See it for the Effects, Enjoy the Ride

Rating: 7/10 (29 June 2005)

I am always eager for Spielberg to 'wow' movie audiences again in creating big movie moments, last seen with "Jurassic Park" and "Saving Private Ryan". One thing that bothered me about the making of this film was the rush to production, and merely months to create a huge blockbuster that could normally take a year. My fear was that some special effects could look unfinished, or the film editing not quite refined. My guess is that every last hour was exhausted getting this film in the can, and some parts of the film are unbalanced.
But first the fantastic news, the special effects, which there are aplenty, are definitely up to snuff. Although, there were quite a few feathered matte lines associated with very active camera shots filled in with ominous clouds. There is a fun "circling the van" set piece that resembles a few CGI intensive car commercials. My guess is that the only really thing in that shot besides the actors were the seats they were sitting on, and the rest of the van was photo-real CGI. This film really is another feather in the cap for ILM, able to conjure clouds, fire, water, as well as creepy aliens. One thing for sure, this is the film I really wanted to see when I was lured into seeing Shylaman's "Signs" (see my review). We get a great revisit of ILM's great achievements. A recreation (or perhaps borrowed to save time) of the 'water tentacle' from "Abyss". The fearsome cloud effects seen originally in "Twister". Then the velociraptors that stalked in "Jurassic Park".
Spielberg also pushes the amusement park ride by defying logic and allowing our main characters to be literally inches away from every battle and massacre that occurs within driving distance. But the script and story seem to get lost. In the first half of the movie, we feel the terror quite effectively by witnessing very widespread death and destruction. But the second half lacks momentum, as Cruise and his kids lose focus and can't quite spell out their plans. The relentless fight for survival in the first half is replaced by darkness and depression, instead of hope and determination. The scattered second half is what I feel could've been tightened up with a little more time for refinement. I'm not spoiling too much by saying that the last part of the film takes place in a single basement, and loses it's earlier large scope. The expectation is for this dark creepy basement to give you the whillikers, but after a while I felt like I would rather take my chances and run away instead of hangout in some creep's cellar.
I also think a tighter script would have produced other poignant moments if they were fleshed out better. A few more side characters would've added depth. A few less family quarrels would've prevented being a turn-off for audiences. "Close Encounters" maintains that balance, again with the added depth of some side characters. In other words, Spielberg has his cake but does not get to eat it too. He gives us great eye candy, but it is hard to swallow the human side. But in this case, I don't care. Having spent a while to think about WOTW, weighing the good parts with the average parts, I feel about 80% satisfied. I rank it better than "Minority Report", but not as groundbreaking as "Jurassic Park".
As far as supplanting the 1950's version as the new classic? Of course not.