Revisiting 2005's War of the Worlds
Published April 21, 2008
You know how it is.
You see a movie in the theater, like it, and buy the DVD. You notice a film in the $5.50 bin that stars someone you like, and though you've never heard of the movie, you buy it. You win a movie-themed gift, including a DVD of a recent successful film, at a baby shower or the office Christmas party. You get DVDs in your Christmas stocking or as a birthday present. You discover a childhood favorite available for just $7.50 at Wal-Mart. You buy it, too.
Then you file them on a shelf somewhere, where they keep each other company as they collect ever-growing layers of dust, some still suffocating in security plastic, while you repeatedly choose to watch one of a handful of favorites. Many of your DVDs wait in vain, never to be viewed as you work through your Netflix queue and rent movies from Blockbuster. Even during the writers' strike, when three hours of reruns and mediocre reality television shows effectively tempered your interest in watching TV, your trusty DVD shelf remained mostly untouched.
Or maybe it's just me. Other than a few reliable stand-bys, the members of my DVD collection – including many well-liked movies – get passed over again and again. They never seem to correspond to my movie mood. Often I feel time-strapped and prefer something bite-sized that doesn't require a time commitment of an hour and a half or more. I used to wonder at people's interest in watching TV shows on DVD; now The Office is my number one go-to resource for relaxing entertainment.
I have felt bad about not watching those other DVDs, though. Why spend money and shelf space on something I like to have around but never use? I started to think more practically about what DVDs I wanted. I liked several summer movies from last year, but only one made it to my DVD shelves (Live Free or Die Hard). I can always rent the others if the mood strikes, which for most it hasn't.
And as for the films that have already claimed a space on my overcrowded DVD shelves, the time has come to stop neglecting them. With this new series of columns, appropriately if obviously called "Off the Shelf", I plan to force myself to watch those movies, the popular handful and the overlooked many, review them and summarize our relationship. I hope you'll join me in this journey.
- Revisiting 2005's War of the Worlds
- Published: April 21, 2008
- Type: Opinion
- Section: Video
- Filed Under: Video: Action, Video: Drama, Video: SF
- Part of a feature: Off the Shelf
- Writer: Melissa Cuppett
- Melissa Cuppett's BC Writer page
- Melissa Cuppett's personal site
- Spread the Word
- Like this article?
- Email this
Save to del.icio.us
Comments on this articleComments
El Bicho,
It takes all kinds to make the world go round, you know. It was a bad movie, in your opinion. My opinion is different from yours.
I enjoyed this movie, even though it never even gets across the point that the invaders are from Mars. The book, which was very literate and clear, is a long read by 21st Century standards, even though Wells is an excellent story-teller.
Wells' story's age shows in its length - written when a book provided the kind of entertainment that TV and movies provide today.
Spielberg does more than just steal from his Juraissic Park stuff - he re-uses the same alien types used in Independence Day. In addition, he uses his basic theme of kids damaged by divorce that he used in ET. I didn't really know that this was a Spielberg film until Ms. Cuppett said so. But the minute she did, all those points fell into place.
Melissa Cuppett did an excellent job with this review - she did far better than I could have (an unfinished War of the Worlds review sits on my damaged hard-drive awaiting resurrection some day).
Finally, and most importantly, the movie deals with Wells' basic these of human complacency - an issue I run into all too often on this site in the political section where I usually hang out.
I was only offering my opinion, Ruvy. Glad the movie worked for you, although what was going on with the birds. They seemed to have a presence in the story that was never explained.
Thanks for your comments.
Ruvy -- I thought the deal with the birds was very vague. I don't know why they were attracted to the tripods (perhaps they were aware the aliens were dying and wanted to feast on them?), but the fact that the birds could touch them revealed that their shields were down and they were thus susceptible to weapons. That's as far as I got.
I thought the deal with the birds was very vague...
That part with the birds was taken straight from Wells' story. In the story's end, the protagonist sees birds feasting upon the dying Martians, and dogs running off with fresh meat as he wanders exhausted through London, hearing the Martians screaming "ulla, ulla" before falling silent in death.
Earlier in the film, since little Rachel's main job is to scream in terror (so it seems) the birds flying off in terror give her reason to be terrified....
Add your comment, speak your mind
(Or ping: http://blogcritics.org/mt/tb/76026)
"was perhaps marred for some moviegoers by its unfortunate timing."
It was marred for me by being a bad movie. I didn't care about the characters. The son showing up was ridiculous. Spielberg stole from himself by recreating his "raptor in the kitchen" sequence from Jurassic Park. I better not remember anymore or it will ruin the rest of my day.