Revisiting 2005's War of the Worlds
Published April 21, 2008
Up first: 2005's Steven Spielberg-directed War of the Worlds
Have I seen it before? Yes, in the theater. I liked it so well I kept planning to go back to see it again, but never made it.
How the DVD got to my shelf: I apparently purchased a pre-viewed copy from Blockbuster, judging from the sale sticker.
The DVD viewing experience: Enjoyable.
War of the Worlds (which drops the “The” from the book title) was perhaps marred for some moviegoers by its unfortunate timing. Here is a short chronology of significant public events in the life of star Tom Cruise in 2005: jumps on Oprah's couch, May 23; disses Brooke Shields, May 26; proposes to Katie Holmes in Paris, June 17; defensively calls Matt Lauer “glib” in a Today Show interview, June 24. War of the Worlds opened in the U.S. on June 29.
People were getting sick of Cruise by the time the movie was released. Dating Holmes and espousing Scientology made him seem pretty weird. Some people opted to avoid his new movie altogether, having already seen enough of him for the year. (The movie did alright at the box office, bringing in a total U.S. gross of $234,280,354 and a worldwide gross of $591,745,532, according to The Numbers. By comparison, other big June 2005 films included Batman Begins, which brought home a total U.S. gross of $205,343,774 and a worldwide gross of $371,824,647, and Mr. and Mrs. Smith, which made $186,336,279 in the U.S. and $468,336,279 worldwide.)
It is indeed difficult to avoid him while watching the movie. Cruise takes on the role of the protagonist, who in the H.G. Welles book experiences the world-changing invasion of extraterrestrial life mostly in a solo journey that finds him occasionally sharing space with other humans. In the newest film version of the story, Cruise plays a messy, unlikable dad named Ray whose children, Robbie and Rachel, aren't particularly close to or fond of him.
The film is marred most, perhaps, by the heavily apparent domestic dynamic. Science fiction is ripe for metaphor, a trait that endears it to fans (along with all the cool creatures and technology and stuff). In this case the father-children relationship might be a little distracting, but it doesn't ruin the movie. Ray doesn't become Super Dad, but he does eventually transfer his eye from himself to, most notably, his daughter as the alien invasion creates a ripple of dangerous situations.
- 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.