Film review: War Of The Worlds
Saw this last tuesday, after hugely anticipating it for some four months. Here's my review.
The single biggest crowdpleaser of the 20th and 21st century retelling the masterpiece of one of the most influential science fiction writers ever - in other words, Steven Spielberg adapting H.G. Wells' The War Of The Worlds for the silver screen. On top of that, it stars the biggest filmstar in the history of big filmstars, Tom Cruise. Can this go wrong?
It can. And I'll explain how and why.
Spielberg is a brave man, taking on this project; it's got quite the legacy. Most famous is, of course, Orson Welles' radio adaptation, back in '38, which was so realistic that people started fleeing their homes to escape the invading aliens. Oh, and the 1953 feature film didn't do too shabby either. Try to top that, Steven.
But he tries, and he tries valiantly. What he delivers is, essentially, a family drama; the camera stays fixed on Cruise and his family, the daughter and the son he only occasionally sees, due to a divorce. Instead of taking a step back and looking at this global event through mankind's eyes, we take a step forward and see it through one man's eyes. This viewpoint is so rigid, that even after the chaos and destruction begins, we catch only fleeting glimpses of the ruthless invaders and their three-legged war machines. The mayhem and special effects whir by in the background, looming and ominous, but at no point do they dominate the screen.
What Spielberg does very well is use the camera to convey the sheer terror experienced by his everyday heroes. Spielberg's (or rather, Kaminsky's) camera is always running away, panning away from the effects, fleeing the scene, afraid to look at the destruction, just as Cruise and his children, and the rest of the world. This is something I've never seen before, and it speaks volumes of Spielberg ability to stay ahead of the game.
The cast: The performances are top notch, with Dakota Fanning, the young daughter, being the stand out. At first I was extremely annoyed by her evident neediness throughout the film, but, to be fair, it's difficult to imagine how anyone, particularly a child, could not be needy under such dire circumstances. In hindsight I really liked her portrayal. Tom Cruise did an excellent job, also; he portrayed paralysis, fear, confusion, fatherly love, doubt and a range of other emotions by the pure physicality of his performance. Justin Chatwin also gave an tremendous performance as Ray's alternately rebellious, heroic and caring son. Nothing left to be desired, castingwise.
The film is visually stunning, as can be expected from a Spielberg film, but what I did not expect, is its brutality. Spielberg's vision for humanity's dying moments is a spectacular demonstration of CG fireworks, but also surprisingly brutal. War of the Worlds is pretty clear about what these invading aliens have in store for us; if it's not by showing the huge tripods marching around, incinerating all who stand in their way, then it's by revealing the horrendous origins of the mysterious red weeds that the aliens are spreading. This is as much horror as it is science fiction.
Spielberg also delivers on the effects - never before have I seen a city being pulverised and falling apart so realistically. But the standout special effect in this film is one which will go by unnoticed to most viewers. At one point, as Cruise and his kids are in the one working car, and they're weaving through a caravan of dead cars and distressed people, the camera swirls round the moving car and moves in through the windshield several times, to capture the dialogue between Cruise and his son. All this happens seamlessly. All the machismo fireworks is impressive enough, but that was the one effect that blew my socks off.
So, where does it let down? Well, it doesn't, really - in a way, I, as the viewer, let myself down. I've never read Wells' original novel, so I was totally unaware of the abrupt ending. This caught me off guard, and it resulted in me cursing Spielberg as I left the theatre. I expect that, had I read the novel, I'd be at peace with the ending. In hindsight, I realise that I was too critical in my initial response; in hindsight, I understand that Spielberg made the most of his source material. In fact, the Morgan Freeman narrated ending was quite powerful, in its link to the peaceful beginning of the film.
As it is, despite hindsight, I'll probably never be able to come to terms with this ending - it smacks of Deus Ex Machina, in a blatant and up front way that I have never before seen. A good ending is important, crucial even, to a good film, and this film didn't have one.
Therefore, a 69 out of 100.
The single biggest crowdpleaser of the 20th and 21st century retelling the masterpiece of one of the most influential science fiction writers ever - in other words, Steven Spielberg adapting H.G. Wells' The War Of The Worlds for the silver screen. On top of that, it stars the biggest filmstar in the history of big filmstars, Tom Cruise. Can this go wrong?
It can. And I'll explain how and why.
Spielberg is a brave man, taking on this project; it's got quite the legacy. Most famous is, of course, Orson Welles' radio adaptation, back in '38, which was so realistic that people started fleeing their homes to escape the invading aliens. Oh, and the 1953 feature film didn't do too shabby either. Try to top that, Steven.
But he tries, and he tries valiantly. What he delivers is, essentially, a family drama; the camera stays fixed on Cruise and his family, the daughter and the son he only occasionally sees, due to a divorce. Instead of taking a step back and looking at this global event through mankind's eyes, we take a step forward and see it through one man's eyes. This viewpoint is so rigid, that even after the chaos and destruction begins, we catch only fleeting glimpses of the ruthless invaders and their three-legged war machines. The mayhem and special effects whir by in the background, looming and ominous, but at no point do they dominate the screen.
What Spielberg does very well is use the camera to convey the sheer terror experienced by his everyday heroes. Spielberg's (or rather, Kaminsky's) camera is always running away, panning away from the effects, fleeing the scene, afraid to look at the destruction, just as Cruise and his children, and the rest of the world. This is something I've never seen before, and it speaks volumes of Spielberg ability to stay ahead of the game.
The cast: The performances are top notch, with Dakota Fanning, the young daughter, being the stand out. At first I was extremely annoyed by her evident neediness throughout the film, but, to be fair, it's difficult to imagine how anyone, particularly a child, could not be needy under such dire circumstances. In hindsight I really liked her portrayal. Tom Cruise did an excellent job, also; he portrayed paralysis, fear, confusion, fatherly love, doubt and a range of other emotions by the pure physicality of his performance. Justin Chatwin also gave an tremendous performance as Ray's alternately rebellious, heroic and caring son. Nothing left to be desired, castingwise.
The film is visually stunning, as can be expected from a Spielberg film, but what I did not expect, is its brutality. Spielberg's vision for humanity's dying moments is a spectacular demonstration of CG fireworks, but also surprisingly brutal. War of the Worlds is pretty clear about what these invading aliens have in store for us; if it's not by showing the huge tripods marching around, incinerating all who stand in their way, then it's by revealing the horrendous origins of the mysterious red weeds that the aliens are spreading. This is as much horror as it is science fiction.
Spielberg also delivers on the effects - never before have I seen a city being pulverised and falling apart so realistically. But the standout special effect in this film is one which will go by unnoticed to most viewers. At one point, as Cruise and his kids are in the one working car, and they're weaving through a caravan of dead cars and distressed people, the camera swirls round the moving car and moves in through the windshield several times, to capture the dialogue between Cruise and his son. All this happens seamlessly. All the machismo fireworks is impressive enough, but that was the one effect that blew my socks off.
So, where does it let down? Well, it doesn't, really - in a way, I, as the viewer, let myself down. I've never read Wells' original novel, so I was totally unaware of the abrupt ending. This caught me off guard, and it resulted in me cursing Spielberg as I left the theatre. I expect that, had I read the novel, I'd be at peace with the ending. In hindsight, I realise that I was too critical in my initial response; in hindsight, I understand that Spielberg made the most of his source material. In fact, the Morgan Freeman narrated ending was quite powerful, in its link to the peaceful beginning of the film.
As it is, despite hindsight, I'll probably never be able to come to terms with this ending - it smacks of Deus Ex Machina, in a blatant and up front way that I have never before seen. A good ending is important, crucial even, to a good film, and this film didn't have one.
Therefore, a 69 out of 100.
7 Comments:
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Martin The Reviewer!
*applauds*
*standing ovations*
Just a quick note, I totally agree with you on the ending.
What, you didn't know I reviewed films? I do it quite often, actually.
But thank you, nonetheless.
Cheers
A very insightful review.
I've heard many complaints about the ending and to todays audiences who are used to great payoffs I can understand why its such a let down.
You have a great blog.
Why, thank you.
I made my opinion of the ending quite clear - it was as good as it could be, and still it was a let down to me.
Cheers
Great review, Martin!
nehring, when you say "great payoffs" do you mean "big explosions and/or violence"?
Martin, it's time to stick your tongue out and write a new post!
Snake - such pressure!
Phi5h - I do believe that some directors, such as Spielberg, Scorcese, Kubrick, etc. have this inate talent, an instinct, almost, to create on film that what they see in their mind's eye. And some directors, of course, do not (are you listening, mr. Bay?).
Cheers
Post a Comment
<< Home