------------------------
28% -- Silent Hill
27% -- Tyler Perry's Madea's Family Reunion
24% -- Phat Girlz
16% -- Grandma's Boy
15% -- Underworld: Evolution
11% -- The Benchwarmers
10% -- Ultraviolet
10% -- When a Stranger Calls
7% -- Date Movie
7% -- Larry the Cable Guy: Health Inspector
6% -- See No Evil
5% -- Doogal
5% -- BloodRayne
5% -- Stay Alive
Related Items
|
on Aug 09 2006 06:50 PM Why does the better reviewed 9/11 film have to be about an incident that nobody really cares about. (Reply to this) |
![]() on Aug 09 2006 07:30 PM In reply to this comment (#841841) Oooh, ouch man. You might get some responses on that one. I'm wincing just thinking about the ramifications of what you just wrote. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 09 2006 08:26 PM In reply to this comment (#841842) Honestly though, Of course its a tragedy, but it doesn't even begin to compare to what it was like at ground zero. Not even close. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 12:22 AM In reply to this comment (#841841) Those are some fightin words, boy. But seriously, watch what you say. You gotta be a pretty cold indiviual to say that. Think of the families that lost loved ones over the incident. Think about how many more would have been lost if they didn't bring the plane down when they did. I'm pretty sure that most people actually care... (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 01:27 AM In reply to this comment (#841841) yeah that is probably the dumbest f**king comment anyone has ever made. The people on United 93 saved more lives than anybody that day. If it were not for them many people in washington would have died. I really just can't get over the fact of how dumb you are. I'm serious, there has to be an explanation. Maybe you're slightly retarded or something. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 02:05 AM In reply to this comment (#841841) Seriously man not cool, who are you to judge what was the most important part of the day , the whole issue with 9/11 is that so many people were touched by it. There are countless stories surrounding the day and I beleive your comments are an insult to the people involved. Appreciate the film for what it is , a reflection of the impact of 9/11 on 2 men and their families, played outduring one of the worst acts of terror on american soil. (Reply to this) |
![]() on Aug 10 2006 04:21 AM In reply to this comment (#841841) Dude no just no. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 06:27 AM In reply to this comment (#841841) yeah seriously that was stupider than when ebert said Speed 2 was entertaining (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 06:53 AM Natureboy... you better take that back of people are gonna MURDER you here. I, personally, am not ready to see this movie. It's too soon for me. But I'm glad that Oliver Stone seems to be treating such a sensitive subject with respect. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 07:38 AM [b]A KINDER , GENTLER OLIVER STONE[/b] I saw 'World Trade Center' yesterday and thought that Stone did a pretty good job considering the eggshells of controversy he had to walk on to film it and he avoided the temptation of sensationalising the movie to do it. Since I'm not an American, my only fear going into it was that it was going to be another 'Flag waving God Bless America good old boy gung ho tearjerker of a movie' and was pleased to see that it wasn't about any of that. He simply made a great little movie about the real heroes of the day; the families and the people who selfishly stepped up to the plate and sacrificed their lives trying to save those trapped inside. While the collapse of the buildings were unnerving to watch, it will be the sounds of the movie that I'll remember the most, such as the roar of the actual collapse and of the crashing sounds of those who jumped landing on the buildings overhangs. There were a number of scenes throughout the movie that Stone displayed his brilliance as a director, but it was his genuine admiration and warmth for all those affected by the tragedy that gives this movie its heart. Is it too early for a 9/11 movie? It would be if it's about those trapped on the higher floors knowing they were going to die, but it isn't too early to make a solid movie about hope and faith and that's exactly what World Trade Center is. Maybe it does plays more like a Ron Howard movie than an Oliver Stone movie, but there's no denying one thing, Oliver Stone is back; albeit kinder and gentler. (Reply to this) |
![]() on Aug 10 2006 07:52 AM In reply to this comment (#841841) In the UK we still get alot of references made to the twin towers, it was a very big deal and people all over the world lost friends or family when those planes flew into the towers. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 10:20 AM I thought that it was a very good movie, well directed and acted. The 2nd best film of the year so far. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 10:26 AM The film wasn't very good. Which is ironic, because you'd think the "ground zero" story would have had more potential than "United 93". "World Trade Center" was an exercise in "waiting", really. There wasn't a dramtic storyline. It was like watching a bunch of characters "hanging out" and, well, waiting. There was minimal character-growth, much less inspired development. Many of the technical qualities(cinematography, sound) were good. But considering the location and the event, the effects weren't too impressive, and neither was the spectacle. So naturally, if the "spectacle" of ground zero wasn't going to be front and center, you'd expect the story itelf to be powerful(like "United 93"), but that wasn't the case here. Blame the script. Everybody else did good work(the actors, the crew, the music and sound teams) . . . but there wasn't a dramatic story to draw our attention . . . which make the movie something of a bellyflop. I wish I could write off my dissappointment because of the subject matter(like so many critics seem to have done), but to be honest, it's not a very good film. It isn't as emotionally forced as the trailer hinted, but it doesn't mine the potential that it could have. "United 93", despite being quite a small film, was perfect for what it was trying to be. It deserves Best Picture and Best Director nominations for sure. "World Trade Center", however, is like a more bloated, aimless, cousin to it. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 10:49 AM Most of the evidence points to 93 being shot down, so the people on board may have accomplished nothing. Before you flame me, even the mainstream media has finally started reporting some of the government's deception about what really happened that day, so do some research. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 11:36 AM In reply to this comment (#841854) Oh for Christ's sake, give this conspiracy shit a break. It was a terrorist attack from Bin Laden and friends, nothing more. Besides, if it was an inside job, Oliver Stone and Michael Moore would have been all over it like stink on a Bush, er, I mean monkey. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 11:39 AM [b]My point is....[/b] On 9/11, everyone was glued to their televisions in shock while watching the twin towers up in smoke. It was the scariest event in american history. Firefighters and police officers did everything they could without considering their own safety. In all the madness that day in New York City, there was also beauty, because all these men and women risked their lives to save perfect strangers when they could've just as easily ran away. Now this is a story that deserves a 5 star treatment, and the isolated incident that was Flight 93, pales in comparison. Im sorry, but it really does. (Reply to this) |
![]() on Aug 10 2006 11:50 AM In reply to this comment (#841854) [b]You are an idiot[/b] Keep believing what little 14 year old boys tell you online while the rest of us with our own brains can see how retarded you are. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 01:08 PM Saying that nobody cares about United 93 was harsh, but I was pi$$ed off. You all know that ground zero was a far worse tragedy than Flight 93. The people on Flight 93 knew they were going to die, anyone with an ounce of courage would do the same thing. I am greatful for what they did, but it just doesn't even come close to ground zero. Do you realize that ground zero had over 3000 deaths while Flight 93 maybe had around 20. People were jumping out of the towers and we saw those horrible images on television. The sound of a firetruck will forever haunt me after 9/11. The brave men and women at ground zero had a choice. They could've just as easily went home that day. But they choose to risk their lives on the most horrifying day in american history. Now that is admirable. I'm sure you all can see why I think that the story at ground zero is far more deserving of a 5 star treatment. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 02:02 PM In reply to this comment (#841858) united 93 was a tribute to the sacrifice that a few people made to prevent the deaths of hundreds, maybe thousands, of others. it was not trying to say that the plane crash was "more of a tragedy" than the attack on the world trade centers. and it is not an isolated event. it is completely connected to the attacks on the WTC and Pentagon. it was perpetrated by the same terrorist group on the same day as those attacks. if your point is that WTC should have been a better movie because more people died than on flight United 93, then i think you are missing the point of both movies. it's really a trivial complaint. basically, you're saying "this movie should have been better," which can be said about any movie. (Reply to this) |
|
on Aug 10 2006 02:04 PM [b]hey you bastards[/b] hey we are the west we care, if it happens somewhere else we dont care. why is 9/11 so important. in the past 5 years we (USA, brit) did and doing more damage than 9/11. yes i am as cold as natureboy, so murder me. just look at the middle east and lebanon, it is a mess. that is worst than 9/11. maybe if we (usa, brit) get nuke, cities destroy, thounsands of american and brits die. oh wait, never mind, we didnt do anything with new orleans. (Reply to this) |
Related Links
Related Articles
- First Look: Josh Brolin as George W. Bush in Oliver Stone's W 4
- Oliver Stone Takes On George W. Bush 0
- Oliver Stone's George Bush Pic W Has Its First Family 110
- Weekly Ketchup: Joe Johnston takes on The Wolf Man, and Rob Zombie may take on Conan 39
- Oliver Stone, Josh Brolin Prepare to Film Bush 23
- Tom Cruise and Paula Wagner Make United Artists Strikeproof 13
- Today's Negotiations To End The WGA Strike? 15
- Writers' Strike Delays Angels & Demons, Oliver Stone's Pinkville 7
- The Weekly Ketchup: I Am Legend Trailer; Dark Knight Coming; Jet Li In Mummy 3 5
- Carnahan and Fuqua Compete in Pablo Escobar Biopic Faceoff 7
Most Discussed
- Uwe Boll's Five Favorite Films 77
- Box Office Guru Wrapup: Iron Man Rocks, Speed Racer Stalls 43
- Fahrenheit 9/11 Sequel News 42
- Weekly Ketchup: Iron Man 2 coming in 2010 37
- George Lucas - A Super-Producer's History 37
- Peter Segal Talks About His Five Fave Films 36
- Ask Rotten Tomatoes a Question! 34
- Indiana Jonesin': The Best of Harrison Ford 31
- Nicolas Cage to Play Bad Lieutenant 20
- David Lynch and Werner Herzog Plan Horror Film 19
Latest News
- Cannes 2008: Jeff Vespa Premieres Nosebleed with David Arquette 0
- Cannes 2008 Exclusive: Michel Gondry Joins Babelgum Jury 1
- Critics Consensus: Prince Caspian is Movie Royalty 15
- Nicolas Cage to Play Bad Lieutenant 20
- Point Breaking News: A Sequel in the Works 18
- Fahrenheit 9/11 Sequel News 42
- RT Interview: Kat Dennings on Charlie Bartlett, Nick and Norah and Death 3
- Nope to Pope Portente 3
- Piranhas Remake To Go 3-D 1
- David Lynch and Werner Herzog Plan Horror Film 19
Latest Interviews
- RT Interview: Kat Dennings on Charlie Bartlett, Nick and Norah and Death 3
- RT Interview: Morgan Spurlock on the Personal, the Political and Osama bin Laden 2
- RT Interview: Jon Favreau on Iron Man, Effective CGI and the New Marvel Movies 14
- RT interview: Roger Deakins on No Country for Old Men 16
- RT Interview: Charlie Wilson 8
- RT Interview: Colm Meaney on Three and Out, Life on Mars and life after Trek 2
- Jackie Chan Picks His Five Favorite Movies -- And Only One of Them Stars Jackie Chan 16
- RT Interview: Director Baillie Walsh on Ziggy, Roxy and Daniel Craig in Flashbacks of a Fool 1
- RT Interview: Milo Ventimiglia Gets Dark in Pathology, Talks Role In Neveldine & Taylor's Game 7
- RT Interview: Daniel Craig on Bond, Growing Up and Fading Out in Hollywood 6
Latest Features
- George Lucas - A Super-Producer's History 37
- Uwe Boll's Five Favorite Films 77
- Indiana Jonesin': The Best of Harrison Ford 31
- Peter Segal Talks About His Five Fave Films 36
- New Line Cinema: A Retrospective 36
- Neil Marshall's 10 Post-Apocalyptic Picks 18
- Ole! Tour Mexico Through the Movies! 21
- The Ghost Stays in the Picture 6
- Exclusive: RT Visits the Set of An Education 0
- Exclusive: Anna Popplewell and William Moseley talk Prince Caspian 6





