“World Trade Center”, in telling its personal story of the survival of two Port Authority Police Officers (John McLoughlin and Will Jimeno, played by Nicholas Cage and Michael Pena), sticks so close to the true facts that one detects virtually no wiggle room for cinematic liberties. This is not to say that Stone follows the conventional wisdom so popular right now, that such hard-hitting material is best shot in that hand-held verite documentary style, in which the director renders himself invisible in deference to the feeling of uncompromising “reality”. (See the beginning of “Saving Private Ryan”, or, I’m told, the other recent 9/11 film, “United 93”.) No, Stone never quite disappears, as he generally shuns the above technique and opts for more traditional stationary camera and dolly set-ups, interspersed with only the occasional provocative imagery. It’s hard to say whether this approach is right or wrong, but I do know that the handful of moments that Stone makes his directorial presence known, it does feel ever so slightly… wrong.

Take for example his seemingly restrained depiction of the actual collision of the first plane. We see a sudden and ominous shadow of a passenger jet soar over the heads of one of our characters as he goes about his business, accompanied by a loud engine roar. Cut to a quiet, gleaming static shot of the twin towers in the sunlight, not being hit, but rather ready for their “Sex in the City” opening credits shot. This is a wildly impressionistic move, leaving the actual impact to our imaginations and memories. On the whole, this film is more impressionistic than visceral as it deals with recollections and feelings still strong, collectively and personally. Yes, there are moments of wild-camera reality, such as when the cops arrive to the building to find panicked people running, screaming, covered in blood. But for the most part, we end up with the same two shots of Cage & Pena’s faces as they are pinned under tons and tons of rubble. These moments cut back and forth to their worried wives and families, as they try to navigate this hellish day.

On the whole, the movie works on the level it operates. This is despite a handful of ham-fisted moments that nearly elicit unintentional laughter. (Such as when Cage, upon realization that the tower is collapsing, turns and, as dramatically as possible, yells “RUUUUUUN!”) It is not my intention to shun this film for being un-ironic, which it very intentionally is. Despite that many of us know the outcome for the trapped characters, this is a true tale of extreme survival at its heart. Cage and Pena, despite having the bulk of the tools in their actor’s toolkits off limits by virtue of being reduced to dust-covered heads for most of their screen time, do a fine job in their respective parts. Maggie Gyllenhaal and Maria Bello do their jobs of communicating the gravity of their husbands absence and silence, quietly transcending the usually thankless roles of worried wives. Michael Shannon, in the most interesting part, plays a heroic former Marine who is compelled by his Christian faith to go and help at ground zero. This character is all the more interesting when considering the director’s own past cynical depictions of Christianity and the military. This is not to say these institutions are wholly embraced this time around, as Shannon’s final lines about avenging 9/11 could be interpreted as hypocritical of a man of faith, and drawing parallels between Christianity and the U.S. military actions that followed. But that is probably reading too much into it for most viewers, who will see the film as the simple survival story that it is.

It’s really weird to say, but “World Trade Center”’s greatest fault is that it ultimately doesn’t feel tragic enough. Despite the fact that as the film begins, as we watch these men obliviously driving to work with pits in our stomachs, well aware of what lies ahead for them, it ultimately settles into an impressionistic study in being trapped, awaiting rescue, and finally, unabashed sentimentality. That Stone mostly avoids his signature visual flourishes (no unexplained cutaways to Indians, no sudden changes to grainy film stock or jarring color filters), only including Jimeno’s brief strange vision of Jesus carrying a bottle of water – something so odd it had to derive from actuality – is, in the end, to his credit. It shows a certain maturity and willingness to simply tell a story, and tell it effectively. He does briefly indulge in a little bit of conspiracy theory with a throwaway line about the Pentagon having been hit “by a missile”, but that is another film for a later time for him. We do get the notions of American consumerism, epitomized by the financial significance of the targeted towers, when the Police Officers embark on their seemingly endless rescue trek through the WTC concourse, which seems to essentially be a shopping mall. When it collapses, however, you really witness what it must’ve been like to have a skyscraper suddenly come down on you.

The biggest surprise of “World Trade Center’ is what it isn’t. No political observations, no solid conspiracy notions, no twisted patriotism, and not even any barbs against the war on terror that spun out of 9/11. Whether history deems this an “important movie” the way that “United 93” seems to have emerged, only time will tell. Like most Stone films, this one will have plenty of detractors, but for the first time, the criticism will likely be for his newfound restraint. Of course, I’m sure his inevitable DVD commentary track will give us all kinds of wacky Stone logic that he buried deep between the lines. I’m sure that will be one heck of a track. But until then, this is a film that deserves to be experienced on the big screen. On the whole, the movie is positively effective, if far from perfect.

- Jim Tudor