I have come to a realization in the past few years. That realization is that I am incredibly difficult to satisfy fully with a film. Especially when it is a remake of a film I thoroughly enjoy. With this movie being a remake of the 1953 version, which was based on a radio show, which in turn was based on a book written back in 1898 by H.G. Wells. What I do not understand about filmmakers is their ability to take a story and make it worse than it was done previously. I have a few questions for all involved with this movie. 1. If it is called War of The Worlds, when do we get to see this war? Seriously though, don't call it War of The Worlds if the audience doesn't get to see any war between worlds. Why was Morgan Freeman used to bookend the film and explain the demise of the martians? It's not that it was the great Morgan Freeman, I would have the question regardless who bookended this. So, what the writers are telling us is that they couldn't figure out a way for the aliens to die or a way we can learn it the way they meant it without a voice over at the end explaining it.
I won't lie about it, I was incredibly looking forward to this film. It was a modern remake of a film I watched when I was a kid that I loved so much. The trailer showed some really cool stuff! I found out later that the cool stuff shown was the only cool stuff in the film at all anyway. So I will say something first about the writing. Not really the style of the writing but rather the way they chose to change the story through the writing. The original film actually showed you a bit of war so in that the original is to blame as well, but it at least showed some. This one should be called something different because you see no war at all. We do get to see what look like it could be a war on the other side of a hill but we really don't see it, the film just hints at it. The only war I see during this movie is the war that Tom Cruise has with his children. Maybe that should be the name if we want it tell the truth. Steven Speilberg actually said he wanted it to be a family drama inside a disaster movie. Well, if that's the case then change the name to something more appropriate like "Tom Cruise Running While Trying To Save His Stupid Kids!"
On the subject of the kids in the movie! Why did they write them to be the most annoying two children on Earth? I do not have children of my own but I have been around alot of kids in my day and I have never seen any act the way these two do. Absolutely obnoxious from the moment they arrive on screen. Pay close attention to Dakota Fanning because I'll be damned if her character doesn't make you want to through her outta the van and give her to the invaders. I am of the opinion that she cannot act very well, which is not I know, how the rest of the world sees her. Every film I have seen her in she plays the same character and that character is a very young but smarter than the world type person. It's actually quite annoying to say the least. Justin Chatwin, also is incredibly annoying too. He just has to be a smartass all the while not listening to his father. The family unit in this film fails on most every level. I never started to actually care if any of them made it out alive. I believe if they wanted the audience to care for them they should have made them a normalish type of family instead of a broken home one.
As much as I thought this movie was a complete failure it still wasn't all bad. The special effects are phenomenal! I love the fact they made the invaders use the tripod look from the actual novel. The 1953 film had some really cool martian vehicles but they weren't part of the book. Cool, but not right. But, that scene near the beginning when the invaders begin their attack and the tripod comes out of the ground is so awesome that I can't fully hate this movie. Also, when all the people are trying to board the ferry and the tripod shows up overlooking the seaside town is just a great spectacle.
I have really been going on about this film a bit too much so I just wanted to throw out a few other quick questions that I won't try to answer but will leave it to whomever hasn't seen this to figure out or someone that has seen it and is boggled as I am. I am a Tom Cruise fan. I like the majority of his work but seriously why is he in about 99% of the frames of this film? I understand he is the star of the movie but it is called War of The Worlds for a reason not Tom Cruise's face. Another question I have is can you really survive the impact of a 747 airliner while hiding behind a wooden door and some cement? How was the guys camcorder still working when all other electronic devices stopped? How did Cruise's son in the film arrive at the mom's house before everyone else when we last saw him running toward a war zone that we didn't get to see?
All I can say to all is watch it if you want to! I can recommend the effects is all, but the rest is forgettable. I think it is one of Speilberg's worst films to date. Let me know what you think below or if you have some answers for the questions I brought up.
No comments:
Post a Comment