War of the Worlds
—Photos
—About this Film
Review by Tom Price
Review by Maurice Broaddus
Commentary by David Bruce
The human race is a lot like cockroaches: hard to kill. I don't how many times planet Earth has been invaded by extraterrestrial beings and yet somehow humanity always finds a way to survive. Most extraordinary of all, it's usually because of our ingenuity and technology, which I always found a bit odd as it's usually assumed that the invading aliens are a) technologically more advance and b) have a superior intelligence because they were able to develop such advanced technologies. That's why I found H.G. Wells' story The War of the Worlds so fascinating. Here was a story where humanity's hope for survival could best be described somewhere between bleak and non-existent. The invading Martians were so overwhelmingly powerful, their machines so unstoppable, their methods so efficient and effective that you never once believed that humanity had any chance at surviving the onslaught. What stood out most in Wells' story was that it really didn't focus on the invasion, but on how people reacted to the invasion. Steven Spielberg's new film version of War of the Worlds attempts to do the same thing, and in some instances it succeeds. For the most part, however, it's your typical summertime film: all flash and very little substance.
One thing about the book that really affected me was how humanity was portrayed during the invasion. As the protagonist of the story tries to get away from the unstoppable Martians, his encounters with other people often left me, the reader, feeling like humanity was getting what they deserved. Sure we pride ourselves on being an advanced civilization—at the time of Wells' story there was arguable none more advanced than the British Empire—yet, when faced with an invading force of superior alien technologies, humanity's civilized veneer collapses and the true color of our race is revealed. People become obsessed with their own survival, no matter the cost. They behave like small-minded animals only acting on instinct, and as you read the story, it's a gut-wrenching thing to picture in your mind's eye. Spielberg's film echoes this sentiment as we watch Tom Cruise's character Ray try to survive and save his children. Yet unlike the hero of Wells' book, Ray never reflects on the behavior he's witnessing. He never seems shocked or saddened by it. In fact, he seems indifferent to it most of the time except when it endangers his daughter, and because of this indifference, and the fact the he never behaves any better than those around him, those scenes in the movie lose some of their emotional impact.
There are several other ways the movie pays homage to the original story. The alien machines are tripods, like Wells described them, and I thought their overall design was pretty cool. They looked a little retro, yet they were still menacing. However, I was a little disappointed that once again the reason the invading aliens were unstoppable was simply because they had shields. It's just so. Independence Day. It's an over-used, convenient clich�. Personally, if the invading machines would have been impervious to our weapons because of the advanced materials the machines were made of or because they were self-healing or something, I would have felt much more in awe and overwhelmed by their presence. As it is, I knew that once those shields somehow went down, humanity would have an easy time of dispatching the machines with our conventional weapons. Convenient. Enough with the shields already. Quite frankly, shields aren't an advanced, amazing alien technology anymore. Everybody and their grandmother have shields in today's sci-fi stories. Let's find something new.
I also found it odd that although Spielberg said he didn't want to do a period piece, much of the film felt like one. Most of it takes place in the rolling countryside with just a few farm houses around, so it often looked very much like the depictions of Wells' original story, which by the way was written in the 1890's. All the cars don't work, so you have refugees walking in droves with their carts of belongings, again often given the film a very period-like feel. Sometimes I was confused; if this was a modern retelling of the story, where was the modern setting? The story starts in New York and continues as Cruise tries to get his kids to Boston. The East Coast has some of the largest cities in the world, several of them practically connected, but we see very little of any of that in the film, and therefore I think the whole invasion and devastation felt a little less epic than it could have. I know Spielberg wanted to keep the big story focused on the lives of one man and his family, not unlike the book, but at times that view was almost too narrow and small. Plus, we never really get to know these characters well enough to truly identify with them while seeing this story from their point of view, so even the scenes that are supposed to have an emotional impact felt much less intense then they probably should have.
One thing I really did not appreciate was how hard Spielberg tried to tap into the feelings of 9-11. From the ash-covered visage of Cruise after the initial attack, to the Red Cross worker telling people of their desperate need for blood donations, to the walls covered with "have you seen this person" posters, to clothes falling from the sky (remember all the paper that fell from the twin towers?). It just seemed as though Spielberg was trying to say, "Remember 9-11? Remember how terrified and horrified you were? This is worse." I realize that in order to make this new remake "relevant" to today's world that such references and parallels were inevitable and perhaps even necessary, but I just felt like they could have been a bit subtler.
One thing the movie did get right in its transition from book to screen was its depiction of the depraved and selfish nature of humanity. The attack by the aliens blows away any remaining fluff about the nature of people being basically good. All we see are self-absorbed creatures that'll do anything, even kill their own kind, in order to survive. The truth of that observation was driven home even more by the people sitting behind me who had the annoying habit of laughing at some of the most inappropriate times during the movie, usually when people's depraved nature on screen caused them to turn on each other violently. Apparently the people behind me found that vastly entertaining and hilarious, which caused my stomach to turn much more than anything I saw on the screen. If anyone had anyone doubts about the true nature of humanity, not only was the truth being displayed on the screen before us, it could also be heard in the seats behind me. It was one of those moments when one wonders if the human race is really worth the effort to save. Of course, the good news is that God is an ever-patient and loving God who doesn't give us what we deserve, which at times can be difficult to understand but is something I'm grateful for nonetheless. As I watched War of the Worlds, I was also reminded that we all face an unstoppable foe. A foe that feeds and strengthens our depraved nature. One that cannot be overcome by our own efforts. I'm referring to Sin, and just as in War of the Worlds, the only way this foe can be defeated is by God's design.
Now, don't get me wrong, Spielberg is still one of the best moviemakers around, and War of the Worlds is obviously crafted with a master's touch. There are several scenes that are epic and moving, that left me agape in disbelief at the devastation I was seeing, and the movie works best during those moments. The rest of it, however, is pretty much paint-by-numbers and at times feels a little rushed (of course the film was bumped up from its original 2007-2008 release date and put on the fast track for production.) War of the Worlds is a fun, summer popcorn flick that misses some opportunities to resonate on a more emotional, substantial level, which the book by H.G. Wells accomplished so well. The movie has a several very cool moments, but they aren't tied together in a very compelling manner. Spielberg and Wells are both excellent story-tellers, but in this case, I'd have to say the father of science fiction hit all the right notes while one of today's best directors missed a little more often than he should have. Will you enjoy War of the Worlds? I think so. Is it worth seeing on the big screen? Absolutely. Is it worth your ten bucks? Well. how much do you make? After taxes, I mean.
—Overview
