ROTTEN TOMATOES: Critical Consensus: A Brave New "World," A "Step" Down, And No Screenings for "Pulse" and "Zoom" Comments

Critical Consensus: A Brave New "World," A "Step" Down, And No Screenings for "Pulse" and "Zoom"

by Tim Ryan | August 09, 2006

Summary

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? Back to Article

(1-49 of 49 posts) | Reply

the_NatureBoy_WOOOOO writes:
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)

knowingtoast85 writes:
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)

the_NatureBoy_WOOOOO writes:
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)

havoc_012 writes:
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)

jdobrole writes:
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)

plremcconn writes:
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)

killthemall4444 writes:
on Aug 10 2006 04:21 AM

In reply to this comment (#841841)
Dude no just no.

(Reply to this)

lockdicer writes:
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)

synergyred writes:
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)

dracus writes:
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)

Prog5000 writes:
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)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
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)

Zen Bullet writes:
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)

woot writes:
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)

dracus writes:
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)

the_NatureBoy_WOOOOO writes:
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)

aknddon3 writes:
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)

the_NatureBoy_WOOOOO writes:
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)

illinoise writes:
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)

godinanalcove writes:
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)

the_NatureBoy_WOOOOO writes:
on Aug 10 2006 02:10 PM

In reply to this comment (#841859)
I am saying that World Trade Center should be the better movie because ground zero is and always will be the most important part of 9/11. Like I said before, the men and women at ground zero were much braver because they had a choice. The people on Flight 93 knew they were going to die.

(Reply to this)

illinoise writes:
on Aug 10 2006 02:43 PM

In reply to this comment (#841861)
you are saying ground zero is the most important part of 9/11 because that's where the most people died. what if United 93 had reahced the White House? the decision of the people on the plane to prevent that from happening is extremely important. you are belittling their sacrifice, saying "it's what any good person would have done." well, men and women who went into the World Trade Centers to save lives were all doing their jobs. they did what any good firefighter, or policeman, or paramedic would have done. quanitifying one sacrifice as better than the other is incredibly disrespectful.

if you are saying that WTC should have been a better movie because the men and women who died deserve a better tribute, then i can understand that. just don't dishonor the other people who made sacrifices on that day by saying their heroics "pale in comparison" to the events at ground zero. and be happy that at least one, maybe two, good movies were made in their honor.

(Reply to this)

LordOfQuarters writes:
on Aug 10 2006 05:01 PM

In reply to this comment (#841861)
You fucking asshole. You're saying that the people on United 93 were only brave because they knew they were going to die? Sure, many people see the WTC attacks as darker and more horrific, and they most definitely are. But how can you say that no one really cares about United 93 when, no matter what their fate was, they chose not just to sit there and be afriad but to fight. People like you make me sick.

(Reply to this)

Master King Sexington writes:
on Aug 10 2006 05:14 PM

In reply to this comment (#841848)
hehe, stupider isn't a word. And your saying that was stupid. Ahh, levity inside such a grim forum

(Reply to this)

the_NatureBoy_WOOOOO writes:
on Aug 10 2006 05:27 PM

In reply to this comment (#841862)
"if you are saying that WTC should have been a better movie because the men and women who died deserve a better tribute, then i can understand that"

Thats exactly what I'm saying.

(Reply to this)

RT-Matt writes:
on Aug 10 2006 05:28 PM

In reply to this comment (#841862)
[b]Amen[/b]
I agree with Illinoise for the most part. You can't quantify courage and sacrifice. Anyone who made a sacrifice that day or acted selflessly is a hero.Both incidents were terrible and I believe we should show respect to both. In the meantime is anyone interested in the film? Or should we continue to argue who is right and wrong about sacrifice and heroism?

I think it looks pretty moving personally and plan to see it.

(Reply to this)

killthemall4444 writes:
on Aug 10 2006 05:34 PM

In reply to this comment (#841858)
Yes I definitely see what your saying but you just can't say that nobody cares about Flight 93 that's just going too far in making your point.

(Reply to this)

the_NatureBoy_WOOOOO writes:
on Aug 10 2006 05:40 PM

In reply to this comment (#841867)
"Yes I definitely see what your saying but you just can't say that nobody cares about Flight 93 that's just going too far in making your point."

I said that cause I was pi$$ed off about the negative feedback on WTC. I was really hoping that this would be the movie to beat this year.

(Reply to this)

Eternity writes:
on Aug 10 2006 06:12 PM

Pulse- 11%
Zoom- 13%

(Reply to this)

Eternity writes:
on Aug 10 2006 06:52 PM

Oh, Zoom WAS screened for critics.

http://filmforce.ign.com/articles/724/724788p1.html

(Reply to this)

MDB_88 writes:
on Aug 11 2006 01:40 AM

In reply to this comment (#841858)
THe reviews are not about the event u DUmb Shyt...... its about the quality of the movie...... Both events were terrible..... United 93 was the better movie. simple as that.... wats with all the "WTC was worse so it should get better reviews".... thats plain stupid..... United 93 involved you much more then WTC.... if greengrass directed WTC im sure it would get better reviews....

(Reply to this)

timov writes:
on Aug 11 2006 09:30 AM

[b]idiot[/b]
i still can't beliieve i just read that someone believes that Flight 93 was shot down...that the "evidence" points to that, and then to suggest that we do some research. pray tell...where the hell did you do YOUR research to believe that load of shit?! moron.

(Reply to this)

unbreakable_samurai writes:
on Aug 11 2006 10:42 AM

Zoom 14%
Pulse 27%

(Reply to this)

Reel 2/Dialogue 2 writes:
on Aug 11 2006 11:24 AM

[i]Zoom[/i] 11%
[i]Pulse[/i] 17%
[i]Stupid A[/i][i]s[/i][i]s Snakes on a Stupid A[/i][i]s[/i][i]s Plane[/i] 38%

(Reply to this)

woot writes:
on Aug 11 2006 02:28 PM

Wow you people are so brainwashed by the mainstream media that they don't even bother to look at the available documentation of the "crash site" that proves that a plain did not crash there. The debris was spread over an 8 mile trail, and many eye witnesses saw other planes, described as "military" in the area. Just because Fox News doesn't tell you something doesn't mean it's true.

Donald Rumsfeld himself admitted that 93 was shot down, but since the mainstream media didn't pick up on it nobody knows about it.

(Reply to this)

nordak writes:
on Aug 11 2006 03:05 PM

In reply to this comment (#841876)
First off, if he admitted to that EVERY media outlet would have latched onto it then and especially in the '04 election because it would be the biggest story of the disaster. And where is this available documentation on the crash site to support your claim? Or is this just some conspiracy that you thought sounded cool and latched onto?

(Reply to this)

haelohm writes:
on Aug 11 2006 06:14 PM

[b]wow...[/b]
the plane was NOT shot down that is ridiculous and if Rumsfeld had admitted it that bit of information would be EVERYWHERE.

And im not taking sides with the guy who said no one cares about 93, because I think they are also true heros, but there really are alot of people who dont know about that 4th plane that didnt make it to washington. The media made it out to be of lesser importance and really hyped up the WTC and Pentagon attacks. All the people involved were equally heroic, but the fact is that the WTC attack has a much higher rank in peoples minds as the big incident of 9-11.

(Reply to this)

BuckRogers writes:
on Aug 12 2006 05:14 AM

In reply to this comment (#841876)
The USA would never shoot down a plane packed full of people, that shit only happens in the movies dude...and conspiracy sites with an axe to grind.

(Reply to this)

mavfan1 writes:
on Aug 12 2006 09:32 AM

In reply to this comment (#841876)
[b]wake up woot[/b]
Woot, you're the one that's bought into lies. there's an organized group of wacko leftist anti-capitalists groups that genuinely hate the U.S. and worship Castro and Kim Jong-il and despise Bush that concocted this whole conspiracy thing because they're so convinced that the only country ini the world that can do anything evil is the USA. Therefore, wnen individuals do some evil against the USA it just doesn't fit into their world view and they have to come up with some other explanation that will put all the blame at the feet of the USA. People who are a little less strident in their ideology will say it's the USA's fault because we suppot Israel or because we've interfered in the mideast far too often. Those arguments have some merit. But the "true believers" the real far-left wackos (who are just as nuts as the far right wackos), aren't interested in the truth, they are interest in recriminations, revolution, etc.

Remember when Vincent Foster "supposedly" committed suicide? He was a lawyer working with the Clinton's on the whole Whitewater deal. There was a whole industry created by right wing wackos.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/foster.html

The very same people on the far left that are saying there was a 9-11 conspiracy were laughing at and discounting any idea that that Clinton's were involved in a conspiracty regarding Foster's death.

It comes down to this. If you hate an opponent/ideology enough you'll be willing to buy into the idea that that person/side would commit evil acts. It also allows you to, as a result, think of yourself as better than them or "on the right side".

I was listening to Pacifica radio here in San Jose (very left wing if you didn't know). they had a guy who had written about conspiracies of all kinds and he said no matter how much he might want to believe in a 9-11 conspiracy he just hadn't been able to find any credible evidence. Only heresay, coincidence and all out lies told by those that want weak-minded people to buy into their theories

(Reply to this)

curtis writes:
on Aug 12 2006 10:38 AM

Step up will be the number 1 film this weekend.

(Reply to this)

killthemall4444 writes:
on Aug 12 2006 04:38 PM

I think that Will Ferral movie is gonna come out on top again. Anyone looked at the reviews for Zoom? It's still got a 0% and it deserves nothing higher.

(Reply to this)

dudemovies writes:
on Aug 13 2006 06:36 AM

I seen Step Up it was a really fun movie. I enjoyed it a lot

(Reply to this)

haelohm writes:
on Aug 13 2006 10:52 AM

[b]step up...[/b]
step up is in second. It had big declines from Friday to Saturday to Sunday, and Talladega still takes the top.

(Reply to this)

daycare writes:
on Aug 13 2006 10:58 AM

Step up made way more than 8 million. This going to be a good mouth for AUG after all. Just wailt until next week. talladega only won by 2 million. Step up was in 1,000 theaters less than talladega. that is real good.

(Reply to this)

curtis writes:
on Aug 13 2006 11:04 AM

Talladega was in 3,87 theaters and made 23 million this weekend
Step up was in 2,467 theaters and made 21 million this weekend
WTC was in 2,800 theaters and made 19 million this weekend.
Pulse and Zoom, i am not even going to say.

Step did really good. From what i heard it is a good film. Ihave not seen the film yet but if Kevin Smith likes the film, it must be some what good.

(Reply to this)

Jbourne37 writes:
on Aug 13 2006 11:09 PM

In reply to this comment (#841860)
Your post makes no sense. It's just a bunch of random words. "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." Just look at that. Read it out loud, if you can. Does it make an ounce of sense. I can tell you're trying to get people riled up (yes i am as cold as natureboy, so murder me.), but no one is really going to give a shit if they can't understand you. Just trying to help you out. Although I kind of doubt you can read this. Let me translate for you: hey we are readers, if you cant spell we dont read. we not read or reading youre writing. maybe if you (dumass, iliterit) learn english, posts read, we write. oh wait, we dont care.

(Reply to this)

Master King Sexington writes:
on Aug 13 2006 11:45 PM

In reply to this comment (#841887)
I suspect that he is a version of Brad Pitt who is trapped in his role from Snatch, Mickey. Oh wait, at least Mickey was somewhat intelligible.

(Reply to this)

nogard64 writes:
on Aug 14 2006 12:04 AM

[b]wow shocked how bad this summers been![/b]
Zoom has a meter rating of ZERO!!!!! Can it get worse than that? How can a studio release a movie that bad??? Dont they usually go straight to video/DVD?
And look at Pulse, that looks bad too! SIGH!

(Reply to this)

chermoso writes:
on Aug 15 2006 02:59 PM

Putting all reflex emotional and political reactions aside and looking at the movie from a cinematic point of view, it is a very weak exercise. The first half is believable and has some feeling of authenticity to it but once the two leads are buried under the rubble and the film starts cutting back and forth between the men and their wives, the film turns into a run-of-the-mill Hollywood "family movie".

The flashbacks felt completely false and manipulative. Even that image of Jesus looked bogus (it llooked like a phallic symbol at first).

Something as momentous and earth-shattering as 9/11 deserves something more than a pedestrian and conventional Hollywood treatment.

(Reply to this)

Related Links

Oliver Stone

Related Articles

Most Discussed

Latest News

Latest Interviews

Latest Features

Sponsored Links