Post
by Ben » July 2nd, 2005, 3:22 pm
Okay...weeeeeell...
I'd love to know at which point, James, that WOTW became "without question the absolute worst movie I have ever sat in a theatre and watched"??
As with Jaws and Jurassic (the two most like films in Spielberg's canon), the first half an hour didn't really hold much excitement, but was full of build up.
Then the aliens hit, and I for one got what I expected: an alien invasion as seen through the eyes of an average, everyday American family.
You want the media take on what would happen? Listen to Orson Welles. Want the military/top government bodies and thinkers version? See the 1953 George Pal movie.
Want a new slant on an old story so that things feel fresh, new, and not entirely sure of which direction things will go in? Spielberg's got you checked.
It's VERY funny, but hours after reading your message here, and literally JUST before I went into the theater, my sister sent me a phone text message which read "I have just seen the worst film in ages. It is called War Of The Worlds." Oh dear, I thought, as I took my seat.
Then it started and all the build up was cool. Granted the alien action was spread thin, but when it came it was STONKING!
BIG! LOUD! And that CGI - awesome, especially considering the amount of time in which this film was put together.
The story didn't always hold, and thinking back there weren't really any classic moments that will live with me the way moments from Jaws or Jurassic will, but actually sitting there watching, I was never really sure what was going to happen (apart from the predictable) and to who.
But at the end (and those who moan about what some are calling the abrupt ending should refer back to the radio treatment, the first movie and indeed Wells original novel, of course), I really felt as if I had come out the other side with these characters.
I felt little Stevie had gotten a bang on balance of the more seriously-toned thespian-strong pieces of late and his popcorn pictures where anything goes. The creepy alien inspecting the barn never got to the stressful point that the 'raptors searching for the kids in Jurassic did, but in many ways it was not that kind of film.
I found it very "real", as in being fairly realistic of what might happen should something like this occur. People died, there was real carnage, and the usual Spielbergian pratfalls were thankfully kept to a minimum.
So, as I said at the top of this reply: I can't believe that even 20 minutes in you were thinking what a pile of pooh this was - so what was the turning point? Second time the aliens attacked and it wasn't big enough?
Seems, as with my sister's response (and I'll ask her the same question when I next speak to her), that WOTW will strictly devide people on it. Can't say I loved, loved, loved it the way Jurassic struck me, but I did think that this was Cruise's best performance in a long time and a nice new spin on the old story.
Spielberg, as proven with Hook, will never simply tread old territory. He felt that the "big picture" version of this story had been done (in 1953, in Independence Day, which is a rip-off of the original idea, and even Mars Attacks, which was a spoof).
War Of The Worlds 2005 took the exact opposite approach and made a very big subject and small and intimate series of events, much like the story of Jack and Rose played out (though granted, with no romance!) in front of that bigger canvas.
After a lack-lustre summer of pointless Siths and boring Bats, this was a nice change. I am amazed at the absolute hatred for this movie that has sparked. What were people expecting?
)
)
)
