Posted on 06/29/2005 6:02:40 PM PDT by zook
Alien Reality It takes you there, and makes you feel it.
I didnt think it was possible to make movies like this any more. War of the Worlds is an almost perfectly realized movie of the classic aliens-attack type: satisfying, believable, and very, very scary. It comes so close to perfection that a long list of accolades are going to have to be cleared out of the way before we get around to that almost.
Ray Ferrier, a dockworker, has just gotten charge of his kids for the weekend, as his ex-wife and her new husband head off for a weekend at her moms. The teenaged son, Robbie (Justin Chatwin), is resentful and rude; the ten-year-old daughter, Rachel (Dakota Fanning), is a bit too world-weary for someone still carrying plastic ponies around. (After Ray blows up at Robbie she informs her dad, Youre never going to get through to him that way.)
We get a couple of hints from an overheard news broadcast that somewhere in the Ukraine (didnt they drop the the years ago?) there have been solar flares and power outages. But then a curious thing starts to happen in the local neighborhood. Ray is exhilarated to watch a gusty whirl of gray in the sky, which pulls the wind toward it and sends all the backyard laundry flapping. Its like the Fourth of July! he tells Rachel; she, quite sensibly scared, replies, No, it isnt.
Thats the last time anything in this movie is remotely normal. As the extent of the alien attack becomes increasingly apparent, the situation shoots to the level of hopeless and stays there. Rays goal becomes simply to get his children safely back to their mother. Rather than unfolding a storyline, it is a series of harrowing experiences, one after another. Which is, truthfully, what living something like this would be like.
Thats most impressive thing about what director Steven Spielberg has done here: This crazy story about space aliens destroying the earth is so realistic. We never know anything more than what Ray knows, and he doesnt know much. Decisions are as agonizing and unclear to us as they are to him. He trudges day after day, exhausted and filthy, and we too feel the interminable and hopeless nature of his quest. In its own way, War of the Worlds is like the harrowing first 20 minutes of Saving Private Ryan (of which Spielberg was producer). It takes you there, and makes you feel it.
When Ray walks past a wall adorned, as Manhattan was after September 11, with notices begging for help in locating lost relatives, we think, Yes, thats what it would be like. When Rachel and her dad argue over her need to have privacy for a roadside potty break, and his need to have her never out of his sight, we know thats just the kind of thing that would happen. When they encounter people along the way who are kind, or who are suddenly and alarmingly vicious, or who are something strangely in-between (a great performance by Tim Robbins), we know we would meet that range of characters too.
Steven Spielberg has wisely located the power of this story, not in the size of the aliens or their destructive powers, but in how such threats would make us feel. Other directors trust the effects to be big and noisy enough to elicit these emotions, but Spielberg has set his sights on the subjective, experiential feel of the story itself. Its a terrible temptation that now, with computer images, there are no limits to special effects; you can make an explosion 30-feet high, or 300, or more, so why not go for the biggest bang you can get for the buck? But a super-size wowzer like that becomes a distraction, breaking the bounds of the story and taking on separate existence as a mere object of gawking. Spielberg tames the effects and makes them serve the story. By exercising restraint he manages to make even a movie about invading aliens, in some sense, realistic.
Only almost perfect? The ending is a little sweeter than it needed to be, and a little clunky for that, but its not a serious flaw. If anything, Spielbergs pursuit of you are there realism is too relentless. He wisely forgoes scenes that would constitute comic relief, but also gives us little in the way of character development, and nothing truly develops in the plot. The misery and anxiety-saturated atmosphere is so endless that we never get a break no moments of hope or beauty, that would give us a breather. Halfway through the movie I scribbled this note: Along about here I got tired of being scared. I was tired of being at this pitch of tension for so long, tired of worrying about these people, and not knowing what horrific thing would happen next. But real life wouldnt give us a break, and Spielberg doesnt either. Few movies about flying saucers and bug-eyed aliens tell us such true things about human nature. War of the Worlds sets a new standard for space-age classics; its in a universe of its own.
Frederica Mathewes-Green writes regularly for NPR's Morning Edition, Beliefnet.com, Christianity Today, and other publications. She is the author of Gender: Men, Women, Sex and Feminism, among other books.
Just as long as they don't sent any Aliens to Gitmo!
By the way, do we have any weapons to stop the aliens or we helpless as is the case in most of these sci-fi movies.
Thanks to all for the replies. I should have understood the initials based on their tech application.
I guess having 3 kids and a country house has taken its toll on my movie trivia knowledge!
I haven't forgotten it.
To Americans' credit, hardly any other society would have reacted the way Americans did on 9/11.
But WOTW paints a different scenario. There's only somuch even the most cohesive, self-confident society can take. And when that snaps, the besest parts of human nature come to the fore.
That's the way it's been since the Fall. Nothing un-Christian in recognizing that.
He was grandpa at the end.
No kidding? It seems like some posters believe Cruise did a decent acting job on the character. Of course, I was never a big fan of Cruise to begin with.
I enjoy a good sci-fi movie every now and then, but this one doesn't seem worth it to me. Some of my friends have seen it. One enjoyed it, but the others claimed it was so, so--nothing to rave (or rant) about. The old 1953 version of War of the Worlds was a pretty good film for its day.
Spielberg still makes an incredible movie and TV series now and then--regardless of his leftist politics. His most recent film isn't calling out to me to spend the time or bucks. Maybe...just maybe, I'll rent it in the future.
If you rent it and watch it on a regular TV, I think you might miss out on a lot of its power. I saw it for $5.50 at a matinee. For me it was a good investment!
"He was grandpa at the end."
Oh! They should have given him something to say like, "In *my* day when aliens invaded..."
:)
Yeah! Or, "Not this @#%& again!"
Why it doesn't work. (1) The cliched dysfunctional family: egotistical father, rebellious annoying son (see "The Day After Tomorrow"), (2) No story, no "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.
"I'm going to see the Pendragon film first,"
I too was looking forward to this one.
But I saw it for sale at walmart. Not a good sign.
I checked internet movie database and the feedback is awful
I had high hopes for it now dashed. I saw some pictures of the so-called FX. Horrible. I mean really bad.
Too bad. I wish that someone else had the big budget instead of spielberg and cruise and did this great classic work properly. Oh well, it will probably be decades before another person gets a shot at it properly.
Well, I liked Dark Star, so horribly mae films don't necessarily turn me off!
I liked Dark Star too. Very creative on little funds and very funny.
Good luck on the pendragon WOTW. I will pass. There are some others out there, a C. Thomas Howell film and Jeff Waynes CGI musical version coming up. But not really want I want to see.
I wish that someone who loved the book and wanted to stay true to it had the shot at it this time like Spielberg got to have. Im Spielberg weary, i dont like Cruise or Robbins. Im tired of Spielberg using screaming children in peril to work the audience, I just have to pass on this one.
I really want to see the Thunderchild taking on a War Machine someday done properly.
oh well, I got Batman done properly this year, I am grateful for that.
What's the minimum age? I heard that it's kind of violent.
Like "Blackhawk Down?" That would work for me. But I heard it gets hokey or sappy in the second half.
and,.....'Bug Out!'........incoming!
Maranatha!
Gal. 4:16 for sure!
It's PG 13, and I wouldn't say it gets real sappy. Obviously there are heart tugging moments. But they're surpassed by the action.
But I will say that it's a very strong PG 13. Near the border of R because of what they usually call "thematic content." But no F-bombs.
Americans have more courage and resilency then any Hollywood liberal can dream off.
Do not forget that diaster not only brings out the worst in man, but also the best.
Hollywood wants you to think only of the worst.
Hmm, Joyce Kilhawik of channel 4 Boston news said most of the film was really scary, but the writing at the end was lame and the audience actually laughed. She liked 99 per cent of the film, but was ultimately disappointed.
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.