I think the whole thing was supposed to be some kind of metaphor for America in the wake of 9/11.
Special effects were first rate, and there were some wonderful scenes–the arrival of the Martians and the mob attacking Cruise trying to steal the van, for example–but no matter how you look at it, the script stank and the story just doesn’t hold together very well.
All in all, a crappy film.
But maybe it wasn’t a war to the aliens. Maybe it was their equivalent of a quail hunt or a turkey shoot.
(I can’t believe I’m actually defending this great big steamin’ heap … )
Yeah, but that plot had been used before in Predator and no Hollywood director would ever stoop so low as to recycle a plotline.
I actually did like the movie. The scene in the basement where Tim Robbins and TC are engaged in the silent fight while the alien is in the next room was well done, I thought.
I loved TC’s reaction when he’s realizes that he’s covered in human ash.
Also, the sound the tripods made while walking was the creepiest thing I’ve ever heard.
That said, the son was an ass and Dakota Fanning’s screaching was way over the top.
My thoughts:
1.) Special effects were great, both tripods and aliens. The “Alien Klaxon” was good, too.
2.) Why are Spielberg’s recent movies “muddy”? The image in this filom seems somehow “fuzzy” and not Sharp. Munich looks the same way. Compare these films with, say Jurassic Park and you’ll see what I mean. It looks as if this film has been badly and cheaply duped several times to get this look, which I hate.
3.) The alien weapon is appropriately terrifying and scary, much as in Wells’ original book. I approve.
4.) Spielberg’s having the alien machines buried underground was clearly an attempt to do something different, and avoid the many ramifications od having cylinders/flying saucers/whatever land. This way he can launch directly into the storyof The Invasion without the extraneous issues and the special effects disatraction of the actual Landing. But it’s a stupid idea, I think. It doesn’t withstand a moment’s scrutiny. Why the hell would you bury tripod “tanks” underground in the distant past, apparently assuming the development of a civilization that you could then crush with those tripods? Why not just take over when you get there? What if you invaded a hundred years later and the Earthmen crushed you?
5.) Whereas the Martians’ actions in the original Wells book made sense (Wells invented the “alien invasion” story with his book, and I’m amazed at how much he created and got right), it doesn’t here. The aliens ought to be smashing centers of operations – power plants, military bases, ports, centers of communication, etc. They clearly don’t want to preserve them for their own use, and they don’t seem to want to capture a large and docile population intact. for an invasion planned 'way in advance, this plays out more like a play-it-by-ear piece of barbarian plundering, rather than invasion.
6.) Tim Robbins; character was good and well-handled, and has its roots in the book. His ultimate fate isn’t, but is also a good addition.
7.) The alien plants, also in the book, are usually ignored (Except in League of Extraordinary gentlemen II, and here). Well used. They could have used The Black Smoke, too, and I wish they had.
8.) I’m really disappointed that the aliens dodnm’t follow the book.
9.) The death of the Martians by microbe makes sense in Wells’ book, but for this film, with aliens this advanced who had beren here before, you’d think they’d know. as it is, this comes off about as dumb as the aliens in “Signs” who are vulnerable to water, yet invade a planet 3/4 water, subject to regular dowenpours (and high humidity) naked. Wells’ Matrtians didn’t have any invasion experience, and it’s understandable that they weren’t prepared. Spielberg implies intrerstellar aliens, presumably with a few victories under their belts, and they have no excuse. Especially if they have the super-technology shown here.
10.) I dislike Tom Cruise and his Scientology background, but I’ll give him acting credit. He was great in Born on the Fourth of July, and good here.
11.)Overall – disappointing. Spielberg’s effects and storytelling are superb, as usual, but he really didn’t give enough thought to the “updating”. It’s not just nostalgia and an affection for H.G. wells that makes me say that WotW would be much better as a Period Piece – it was written for the Victorian Age and works best in that situation.I wasn’t really happy with the 1953 version, either, but it’s harder to excuse tyhis one. They’ve had plenty of time and opportunity to work it out properly.
I have to ask again; why would you think this?
Attacking “Centers of operations” is logical only if human resistance matters. But human resistance does not, apparently, matter; the aliens are bothered not at all by the military’s efforts. Why would the aliens place any importance whatsoever on military bases? If you’re stomping roaches do you care which ones you kill first?
If anything I was thrilled to see an alien invasion movie where the aliens weren’t just a gross-looking enemy that acted like a human army, a la “Independence Day” or “V” or, well, pick your movie. The aliens have no reason at all to care which of the humans they’re frying is the President of the United States and which is a janitor. It’s entirely possible the aliens don’t have a conception of hierarchy. It’s possible they were avoiding military bases for some reason. You could justify it a hundred ways. Spielberg and the screenwriters chose not to get into discussions of tactics; how could you, anyway, when the focus is on a schlub and his two kids?
Unless, of course, the disease that killed them was something that had popped up in the last couple of centuries. Or last year. Maybe they had a pretty good atmospheric sample, well tested, from, say, 1200 AD.
Unfortunately, the producers were stuck with the microbe angle. Changing it would have been met with howls of outrage. But it’s reasonable to conclude that perhaps the biological agent that killed them was of relatively recent vintage - maybe just a new strain of the flu - or that they just fucked up. The exact reasons simply aren’t important. It’s not as dumb as “Signs.”
He has been using Janusz Kaminski as his Director of Photography for a while now. The ‘muddy’ look comes from him. Although, he, Kaminski, can do ‘regular’ like The Terminal.
In Munich, I felt like he was trying to give it that European feel, but just didn’t do it very well.
In WotW, I felt they were going for a specific somber hopelessness. Note how many scenes were either in industrial smog, battle smoke, in poorly lit areas, in the rain, or at night. The oppressive feel begins to weigh on you. Then, when we see a tripod fail, the Sun comes out. The last few moments of the film are mostly in sunshine, a ‘ray of hope.’
Yeah, smarmy, but cinematographers do stuff like that from time to time.
Actually, I’d think we were far more likely to catch something from them. If you look at human history, it’s almost always the invading force that brings deadly infections (to which they are mostly immune) with them, not the other way around.
I think Tom Cruise is a very capable actor - he might not be the best alive, but he is a solid performer. Odd as it is to say, I don’t think Speilberg directed him very well in this movie. Of course, that fits in with the rest of my theory that Speilberg really wasn’t all that interested in this film.
I loved it. I thought it was way, way more faithful to Wells’ than the George Pal version which, face it, was a product of its time (i.e. an overwrought, campy, kid’s movie).
The whole examination of the setup logic flaws (why were the tripods already there, what where the aliens’ overall intentions etc.) are totally moot points because the film was being told from one family’s POV. In other words, how would it have affected Cruise’s character to know the global picture? Answer: Not at all!! The whole story was a moment-by-moment, hand-to-mouth, barebones survival story. It reminded me of Speilberg’s earlier works like Close Encounters and Jaws in terms of adhereing to the ‘less is more’ scare tactic.
And Dakota Fanning was great. The scene after the first attack when they’re escaping in the minivan and she starts quietly saying, “I want mom” again and again until she’s literally screaming it as loud as possibly. Anybody who’s ever been around kids knows this is exactly what they do in real life (but usually not in the movies).
I also loved Fannings inside joke line when Cruise says the lightening is like the Fourth of July and she says, “No, its not” (i.e. a comment on ID4’s status as the worst scifi movie in history)…
ID4 may not have been high art by any stretch, but (IIRC) it was generally well received as a classic (and somewhat funny at times) popcorn movie and was quite successful at the box office. Who in the world with any critical faculties would consider it as “the worst scifi movie in history”.
[OT]That’s not always the case (e.g., syphilis).[/OT]
The theory that the aliens perhaps buried their machines eons ago is mentioned by Tim Robbins’ character and he’s clearly a nutjob. Still, if the movie is assuming that he’s correct, there is a way the idea makes sense. Writer and eccentric Charles Fort stated: “Earth is a farm; we are someone else’s property.” In this case, Earth was a long-term harvest plan and human beings were the crop. The aliens “planted” their machines in the ground and then left to let the human population grow to a point where it could be harvested. The fact that humans might develop technologically during that time was of little consequence since the aliens would still be more advanced. This was like beekeeping–the difference being, of course ,that the aliens apparently came back to take human blood rather than honey.
Then again, I may have overthought this whole thing.
Actaully, the ‘farm’ reaction is what my neighbor had right after seeing it. I can see it.
To the thing about WotW is that the more you think about some things, the worse the movie gets. (the plane crash that just knocks out a corner of the house, doesn’t burn and leaves a path to drive your stolen mini van out of the neighborhood) OTOH, it is a great movie to think “What would I do?”
[Torgo]
The master would not be pleased.
[/Torgo]
Well, me, most definitely.
Worst. Scifi. Ever.
Hell, I think ID4 was one of the top ten worst movies period. Devlin and Emmerich (produer & director) are the biggest no-talent hacks working today. They are worse than Roger Corman, Ed Wood, Renny Harlin, and Michael Bay combined! 
Sorry but the worst Sci-Fi movie ever is To Kill a Mockingbird.
Casablanca was a pretty bad sci-fi, what with the poorly done time travel sequences, the alien invasion back story, and the manufactured artificial personalities. The android piano player was cool, tho.
But it had giant, walking, sentient hams!