Critics have been kinder to Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" than a lot of viewers. The words "stupid" and "boring" have been used. It appeals only to those who are patient and can understand why this two-hour-plus film has avoided looking like a Hollywood blockbuster.

It's shot like a documentary, devoid of pomp and pageantry.

Despite the title, Stone has not attempted a spectacular replay of 9/11 attack on New York that killed 3,000 people.

In fact, he's done quite the opposite, pointing his cameras at two true-life policemen with New York's Port Authority who were trapped inside the rubble after the twin towers collapsed.

US censors trimmed four minutes from the original, obliterating parts that prudish viewers disliked, which was a colossal mistake - Stone's films are not Disney films.

But the movie's worst trait is its Disney-like treatment. Sure, there are scary moments, but nothing truly frightening. Worse, there is absolutely nothing shocking, though there should be. The actual jet strikes are never depicted, not even via a TV screen in the background.

This absence of violence has the effect of toning down the magnitude of the disaster and stifles the film.

Still, it demands viewing. Nicolas Cage and Michael Pena play the trapped policemen masterfully. Equally excellent are Maria Bello and Maggie Gyllenhaal as their wives.

All the actors Stone uses are very good and credible.

Stone appears to go all out to celebrate New York's citizens, thereby shelving any strong political viewpoints. There is no clear condemnation of anyone, either of the terrorists or inept politicians who underestimated the threat.

Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" points more fingers at the relevant authorities.

Stone's movie is really about the average Joe who paid a heavy price for America's backfiring foreign policy.

While there are those who complain the film is making money from the misery of others, "World Trade Center" has done quite the contrary.

If victims see the film, they will walk away respecting Stone for exploiting little of the calamity - which is amazing, considering how he conveniently distorted facts in his "JFK" to appease Kennedy supporters.

Also, the film's timing is not so bad. To make it at a later date would have placed the accuracy of the story at risk.

As historians and journalists know, the longer one reports events, the more inaccurate they become.

In doing the movie quickly, the real-life characters were there to verify facts and answer questions.

If anything, the film should be shown to audiences in Muslim countries. It is not propaganda, surprisingly. It is a statement - that people who pay for the blunders of greedy businesses and warmongers should not be the working-class who have no idea what goes on outside their communities.

By Hanuman