Films/DVD Asylum

Posted by Pepe Le Loco (A) on August 18, 2005 at 11:59:39

In Reply to: Re: When was the last time you saw a really good (current) film in a movie theater? posted by Pepe Le Loco on August 17, 2005 at 18:15:10:

jbmcb, I understand why things like that can be seen as objectionable. I see that most people are annoyed by other seemingly improbable points. For example, "what do these dopey martians want- first they insinerate people then they harvest them for food?- and why bury these machines underground for a million years instead of attacking before mankind could conceivably put up some kind of resistance. Or how is it with all our sewers and subways that no one had ever found any of the dormant tripods before?" Those kind of critiques are for more prosaic films with less interesting concerns. ID4 for example. Or rather, these kinds of critiques are the right questions, but the real answers are unwelcome.

I am no huge fan of Spielberg's movies in general, but when I look at War of the Worlds I know without any doubut that I'm watching the work of a major and important master of cinema, and frankly its exciting. When he made this one he was breathing film like a fish breaths water.

I think if you come at this film expecting science fiction, i.e. a completely plausible and logical story about a technology's impact on society or some particular characters- a story grounded in a world of 1 + 1 = 2, then you will be frustrated. This is not Gatica or Jurrassic Park or Aliens. Take it on its own terms and you'll be amazed at what you find there. As I said, this film is a poem, a nightmare. Its logic is the quintessentially cinematic logic of dreams. That's not meant as some high brow blanket apologey for simple plot holes. War of the Worlds comes from the same place as Night of the Living Dead. In short, for those who like to categorize, despite the aliens and machines and death rays, War of the Worlds is a horror film, not a science fiction movie. And a surprisingly disciplined and small scale and intimate horror film at that, given its nominal subject matter.

The answers to your objections, like the answers to the examples I just outlined above, are clues to what the real business of this film is. In otherwords, yes, what's up with a hard ass emt guy who looses it, (or doesn't), in a cellar? Despite the unfortunate Jurassic Park raptor retread action, that sequence, with its talk about eyes, seeing, its business with mirrors and blindfolds and shut doors, is the awful quiet eye of a movie who's overall story structure mimmics the storms that begin the film. And when you look at that family at the end, and ask why they're presented the way they are, listen also to the what the music is doing underneath the image. Like I said, this film is dense!