I wonder whether the irony in Spielberg’s SFX blockbuster is intentional. If so, will its American audience get it? A massive invasion by an enemy displaying overwhelming, irresistible force, destroy everything in their path: people, buildings, cities. Shock and Awe as ever was. The Alien invaders display a total indifference and callousness towards all that opposes them, especially humans, who they obliterate or capture, cage, and use for food. Even death is depicted in a detached way, at least early on, when all that is left of an explosively vaporised body, is the clothing floating, empty in the air. This is one of a number of pretty dumb things in this movie. After all, a death ray that explodes bone, muscle, sinew and blood, yet leaves fragile cloth to flutter to the earth like the end of a launderette drying cycle? Not since the unstoppable Aliens in the ludicrous, paranoid Signs, were found to withstand everything humans threw at them except a drop of rain or a glass of water, has the desire for a nice image triumphed so totally over common sense.

The irony thing is worth considering further. A seriously misused Tim Robbins playing a hit-back-at-‘em survival freak, says he is “on a different page” to Tom Cruise who just wants to keep himself and his daughter alive. Robbins remarks “Occupations never work.” Hmm Steven, don’t tell us…..tell…. If irony is his game, Spielberg misses his best chance. Cruise’s Ray Ferrier gets the first Alien to be destroyed, by almost being sucked into its spaceship and on escaping, leaves a few unpinned grenades behind. The most successful strategy against the overwhelming impregnability of the Aliens is clear - suicide bombers. For the price of a relatively few lives and grenades, the vulnerability of the invaders would be painfully exposed. Maybe this would be a touch too ironic for Steven or his mainstream US box office.

Visually WOTW is dark, broody and drenched in dystopian reds and blacks. The unrelenting special effects rush us headlong through a pretty thin adaptation of Wells’s story. It is strange that the brilliant director of Jaws who knew how to ratchet up tension and fear for about 40 minutes before we even saw the shark, launches us straight into direct visual confrontation with the Alien tripods in WOTW. What follows is more of a non-stop chase movie than a dramatically cadenced piece of work. WOTW has one pace – breakneck. This is its narrative weakness: after all, as we all sort of know how it ends, surely it is the variation of pace and unexpected tense situations along the way that would offer us the best thrills? It seems perverse that a film-maker with Spielberg’s usually fine-tuned commercial instincts should have opted for such one-paced reliance on special effects – however good they are. There are no moments of calm in the movie when the characters and the audience can have a breather and then be freshly surprised by the next exciting change of pace.

Cruise is not bad, continuing his play-against-persona style rolled out in Collateral. But the superb 11 year-old Dakota Fanning as his daughter Rachel is inspired casting. She steals every scene she’s in and has most of the best lines, including one lulu about her allergy to peanut butter. Almost everyone else in the movie is cardboard, which at least burns well, so the actors have a pretty tough time.

If you want to see lots of well conceived SFX set pieces; masterfully managed crowd scenes, at the service of a kind of unrelieved dramatic dread about the elimination of all human life, WOTW will satisfy. But be warned: the 12A certificate is I think misjudged. Not because there is a lot of death and destruction, though there is, but because some impressionable sub-12’s could very well identify with Rachel’s terror and might find that very disturbing. This isn’t fear of danger, it’s dread at annihilation.

WOTW sort of works on a soon forgotten level. It has its moments of suspense, the best nicked from ET, but fewer than it should. Worth a look, but if you are taking a sub-12, know your kid or play safe. The one big surprise of WOTW: no bloody dog that impossibly survives. Here, everything that moves gets it: including in the end the aliens themselves. We must hope that is not an irony where life imitates art.

Zettel 2005

Another great review Zettel.

I will go and see this, even though early reports seem pretty negative. I have a natural aversion to classic British novels being picked up and 'Hollywood-ised' by the Americans.

I would have loved to see a modern remake of the film, true to the original, set in Victorian London with Spielberg and Cruise about as far away from the project as Mars is from the Earth.

JB

Thanks James

I agree entirely with you. Although re-set in California, the 1953 film is much truer to the spirit of Wells's original story than this one.

Regards

Z

Z, I much preferred reading your review to watching this film. I kept looking at my watch and wishing that the aliens would hurry up and eat everyone (except the little girl, only tolerable character) so I could go home.

For me, the "where we are now" dialogue had to be this exchange about the aliens:

Ray Ferrier: They're not from around here.
Robbie Ferrier: You mean they're, like, from Europe?

Not your best, Stevie S.

Adele.



<Added>

Reading Sheila (Cornelia's) review, I think that on reflection, the little girl's screaming makes her only a borderline case for salvation. However, I would spare her for having a wide-eyed cuteness when not terrified.

Ad
It is a pretty schlocky movie isn't it? I can see where Cornelia is coming from on the Rachel character but I felt Dakota Fanning gave it a sort of Jodie Foster feistiness that I liked, thou she was given some pretty crappy lines to go with the good ones. The boy was extraordinarily boring - almost totally anonymous, I can't even remember what he looks like. And everything he (the character) did in the movie was stupid.

Love the piece of deathless dialogue you quote.

I still find it curious how the irony of bringing out the fact that suicide bombers could even beat Martians, hasn't been remarked in the press.

If you're looking for something more interesting The Edukators is still doing the rounds. Maybe before we all feel a bit Wonky next weekend.

Regards

Z

Z, I've only seen trailers for The Edukators, but sometimes I sense they've been in my flat moving things around ever so slightly...

Ah, the joys of an over active imagination!

Goodnight.

A.

<Added>

PS Is it just me who thought that Tom Cruise's character was an unattractive violent slob?

<Added>

Ok, so he loves his daughter, but even so...

Ad

Stick a pizza ad on your door and come back to find the flat tidier than you left it and all your washing done! (now I know why it was called 3 - Iron) Of course it's not my thing...but if you came back unexpectedly early there might be even more interesting benefits.....

You're right about TC. But it's his new screen persona. Again it's not my thing, but can anyone explain to me why this weird little guy with slopey shoulders and about as much athletic grace as an arthritic giraffe, is such a sex symbol?

Ah the mysteries of sex appeal...

Regards

Z

Z, I've always thought TC was nice looking, but never fancied him in the past because he was too much of a boy, and now don't fancy him because he plays violent slobs who don't know any lullabies. Since you enquire, my top movie totty would be Pierce Brosnan in the Thomas Crowne Affair - got into Cambridge from Glasgow on a boxing scholarship, knows lots about many things including business and art, very adventurous etc etc

As for the home visits, next time they come could they clean my oven, please?

Adele.

<Added>

Correction: Thomas Crown went to Oxford, all the more reason to pick him ;)

Ad

Brosnan over McQueen shows a serious failure of cool. However these things are personal and neither rides my side of the street. Plus I guess being dead gives poor old Steve a slight disavantage. Sensitivity to your fantasy prevents any snide crack there at PB's acting ability........

Hush a bye baby in the tree top
when the bow breaks.....

Huh! - who am I kidding?

I'll clean your oven if you'll sand down my windows...

deal?

Z

Z, I have both the original and the remake on video, and the characters are slightly different. Steve McQueen's Thomas Crown didn't go to Oxford. And my mother used to fancy him, so he can't possibly be my top movie totty. As for Pierce's acting ability, well he's no Michael Gambon (brilliant as Falstaff at the NT in the Henry IV plays), but I know who I'd rather snog...

As for your windows, I have some sandpaper somewhere plus an electric drill, lots of screwdrivers and The Reader's Digest Complete DIY Manual, but I'm sure you would be much better at that task than me. And chipped nail polish is so unsightly

Adele.

Ad

It is only fear of chipping my nails that has prevented me from doing it myself. How did you guess?

Your mum? Hell you know how to hit a guy where it hurts. Personally I'd rather not snog either of the gentlemen concerned.

Happy lullabys

Z