9/11

There is no good place to start, as every aspect of filmmaking here was done wrong, so I'll name a few random points to paint you a picture: 1) There's a shot of Whoopi Goldberg walking down the street that looks like a shot from Birdemic. 2) Charlie Sheen's response to the courier randomly blurting out that Filipinos are the worst drivers because they're Asian is "Well that makes sense; the Phillipines are considered to be in Asia, so....*mumbles*". 3) Every shot of the towers is stock news footage. 4) Every 10 minutes the wife character has an emotional outburst in what is supposed to be a dramatic scene, but they cast a woman with a botox-frozen face to play her.

The acting is on the same level as Two and a Half Men, but whereas that is a sitcom that people watch for quick, cheap laughs, this movie is trying to be a serious drama. It switches from cringeworthy acting and dialog (that honestly made me laugh), to scenes of people crying while watching the towers collapsing. Instead of writing characters that we could care about, which would have led to some emotional weight, this movie tries to cheat its way to emotional weight by showing you stock news footage and some pretend firefighters running around, as if to say "Hey, remember THAT day? Sad, right? Remember how freaked out everyone was?".

I saw this movie on 9/11 and there was no one else in the theater besides me. The movie felt very cheaply made and Charlie Sheen's performance was pretty laughable. Lots of monologues in this film that dragged on and characters I cared very little about, even if they were supposed to be victims of a real event. The whole concept of a movie about being trapped in an elevator is a bad idea for a movie, adding on top a real tragedy just makes it even more tasteless. Fictional characters don't belong in a movie about a tragedy so recent.

Well, one thing does linger in the mind after having seen this 2017 movie titled "9/11", and that is if this movie was necessary? I mean, did we really need another movie based on those tragic events?

And of course the answer to that is individual. Some will say yes, some will say no, and some will be indifferent. I sat down to watch the movie in terms of it being a movie meant for entertainment purposes. So on that account, then I must say that I didn't really feel that "9/11" was a movie that was necessary. But hey, it was here and available, so of course I sat down to watch it.

Writers Martin Guigui and Steven James Golebiowski came up with a semi-adequate storyline and script. Sure, the movie was watchable, but it wasn't exactly an overly thrilling or all that interesting storyline. And it was a fairly predictable one at that, just to add insult to injury.

While the movie does have some pretty interesting names on the cast list, with the likes of Charlie Sheen, Whoopi Goldberg, Luis Guzmán and Bruce Davison, it just wasn't a movie that boasted particularly over-the-top impressive acting performances. It felt like people were running on auto-pilot here for the most of the time.

"9/11" is a movie that I will not be returning to watch a second time. First of all, the storyline just doesn't have the contents to support more than a single viewing. But the movie also just feels wholly and very unnecessary. I suppose having a mental picture of the horrors that took place on that day is better than something like this 2017 movie titled "9/11".

If you watch "9/11" because you are interesting in the historical aspects of that horrible tragedy, then believe me when I say that "9/11" is not going to be parting with any such historical facts on the screen.

"9/11" - if you take out the fact that it is based on a real life tragedy - is essentially just another run-of-the-mill people get stuck inside an elevator during some type of catastrophe movie. Sad to say so, but that is the truth.

Sure, I can respect and honor the dedication to the first responders and the victims of the tragedy, but this movie just didn't do much of anything aside from cashing in on a tragedy in order to make a buck.

All in all, "9/11" is a watchable movie, but one that failed to leave a lasting impression. And I doubt that I will be remembering this movie a year down the line from now. My rating of director Martin Guigui's 2017 movie lands on a very mediocre five out of ten stars.

Apparently, it took over six production entities to put this THING together.

It's horrendous on every level. Script, production, performances. It looks extremely cheap. Why were these actors willing to be attached to such a sub-par film?

In the opening shot, they show a building that didn't even exist in 2001. When Whoopi is seen "walking down the street toward the towers," it is one of the worst green screen shots imaginable.

Terrible acting. Even the extras are distracting.

The lighting is inept.

Based on a play, and it is obvious. Almost TWENTY listed "producers," which means that most of them financed the film. The credits for almost everyone in the crew consist mainly of "shorts," and garbage films.

Bad, bad, bad, bad, BAD.

9/11 (2017)

** (out of 4)

Jeffrey Cage (Charlie Sheen) and his wife (Gina Gershon) are in the North Tower of the World Trade Center where she is wanting him to sign some divorce papers. The two of them get on an elevator shared with Michael (Wood Harris), Tina (Olga Fonda) and Eddie (Luis Guzman) when they feel a violent shake and the elevator gets stuck. They soon learn from an elevator worker (Whoopi Goldberg) what is going on outside.

9/11 got released to some of the worst reviews that you're ever going to read. This was meant to be Sheen's big dramatic comeback picture but it barely got a release and what critics did see the picture really ripped it to pieces. Some called it a shameful piece of exploitation while others just called it a poorly made and acted film. This obviously wasn't the first film to take on that day and it wasn't even the first to use the 9/11 title. With that being said, the film certainly has some major flaws but at the same time it's not quite as bad as they made it out to be.

I think the biggest problem with the film is that the screenplay is based on fiction. There are so many stories of bravery that day and I'm not sure why the writer would elect to tell a fake story. Did they not want to pay someone for their story? I'm not sure what their reasons were but they picked a pretty poor story that would have been better suited for an Irwin Allen disaster picture. The entire subplot of the divorce leads to some very silly scenes and some even poorer dialogue. I won't ruin what happens to the people in the elevator but the ending is pretty bad on many levels.

With that said, I must say that I thought the performances were good for the most part and that includes the actors playing the people in the elevator. I thought Guzman was extremely good in his role as was Harris. Sheen also had some decent moments but I don't think the performance is what he would have hoped for. None of the actors were done any favors though because the dialogue is just pretty poor at times and the director never really builds up any tension throughout the time we're with these people in the elevator.

Another problem was that the film was shot 2.35:1, which really wasn't a wise move in a film like this where you're meant to feel claustrophobic in a tight space. It seems like I'm bashing most of the film but I will say that it held my attention throughout. The film was obviously working with a very small budget, which didn't help things and while the film isn't a success, I think it's bad reputation is a bit too harsh.