Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"War of the Worlds" -- a Freeper Review (SPOILERS)
vanity | 6/29/05

Posted on 06/29/2005 12:59:23 PM PDT by pabianice

Just got back from the new version of "War of the Worlds." In short, this is an epic remake of the nifty 1953 version done by George Pal (later of "The Time Machine" with Rod Taylor, 1960). The FX are spectacular, of course, but the film just doesn't quite pull it off.

The story is shot through the eyes of Ray, Tom Cruise's character, so it lets a lot of action occur off stage. This tactic can do a lot for a story, but in Cruise's case, it doesn't work. His costars, including young Dakaota Fanning, are excellent, but ... we've seen it all before. Cruise looking desperate and put-upon. Fanning running the different shades of panic and dispair. Tim Robbins as a crazy pedophile (ok, this may just be good type-casting). A cast of hundreds of real extras and thousands of CGI people being vaporized -- neat, but again, we've seen it before, especially in the 1953 version.

This latest Spielberg version is just too full of logic and continuity holes to hold together. The alien Tripods have been buried here on Earth for tens or hindreds of thousands of years until they are activated today. WTF? Were the aliens waiting until we could fight back to launch their invasion, instead of easily taking-over 50,000 years ago? The aliens themselves ride lightening/EMP bolts down from space, arriving underground with the baggage of several thousand Gs. Can you say Puree of Alien? As in the 1953 version, the Tripods have protective force fields that deflect anything thrown at them. But when the aliens catch colds and start to die, they also conveniently manage to turn-off their shields so the remaining National Guard troops can take them out with Stingers and small arms fire. The EMP strikes fry all auto and machine electronics but leave cordless phones and video cameras running.

Even though this is a war movie, we get Hollywood's Guns are Bad! rap. When Cruise goes on the lam with his kids he takes his .357 with him, although he hides it from the kids because, you know, guns are 'bad.' When his car is hijacked and his family nearly killed, another character takes his gun and promptly murders a third with it (yes, guns are 'BAD,' even when you are trying to save your kids from being killed).

The aliens' death rays are wonderful eye candy, turning people into (antiseptic) flaming ash while leaving their clothes intact. Another WTF? Very 'green' and all. There are a lot of annoying gripes. A local ferry boat captain in one battle scene is wearing the cap of a US naval officer -- and the eagle is looking left -- something the US Navy changed in 1941. Oops X 2. Couldn't Spielberg do better than that?

As pure popcorn munching, the movie is fun and the tension holds up at a certain visceral level, but the mind is never engaged -- a requirement for the best movies. The major sets are great: a downed 747, horribly empty of bodies because everyone was vaporized in flight by that neat antiseptic death ray which, like the evil Neutron Bomb, kills people while leaving structures intact (apparently the Aliens like our architecture). The scene of the first Tripod breaking through the street and incinerating people is also a wonderful realization of set design. The cast does ok (although Fanning's wonderful horror expression is starting to get overused in movies), but again, with so many CGI people being vaporized, it all starts to glaze over. With the camera on Ray 100% of the time, his costars don't get to do very much. When Ray grabs some hand grenades, you know what he's gonna do: bring-down a Tripod that is trying to turn him into Soylent Red with which to fertilize Alien Kudzu (I am not making this up). It's kinda neat to see mashed humans being sprayed across the landscape like the operation of Lawn Doctor's evil twin, but human blood to fertilize plants from the planet Koosbane? Cummon! When the action finally moves to Boston, Spielberg is too lazy to recreate a view of Boston and we get action in what appears to be downtown Los Angeles. Maybe he just got tired.

My Freeper Rating: Hype: 9/10. Movie: 7/10. Spielberg could have done far better than remake a 52-year-old film that was pretty neat in its day. But then, most movie goers never saw the 1953 version. Their loss.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 last
To: Republican Red
Whatever part of me that wanted to see the movie has been obliterated.

That makes two of us. I refuse to contribute to the success of that Marxist idiot!

101 posted on 06/29/2005 11:41:41 PM PDT by ladyinred
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: DM1
As a kid, I saw the first when it came out. Needless to say, it scared the doo out of us.

As we stepped out into the Seattle dusk, there was an unusually bizarre pink sky. It added to the drama...They are coming!!!

It would have been easy to rationalize...Seattle...not raining...they are already in control!!!

102 posted on 06/29/2005 11:47:29 PM PDT by AWestCoaster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: eddie65

That's good to know - but I still see him in real life cowering under a table.


103 posted on 06/30/2005 2:28:23 AM PDT by R. Scott (Humanity i love you because when you're hard up you pawn your Intelligence to buy a drink.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom

No, Manhattan has no cheap theaters and they don't have cheaper matinee prices either.


104 posted on 06/30/2005 4:24:26 AM PDT by somerville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith
>The alien Tripods have been buried here on Earth for tens or hindreds of thousands of years until they are activated today. WTF?
>>WTF is right! Are you serious?! Geez, nothing like ripping the original story to shreds

When I heard this point,
I kinda figured it's a
Scientology

kind of metaphor --
the tripods are buried here
in the movie, but

in life aliens
are "buried" within us all . . .
(in L. Ron's thinking).

I've no idea
if the whole film can be "read"
via Hubbard-think

(don't think I'll see it)
but bet it's consistent with
Scientology.

105 posted on 06/30/2005 7:13:25 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
That was in the back of my mind also.

I wouldn't put ANYTHING past that group.

106 posted on 06/30/2005 7:32:35 AM PDT by Ladysmith ((NRA and SAS) WI Hunter Shootings: If you want on/off the WI Hunters ping list, please let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Ladysmith
>That was in the back of my mind also. I wouldn't put ANYTHING past that group

Mystery Scientology Theater

They came from within: How War of the Worlds anticipated the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard

by Jessica Winter
June 28th, 2005 12:21 PM

The ominous tagline in early trailers for the alien invasion blockbuster War of the Worlds was "They're Already Here"—but any learned Scientologist could have told you that long ago. As you may have heard, WOTW star Tom Cruise is a 20-year veteran of the Church of Scientology, which reportedly teaches that human beings contain clusters of "body thetans," or spirits, of aliens who died 75 million years ago in an intergalactic purge of overpopulated planets by the evil overlord Xenu. In Scientology-speak, these "BTs" adversely influence our thoughts and behavior, and must be "cleared" through "auditing," a form of confessional therapy. For Scientologists (whose Hollywood ranks now include John Travolta, Kirstie Alley, and Nancy Cartwright, the voice of Bart Simpson), battling creatures from space isn't just the stuff of allegorical multiplex spectacle—it's nothing less than the path to self-fulfillment.

War of the Worlds (opens June 29) is hardly Cruise's Battlefield Earth, but Steven Spielberg's film does make one Scientology-friendly tweak to H.G. Wells's 1898 novel of Martian attack (the aliens' war-making infrastructure has been implanted on earth for millions of years), and it's no wonder Cruise chose the movie as his first production to benefit from an on-site Scientology tent. "The volunteer Scientology ministers were there to help the sick and injured," Cruise told Der Spiegel, like a battle-weary soldier extolling the Red Cross; no word on whether the film's agon incited sympathetic revolts of BTs among cast and crew, though we can all cross our fingers that Katie Holmes's resident aliens, unbound by earthling non-disclosure agreements, will one day pen a tell-all book.

...

In his 1902 lecture "The Discovery of the Future," Wells endorsed the forward-thinker, who "thinks constantly and by preference of things to come," just like the "Clear" in advanced Scientology, who has rid himself of "engrams," or disabling imprints of past traumas. In Wells's War of the Worlds, Martians labor incessantly, with no apparent need for sleep or sex, and communicate telepathically; the Scientologist has a Calvinist work ethic, keeps his motor clean, and having reached the rarefied "Operating Thetan" levels (Cruise is allegedly an "OT6"), can learn to read minds. According to Hubbard, ailments ranging from the common cold to leukemia could be classified as merely psychosomatic; in Wells, the Martians have eliminated illness entirely. Were Wells's aliens the proto-Scientologists?

One of the more ironic aspects of Hubbard's—and now Cruise's—crusade against psychiatry is that Dianetics simply repackaged the basic Freudian concept of psychic determinism, whereby conflicts within the unconscious spill out into the open through irrational behaviors and psycho-somatic symptoms. Dianetics differentiates between the unconscious or "reactive" mind—"a single source of all your problems, stress, unhappiness and self-doubt"— and the "clear" mind, scrubbed of neuroses, with an enhanced IQ and near perfect recall. (Perhaps Katie will be able to remember exactly where and how she met her fiancé once she's further along in her auditing sessions.) A Scientologist reading of Wells would identify a sadly asymmetrical battle between Reactives and Clears, as wailing herds of hysterical humans respond to alien predation with mass panic while their cerebral, workaholic visitors calmly go about irradiating them.

Wells's narrator observes of the Martians, "The immediate pressure of necessity has brightened their intellects, enlarged their powers and hardened their hearts"—three for three on the Hubbard scoreboard. The Nation's 1950 review of Dianetics worried over "its conception of the amoral, detached, 100 percent efficient mechanical man," because such unaffiliated self-sufficiency "does not exist except in a psychotic state" (cf. Cruise's character in Collateral). Such concerns were apt regarding Hubbard, who would later declare that perceived enemies of the notoriously litigious Scientology organization could be "tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed," and who once wrote that a solution to low scorers on the Dianetics "tone scale" would be "to dispose of them quietly and without sorrow"—a notion Wells, a sometime advocate of eugenics, may not have found altogether abhorrent in other contexts.

On Hubbard's battlefields, you are either with us or against us, but the most grievous attacks are usually launched from within; paranoia is endemic, a perpetual night of a thousand engrams. In conjuring the angry viral ghosts called body thetans and mutating sci-fi into Scientology, Hubbard might have taken inspiration from Wells's shell-shocked narrator at The War of the Worlds' end, wandering a scorched and ruined London: "About me my imagination found a thousand noise-less enemies moving."

107 posted on 06/30/2005 7:44:25 AM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss
War of the Worlds (opens June 29) is hardly Cruise's Battlefield Earth, but Steven Spielberg's film does make one Scientology-friendly tweak to H.G. Wells's 1898 novel of Martian attack (the aliens' war-making infrastructure has been implanted on earth for millions of years)

Ugh! Figures! ANYTHING for a little self-promotion.

Thank you - now I know I won't even buy the DVD. Not one stinkin' penny to this pathetic cult!

108 posted on 06/30/2005 8:19:32 AM PDT by Ladysmith ((NRA and SAS) WI Hunter Shootings: If you want on/off the WI Hunters ping list, please let me know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: somerville

Geez, I'm in the expensive SF Bay area, and it seems like things are even more expensive there.

I think I would just have to wait and rent most movies.


109 posted on 06/30/2005 10:15:23 AM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: somerville

Why it doesn't work. (1) The cliched dysfunctional family: egotistical father, rebellious annoying son (see "The Day After Tomorrow"), (2) No story, peripheral "War", just repetitive hiding from aliens with Dakota Fanning screaming a lot, (3)Tim Robbins' character: One moment he says, "They've been planning this for a million years! This isn't a war! It's an extermination!" The next moment he says, ""We're the resistance! We can kill them!" (4)The ending. In both the Wells book and 1953 classic, the Martians' world is dying and they pick Earth as their best hope for repopulation, so their demise by bacteria is plausible and unexpected. In this version they'd been "planning this for a million years" with their war machines buried here forever, so you'd think they would have figured out that annoying microbe problem. (5) Tom Cruise is a one-note lightweight.


110 posted on 06/30/2005 10:17:17 AM PDT by sandbagger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss

Do they really belive in aliens and an overloard Xenu????


111 posted on 06/30/2005 10:17:49 AM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: sandbagger

You've convinced me. I am not going to see WOTW.

I recommend "Batman Begins."


112 posted on 06/30/2005 10:27:57 AM PDT by somerville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: somerville

you recommend batman begins over wotw.... so i hope your not seeing wotw because you have no interest and not tom cruise... because katie holmes will turn out to be just as crazy as him...


113 posted on 06/30/2005 1:09:43 PM PDT by MILO 82 (Dang! You got shocks, pegs... lucky! You ever take it off any sweet jumps?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: MILO 82

Katie Holmes has a very small part in Batman and they didn't ask her back for the sequel.

I haven't seen a Tom Cruise movie in years and years... I just don't like him. But WOTW doesn't interest me either.


114 posted on 06/30/2005 5:30:17 PM PDT by somerville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson