 |
|
|
|
|
War of the Worlds, 2005 |
|
War of the Worlds, 2005This film had some of the biggest swings between scoring extremes of any film I've ever reviewed. Furthermore, while I didn't like the overall result that well, I think Spielberg made just the movie he wanted to make, and I can't really say how I'd improve it without turning it into a completely different film. Spielberg's intention was clearly to make an action movie with a human core, and while that's the case with almost every action film, in this case Spielberg went further in that direction than most. WotW is basically Jurassic Park with alien robots instead of dinosaurs, and once again we've got a man who's not a good father, yet is thrown into the protector role with two children depending on him for survival. I found the whiny kids (especially the girl) the most annoying thing in Jurassic Park, and while the kids aren't as whiny in WotW, the biggest change is the scope of the action. These gigantic Martian (or wherever) robots are stomping across the entire world and lasering millions or billions of people, and yet 90% of the film is character stuff about Cruise and his kids. Spielberg's intention was clearly to show this world invasion through the eyes of one family, and he did, but I was much more interested in seeing how things were going on the larger scale, and I didn't much care about Cruise and his kids. After all, they're just three people, and whether they live or die makes no difference in the larger scheme of things. Why should I care so much about them when the whole rest of the world is dying too? If you get really involved with individual struggles and want to root for one family, then you'll probably enjoy the film a lot more than me. I was much more curious about the wider aspect of things, and would have enjoyed the film far more if it had still had the long stretches of Cruise and kids driving, or bickering, or hiding in a basement, while also throwing in some scenes of the worldwide alien resistance effort, maps of the world as it was being conquered, some political leaders doing what they could, scientists talking about the events, etc. I guess that would have turned it into every other disaster movie; The Day After Tomorrow with robots, but much to my surprise, I liked that movie better than WotW. I suppose that WotW was a much more realistic film in terms of "what it would be like" for a family to live through something like this. They were scared and confused and clueless almost the entire time, they had an almost complete lack of knowledge about what was actually happening, and they had no real thought other than to get away or survive. Cruise's kid wanted to fight back, but that desire was just as clueless and confused as everything else in the film, since he had no weapons and no strategy beyond teeth-baring teenage defiance. Some more comments on the scores. Script/Story: 4 There wasn't anything really awful about the writing or the story; the script wasn't a George Lucas-esque dialogue disaster or anything. And it actually moved along pretty well and made sense. It just wasn't ever really any good. I don't remember a single line in the film that made me laugh or cheer, and since I never really cared about any of the leads, I guess I've got to blame the story for that. Acting/Casting: 5 No one was awful, and they all did pretty much what I expected them to do. I did wonder why Spielberg put Cruise in this one, since, if the early reports are true, Cruise got something like 10% of the film's gross. He wasn't bad, and was pretty good in a few scenes, but really, any adult male actor could have played the roll, and one with more gravitas and less pretty boy would probably have been better, while costing several hundred million dollars less. The role worked for Cruise because the guy he's playing is sort of a cocky, grown up man-child. He lives like a teenager, he doesn't take responsibility at his job or in his personal life, and while his survival skills are more honed than those of most of the suburban sheep around him, he's far from a warrior or survivalist. So it's basically the Tom Cruise character, tempered by dependent children and honed by a tragedy that forces him to grow up. He handled that transition pretty well as an actor, and he seems more of an adult at the end than at the beginning, but really, it was nothing any half decent actor couldn't have done. And I can't believe the box office boost his name puts on a film (especially after his very public early-2005 mental breakdown) was worth what they were paying him; not with this sort of summer disaster pic film, and Spielberg's name on it as the director. Action: 9 Clearly the film's strong suit. There's actually not that much of it, with so much character stuff (mostly hiding and having earnest conversations while hiding), and lots of the action was completely silly and illogical and improbable (more on that below, in the spoilers section), but damn was it fun to watch and pretty on the eyes. In fact, the relative scarcity of the action probably improved it. With twenty minute lulls between terrifying shots of the alien tripods wreaking havoc, it was more of a jolt when the craziness began again. Humor: 4 Not really a score worth paying any attention to. The film was largely humorless, but you probably weren't expecting a lot of laughs anyway. It's definitely grimmer than usual for Spielberg though, and Cruise's character had none of Indiana Jones' sneer or swagger or wisecracks. Those would have helped lighten the mood, but I don't think Spielberg wanted it lightened. This movie is much more Shindler's List than Indiana Jones, in tone. Horror: 4 It wasn't trying to be a horror movie any more than a comedy, but while the comedy score was based on the lack of laughs, this one could have been higher. There was a lot of stuff that could have been scary, but it wasn't directed to be that way. Almost all of the humans who die are puffed instantly into smoke, and when people run they're just trying to get away from things almost as if a force of nature were pursuing them. It's not personal with the aliens; they're just here to kill us all (apparently; there's nothing ever said of their actual motives) and take over our world, which is why it's not scary. WotW is the difference between running from a fire that burns at random, and running from an axe murderer who wants you personally. Eye Candy: 8 A score given entirely for the robot destruction and such. The special effects are glorious, and some of the sets of destroyed houses, a plane crash, etc were glorious. Overall though, it's a pretty ugly picture, set largely in the cement hell of New Jersey, or the cold, rainy, miserable autumnal woods of the East Coast. I thought the prettiest landscape, scenery, or long shot in the entire film was near the end, when the Martian red fungus vine stuff was growing and taking over the world, and they showed Cruise looking down a long hill and all the way to the horizon the ground was red-tinged and covered in creeping stuff. Fun Factor: 5 It's a grim and gloomy downer of a picture, filled with struggle and suffering and the boredom of waiting for likely death. The action pieces made it worth watching and were quite glorious in of themselves, but even when the aliens start losing some of the fights it's never a cheer-along-in-triumph sort of picture. Replayability: 3 It's purely useful as action porn. If I had this on DVD right now I'd re-watch the entire film in maybe 15 or 20 minutes, as I skimmed from robot battle to robot battle, but I'd skip all the rest. All the rest. Must See On The Bigscreen: 9 This is the highest score I've ever given in this category, since in my opinion the film really isn't worth watching except for the action and destruction stuff. And since that stuff looks far better on the huge movie screen... Overall: 5.5Eh. I guess I'm glad I saw it, and I wasn't bored or miserable during it, but I would be very bored during a second viewing. It hardly had any suspense the first time through. The performances aren't bad, but the overall plot just isn't very compelling. Will asshole dad and his two kids survive? Who really cares, when the entire world is burning and they're not special or powerful people anyway? Spoilers: As I often say, I don't have an "physical impossibilities" rating, but if I did this film would come in pretty high on it. It's not just physical stuff though, I mean the physics weren't so bad in this film, just the logic, especially the logic of the aliens. What did they want? Apparently to take over the world and kill off all of the humans, but if that was their goal why did they go about it so haphazardly? Do they want the buildings gone, or just the people? Why didn't they use some sort of poison gas to kill us all off instantly? Why attack such random locations; cities and countryside and such, rather than going for military bases or concentrating on major cities, where the population density is much greater? The complete lack of focus by the aliens fits pretty well with the rest of the film, and in fact it sort of compliments the "run like an animal" strategy that most people were reduced to. Perhaps there was a brilliant over-arching plan by the invaders, but if so it wasn't one we could see from the ground level at which the film was presented. I never got much of a hint of one, and that's where multiple viewpoints would have come in handy, since if we'd had scenes with military guys talking about the aliens' attack strategy, and then cut to an individual attack while Cruise ran for his life, it would have made more sense and seemed part of a whole, rather than just one random scene after another. I could fill a page with additional questions about the aliens. For example, why are they using tripod walkers, when their legs are inherently unstable (why not 4 or 5 or 10 legs, if they're going to use feet and not hovercraft, or wheels, or tank treads, or whatever)? Why do the humans never attack their feet, or try to trip the robots, or blow up the ground in front of them, or try EMP attacks at them? Or have foot soldiers run under them and blow up inside their shields? Roadside bombs like they're using to such effect in Iraq? Why don't the aliens use their EMP attacks again, to disable the human machines as they did during their first landing? Isn't it a colossal waste of energy to fire out those giant plasma bolts and just hit one or two people with each one? Why isn't their mothership(s?) providing more support, after launching all of those little pilot pods down into the ground? The biggest question of all, of course, is why the aliens sent their invading guys down without survival suits, or safe food and water. Perhaps back in the 1930s, when the original story was written, it seemed reasonable that some invaders with more advanced technology would come along and attack us before being undone by their lack of immunity to earth viruses. Now however, knowing as much as we do about disease and bacteria, it's just absurd. The aliens stashed hundreds of impractical robots beneath the surface of the earth thousands of years ago, but they didn't take any water or air samples? They didn't send down a small crew first to see if they lived before beginning their whole invasion? It's just so incredibly dumb of them. Imagine if Neil Armstrong had leapt out of the lunar lander in shorts and sandals? I've heard conflicting reports on the potential for a sequel or two, but if they did one, it might actually be a far more interesting movie. I'd dump Tom Cruise from it, first thing. There has to be an alien mothership or ten floating around up there, and there have to be lots more alien craft underground. Was this just phase one of their offensive, with the really big weapons to come next? Will they learn from their mistakes and not drink leaking sewer water and breathe dirty air next time? Will humans get ahold of their disabled tripods and modify their weapons to use against them? If so, a sequel could really be a great film, building on the overly-personal and small scale introductary film. Not that I'm holding my breath, mind you. |
|
| Originally posted July 3, 2005. See comments there or mail them here. |
|
All site content copyright "Flux" (Eric Bruce), 2002-2007. |
