War of the Worlds
Review by Zachary Keith Parker
In 1940, due to the Orson Welles’ dramatic radio presentation of H.G. Wells’s science fiction thriller, War of the Worlds, terror spread through credulous households suspecting “alien” invasion. Wells’s premise has influenced many movies over the years, including the 1996 blockbuster, Independence Day. Celebrated director Steven Spielberg has created his own version of Wells’s story, which differs from his Close Encounters (1977) and E.T. (1982) in its representation of hostile alien invaders.
When Mary Ann (Miranda Otto) drops off her kids, Rachel (Dakota Fanning) and Robbie (Justin Chatwin), for a week with her ex-husband, Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise), it becomes increasingly obvious why she left the irresponsible, self-centered idiot in the first place.
Ray speaks with the wisdom of a circus clown, and acts with the prudence of a six year old. During a violently atypical storm, strange tripods rise up out of the ground, emitting heat rays and annihilating nearby people and buildings. Terrified, and potentially sensitive to the needs of those around him, Ray takes Rachel and Robbie away from the destruction.
As the family flees invaders, Spielberg’s creative direction augments the invasion story with elements of terror, such as the disquieting image of empty clothes showering down from bodies extinguished by aliens, or the red weed’s serpentine, bloody encroachment on nature.
In addition, Spielberg's direction and David Koepp’s script attempt shock and amazement, which, like in many horror/terror flicks, singularly sends one question into your mind: “how stupid are these people?” Unlike the narrator in the original book, Ray seems to believe hanging around large groups of people is safer than alone, as if the tripods, weapons of mass destruction, were designed to eliminate individuals, not groups. Or perhaps the filmmakers think it is best for one to run outside screaming if while hiding safely underground, they hear something dreadful outside.
The character behavior consistently defies reason. Presupposing the movie's premise that evolution is fact, then think along these lines: if humankind acted as tactlessly as the people in this movie did, then extermination is a blessing. These incongruities damage the plot progression, often making it feel contrived.
Even though Spielberg’s interpretation follows the book more closely than many other adaptations, by following the narrator’s thought processes more closely, he could have avoided the embarrassment the behavioral goofs afford him. Spielberg and Koepp deserve some commendation, considering their attempt to broaden Wells’s protagonist by including a family.
Even though the story includes Ray’s family, we never see a clear resolution between Ray’s selfish mindset and his familial responsibilities (performed with with acknowledgment of the conflict by Tom Cruise); Ray’s son, Robbie, also lacks convincing redemption. Sadly, Dakota Fanning reprises her screaming, emotionally exhausted role from Spielberg’s Taken and the recently released stinker, Hide and Seek. Tim Robbins surprises as the madly frenetic loner, and though his character is nothing more than a prop, he makes a great effort to make it pointedly memorable.
On the other hand, Spielberg makes no effort to maintain the inventive story to the end, which is pointedly laughable. It’s too abrupt, without enough development or preparation. While the earlier part of the movie did not make complete sense, it looked great. The ending makes no sense and it looks absurd.
Furthermore, Spielberg replaces the missing ingredients with a few drops of schmaltz. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, Spielberg’s movie ends with the overwhelming insight of a Hallmark card.
On the other hand, despite the ending, War of the Worlds tries to deal with political and life issues regarding life and death on different levels. The movie offers only two constants: life or death. What will people do to avoid death? Fight or flee? The depiction of the consequences of various human actions suggests that both options are futile.
On a political level, there seems to be a desired connection between the alien invaders and today’s terrorists. The creatures in this movie are not Martians as in the original book, nor do they obtain weapons from their own land. The filmmakers take care to insinuate America’s possible dilemma with “alien” terrorists who might acquire weapons from our own native soil. The movie shows all violent responses to the alien terrorists as ultimately ineffective, even military involvement. In Koepp’s mind, we are helpless to fight or avoid a “War on Terror.”
All of Koepp’s political ideas, right or wrong, are founded on a naturalistic worldview, similar to that of his easily naturalistic, Secret Window. Ultimately, War of the Worlds asserts that we are subject to the forces of evil around us, and we are helpless against them (family is survival's afterthought). Only when nature decides will evil temporarily abandon its dreadful purpose on earth.
For example, in the beginning of the movie, Rachel gets a splinter in her finger, and her dad suggests yanking it out. But she replies, “When my body is ready, it will push it out.” This principle is again embodied in the ending, supported by the bookend narration sequences in the film. This view ignores God's sovereignty. It ignores
War of the Worlds is still a much more thrilling read than an exciting movie. However, Tom Cruise's performance and the special effects make it occasionally absorbing. Otherwise, it's just a movie you have to survive through.