9/11 meets evil E.T.

Rating: 6/10 (30 June 2005)

When 9/11 passed, Spielberg argued that no movies about it should be made, because the events were too horrific and commercial exploitation would be distasteful. Some years on, I was very surprised to see him just do that. It's not direct, but rather indirect that the comparison is drawn: dwindling papers, photos of missing loved ones, debris and dust, enemy already among us, etc. All reactions are passing also: From denial (Rachel), saving your own soul (Ray) to combative (Robbie). Ogilvy (Tim Robbins) is probably the most interesting character in this sense: he combines all these reactions but ultimately turns insane. If you draw the comparison further it doesn't hold up well because it tries to combine 9/11 with the original War of the Worlds. So it ends up more like an evil E.T. (with again a strong emphasis here on a broken family)
Tension building is very well done. Time is taken to set up the situation, many shots are distant to get the wide panorama. Especially the hazy and over-lit shots in the beginning are interesting, suggesting something is out there. It's also a very dark film with a limited uplifting end. The scene with people fighting for a car or a place on the ferry are almost in another category. Note also that the church is the first building to be demolished by the invaders.
To bring it up once again: The PG-13 is what Spielberg is usually aiming for (murder on Ogilvy and feeding of tripods with humans not shown), but there remains much to be seen where the rating is debatable (people blown to pieces, bodies in the river). A lesser known director would not have come away with this.
Compared to the recent Kingdom of Heaven however, there is no ultimate political statement, no vision on the whole project shining through. This has always been Spielberg's weakness. And while he is almost as competent technically as his late friend Kubrick, that's the main reason why their movies are on different levels.