War of the Worlds (2005), Steven Spielberg, B-

This movie doesn’t really work, but I must give Spielberg some credit. For one, I spent no time looking at Tom Cruise and wanting to punch him in the head. That is a minor miracle. More importantly, the scenes of chaos, destruction and mass hysteria are phenomenal. In fact, they work too well. One instantly thinks of 9/11, of Shock and Awe and of European train bombings. The problem lies in the scenes between. The horror sequences are so polished, so real (as real as anything with aliens in it, I suppose) that it is very difficult to slip back into Summer Movie Popcorn mode. And just when you get back into that groove (little Dakota Fanning makes a joke) the tone shifts again back to nightmarish horror. Steve: it’s either one or the other. Do “Independence Day” or do “Night of the Living Dead.” By the time the idiotic ending comes, it is obvious that Spielberg will always choose schmaltz. Nevertheless, certain segments of the film are truly taken directly from the darkest passages of my worst bad dreams, and for that this movie is not without merit.

4 Comments

jurgen on July 9, 2005 at 7:25 pm

But what’s the merit in showing credible nightmares? Is that worthwile in itself? I don’t think so. I just got back from seeing this movie, and I’m in a daze, and I feel awful, overwhelmed, and headachy. Sure, there’s undeniable skill at work, but to what end? “War of the Worlds” isn’t fun, and there certainly aren’t any fresh ideas in it. The shameless use of 9/11 imagery pissed me off. In fact, Spielberg seems to work a little bit like the Red Weeds: take some dead people, suck the blood out of them, splatter it around, and watch your profits grow. Pretty disgusting. Where’s the merit?

Jordan Hoffman on July 10, 2005 at 11:42 am

I am a little surprised at this reaction. You are basically dismissing an entire genre: horror. To purge ones fears in art is one of the prinicple purposes of art. Not just Freddy Kreuger, but Dante and Hieronymous Bosch and all those other guys. That this film cuts so close to reality is just witnessing the full force of cinema.

Now — I agree with you — Spielberg’s wishy-washy attitude with the sappy ending and dopey family drama scenes — they very much undercut the intensity of the horror scenes.

I would also say that while you & I see 9/11 imagery in the film, these are just typical movie tropes seen in a current context. If you watch Godzilla — is that 9/11 imagery? Frightened people running from menace — how is this sucking the blood from dead people? I fear you seek conspiracy where there is none.

As to your claim of no new idead — I’ll have to part company with you there. The scene when they are all in the space bread basket waiting to get sucked into oblivion was pretty wild.

jurgen on July 10, 2005 at 1:14 pm

“The full force of cinema?” Not really. People as alien fodder is new to you? I’ve seen that a million times.

Yeah, horror has its place, but it works through catharsis, by releasing us into a restored world we earn through our actions, but HG Wells pretty much botched that aspect of it: if it hadn’t been for the bacteria, we’d be screwed (Tom’s added granade-up-the-alien-sphincter scene notwithstanding.) The horror is not overcome by human pluck and ingenuity, but by hiding and waiting it out. Migthy lame.

And I’m sorry, but the 9/11 references are explicit. The falling ash and debris, Dakota Fanning’s line about “Is it the terrorists?”, the missing person posters–those are not in an average Godzilla movie. They would have made no sense four years ago. (Of course, city-devouring Godzilla is Japan’s reaction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

I don’t see any conspiracies, but I know exploitation when I see it. To tap the fresh wounds of 9/11 for what’s essentially a very expensive haunted house amusement ride seems utterly cynical to me. In Godzilla, there are *more* connections between the metaphorical monster and the grim reality of nuclear bombs. The monster is usually created by science run amok and has to be stopped. In “War of the Worlds,” there is only one similarity between the terrorists and the aliens: they come to kill. They arrive, for instance, without any reason. They die by themselves. We just hide and watch.

Maybe that’s the real problem with it: War of the Worlds is a shitty story, and when you do it straight up like Spielberg (as opposed to with lots of winks, like “Independence Day”), you reveal just how lame it is. Apparently, the aliens attack the planet and kill millions so that Tom Cruise can become a better father. Aside from the lessons on parenting, it’s completely pointless, and that’s why I don’t see any merit. It’s bad allegory, bad sci-fi, and bad horror.

Jordan Hoffman on July 10, 2005 at 1:43 pm

So, when Spielberg uses 9/11 imagery it is bad, but when Godzilla uses Hiroshima imagery it is good?

If Spielberg’s intention was *not* to make a summer popcorn flick (and he has done that once or twice) but rather an artistic statement, would the use of 9/11 imagery been acceptable at that point?

I think it would. I also think that Spielberg *did* think he was making an artistic film here. I also think he failed (a B- isn’t a ringing endorsement.) I do think the scenes of horror and mayhem are very effective and, in their own weird way, not shameless and cynical. I think Spielberg’s intent was artistic — but the execution is a mess. We’re also in agreement that the end of this film is complete nonsense — both Wells’ original and Speilberg’s family drama additions.

jurgen on July 9, 2005 at 7:25 pm

But what’s the merit in showing credible nightmares? Is that worthwile in itself? I don’t think so. I just got back from seeing this movie, and I’m in a daze, and I feel awful, overwhelmed, and headachy. Sure, there’s undeniable skill at work, but to what end? “War of the Worlds” isn’t fun, and there certainly aren’t any fresh ideas in it. The shameless use of 9/11 imagery pissed me off. In fact, Spielberg seems to work a little bit like the Red Weeds: take some dead people, suck the blood out of them, splatter it around, and watch your profits grow. Pretty disgusting. Where’s the merit?
Jordan Hoffman on July 10, 2005 at 11:42 am

I am a little surprised at this reaction. You are basically dismissing an entire genre: horror. To purge ones fears in art is one of the prinicple purposes of art. Not just Freddy Kreuger, but Dante and Hieronymous Bosch and all those other guys. That this film cuts so close to reality is just witnessing the full force of cinema.

Now — I agree with you — Spielberg’s wishy-washy attitude with the sappy ending and dopey family drama scenes — they very much undercut the intensity of the horror scenes.

I would also say that while you & I see 9/11 imagery in the film, these are just typical movie tropes seen in a current context. If you watch Godzilla — is that 9/11 imagery? Frightened people running from menace — how is this sucking the blood from dead people? I fear you seek conspiracy where there is none.

As to your claim of no new idead — I’ll have to part company with you there. The scene when they are all in the space bread basket waiting to get sucked into oblivion was pretty wild.
jurgen on July 10, 2005 at 1:14 pm

“The full force of cinema?” Not really. People as alien fodder is new to you? I’ve seen that a million times.

Yeah, horror has its place, but it works through catharsis, by releasing us into a restored world we earn through our actions, but HG Wells pretty much botched that aspect of it: if it hadn’t been for the bacteria, we’d be screwed (Tom’s added granade-up-the-alien-sphincter scene notwithstanding.) The horror is not overcome by human pluck and ingenuity, but by hiding and waiting it out. Migthy lame.

And I’m sorry, but the 9/11 references are explicit. The falling ash and debris, Dakota Fanning’s line about “Is it the terrorists?”, the missing person posters–those are not in an average Godzilla movie. They would have made no sense four years ago. (Of course, city-devouring Godzilla is Japan’s reaction to Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

I don’t see any conspiracies, but I know exploitation when I see it. To tap the fresh wounds of 9/11 for what’s essentially a very expensive haunted house amusement ride seems utterly cynical to me. In Godzilla, there are *more* connections between the metaphorical monster and the grim reality of nuclear bombs. The monster is usually created by science run amok and has to be stopped. In “War of the Worlds,” there is only one similarity between the terrorists and the aliens: they come to kill. They arrive, for instance, without any reason. They die by themselves. We just hide and watch.

Maybe that’s the real problem with it: War of the Worlds is a shitty story, and when you do it straight up like Spielberg (as opposed to with lots of winks, like “Independence Day”), you reveal just how lame it is. Apparently, the aliens attack the planet and kill millions so that Tom Cruise can become a better father. Aside from the lessons on parenting, it’s completely pointless, and that’s why I don’t see any merit. It’s bad allegory, bad sci-fi, and bad horror.
Jordan Hoffman on July 10, 2005 at 1:43 pm

So, when Spielberg uses 9/11 imagery it is bad, but when Godzilla uses Hiroshima imagery it is good?

If Spielberg’s intention was *not* to make a summer popcorn flick (and he has done that once or twice) but rather an artistic statement, would the use of 9/11 imagery been acceptable at that point?

I think it would. I also think that Spielberg *did* think he was making an artistic film here. I also think he failed (a B- isn’t a ringing endorsement.) I do think the scenes of horror and mayhem are very effective and, in their own weird way, not shameless and cynical. I think Spielberg’s intent was artistic — but the execution is a mess. We’re also in agreement that the end of this film is complete nonsense — both Wells’ original and Speilberg’s family drama additions.