Wednesday, July 20, 2005

The War of the Worlds

Steven's new love - Darling Little Dakota.

Back from the field trip, and the aim is to get a sunny happy feeling going and see a summer blockbuster; War of the Worlds by Steven Spielberg.

A major disappointment...

The hope was a remake/update of the remarkable 1950s version, which is one of the few films from that decade I can still watch and enjoy. Instead we got Tom Cruise ineptly playing that dull American icon the "regular guy." In this case a docker who learns how to become a top-notch parent while the world is invaded by Aliens.

Damn, it's hard to give a toss about our hero, or his two obnoxious kids, or his estranged wife, or her new lover, or anyone else in the film. Which is a pity, because there are some excellent action scenes that intersperse the dreary 'human interest' story. These scenes would have been so much more powerful had we actually cared about anyone in them!

Bored and slightly irritated, my mind starts to think heretical thoughts. For instance, it's puzzling how obvious is Spielberg's latent pedophilia. Here in its more overt form - long and pointless close-ups and pointless scenes that feature child-star Dakota Fanning, aged 10 during most of the shooting. No doubt she's lovely and fascinating if you love pre-adolescent little girls. But for those of us who don't, she's dull and the excessive footage she gets hardly helps the film's pace and structure.

Put WotW on Spielberg's surprisingly long turkey list, which includes fowl like 1941, Always, Amistad, and Hook.



Blogger David Young said...

Was Amistad really a bad film? I thought it was good, apart from its length. It should have been about 20-30 minutes shorter.


6:03 pm  
Blogger roGER said...

It's certainly "the best" of that group of four, but yes it was too long...

Have you seen "War of the Worlds"?

If so, please give your impressions...


10:27 pm  

Post a Comment

<< Home