The discussion forums on IMDB.com about Oliver Stone's World Trade Center make the point very clear: if you don't appreciate the fact that a movie was made in honor of the victims of the world trade center attack on September 11, 2001, you are un-American. You're a traitor. You're a stupid foreigner. You're just asking for trouble. It brings to mind the with-us-or-against-us policy that the White House itself has followed for the last five years, with the war on terror.

There are a few who criticize not the fact that a movie was made in the victims' honor; rather that it was a product released to simply capitalize on grief and make money. While this stance won't get you booed out of the forum at IMDB, it will provoke many posters into explaining the truth of the matter: all Hollywood films are made to make money anyway. Why not honor the memory of these victims with a movie showing the real story behind the courage and heroism of the firefighters who died in the ultimate act of patriotism?

Then there are skeptic like me, who although I haven't posted anything on the subject, I will choose to blog about the potentially explosive topic by questioning the obvious: Why is Oliver Stone directing this movie? Oliver Stone in recent years has been the instigator of controversy and the ultimate cinematic truth seeker whose fearless sensationalist reporting style has inspired everyone from The X-Files Chris Carter to Michael Moore's new bad-fat-ass image. He shook up the world with JFK, not content that America assured him that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone in assassinating President Kennedy. In Natural Born Killers he undoubtedly achieved a psychedelic masterpiece of genuine American criticism, that no filmmaker has ever reached until most recently Lars Von Trier in Dogville. In his follow up pieces, Nixon and Any Given Sunday, while not hitting the creative peak of JFK or NBK, he did successfully manage to keep his name synonymous with controversy and the search for truth.

I sense from the marketing campaign that Oliver Stone exercised a great deal of restraint in making this film. This work will most likely be in the spirit of Platoon or Born Of The Fourth Of July. That is, a movie intent on presenting to you an authentic experience, as opposed to offering any new insight on the matter. It is very possible that Stone felt the pulse of America at the moment and held back; any conspiracy theory film on September 11th could still be seen as a case of "too much too soon." After all, it took decades before America was ready to release a cinematic earth shaker like JFK. Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 911 didn't even go there--it only briefly alluded to the unanswered terrorist attack while focusing most of its attention on the Bush administration and the war on terror.

What I sense that Stone is doing is simply sticking to his tradition of presenting a genuine peace of Americana, even while not hammering the issue on a nation that is still wounded. Whether his films underwhelm or stir up the country, they are all undeniably American and seem to reflect the nation's mood with every well timed release.

So I won't criticize Stone for "selling out" as some opinionated posters have insinuated he has done, for un-daring to make a predictable film about true heroism. It does not feel like Oliver Stone's best--but it does still have the director's trademark patriotism stamped all over it. Nevertheless, I still have my early qualms about the movie. I think it might be a mistake to cast Nicholas Cage in a leading role that requires heart. Nicholas Cage is a good actor when cast properly, but possibly thinks too highly of his talent. He was brilliant in films like Raising Arizona and Leaving Las Vegas, in playing a man that is just barely human struggling in some form to keep living. In World Trade Center, he will be playing a man that is alive and well and facing the possibility of death. It will be interesting to see if Cage can play it straight and convincingly.

The other point that bothers me is the predictability. I do hope this film offers something beyond what I expect it to be--a sensational and realistic reenactment of a tragedy. World Trade Center will come months after United 93, a modestly successful film, which proved two things about the American movie going public: nobody is really anxious to see a slew of anti-terrorist films, and yet life goes on after tragedy, and a movie about the courage of fallen 911 heroes could be made.

What I like most about Oliver Stone is his courage to tell a true story. Hopefully, he will bring something surprising to the otherwise depressing and predictable subject matter. It can be done--the minimally talented director James Cameron proved capable of bringing new and surprising material out of the well-known Titanic tragedy. Stone is worlds above Cameron in directing ability; so here's hoping his American spirit will kick in.