The Sunday Trumpet – War of the Worlds
I decided to review Spielberg’s War of the Worlds, even though I realise someone may already have beaten me to it. Firstly, because I disliked this film so much that if I was asked to compile a list of the ten worst films I have ever seen, WOTW would be at number two. Also, hopefully, another bad review will serve as a warning to anyone who hasn’t yet seen, don’t waste your money renting this one out. Really, it would be cheaper and more fun if you stayed at home and watched paint dry. OK, on with my review . . .
I’m sure I don’t need to explain the plot of War of the Worlds to you. The Spielberg version does keep some elements of the original story but differs in many ways. This tale is based around divorced father, Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) and his children, sulky teenager, Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and cute little moppet, Rachel (Dakota Fanning). Spielberg usually tends to portray highly idealised families, and initially it did seem that he had decided to steer away from this cliché with the Ferriers, who were ever so slightly dysfunctional. Along come the aliens, killing everyone in their path, and forcing Ferrier to take responsibility for his family, something he has been reluctant to do in the past. At first, the plot sounds quite interesting. A modern twist on an old classic. However, this is a Spielberg movie starring Tom Cruise, and it simply doesn’t work.
Spielberg is a good director, Jaws and Schindler’s List are evidence of this, but his later work has been formulaic and plastic. The movie equivalent of fast food. WOTW is no exception. Cruise is not a good actor, he isn’t even a mediocre actor. He simply can’t act. Instead, he resorts to ridiculous displays of yelling and arm waving, and in WOTW he does this with boring regularity. Casting him as the lead in such a high profile and much anticipated movie was a mistake. On the other hand, Spielberg does excel at special effects films, and this is one area where WOTW actually works. In fact, the digitally created tripods are far more believable than the leading man.
As the film progressed I found myself comparing it to Independence Day (1996) which is often labelled a War of the Worlds remake, and which is everything Spielberg’s WOTW is not. It has thrills, pace, likeable characters, even a little humour. At no point in this WOTW did I ever feel a sense of a global threat, it was very easy to believe these events were only affecting a small area of one country. In addition, it was hard to feel any empathy for the characters, I just didn’t like them. With the exception of Chatwin, who did do a good job with a limited role, the main protagonists were annoying and unbelievable. Cruise is not convincing as an ‘Everyman’ and Dakota Fanning, may be cute, but her constant and repetitive screeching became tiresome after a very short time. Within half an hour, I was cheering on the aliens desperately hoping they would dispatch Cruise and his irritating offspring, in the process saving me from another ninety minutes of watching them destroy one of the classic novels of the Twentieth century.
Anyone who has ever seen the 1953 version of War of the Worlds will remember the final scenes, when the invading alien hordes are defeated by a tiny bacteria. WOTW 2005 ends in a similar fashion, except, this time, some how, all the impact has been lost. The point at which the characters realise they can win, they can save the human race from extinction, lacks any drama or poignancy. Cruise announces the discovery with the sort casual, dismissive attitude that one might use after unblocking a sink.
And, of course, this is a Spielberg film, so the grande finale is chock full of cheese and phony sentimentality. Having managed to misplace one of his children en route, the Ferrier family are reunited, which is a cue for lots of elevator music, misty eyes, meaningless looks and a hint that Ferrier and his estranged wife may be reunited. Pass the sick bucket please.
Technorati Tags: steven spielberg, war of the worlds, tom cruise, independence day
powered by performancing firefox
I appreciate you dropping by,
Please leave a comment, don’t be shy
Find me on: Twitter | LinkedIn | Google Buzz | Friendfeed
Follow this blog on: Facebook | Google Connect | Networked Blogs
Diddums
1Pete
wrote on 4 June 2006 at 19:03
what would be number one?
2Attila The Mom
wrote on 4 June 2006 at 19:45
Brilliant review!
I agree with everything you said.
Except I would have hit Dakota Fanning on the head with a shovel myself, just to shut her up! ARRGHGHHH
3Stegbeetle
wrote on 4 June 2006 at 21:30
You’ve done it now, Kate. You’re going to have to give us your list of the Ten Worst Movies Of All Time!
4Beki
wrote on 4 June 2006 at 23:17
Why? Why? Why do people feel the need for remakes. Will Hollywood never learn?
If Hollywood start messing with Last of the Summer Wine I’ll get really mad ;o)
5St Jude
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 7:35
I’m with you all the way, and you are absolutely right about the ending. I actually missed it, so to speak, I was sitting there waiting for the grand finale all we got was a damp squib.
Beki; the remakes are because the younger age range haven’t seen the ‘classics’ and probably won’t because they are not full of computer generated special effects and shock, horror, they are in black and white.
6Nixxie
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 9:31
I wasn’t too thrilled with WOTW remake but I didn’t feel it was horrible. Remakes are just that….remakes and usually are a biiiiiiiig let down. It could have been worse….Let’s not forget the remake of The Shining…..yeah…..
7Kim Ayres
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 12:47
That ending did my head in. I was expecting somethng spectacular and like St Jude said, I thought I must have missed it. I was nearly ready to get into a punch up with the projectionist, convinced he must have missed a reel. I haven’t been this disappointed since Highlander 2
8Kate
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 14:49
Pete – That would be a truly dreadful Mike Figgis film called Hotel. There is absolutely nothing good to say about it. It has four different story lines which don’t connect in any way, the (all star) cast improvised most scenes and in the process demonstrated why scriptwriters are so important. Most of the film consists of actors standing around looking moody, and discussing subjects the viewer hasn’t been made aware of. The whole thing is shot from strange angles, several scenes consist of people holding conversations behind walls or pillars. Really, it is awful. The expression style over content has never applied more aptly to a film.
9Kate
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 14:51
Attila – LOL @ Except I would have hit Dakota Fanning on the head with a shovel myself, just to shut her up!
She has got to be the most annoying kid in a movie ever. Jodie Foster she ain’t
10Kate
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 14:52
Steg – I accept your challenge. I’ll get to work on that – for number one see my reply to Pete’s comment, and never, ever watch that film.
11Kate
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 14:55
Beki – a Hollywood remake of Last of the Summer Wine! Sacrilege! They’d probably cast Jack Nicholson as Compo, Alan Alda as Clegg (actually that might work) and Clint Eastwood as Foggy.
12Kate
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 15:02
St Jude – it is a real anti-climax, totally forgetable. You just sit there thinking, oh is that it then LOL
13Kate
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 15:04
Nixxie – I didn’t know there was a remake of the Shining. It would struggle to be a patch on the original. In fact that is such a good film, I can’t understand why anyone would bother with a remake.
14Kate
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 15:05
Kim – Highlander 2, that was a duffer. And I think the next one is even worse.
15Jack Yan
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 15:52
‘There can be only one’ (Norman Clegg, that is)!
16Miss Keeks
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 15:58
Excellent review!
I just can’t stand Tom Cruise. I don’t see any of his movies (except for the one with Dustin Hoffman as the autistic older brother).
17TxGoodie
wrote on 5 June 2006 at 18:43
Hmmm…although certainly not the greatest Sci-Fi movie I’ve seen (that would be The Day The Earth Stood Still!), I thought the special effects and computer annimation to be first rate and the acting not THAT bad. It’s only fair to judge the film as a stand alone and not compare it to other WOTW IMHO.
All of the “kids”, Cruise, Dakota and Sullen Boy, grew up during the course of the “ordeal”. What was weak became strong, what was hysterical became calmer, etc. I was impressed when Cruise “took out” Tim too….John Wayne wouldn’t of done THAT to save his kid! Although I’ll admit that if Cruise’s character took him out with his barehands, that’s a stretch…first he’d have to stand on a box and then he’d have to talk Tim’s character into bending over!
Just my dollar and 25 cents worth, adjusted for inflation…
18Kate
wrote on 6 June 2006 at 11:13
“‘There can be only one’ (Norman Clegg, that is)! “
Yes, this is true. Alan Alda as Clegg, what am I talking about LOL
19Kate
wrote on 6 June 2006 at 11:16
Miss Keeks – I don’t like Tom Crusie either. Rainman is the only film I have enjoyed with him in – and that was only because of Dustin Hoffman.
20Kate
wrote on 6 June 2006 at 11:22
LOL @ Sullen Boy A great description of his character.
I can see what you mean, and if you enjoyed the film that’s great. It would be a very dull world if we all liked the same things. I just think it was a missed opportunity, the story is so good, and with modern SFX it could have been wonderful. IMO Independence Day is far better, it’s one of my favourite films ever, and it’s everything WOTW 2006 could have been. I even like Bill Pullman’s cheesy speech LOL
“.John Wayne wouldn’t of done”
The hell he would! Sorry, I can’t resist saying that when someone mentions John Wayne LOL
21Jack Yan
wrote on 6 June 2006 at 12:02
I’d prefer to see Jack Nicholson as Compo than Alan Alda as Clegg.
Peter Sallis rocks!
22Kate
wrote on 7 June 2006 at 14:24
Jack – yes he does. He is great in Wallace and Grommit too!
Recently, I saw an interview with him, and he said how old he was – I forget exactly, but anyway, I worked out he must have been really young (early 40s) when the programme first started. To me he has always been old Clegg LOL
23Jack Yan
wrote on 7 June 2006 at 16:40
There will only be one Wallace, too! Even Rory Bremner cannot replace him.
Just checked, and Google gives Peter Sallis’s year of birth as 1921. My goodness—he’s looking darned good for his age. My late maternal grandmother was born that year, and that’s five years older than the Queen.
24Kate
wrote on 8 June 2006 at 17:19
I was surprised the Queen was only 80, she’s looked like an OAP for years. Logically, I suppose she can’t be any older though. Maybe, being married to Prince Philip takes it out of you LOL
Well, that’s me off to the Tower!
25Rob
wrote on 9 June 2006 at 1:13
Mostly I’d agree with you about Tom Cruise. OK in Rain Man, OK (I thought) in Minority Report, though plenty of other people would have been just as good if not better. Actually quite good, playing against type, in Magnolia, and definitely good (and against type) in Collateral. Lose the rest though.
26Jack Yan
wrote on 9 June 2006 at 4:58
Kate, with the Queen, I imagine there are only so many ways you can laugh at your husband’s jokes about blacks before sounding forced and insincere. (S***, there goes the knighthood.)
27Kate
wrote on 9 June 2006 at 17:02
Rob – Cruise was good in the closing scenes of An Interview with the Vampire, it was the only section of the film were he seemed anything like the character in book. Mind you, Bradley Pitts was useless in that too, and his teeth looked completely false.
28Kate
wrote on 9 June 2006 at 17:14
Jack – That’s true, I’m surprised she hasn’t smothered him in his sleep. LOL Poor woman, you’d think they could have found someone better than that for her, after all she must have been quite a catch in her day.
29Jack Yan
wrote on 10 June 2006 at 0:56
I think the Queen gets some novelty value from the Duke by surfing to Mohammed Al-Fayed’s web site and seeing what he has to say about ‘Philip the Greek’. Word has it, though, that she ‘adores’ the Duke of Edinburgh.
30Kate
wrote on 11 June 2006 at 14:06
Jack – they say she adores him, but I bet that is just PR
Although, maybe she does, it takes all sorts.
Thanks for the link, he’s not a fan of the Royal family is he. Under the circumstances that is understandable.
31Jack Yan
wrote on 11 June 2006 at 15:53
I get a good laugh from Mohammed’s site, because he is so open in what he says—and he has the pounds to back up any potential lawsuits. The Anglophile in me does have a spot of affection for the Windsors, though I have been known to make the odd joke against them (as the late Spike Milligan did).
32Kate
wrote on 12 June 2006 at 13:09
Ah, Spike Milligan – he was so funny. I love his book ‘Hitler – My Part in his Downfall’ It was disgraceful that the British government wouldn’t give him nationality. I suppose in those days anyone with a surname like Milligan was automatically considered a bit dodgy.
As for the Royals, I don’t mind the Queen,and Prince William seems to be ok, but I don’t think much of his father. I’m a bit undecided about the whole concept of monarchy vs republic. In an ideal world I would prefer the latter, but then you look at countries that do have that system and to be honest the Queen seems like a better deal.
33Jack Yan
wrote on 12 June 2006 at 14:55
I prefer a constitutional monarchy in the absence of a credible alternative, and right now, the republicans haven’t come up with one. It’s not like China in 1911, when it was clear the Ching Dynasty was not operating in the interests of its subjects.
I can sympathize with Spike and he may have saved himself a lot of trouble by remaining Irish. If I go through Heathrow, I have no problems with my passport, which has all the usual trappings of ‘Her Majesty the Queen’s Secretary of State’ blah, blah. But if I go through, say, Waterloo on the Eurostar, I have had officials tell me that the British National Overseas passport is not British, and I am an alien! Fortunately, the PM (in a letter) agrees with me. It’s British apartheid—just because I am British but not born in Britain.
34Kate
wrote on 12 June 2006 at 19:46
“But if I go through, say, Waterloo on the Eurostar, I have had officials tell me that the British National Overseas passport is not British, and I am an alien!”
That is really unfair. A British passport should be the same wherever you were born.
Having an Irish passport is an advantage. I have dual nationality, and have only ever gone abroad as a Paddy. I have to say, you do get a warmer welcome than you would if you travelled as a Brit. That’s not why I chose one, that goes back to the political situation in the 70s and 80s, but it was a welcome bonus.
35Jack Yan
wrote on 15 June 2006 at 15:11
I agree, Kate. A British subject is a British subject is a British subject. I had to write to so many people before I got a response from the PM: my complaints about “British apartheid” were ignored by the British High Commissioner, the Foreign Secretary, and the Shadow Foreign Secretary.
I can understand why the Irish would get a nicer welcome. The country has a clean, green, friendly image. I usually travel with my New Zealand passport, which is filled with stamps, and I reserve the British one for entry into the UK.
36Kate
wrote on 21 June 2006 at 14:29
“I had to write to so many people before I got a response from the PM:”
That in itself is proof of your Britishness, this is a nation of letter writers! I do it myself. I’m not surprised Jack Straw ignored you though, he seems to live on a different planet.
Did the PM help in any way?
37Jack Yan
wrote on 6 July 2006 at 0:27
The PM’s office was mildly helpful, but not totally. More spin, really. But at least he did not disagree with me. I did meet some civil servants once who worked with Jack Straw when he was a pimply faced geek, and their comments were, euphemistically, that they were surprised that he rose to a Cabinet position.
38Kate
wrote on 6 July 2006 at 13:39
Feedback I have received from the PM and my mp tends to be more like spin than any kind of concrete answer. Unfortunatley, my mp is a staunch Blairite, so I suppose I am unlikely to receive anything but the party line.
I have been surprised by Jack Straws success. At one time he was seen as a bit of a subversive. Personally, I did’t think he was clever enough to be subversive, and this was confirmed with the Mugabe hand shake incident.
39Jack Yan
wrote on 7 July 2006 at 17:53
That was a massive gaffe, almost to the point of “all blacks look alike”.
40Kate
wrote on 7 July 2006 at 19:06
I think he did actually say something like ‘it was dark and they all looked the same’ It’s really not what you expect from someone who was paid to represent us abroad.
I was amazed he kept his job after that. Which ever way you look at it he was wrong. He should never have shaken hands with the man in the first place, but having done so, to make such an awful excuse just made it so much worse. It came at a time when the government were receiving a lot of criticism for their lack of action over Zimbabwe, and Straws actions did make it look as though they were tolerant of Mugabe in some way.
41Jack Yan
wrote on 8 July 2006 at 16:38
A simple mea culpa would have been more effective for the Straw Man. Sad. So, Prescott hits people because of ‘instinct’ and Jack Straw shakes hands with dictators because all “darkies” look the same. This Cabinet needs to go at the next election, but what is the alternative?
42Kate
wrote on 10 July 2006 at 14:56
LOL @ the Straw Man
The alternative. I have no idea. As we have said before the Tories don’t constitute a real opposition. The Lib Dems are in a stronger position than before, but still not strong enough to make a serious election challenge. That just leaves New Labour, and I do think they will get another term.
It’s no surprise that we have such apathy amongst the electorate at the moment. When people repeatedly see a party they didn’t vote being returned to power they will start to feel disillusioned.
My big worry is the rise in the popularity of extreme parties. The BNP have won a few (council) seats, not enough to be considered an serious political force I admit, but I find it worrying none the less.
43Jack Yan
wrote on 10 July 2006 at 15:46
We are seeing minor parties here take greater hold, too. If the Tories can get a half-decent leader, they will have a chance, but if the status quo is preserved at the next General Election, I agree with you: it’ll be New Labour for five more years, with an even more reduced majority, and possibly a minority government. Labour may still suffer a Major-like defeat: losing because the electorate never forgave it for winning the last one.
44Kate
wrote on 10 July 2006 at 17:32
I think they will go the way of John Major’s government too. It seems inevitable. I think Brown will get one term, during which everyone will realise things are no different, then he will be out.
45Jack Yan
wrote on 11 July 2006 at 11:10
I can’t visualize Brown as PM, and the weird thing was that I could visualize Major in the role, even when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. Still, anything is possible.
46Kate
wrote on 11 July 2006 at 13:58
It does seem hard to imagine him as anything other than the dour chancellor, but he seems to be the hot favourite at the moment.
I just wonder how he would do in an election though, I don’t like personality politics, but it does help if the candidates have one. Brown just seems incredibly dull. Sometimes he tries to appear jocular and even fun, but it never works.
47Jack Yan
wrote on 11 July 2006 at 14:52
Brown is as dull as the Tory leader (whomever he is—see, I have forgotten already after discussing it) is invisible. British General Elections have become “presidential” thanks to Blair, something that has harmed Gordon Brown’s chances. I think he would do dismally on a campaign, especially in these spin- and image-led days.
I know it’s not Michael Howard, but I would be darned if I could remember who the Tory guy is.
48Kate
wrote on 11 July 2006 at 19:45
I had to think about that too. I knew his first name was David, but the surname escaped me. It’s David Cameron, but I had think about it LOL He’s a complete wet lettuce whatever it is.
Maybe having two such boring leaders will be a good thing, lets face, it neither are going to win an election based on their sparkling wit LOL They will have to talk about policies which will be refreshing.
49Jack Yan
wrote on 12 July 2006 at 11:16
The policies might be the same and rather unimaginative. Here in New Zealand, if you work out the sums, we are really talking plus or minus 10 per cent in terms of spending for each area. You hear the same thing in Britain each time: tougher on crime, more efficient NHS and a promise to redress the balance with declining educational standards. (Actually, you hear the same stuff here.)
50Jack Yan
wrote on 12 July 2006 at 11:17
And yes, of course, David Cameron! I can’t even picture the man.
51Kate
wrote on 14 July 2006 at 17:11
Jack – I laways think David Cameron looks like a plump Tony Blair, or a hamster. He is very hamstery.
Politicians seem to make the same promises everywhere, but nothing ever really changes. Actually, one thing has, since Labour came into power a lot of prices have gone down. They did bring us into line with the rest of the EU in terms of pricing. Apart from that, it’s business as usual.