WAR OF THE WORLDS: Reaction Thread

[scorehead]

"Like getting kneed in the Nutz, but not a funny."

What a mess - this film made no sense at all, and any semblance to the original story have been ditched in favor of film making for audiences suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder. Maybe I have I just grown too complacent in my old age and expect far more from veteran film makers to take me somewhere new and exciting with characters and places that I car about? Or It's almost as if Speilberg is vein enough to think that we'll buy into what ever he delivers to us, hook line and sinker, because he's Speilberg. Kind of like, somebody put something in my a$$, but I don't mind it because it's Steve Speilberg's. Watching this film hurts more than getting kneed in the nutz, but it's just not as funny. Granted, there are more disappointing films (ISHTAR, HOWARD THE DUCK, ISHTAR), but right from the get go, this was to much a paint buy numbers exercise in oh-hum film making. Speilberg and crew have made it clear that it hasn't a pretty thought in it's head, nor anything to say about the shape the world is in, beyond that the revealing of the alien invaders might be ungodly acts by terrorists.

The last time this film was made (forget the two other versions made and sent direct to video this year) commentary was made upon the ensuing Cold War. The best sci-fi films are grounded in everyday life, such as the INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL. WOTW is so removed from reality that when we see thousands of people turned into refugees wandering the countryside, we see not dogs among them.

Still, with all this said, this film is not with out it's moments. The effects, while good, are not groundbreaking like one would expect for a Speilberg effort. The aliens are uninteresting and honestly resemble too much those in ID4, and vaguely are there only to provide a backdrop for the movie's seemingly endless melena of Tom Cruise? Tom Cruise running for his life, Tom Cruise being bathed in the vaporized remains of others, Tom Cruise yelling at his movie kids like a guy who wishes he knew where to get his hands on some Ritalin. Really, I loved what will not doubt become Tom Cruise's oscar clip for best actor, when, early in the film, before Armageddon arrives, he's eating humus dip and delivers a convincing performance that he was repulsed by this substance.

John Williams score, as sparse as it is, is good, but couldn't save this film from posturing it's self and has little to add in the form of subtext beyond the surface of the characters and their local. Perhaps he's grown tired of revisiting old stomping grounds and has nothing new to say. Still, it's only during the end credits do we get a chance to hear it's glory and only then is backlit by the standard credits scrawl.

In the end, It's not the end of the world, but one wishes it was by the end of the movie. If you do visit the local cineplex to see this film, be sure to inject the appropriate dose of Novocain to the base of your brain stem. It wont make the pain go away, but it wont hurt to try.

Best,

Scorehead

[AndyDursin]

Scorehead, good to see I'm not the only one who thought this film wasn't all it was cracked up to be. I had to depart the FSM board after some guy -- who hadn't even seen the movie -- said I needed to lighten up!

Seriously, I'm with you. The movie had its moments, but as I wrote today, given the director and the subject matter the movie was a massive disappointment. I was even let down by Williams score -- it did nothing for the film, but at the same time, it didn't seem as if Spielberg wanted the music to do anything FOR it.

Tim Robbins was awful, Cruise was terrible -- Dakota Fanning likely gave the best performance even though she was screaming every other second.

A mixed bag but again, given it's WOTW and Spielberg, a major league disappointment.

What gets me is that if the movie DIDN'T have Spielberg's name on it, I'd think many audiences would be hard-pressed to guess it was his work...it didn't have that polish and "look" you come to expect from Spielberg.

[AndyDursin]

And one other thing -- all this talk about "9/11 sensibilities" turned out to be nothing but hype.

There are exactly two (count 'em) "2005 references" -- Cruise's son wondering if the attacks are the work of terrorists (in one line of dialogue), and the family passing by a "wall of missing victims," which seemed pretty ridiculous given that it seemed only 24 hours had passed since the initial invasion.

[scorehead]

Andy - no - you're not alone on your views. Interestingly, I would like to know the age of those who're loving this film, which, I'm sure, plays a bit of a factor. I'm in my mid 30's, still love a thrill ride of a film when I can find one, but have always needed real care to be taken with regards to straightforward story telling to keep me interested and in my seat. Lucas has said that two types of people either love or hate the newer STAR WARS films: Those in their 30's and up seem to favor the original entries, while the under 30 crowd love the newer ones. When it come to good craftsmanship, there can be no argument as to which were better made films. Still, film makers know who's going to ultimatly go to the theaters in the summer and give them their cash reward: Those in their early 30's and younger - Which leaves me convinced: catering to a market place mentality kills art.

As to the films hype - Cruise was reported having said that this was the "best screen play that he has ever read." Please, lord in heaven, at what point in the films production did they lose THAT script and find this huge of excuse of excess, that is totally devoid of any true character development (a must for an evolving story line) and substance?

Oh... and there were actually 3 references to terrorists - the ones that you mentioned and another shortly after the son has his moment, while their hurdling along in the only mini-van able to roam freely on the refugee filled streets, the daughter screams "Is this the work of terrorists?"

Yes - sweetheart, it is.

Scorehead

[AndyDursin]

I turned 30 last year Scorehead.

I couldn't believe Jeff Bond (a colleague whom I respect) actually thought this movie had more character development than JURASSIC PARK. I'm well aware JP is flawed, but there's no way the obnoxious scenes between Cruise and his kids -- with Cruise calling his son a "dick" and his son calling him an "a-hole" -- are more effective or developed than what was in JP.

I'm also curious if you noticed any laughter in the theater. I got the real sense the audience I saw the movie with didn't care for it -- I could hear people muttering "I can't believe it got a good review" on the way out. No doubt this movie will make a fortune this weekend, but I'll be surprised if it reaches much north of $180 million when all is said and done. Certainly the audience laughed during the Robbins senes (and it wasn't nervous laughter either -- unlike the guy on the FSM board who "knew" it must have been nervous laughter even though he hadn't seen it yet!).

[mkaroly]

I just got back from seeing it. I suppose I should take a bit to let it digest, but here are my initial impressions:

1) Why in the world is Tim Robbins taking all these "crazy lunatic" roles- remember his role in MYSTIC RIVER? I thought it was kind of interesting that he got to say some dialogue about how "they came at us from the skies; we're being exterminated" stuff. I don't remember the exact piece of dialogue. But his was the worst performance in the film by far.

2) Cruise, et. al. running around the fields and seeing the hopelessness of the situation was not the most exciting thing I've seen on film. Spielberg sets him up as being a major irresponsible jerk- that he's not beneath lowering himself to his son's level rather than being a parent (language and attitude wise). I liked his character development.

3) Dakota Fanning did a good job- this was basically a two character story- the human story had to revolve around Cruise and whether or not he could be responsible and protect his family, and then there were the alien invaders. And I'm in the minority here, but I don't think this was a bad film; I didn't think Cruise was one-dimensional, and the aliens were very persistent- it worked for me.

4) As far as the 9/11 stuff, this movie doesn't really take a hard line stance on either side. The references are there but not to the extent that I've heard others say they were. There was shock and anger after the buildings fell, yet there was also the reluctance of the family to give up their son to a hopeless situation. I was expecting Spielberg to take one side heavier than the other but he really didn't.

5) John Williams' score tried to echo some of the less thematic moments of CE3K and mimic MINORITY REPORT, and I have heard the CD several times and I must admit that this music is hard to really latch on to. The effects were so loud in the theater- the music is definitely buried in the mix.

6) I really think that Spielberg is trying to be more "dark", and there was a discussion on the board (a point Andy brought up) about wanting to be taken as a more serious filmmaker, and I'm beginning to see your point more clearly Andy.

Here's my conclusion: obviously this isn't as entertaining a film as his best films are, but I did enjoy it more than I though I would. I liked that Spielberg didn't pull out of ending the film with the narration he chose; I think that Ray is another in a long line of Spielbergian male characters (though not as compelling perhaps as others since he has no one to play off of who is adult; in JAWS there was Brody, Quint, and Hooper, etc.) and it's right in line with his thematic idioms. Maybe that's a bad thing- the question to ask is whether or not Spielberg has truly matured as a filmmaker, or has he already reached his peak and now we're seeing him in the twilight of his career? Anyway, I'll defend the film- it would get at least a B from me. I think the things I liked most outweighed the things I didn't like. I'm not being very specific since I don't want to give anything away.

Anyone else pick up on that continuity error by the farmhouse with the mini-van? Stuck out like a sore thumb to me.

[AndyDursin]

liked that Spielberg didn't pull out of ending the film with the narration he chose; I think that Ray is another in a long line of Spielbergian male characters (though not as compelling perhaps as others since he has no one to play off of who is adult; in JAWS there was Brody, Quint, and Hooper, etc.) and it's right in line with his thematic idioms

Excellent insight Michael and I agree with you -- I liked the narration. I also didn't even have a problem with the ending the way a lot of people did -- I thought it was relatively restrained and in keeping with the source material, so I didn't have a problem with it.

I really do believe Cruise was a problem in this movie. You mention the long line of Spielbergian male characters -- outside of Harrison Ford, Spielberg was always a director who cast ACTORS instead of movie stars in his older films (not that Ford isn't a good actor, but he's the kind of actor who can also sell a movie simply on the grounds of being a marquee name). Go back and look at E.T., EMPIRE OF THE SUN, etc. -- no "movie stars" there. And yet, whenever Spielberg tried to find an Everyman, it was always someone like Richard Dreyfuss -- the kind of actor you could identify with, regardless of the situation, even if they weren't an "action hero" so to speak.

I just think Cruise was the wrong guy. I didn't like his mannerisms -- especially that goofy, ridiculous expression he had on his face after seeing Fanning on the "harvesting platform" late in the movie (which Spielberg noticeably cut away from fast). Because he's Tom Cruise -- the brash, cocky guy who starred in TOP GUN -- I just didn't believe him at all as a regular guy trying to reconnect with his kids. He's in the movie because of his marquee value and Spielberg likes him personally, but I could think of dozens of actors who would have brought instant depth to the part that he's not able to bring.

Years ago Spielberg would have made this movie with Dreyfuss or another person you wouldn't have ordinarily thought about for the role. These days, though, Spielberg works with the likes of Cruise, Tom Hanks, etc., and in that regard I think he's lost some of what distinguished his earlier movies.

It's interesting to think about...and certainly I'm not blaming Cruise entirely for the movie, it had its problems and Robbins' casting was even more bizarre (and unsatisfying).

Don't get me wrong -- it's not a BAD movie, but I can't say it's a really good one, either. And given the bar that was raised when this project was announced, it didn't get the job done at all for me.

[scorehead]

"It's clear to me that this movie is flawed in ways that his more mature, or serious films aren't. THE COLOR PURPLE and EMPIRE OF THE SUN were his departure films that essentially said good bye to his reckless youthful ways and were the some of his youth again."

This got cut up a bit - what I ment to say was...

"THE COLOR PURPLE and EMPIRE OF THE SUN were his departure films that essentially said good bye to his reckless youthful ways and was the starting point of films that would include a more mature tone, i.e.: ALWAYS, SHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, etc. Perhaps he's trying to get back some of his youth by revisiting the genera of his youth again?"
Scorehead[/quote]

[scorehead]

Speilberg has always said that he makes movies about characters that he can relate to. As he has matured and evolved as a film maker, let alone just as a person, his films, to a degree, have also taken on that evolution, or so he would let us to believe. The films of his youth, JAWS, C3K, E.T. etc... were all films that he's said mirrored who he was at the time and that he could not make a film, say like CTK, at this stage of the game as he could never see himself leaving his family and going off into the unknown of space with friendly, albeit sexually ambiguous aliens (I added that last part). So question is: What is Speilberg saying about him self this time? Perhaps he has lost touch with that part of himself that made films of fancy that we all came to know and love. It's clear to me that this movie is flawed in ways that his more mature, or serious films aren't. THE COLOR PURPLE and EMPIRE OF THE SUN were his departure films that essentially said good bye to his reckless youthful ways and was the starting point of films that would include a more mature tone, i.e.: ALWAYS, SHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, etc. Perhaps he's trying to get back some of his youth by revisiting the genera of his youth again?

He has openly said that he would have made movie earlier, but that ID4 squashed plans to move forward. I can't believe that I'm saying this, but I think that ID4 worked better, if anything because it never tried to be anything more than a good ol' fashioned popcorn movie. WOTW, like SIGNS before it, takes it's self way too serious (although SIGNS benefitted greatly from a great score by James Newton Howard). Incedently, I saw the original WOTW again last summer on a big theater screen and feel in love with again. As corny as it was, the scene where the alien gets the blinding flashlight in the eyes still sends tingles down my spine. Not once did I feel a sense of dread nor threat while watching this incarnation.

As to any laughing in the theater - sad to say that anyone within ear shot of my friends and my self probably hated the film, as we were laughing all the way through and not at the moments we were suppose to.

Scorehead

[mkaroly]

Years ago Spielberg would have made this movie with Dreyfuss or another person you wouldn't have ordinarily thought about for the role. These days, though, Spielberg works with the likes of Cruise, Tom Hanks, etc., and in that regard I think he's lost some of what distinguished his earlier movies.

****Yes- I agree with that. But it poses that same question- has Spielberg passed his prime? Is working with "top stars" a sign of coasting? Is he too big to work with non-marquee names in the lead role?

I didn't come around to Cruise until seeing INTERVIEW WITH A VAMPIRE- I was able to tolerate him in that. Then I saw EYES WIDE SHUT, and I liked him in that. I hated (and still hate) his cocky character persona, so I haven't seen the majority of the films he's made. But with these later films I was able to get over that hump because his character was made humble in some way, shape, or form- EYES WIDE SHUT, MINORITY REPORT, now this- that cockiness is almost punished in a way. So I personally didn't have a problem with the performance. Is that good or bad?

I've noticed that in Spielberg's later films when he casts someone like Hanks or Crusie or some other big name actor, the surrounding cast makes up for it. One could argue that the surrounding cast is full of not-so-marquee names and they more reflect the Everyman of earlier works than does the actual main protagonist himself. Look at SPR, THE TERMINAL, Jude Law in AI, Sydow in MINORITY REPORT. Still, I think Cruise did fine, though it would have definitely been interesting to see a not-so-marquee actor in the role of Ray. That might play into the theory that Spielberg wants to be taken more seriously as a director.... we'll see.

[mkaroly]

So question is: What is Speilberg saying about him self this time? Perhaps he has lost touch with that part of himself that made films of fancy that we all came to know and love. It's clear to me that this movie is flawed in ways that his more mature, or serious films aren't. THE COLOR PURPLE and EMPIRE OF THE SUN were his departure films that essentially said good bye to his reckless youthful ways and was the starting point of films that would include a more mature tone, i.e.: ALWAYS, SHINDLER'S LIST, SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, etc. Perhaps he's trying to get back some of his youth by revisiting the genera of his youth again?
Scorehead

It seems as though he wants to be more adult without losing his emotional sincerity. I think a turning point was AI- once Kubrick died he tried to make a Kubrick film without losing the Spielberg touch. SCHINDLER'S LIST and SPR were heavy subjects, but WWII was always a fascination for him. MR and WOTW has a protagonist who is adult but clearly stunted in his growth and maturity as an adult- he doesn't have the innocence of a child or a child's wonderment or imagination...he's just stopped growing. Rather than finding the inner child in their adulthood, they have to find the inner responsible adult in their adulthood. They don't have to look at the world with childlike wonder- they look at the world as an adult would, are practical, and find maturity and growth in that. I think Spielberg is saying he's grown up.

[AndyDursin]

SCHINDLER'S LIST and SPR were heavy subjects, but WWII was always a fascination for him. MR and WOTW has a protagonist who is adult but clearly stunted in his growth and maturity as an adult- he doesn't have the innocence of a child or a child's wonderment or imagination...he's just stopped growing. Rather than finding the inner child in their adulthood, they have to find the inner responsible adult in their adulthood. They don't have to look at the world with childlike wonder- they look at the world as an adult would, are practical, and find maturity and growth in that. I think Spielberg is saying he's grown up.

What's ironic is -- to me -- that Spielberg grew up and made an "adult" masterpiece with EMPIRE OF THE SUN back in 1987. The fact that it took SCHINDLER'S LIST for the snobby film critic elite to take notice is secondary in my eyes because EMPIRE is in many ways his best and most satisfying "grown up" film....even though it was made LONG before the people who snubbed him before said he "grew up."

[scorehead]

Speilberg may be telling us that he's grown up, but he's also trying to convince us that he can still look on with the flavored edge that he once had. Instead his new films seem more like watered down, pseudo Speilberg than the real thing, something that other directors (Joe Johnston for one) have perfected. Now when he revisits his tried and true formula, the one that made him a household name, he simply seems a knock off of him self. Speilberg intimating Speilberg, what a novel idea.

I can't evaluate A.I., as I've never seen it, but MINORITY REPORT wasn't all that bad (I say this even though I worked on the film as a pre-vis developer) - not a great film at first, but it has grown on me over the past few years and seems to balance what Speilberg has evolved into and what his films use to extrude. It may be his BLADE RUNNER, a film that was seen as a flop when it first came out, but has gone on to have a foothold in the sci-fi genera, and one that still sets a standard when dealing with what a grim and dark future that mankind is head for. Time, as is always the case, can only tell staying power and how good or bad a film it really is.

I agree with you Andy - that EMPIRE OF THE SUN was Speilberg's forgotten true foray into "grown-up" film making and one that I remember at the time being snubbed by critics for not being "Speilberg enough." For me, this is my favorite film by him and it has all the things that I love going to movies for: adventure, drama, a sense of pathos all wrapped up in a compelling story with characters that we care to see where they go and how they survive such hardships. Sadly, WOTW had none of that.

Scorehead

[romanD]

well.. 3 days have passed since I've seen it and I have to say it is still more on my mind than BATMAN BEGINS was a couple hours after I saw that!
Ok, WOTW has some flaws and mainly in the script department - I hate David Koepp since his awful script for JP, though I understand now with looking back that so many changes to the book had to be made, because it would have been to expensive or jsut not doable at that time. Nevertheless, there is not one movie with a script by Koepp which I think is really good, in fact, most are pretty lame. Often he has a good idea and a start but runs out of ideas after the one hour mark.
Here, I thought what a cool idea with the machines coming out of the Earth instead from the skies... but that only led to questions which are never answered and distract therefor from the story. Robbins explains some of that stuff, but how the heck does he know? For me my explanation is now, that the flashes put "seeds" into the ground and the machines grow like a plant out of it as the machines seemed to be alive to a certain degree anyway... like the muscular thing which sucks the people out of the baskets or the goo that spills out of the broken machine at the end... still, that is something you could have really explained in the movie.
The ending... I knew it from the book and old movie, so I didnt mind. But I noticed a couple people not liking it. They try to set that up with Dakota having that wooden splinter in her finger and she says stuff like "my body will reject it" (excuse my english here please)... but that was one little scene and never a topic again anymore. Big missed opportunity here.

there are many other things, too... like that "showdown" with that final machine, which was pretty unnecessary, because that thing was dying anyway, why setting up this final "SHOOT IT SHOOT IT?!" (maybe the Army insisted in one scene like this to show that they could take aliens down in real!).

I really really hate ID4, that is one of the worst and most insulting movie to me ever and wouldnt it be so overlong it would be at last a so-bad-it's-funny-movieromp, but I really think it is plain bad. I though WOTW really showed you how it must feel to be in such a situation, it felt pretty real, the way the camera was used and the whole circumstances are very real and good. And maybe that is why we dont understand all whats going on with the machines, with the ending and that because our characters dont know either. That makes it maybe sometimes a difficult movie to really appreciate, but if you think about it it maybe was the right way to go.
And for that reason I might would have tried to make the movie even without a score. Im sure it would have worked, I mean there was already so little and so low mixed, why waste Williams' time and talent on it.

Recently I read that PRINCE OF DARKNESS book,which is an all long interview with John Carpenter about each and every movie of him. He talks openly about the good and bad things in the movies and all that and I thought that would be a marvellous idea to do with John Williams. I would really like to know what he thinks about his scores... Im sure he doesnt like some... I mean, he is now in a position where he just cant say NO to Spielberg or Lucas... and he just does what movie they do next... of course, their movies are not the worst out there but still he maybe sat down and thought "oh my an alien invasion movie... Im so not into that"...

ok.. enough now.. .just: My audience clapped applause when the movie was over, they really were blown away!
Still I think the movie will lose a lot next week, because the marketing goes in the wrong direction inmy opinion.
And Tom Cruise just sucks as usual, but the girls dont mind (as usual)...

[AndyDursin]

I did like MINORITY REPORT (if you look back I raved about it when it first came out), though on repeat viewing I found that the "dark" aspects of the movie -- some of its violence, etc. -- really soured the film for me.

A.I. is a film I disliked on many levels -- a disastrous teaming of Spielberg with Kubrick. The movie would have been better left as a Kubrick piece made by someone like Ridley Scott, who could have flavored the visuals appropriately but analyzed the story objectively. With Spielberg, he added all these bizarre touches to the movie -- emotion, "heart" if you will -- that the movie's few fans have over-analyzed, believing there are multiple levels to the movie and its ending. Without giving it away, all I can say is that if you read the comments by Spielberg and Williams when the movie came out, I think people read WAY too much into how the movie ended, believing it was saying one thing and doing another (when it really wasn't).

I admit most of Spielberg's post-Schindler's work has been soured for me because I hate how they LOOK. I can't understand the appeal of Janusz Kaminski's cinematography for the life of me. Even in WAR OF THE WORLDS, just look at the scene where Cruise meets Miranda Otto and takes his kids outside his home. There's one shot that looks "normal," then the next shot where all the characters are bathed in this blaring sunlight with the backdrops out of focus. Then the next shot, it goes back to how it appeared seconds before.

It's self-conscious, showy lighting. Like I've said before, I'd take Allen Davieu, Mikael Salomon, or Dean Cundey any day.