A gritty, superior 'blockbuster'

Rating: 9/10 (28 June 2005)

Let's face it - Hollywood blockbusters are usually bloated and soulless disappointments. We keep going along in the hope that we'll see something worth seeing. Well this is one of those rare occasions when our persistence pays off. By most rationale judgements 'War of the Worlds' is superior entertainment. It is also a remarkably faithful adaptation of Well's novel, which after the Spielberg-produced 'Time Machine' of a few years back was a major concern. Some reviewers have accused the film of a stereotypical happy Hollywood ending; they obviously don't know the source, it is in fact very faithful. The homages to the 1953 film are appropriate and touching without being cute.
This dark and realistic film convinces that this is what it could be like if we were indeed invaded by extraterrestrials. There are several scenes this viewer found disturbing including a confronting event witnessed from a diner. As mentioned elsewhere references to 9/11 and the Holocaust abound. At one point as Cruise witnesses the feeding of the invaders he examines and wipes his hands in an echo of Schindler's response to the ash belched from the Nazi death camps.
Despite this and because of it's direct storytelling, Spielberg's film succeeds at being a lot of fun to watch, much like the 50's sci-fi movies that it at times so successfully tributes.
The performances are of a high calibre with Dakota Fanning being the stand out. Some complain about her evident neediness throughout the film, which they find annoying. It's difficult to imagine how anyone, particularly a child, could not be needy under such circumstances.
Tom Cruise's portrayal is something of a revelation displaying vulnerability refreshing in this genre. Compared to say Mel Gibson's character in the similarly premised 'Signs', Cruise's character displays considerably more human frailty, convincingly breaking down on several occasions. His performance is more than competent despite assertions to the contrary by some who seem to be more concerned by his off-screen behaviour and persona.
Despite these character strengths it is the war machines themselves that impress most. They are truly formidable. Their design, walking gait and especially the heat ray are very effective. Here I must defend the heat ray, which others have criticised as a very inefficient method of genocide. True enough, though I doubt many would find thousands dying from gas or infection particularly 'entertaining'. Wells agreed. His invaders used a form of gas but the heat ray was his Martians' weapon-of-choice.
This said the film is not without its shortcomings. Primary among these is the appearance of the alien which to this viewer is spookily similar to another recent alien invasion flick. Spielberg and others associated with the production must have been aware of this similarity. Other than homage, it's difficult to explain the resemblance.
I also agree with others who have said it may have been better to keep the invaders more obscure. Wells was vague in his descriptions knowing that allusions to the hideous was more frightening. Once again however, the director would have been criticised had he not clearly shown the beasties.
The ending mentioned earlier does seem a little rushed. I feel it would have been better if there had been a slower growth in awareness of the invader's predicament. This is where the film may once again have done better staying closer to the novel. Descriptions of Well's dying Martians calling to one another across a deserted London are haunting.
However considering the total achievement of this film these are minor carps. War of the Worlds requires a suspension of disbelief typical of fantasy film. What is does not require, necessary for so many summer blockbusters, is a suspension of critical judgment.