Movie Review: War of the Worlds

SCORE: 1/5.


CAST:

• Ray Ferrier: Tom Cruise;
• Rachel: Dakota Fanning;
• Mary Ann: Miranda Otto;
• Robbie: Justin Chatwin;
• Harlan Ogilvy: Tim Robbins;
• Directed by directed by Steven Spielberg.

BACKGROUND/STORY:

I won't write much here except to say that there is no story here. If you know anything of the prior film or the book, then this movie doesn't really follow them. This movie is about a Tom Cruise running from aliens, and about trying to look cool in the process. The film is clumsy, which is unforgivable from the director who gave us E.T., Indiana Jones, Minority Report (which I own on DVD), and other greats. What possessed Spielberg to run with the script is difficult to understand, but it is entirely lifeless and filled with holes. The movie claims that the aliens have planned the invasion for over a million years, and yet they failed to plan a defense for earth's simplest inhabitants? I won't "spoil" the surprise, but here's a clue: the aliens' nemesis is not human.

Given Cruise's taste for younger women (i.e. Katie Holmes), it also disturbs me to recall shots of him, both on and off screen, constantly holding Dakota Fanning. Couldn't she walk? There were many rumors about the unusually close relationship that they developed, but, in fairness, the rumor mill always turns against Tom Cruise. Still, Cruise has done much in recent years to unnecessarily draw bad press coverage and rumors his way. Given his apparently religious devotion to science fiction, this movie was continually eerie for me. Without any good plot reason, aliens attack mercilessly then utterly fail on grounds completely unrelated to any human effort. Perhaps, because that is somehow realistic, this movie is scarier than it is entertaining.

The acting seems bad, but then the characters have no depth of any kind, so what were the actors to do. Also, bad acting is usually the effect of bad directing. Why would a director put a scene in a movie that is badly acted? I suppose to save time and production cost, but it seems lazy to call a scene finished before a convincing performance has been given by all involved. In this film, however, all the directing in the world could not have caused the actors to deliver convincing performances, I suspect, because all the characters are in the movie for no other reason than that they have to be. None of them accomplish anything that I can tell. Rather than beating the actors to death, Spielberg should have tossed the script or demanded rewrites to give the cast and crew something to work with.

VISUALS:

The special fx and cinematography are the best part of this movie. However, they aren't necessarily realistic or practical from an engineering standpoint. I recall that Ebert's review mentioned flaws in stability for the alien "tripods." However, my gripe is that they just look stupid. Maybe that's the same grip, though, and I just don't realize it? They look convincing, but they also look convincingly stupid to me. If it weren't for what they can do, they would not be terrorizing at all to look at. Somehow, they seem more like confusing modern art wrought from I-beams than alien monstrosities. Oh well, they do turn people to ash. The movie is so graphically gory and gross, that I fear it alienates its sci-fi crowd. Rather, the people who enjoy this film are likely the same audience that rushed out to see "Saw" and its progeny.

PROS: I can think of none. Biblically, the movie offers no moral message or ethical struggles. Survival, as an instinct, is all that really drives this film. I suppose the film made some visual and fx achievements, but they are drowned out in a see of blood and human ash vapor.

CONS: Graphic violence, vulgar language, a bad family values, and horrific themes make this movie awful without using its horror to accomplish anything of value. Watching human being walk through the vaporized ash remains of other humans is, frankly, one of the most disturbing images I have ever seen, and I got no warning of it anywhere before watching this movie. So: you are warned.

FINAL THOUGHT: I didn't like this movie, but more objectively, this movie failed to set any clear goals for itself. It doesn't comment on anything or have a message, and it fails completely to entertain or evoke any emotion from its audience other than disgust and a lamenting for the cost of the ticket, rental, DVD, etc. The movie is beautifully shot, but it is not beautiful. The visuals are gross and terrible.

BOTTOM LINE: 1/5.