Powerpuff & more
November 21, 2005What a complete waste of a movie. Really. It could have been so great. But it wasn’t.
Just finished watching “War Of The Worlds” with Tom Cruise, directed by Steven Spielberg. The effects were awesome, Cruise was doing well, and the machines looked cool (but only two types?? Only two???). I also liked the entire atmosphere of the movie; it felt kind of unreal, almost Tim Burton-like magical. Especially Cruise’s house, with the bridge almost in the backyard, looked really surreal.
However, the aliens looked like ET. Really, they weren’t scary at all (like the ones in “Independence Day“); they looked rather sullen with those big eyes. And the ending of the movie was… Well, I’ve never seen an ending worse than this one. The movie didn’t really end at all. It just stopped, as if the writer of the screenplay died during writing the ending and they had no one to replace him with. And a movie with a bad ending is almost always a bad movie as a whole.
However, there was one thing, or better yet, one person, that kept me on the edge of my seat during the entire movie: Dakota Fanning. Dear lord, this girl can act! She was so good, it was just amazing. I’ve never seen an actor or actress depict total panic and fear as good as she does in this movie. Her performance alone justifies watching this movie. Really.
—
And as a sidenote: I ordered “Powerpuff Girls: The Movie” today!
Film | 
Thom, you simply didn’t get the movie, this is why you didn’t like it.
The whole story is seen from Cruise’s eyes, almost from a first-person perspective. This is why you don’t really see the US president in the movie, or high-ranking officers talking about the developments. As a viewer looking through the eyes of the hero of the movie, you have no clue what’s going on most of the time. And this is why it stops so abruptly: because if you were that person in a similar situation, it would end that way for you too, because you would have zero knowledge of what’s really going on. The movie was shot that way on purpose so the second point below can become more prominent.
About the aliens not being scary, I have to say two things:
1. Why do they have to be? Humans don’t look particularly scary, and yet they are capable of great evil. Get over the stereotypes.
2. The point of the movie was NOT the alien invasion. It was about *what a human is capable of doing when worse comes to worse* (i.e. Cruise had to kill in cold-blood another human in order to increase his chances of surviving). The storyline could very well be about a deadly pathogen instead of aliens, or a volcanic eruption, and it would still serve the same purpose as a movie.
To understand and enjoy “War of the Worlds” you have to look past the aliens and their invasion. You have to look at the hero and his actions.
Comment by Eugenia — November 22, 2005 @ 12:14 am
BTW, about Dakota Fanning, as I also wrote in my blog a few weeks ago, she is indeed amazing. An incredibly smart kid.
Comment by Eugenia — November 22, 2005 @ 12:55 am
I *know* the movie is about the personal and emotional side of the story– but that part sucked so bad, I just *craved* for a better view of the action.
For instance, why did he murder that man *at that moment*? You see, the man posed a threat to their survival *earlier*– but they survived and the man was now digging a hole, he posed no threat at that moment anymore. Now, I could’ve understood the murder if they *stayed* in that house– but they left afterwards! Knowing a thing or two about psychology– that is by no means the right circumstances for a man to resort to killing. Especially not in front of the eyes of his daughter. Also, if this was truly a pivot and central point in the movie, then why did Spielberg make it happen in such a short time, without any self-reflection from Cruise’s part?
Secondly, the fact that his son magically survived that huge fireball from the aliens at the row of tanks/army trucks makes no sense at all. It added a very cheesy feeling to the movie.
So, since the personal side sucked ass to me, I needed something to replace it with. Naturally, I looked for action. And there wasn’t any. Look, Independence Day had no emotional side either– but it made up for that with superb action scenes.
—
I simply know Steven Spielberg can do better than this. He probably knows that himself too. It’s fine if you want to look at the personal/emoitonal side of things, but then do it good (like in the *phenomenal* Deep Impact). And if you want an action movie with aliens, go for Independence Day.
Comment by Administrator — November 23, 2005 @ 7:07 pm
>For instance, why did he murder that man *at that moment*? You >see, the man posed a threat to their survival *earlier*– but they >survived and the man was now digging a hole, he posed no threat >at that moment anymore.
First of all, most people would give a second chance to a person before taking him out. Secondly, he killed him at that moment because he was shouting and they could be heard. He wouldn’t stop shouting.
> Now, I could’ve understood the murder if they *stayed* in that >house– but they left afterwards!
No they didn’t. They had to run out because the aliens saw them there. Their plan was to stay there for a while until the aliens would leave.
>Especially not in front of the eyes of his daughter.
Where were you when he put a blindfold on his daughter eyes? Besides, he didn’t have the luxury to get his daughter to the park while he was killing that man. :P
>Also, if this was truly a pivot and central point in the movie, then >why did Spielberg make it happen in such a short time, without >any self-reflection from Cruise’s part?
I don’t understand that. I think the movie was just right at this point.
>Secondly, the fact that his son magically survived that huge fireball >from the aliens at the row of tanks/army trucks makes no sense at >all. It added a very cheesy feeling to the movie.
I will give you that.
Comment by Eugenia — November 23, 2005 @ 7:15 pm