David - Great post. There is an "uncool to like Spielberg movies" thing
that goes beyond anything the man has done. I'm old enough to remember
the "uncool to like JAWS" period... because it's "uncool" often to like
big, expensive movies that have popular appeal... at the time. It's part
of not being "one of the crowd". It happened to GWTW, and has for the
last couple of years been cast over TITANIC... and DANCES WITH WOLVES an
many more movies that were immensely popular films. Human nature. No
wonder Martians see us an easy target, as so often our brains appear to
be in our arse.
That's not to say that the many people who don't like the film aren't
perfectly within their rights not to like - or to like something. But
there is a certain predictability in the comments, and tone of the
comments whether it's about this film or even reactions to the KING KONG
trailer. People just love to be knockers. I even know a couple of people
who cheerfully declare that LOTR was a huge bunch of commercial crap....
except there's one thing wrong with their statement... they never saw
any of the films.
So I'll go see WOTW this weekend and make up my own mind, remembering of
course how great the Pal version was, complete with Gene Barry's
riveting performance, the numerous now-clunky effects shots with visible
wires holding up the war machines, the total disregard for most of the
source novel and complete lack of characterisation outside of cardboard
comic-book level writing.
Pal's WAR OF THE WORLDS was a big hit kid's SF movie in 1953. Only 50s
years of nostalgic hindsight has elevated it to "beloved classic"
status. In a recent interview with Spielberg for Australian TV he
articulated this very aspect. Pal's WAR OF THE WORLDS was a great fun
movie, but it's not a classic of cinema which was why he never felt like
he was doing anything wrong by remaking a "classic".... because he
didn't think it was.
Phil
David Kusumoto wrote:
Wow, I just came back from a long day at the office and I have to say
that
every single private e-mail (but one) that I've received about my
review of
Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" this morning (that is, from people who've
seen it since its release), was negative. They didn't like the film or
thought it was dull or just plain ordinary beyond the special effects.
Lemme add what I've since shared with others. I just got my first
look at
reviews in the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, the NY Times and the SF
Chronicle. And those reviews were spot-on about how I felt last night.
Roger Ebert's review was negative, citing the fact that he couldn't
get past
the source material, the original 1898 book, that he didn't feel "tripod"
aliens were credible, so he gave it a thumbs down. Fine.
People who seen War of the Worlds and hate it won't change their
minds. But
those who haven't should think about this: Try not to punch holes into a
film that's in a genre that requires going in -- a complete suspension of
disbelief (defined here as: "a willingness of a reader or viewer to
suspend
his or her critical faculties to the extent of ignoring minor
inconsistencies so as to enjoy a work of fiction.")
We're not talking "Lord of the Rings" here. This isn't art or a
cinematic
masterpiece based on classic literature. Films in this crowd-plesing
genre,
well, I expect plot lines and holes you can drive a truck through, as
well
as acting of the type that's overwhelmed by visuals.
Hence I don't understand the fuss about Tom Cruise's acting (or lack
of it)
in a sci-fi film. It's like people attacking Star Wars for wooden
acting.
The 1977 original was hardly the stuff of the Lee Strasberg school of
acting
-- but we loved its comic book and serial-like structure anyway.
Suddenly
these genre pictures require Brando acting fireworks and emotional
dialogue?
Not for me. I may not like Tom Cruise personally but I believe he's
grown
as an actor. I GUARANTEE someday he will win an Oscar on MERIT -- for a
role that's perfect for him. The last role that showed what he was
capable
of (to me, anyway) of greatness was way back in 1996 in Cameron Crowe's
"Jerry Maguire." I didn't count his 1989 Oscar nomination in Oliver
Stone's "Born on the Fourth of July," which felt gimmicky. I put Jim
Carrey
in the same boat. He's comedic, but someday he will transition like
other
comedians such as Robin Williams and Bill Murray and Steve Martin -- into
believable dramatic actors. I hated Cruise and Carrey until I saw
Cruise in
"Jerry Maguire" and Carrey in "The Truman Show."
Why I liked "War of the Worlds" (despite my personal aversion to
sci-fi or
sword and sorcery material) is that it goes against the grain of what I'm
personally used to. There were no heads of state debating the
attacks, no
famous landmarks blown up, no war rooms with military people talking
about
counteratttack plans, no scientists or professors speculating what's
going
on, no dumb TV interviews of "victims." The HG Wells book describes the
attackers as Martians, vividly depicts them as being "tripod-like" in
form
and there are bits and pieces from which I drew links between a
107-year old
book, a 52-year old film starring Gene Barry and a garden variety of
other
sci-fi and horror films that have had a "been-there-done-that
quality." And
it's a fair argument that an audience should NOT have to rely on source
material to enjoy a film. It should stand alone. I couldn't do it
because
I'm old and I know the book (set in Britain, by the way) and the 1953
film.
Another MoPo member made a great observation: he asked, "ponder this
about
"The Terminal" and "War Of The Worlds" (both Spielberg films): "aren't
they actually two sides of the post 9/11 political psyche?"
ABSOLUTELY. And you can add "Minority Report" (another Cruise and
Spielberg
film) to the list, which was about preventing crimes before they happen
using a system based on identity registrations and predicting the future.
Beyond the menacing tone in Spielberg's latest film, there are two quick
scenes in "War of the Worlds" that mirror the "immediate post-9/11
aftermath." (I won't mention 'em.) The film isn't otherwise overtly
political, and I like questions such as, "why are they attacking us?"
-- are
left ambiguous (hence more frustrating to those who've never read the
book
nor seen the 1953 film). They want answers to everything. Well, the
aliens
won't say and there's no scientist on camera giving away the facts.
So in
fairness, people have a right to be disappointed with the ending, perhaps
even bitter.
Now, what did I HATE about "War of the Worlds?"
I expect sci-fi thrillers to be devoid of airtight logic and
believable plot
lines; I look at the genre as a fun collection of "what if?" fantasies
with
a lot of tech stuff for geeks. Nevertheless, I hated how Spielberg
handles
who survives and who doesn't at the end. I wanted it darker and bleaker.
Candidly, I wanted more people close to Cruise dead. It would make more
sense. I hated the son and what happens to him (or doesn't) when the
film
ends. I didn't want a "talking head picture." Hence I didn't need more
character development beyond just knowing that we're going to follow Tom
Cruise and his two kids from the beginning to the end. The little girl
(Dakota Fanning) is dynamite. And to me, the tension and suspense in the
quiet scenes with Tim Robbins were spectacular. I'm sure they felt
"slow"
or even boring to others.
Finally, anyone astute about what's going on with Morgan Freeman's
narration
at the beginning and at the end -- will immediately catch that they're
almost word-for-word out of H.G. Wells original 1898 book. And it's
thrilling to hear Wells's words resonating today, year 2005. Again, you
shouldn't have to know this, and to say you do smacks of intellectual
snobbery.
But for me, those words read by Morgan Freeman just jumped out. They
still
feel relevant. This film could've been done so many different ways that
would've delighted the "Independence Day" and "Armageddon" crowd.
This is
not an across-the-board crowd pleaser like "Close Encounters" or
"Jaws." It
could've even been done as a literal translation of the HG Wells book,
you
know, w/an aura of the Victorian age, set in the UK, instead of being
depicted as it does here in present day New Jersey and the route to
Boston.
I'm won't change people's minds. I'll just close with what A.O. Scott of
the New York Times wrote in his review of the film. He said while
there are
flaws in "War of the Worlds," and while there are some who will argue
to the
death that even his re-working of Kubrick's "A.I." was abysmal, "War
of the
Worlds" is only a movie....
"...and a lesser Spielberg movie at that. But "War of the Worlds" also
succeeds in reminding us that while Mr. Spielberg doesn't always make
great
movies, he seems almost constitutionally incapable of bad
moviemaking. It's
not much to think about, but it's certainly something to see."
-koose.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
