Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Before diving into the usual roundup of reviews from Christian publications and websites, consider taking a moment to read a recent commentary by Michael Leary titled, "What on Earth is Christian Film Criticism?"

Leary, of The Matthew's House Project, offers his own thoughts on the subject, and he also invites readers to turn in their own definitions.

With those reflections in mind, we now return to our weekly review roundup:

In 2001, as the nation was reeling from the terrorist attacks that were broadcast on live television, writers, artists, and journalists contemplated how these events would affect different areas of our lives, and how things would change. Some of these writers asked whether Americans would lose their appetite for big-screen horror and violent entertainment. (I addressed this very question in two special editions of Film Forum, here and here.)

Almost five years later, very little has changed. Disaster movies are still big business, and moviegoers consistently make bloody horror movies into huge successes. Whether this is a good or a bad thing — that's open to discussion and debate. Some of these movies make money by sensationalizing violence and appealing to our appetite for excessive spectacle. Others give us perspective on terrorism and violence that proves meaningful and even comforting.

So it was inevitable that the event would inspire works of popular art and entertainment. In the days immediately following September 11, a familiar mantra was repeated by those who experienced it: "It was like a movie." Now … it is a movie. Two movies, in fact.

The first, United 93, directed by Paul Greengrass, has become one of the year's most highly acclaimed films, and there are already whispers about Oscar nominations—but the film's low box office numbers made its big-screen release short-lived. The second film, Oliver Stone's World Trade Center, opened last week, giving us different view of that these devastating events.

Christian film critics are giving the film positive reviews, impressed that Stone has reined in his tendency to provoke us with conspiracy theories and politics.

"Rather than impose his vision on the story, Stone allows himself to become the conduit through which their story is told," writes Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies). "This film has been compared to the films of Ron Howard—especially Apollo 13, which also tells a true story of men trapped in life-threatening circumstances and the loved ones who must watch it all on TV—but there is a sharpness to these scenes that cuts just a little deeper."

Chattaway, who also notes the film's "surprisingly high degree of Christian content," concludes: "Whatever hints Stone might be dropping, he has at least done a superb job of capturing on film what that awful day was like. There are missteps along the way … but for the most part, it works. If United 93 was the insider's version, with scenes set at command centers and aboard one of the hijacked planes, World Trade Center allows us to relive the experience from the outsider's point of view."

Steven D. Greydanus (Decent Films) compares the two films as well, and finds World Trade Center to be "more a sentimental melodrama than the story of an event. … Where Paul Greengrass's brilliant United 93 crafted a documentary-like anatomy of events without presuming to get inside people's heads or explain actions or motivations, World Trade Center is a more conventional Hollywood film, with dramatic dialogue, characters following clearly plotted arcs, and a swelling soundtrack to reinforce the mood."

next page... |  1 of 3

share this page

August (Web-only) 2006, Vol. 50