More on WTC

It looks like, as is often the case, New York Magazine's David Edelstein is the critic who comes closest to my views about WTC.

I was disturbed by this sudden shift in the movie’s scale, and not just because these scenes are so soap-opera manipulative. It was because my thoughts kept drifting to the tens of thousands of others (spouses, children, parents) who feared the worst and would hear the worst—or nothing at all, because the bodies of their loved ones would never be recovered. A true story of courage and survival, yes. But viewing the destruction of the World Trade Center—in a film called World Trade Center—through this kind of prism represents a distinctly Hollywood brand of tunnel vision.

And here's The Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern--never one to shy from harsh rhetoric--with an even more scathing review.

In between the prelude and the coda, though, the action, such as it is, consists of a patchwork narrative to which the filmmaker and his colleagues have brought the sensibility of an old-fashioned Hollywood disaster movie, and a mediocre one at that. The narrative is illuminated, from time to time, by flashes of genuine emotion. How could it not be, since its basis was the true, all but miraculous story of two Port Authority cops who found themselves trapped 20 feet below the rubble field and came out alive? Yet Mr. Stone's stolid direction and Andrea Berloff's tone-deaf script manage to give truth the ring of hackneyed fiction. What was meant to be inspirational is conventional at best, manipulative at worst and, quite incredibly, repetitive to the point of tedium in the long passages during which the anguished heroes await rescue or death.