«9/11»: opinions in the movie

Even before the release of the wide-screen "9/11", a new drama about the terrorist attack of September 11, was accused of exploiting tragedy and other mortal sins, and one of the critics also called the film "the most aggressive of all" that he saw. the premiere situation only worsened: the picture was crushed by the press, and ordinary viewers were far from delighted. Well, let's figure out what's wrong with the "9/11".

World Trade Center, September 11, 2001. Five completely different people from different social groups are trapped in a broken elevator, stuck between floors in the South Tower. The northern tower has already been attacked, and before the attack on the building with the characters of the film there were only 17 minutes that will expire very quickly. Before the collapse of the twin towers there is only one and a half hours, and the main characters will have to make every effort not to succumb to panic and get out of the deadly trap. True, not everyone will be able to do this.

In principle, I agree with Western critics who called the "9/11" operational cinema. Yes, the story is focused on the five of the heroes fighting for their lives, but all the subtle moments that can cause the viewer to feel empathy are tied to the act of terrorism, not the personalities or actions of the leading characters. That is, it turns out that the main emotional message comes from the event and place of action, and not from the heroes, and this is too primitive to talk about its artistic value. For the sake of justice, Martin Gigi, the director of the picture, tried to make his characters more human, introducing the viewer to their small background, but it turned out to be frankly weak. And what can you tell about a man in five opening minutes, except for some trivial platitudes - a loving father, a tired wife, a repentant husband, etc. In the course of the film, the characters and characters of the main characters, of course, receive a few additional strokes, but still inadequate in order to begin to genuinely feel for them.

Somehow, the actors are trying to pull the situation, although I can with great stretch call someone other than Whoopi Goldberg, who plays too small a role for history, great talent. Yes, Charlie Sheen, tied up with alcohol and drugs, looks refreshed and tries to portray something on the screen, sometimes even convincingly, but this is still not enough. Gina Gershon tries harder, but her role is smaller than that of the same Shin. Luis Guzman once again plays out the archetypal Mexican, and if you once saw him in this role, then imagine his image in "9/11". A little stands out Olga Fund, nee Olga Chakova, quite plausible creating the image of a tired and captivated life of a professional woman with a whole heap of phobias, but in fact it is even smaller than Whoopi Goldberg.
Wood Harris, known primarily for his roles as bad guys, in the role of good, apparently, was lost and on the screen almost did not gleam, hammered into the corner of the elevator.

In fact, more to say about the "9/11" and nothing. If the filmmakers wanted to show a couple of personal tragedies against the background of the unfolding catastrophe, then they did not succeed. First of all, that very few people have been given too little time, and this despite the fact that 95% of the time-length of the picture is occupied by events in a locked elevator. If the filmmakers wanted to remind about the existence of terrorism, in today's world there are hardly people who need to be reminded of this. If the filmmakers wanted to just shoot something that will play on the feelings of the audience, then the direction, in general, it was chosen the right one, but then it was worth going to the side of documentary cinema and to take your task with great piety. Yes, and Charlie Sheen, a well-known supporter of the conspiracy version of the September 11 tragedy, would be happy much more.