Both Cruise and Spielberg are big fans of the old film, and it shows. The only trace of the actual book that has overtaken their determination to tribute it's first movie incarnation is the change of the Martian machines from flying lampshade type things to actual tripods. Other then that the entire film is just an attempt to put a marginally different perspective on the 50's version.
To be fair, it does start out well (and there are some good cinematic moments throughout). Some claim it continues well for about 2/3rds of the film, but I think in truth it is only the first 3rd that works at all. It doesn't take long for clichés and overly predictable plot elements to creep in and there is nothing daring or risky about anything attempted by Spielberg after about 20 minutes in. It's all very well for people to go on about the focus on the main Character. But I don't think that is particularly groundbreaking. There are a good number of other directors I think can bring off a personal perspective much better so I don't think Spielberg is even playing to his strengths on this one.
Plus, when you have an astronomical budget, one major star and material a good 80% of the audience will already know pretty well (anyone not know how it was going to end?), it pretty much goes without saying that people are going to want to see a lot more of the invading martians. It's all very well to point to the rules of good horror and claim not seeing stuff is suspenseful but is it entirely appropriate for this particular film? I would say not. If Spielberg wanted to do a film like that, why not come up with something fresh rather then doing a remake of a well known film based on a well known book. When you already know what is going on, there is nothing gained by not showing it.
The film didn't need to worry about action clichés as in actual fact this film should never have been an action film. Humanity can't defend against these invaders, so why show anything but futility. Perhaps because that wouldn't be very Hollywood, and for all the good intentions of the film it descended into pretty standard action by the end anyway.
What I would have liked to have seen would have been more dramatic spectacles, barren landscapes, shocking scenes of destruction, etc. More of the martians and perhaps show how the governments totally failed to stop them with everything they tried. They actually achieved that in the 40's film, so one of the things Spielberg did leave out was the one aspect that really gave the "not killed by man" aspect. As a result the very end leaves you cold, and as a big slap in the face to the book they include a voice over copied directly from the 50's film putting everything in a religious point of view (the one thing that really let down the 40's film). The book was to a large extent very anti-religious and there was no need to ignore that very important aspect of the original story. It's not even comfortably put on the end, because with the (totally unnecessary) heroic triumphs achieved by Cruise minutes early it seems like we've suddenly cut to the end of a different film.
Perhaps the influence of the 50's film was too much for him. After all, anyone ever notice how similar ET looks to the aliens in the 50's film? If you were to take those aliens and make them cute, you'd end up with ET. Certainly not a co-incidence. This is very much Spielberg remaking what must have been his favourite film.
One thing with Spielberg I always found annoying is his obsession with getting certificates that let kids see the film. For a start no other director could release films like this and like Jurassic park (where someones arm is ripped off his body) and get such family orientated ratings. But even with his ability to manipulate censors, he still has to hold back from making what the film should have been just for the sake of letting the kiddies see it. I guess at the end of the day it's all about money and ego and not just about making a really good film.
So there you go. I gave this a disappointing 4 out of 10. It had a lot of potential but there are so many flaws and so many mixed up ideas that are never fully realised I just couldn't give it a good score. I couldn't even give it an average score, because with Spielberg, Cruise and the special effects budget I have to compare it to what I think should have been possible with the money spent and talent involved. This film is one of the great underachiever of the modern day. Compare that to the 50's film, which for the time period had stunning effects, a compelling plot and flaws that were all to understandable given the time of filming. It way ahead of it's time and is still a reasonable watch even five decades later. Can anyone honestly say this will last so well?
To be fair, it does start out well (and there are some good cinematic moments throughout). Some claim it continues well for about 2/3rds of the film, but I think in truth it is only the first 3rd that works at all. It doesn't take long for clichés and overly predictable plot elements to creep in and there is nothing daring or risky about anything attempted by Spielberg after about 20 minutes in. It's all very well for people to go on about the focus on the main Character. But I don't think that is particularly groundbreaking. There are a good number of other directors I think can bring off a personal perspective much better so I don't think Spielberg is even playing to his strengths on this one.
Plus, when you have an astronomical budget, one major star and material a good 80% of the audience will already know pretty well (anyone not know how it was going to end?), it pretty much goes without saying that people are going to want to see a lot more of the invading martians. It's all very well to point to the rules of good horror and claim not seeing stuff is suspenseful but is it entirely appropriate for this particular film? I would say not. If Spielberg wanted to do a film like that, why not come up with something fresh rather then doing a remake of a well known film based on a well known book. When you already know what is going on, there is nothing gained by not showing it.
The film didn't need to worry about action clichés as in actual fact this film should never have been an action film. Humanity can't defend against these invaders, so why show anything but futility. Perhaps because that wouldn't be very Hollywood, and for all the good intentions of the film it descended into pretty standard action by the end anyway.
What I would have liked to have seen would have been more dramatic spectacles, barren landscapes, shocking scenes of destruction, etc. More of the martians and perhaps show how the governments totally failed to stop them with everything they tried. They actually achieved that in the 40's film, so one of the things Spielberg did leave out was the one aspect that really gave the "not killed by man" aspect. As a result the very end leaves you cold, and as a big slap in the face to the book they include a voice over copied directly from the 50's film putting everything in a religious point of view (the one thing that really let down the 40's film). The book was to a large extent very anti-religious and there was no need to ignore that very important aspect of the original story. It's not even comfortably put on the end, because with the (totally unnecessary) heroic triumphs achieved by Cruise minutes early it seems like we've suddenly cut to the end of a different film.
Perhaps the influence of the 50's film was too much for him. After all, anyone ever notice how similar ET looks to the aliens in the 50's film? If you were to take those aliens and make them cute, you'd end up with ET. Certainly not a co-incidence. This is very much Spielberg remaking what must have been his favourite film.
One thing with Spielberg I always found annoying is his obsession with getting certificates that let kids see the film. For a start no other director could release films like this and like Jurassic park (where someones arm is ripped off his body) and get such family orientated ratings. But even with his ability to manipulate censors, he still has to hold back from making what the film should have been just for the sake of letting the kiddies see it. I guess at the end of the day it's all about money and ego and not just about making a really good film.
So there you go. I gave this a disappointing 4 out of 10. It had a lot of potential but there are so many flaws and so many mixed up ideas that are never fully realised I just couldn't give it a good score. I couldn't even give it an average score, because with Spielberg, Cruise and the special effects budget I have to compare it to what I think should have been possible with the money spent and talent involved. This film is one of the great underachiever of the modern day. Compare that to the 50's film, which for the time period had stunning effects, a compelling plot and flaws that were all to understandable given the time of filming. It way ahead of it's time and is still a reasonable watch even five decades later. Can anyone honestly say this will last so well?