‘War of the Worlds’ is half a masterpiece
Since the authoritative body has deemed one of the worst movies of 2005 its best, I thought I would blog about a few movies that — totally successful (financially or critically) or not — very few people are singing the praises of. Almost all of them are on DVD. You might have even heard of a few of them.
The first is War of the Worlds.
Steven Spielberg’s War of the Worlds is two-thirds of a great movie, followed abruptly by the conclusion of a second-rate, sentimental blockbuster. The best stretches of the movie are largely dialogue-free, as it follows Tom Cruise and his two children on a fear-filled journey to escape an unexpected attack by alien invaders. But War of the Worlds is not as much about the aliens as the effect of their invasion on humanity. Much has been made of the movie’s parallels to 9/11 (it boasts some of the most powerful imagery in movies all year), and Spielberg is most successful when he is simply evoking its atmosphere, rather than dwelling on its paranoid aftermath. Tim Robbins has an extended cameo as a gun-totin’ basement-dweller who tells Cruise’s Ray that if they don’t go fight the aliens outside, they’ll come for them. Robbins has a flare for playing caricatures of his real life enemies (cf. Antitrust, Arlington Road, The Player), but the chord of whacked-out lunacy he strikes in the (largely self-contained) section he occupies of this movie is all wrong when slammed up against its genuinely horrifying and sometimes heartbreaking first hour. It’s easy to see that Spielberg is trying to tell two parts of the same story. His effort is admirable, but the juxtaposition doesn’t work. (Munich is War’s true compliment.) Still, its first half is devastating (I was in tears both times I saw it), and the technical skill poured into every frame is undeniable.
I’ll be back later with more. In the meantime: What are some overlooked, underseen, or undervalued movies from last year that you’ve seen?
Permalink | Comments (5) | Categories: Movies
Comments
By Barb =:)
March 7, 2006 6:53 AM | Link to this
I honestly really liked “Batman Begins.” I thought it was one of the best mainstream films of the year. I am looking forward to next few week’s video releases so I can see “Good Night and Good Luck,” “Capote” and “Memoirs of a Geisha.” I agree that “Crash” was not a good movie. I thought it was over-rated. The message was thought-provoking and that is why it got the attention it did. But the poorly stitched together plot just wore on me.By mike
March 7, 2006 5:19 PM | Link to this
I remember “Hook.”By Aaron
March 19, 2006 1:35 AM | Link to this
How do you have a link to Ebert on this website and not be able to understand that Crash was the most amazing movie of last year?By ron
March 19, 2006 12:24 PM | Link to this
yo zack… agreed 100 percent that “WOTW” belongs on this list… I saw it on DVD recently and was surprised by several things: First, it was (happily) missing some of Spielberg’s usual ways of ruining his own movies (mawkish framing, stupid sentimentality at the wrong times, over-showy shots he dwells upon for waaaaay too long) and secondly how good Cruise was. Lots of folks have commented on the Robbins in the basement part … and I think most people just haven’t read the book. Spielberg’s other very very admirable risk in this film was to follow the plot of HG Wells’ novel VERY closely, and the novel also has this long passage in the middle in which the protagonist takes a break from all the horror and has a chance to mull over what it all means in the larger scheme of things… the world ending, etc… Remember, too, Wells wrote it about 1900, when our notions of story pacing, etc., were a lot different; the modern thriller as we know it today did not yet exist, and wouldn’t for a long time. Spielberg could have cut that part out (like he did with the long middle section of “Jaws,” about the affair… yawn … a good choice), but i like that he kept it in. It makes WOTW more of a challenge for modern audiences,and it’s what I think makes it such a good movie — but also one that many of us didn’t get or like. Not from this year, but a few years ago… I would put on the Underseen, Underrated and Underappreciated List you seek “The Alamo,” from 2004, I think… It was very very good and again, got awful press for “not following” the arc of usual storytelling… but what it did instead was actualy follow history, which inconveniently often does not. The battle scenes rock, the history is sound and well told and the acting and dialogue are fresh and live. Billy B. Thornton as Crockett is GREAT. Check it out.By Oats
April 13, 2006 12:54 PM | Link to this
I have to admit … Billy Bob as Davey was interesting if not great. I also have to echo Barb … Batman Begins was totally underrated and undervalued because it was a comic book movie. Also, Sin City underappreciated.