By Simon Woodhouse
How much can a story be changed, and still bear the title of the original work? In the case of Hollywood movies, the answer is a lot. I realize films aren't books and books aren't films. They're two completely different mediums, which means a straightforward translation from one to the other probably isn't going to work. There have to be compromises, changes that allow a book or a film to work in their own right. These sorts of adaptations are fine, as long as they maintain the essence of what made the original great. And if they can improve on what was already there, then all the better. But if something is altered just for the sake of making a few extra bucks, or to pander to a particular audience, then that's bad.
In literary sci-fi circles, War Of The Worlds by H G Wells is a real heavy weight. It's been around for over a hundred years and is still very readable. In fact, time has actually improved it, because not only is it a sci-fi classic, but it's also a period piece. Set in England at the end of the 19th century, it shows mankind riding a wave of industrial achievement that had humanity thinking itself invincible. Then the Martians show up and demonstrate just what it means to be a real superpower. Reading the book now, it's easy to see how inadequate mankind really was back then, and this is what makes it all the more chilling. To set the story in any other era besides the late 19th century, straightaway robs it of some of its strength. And you'd have to question the wisdom of anyone who'd choose to do so.
The latest version of War Of The Worlds is set in modern day America. It tells the story of Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) and his struggle to survive an alien invasion of Earth. Ray is an everyman character - a basic kind of blue-collar guy who we're all supposed to be able to relate to. He's got a couple of kids, but they live with his ex-wife. As the movie starts, she's leaving the kids with Ray for the weekend. He's not much of a father and so the children aren't thrilled to be there. Events then go from bad to worse when Ray's neighbourhood is struck by a massive electrical storm.
Up until this point the film is bearable, but then the dual demons of massive plot holes and terrible over acting rear their ugly heads. When most of us would be running in the opposite direction, Ray leaves the kids home alone and goes to investigate the lightning strikes. Apparently, aliens buried their fighting machines on Earth at some unspecified point in the past. Since then, New York (the setting for the first part of the film) has been built over the top of some of them. But at no point during all the digging of foundations, or laying of utility pipes etc, did anyone find the alien hardware. Now the aliens have come back to reclaim their fighting machines and get on with the business of invading the Earth. Why they didn't do this in the first place, and not bother with the effort of burying all their stuff, is never explained. Anyway, they're back and this time they mean business. Ray and a whole crowd of gormless onlookers stand and watch as one of the machines emerges from a hole in the ground.
Even though most of H G Wells original story has been butchered by the movie makers, they have stayed true to his vision of the alien fighting machines. Not only have they stayed true, they've also brought them to life in pretty convincing form. So the aliens start popping up all over the place, and promptly set about trashing everything in site. Ray and family scarper, with a mind to head for Boston, home of the kids' mom. Seeing as the kids are so central to the plot, it's worth giving them a special mention. Ray has one boy and one girl (naturally). The girl is Rachel (Dakota Fanning), and besides the alien fighting machines, she's the best thing in the film. For the first hour or so she easily out acts The Cruiser. The boy is Robbie (Justin Chatwin), an awful, whiny teenager who I would have happily left to be vaporized by the aliens.
Besides these three, there aren't really that many other people in it (not with speaking roles that is). I suppose after paying The Cruiser an astronomical salary, the movie makers couldn't afford to hire anyone else. Tim Robbins pops up two thirds of the way through, playing the part of a deranged survivalist. Anyone familiar with the novel will recognize this character as a composite of The Parson and The Artillery Man.
The story lurches on with Ray and co struggling towards Boston. Rachel loses the savvy charm she displayed in the first part of the film, and instead alternates between screaming and crying. The Cruiser manages to destroy a fighting machine (of course), something the whole US army hasn't been able to do. There's a whole heap of over-cooked melodrama, especially in the scenes involving Tim Robbins character. Some of the set pieces aren't too bad, especially the bit where the fighting machines attack a ferry. On the whole though, the film is a missed opportunity. All the elements are there, but they're just mishandled. Too much emphasis is given over to the wholesome family element, which comes across as annoying after about half an hour.
And whilst I'm on the subject of the wholesome family thing, at no point during the movie did I get the impression Ray cared one jot about his kids, which kind of destroys the films emotional push. There's absolutely no onscreen parental chemistry between The Cruiser and the two actors playing his offspring. Even when he's carrying Dakota through most of the last hour (can't ten year old kids walk in movieland?), it's as if she's just a prop to make him look good. And why is it that when Tom Cruise is in a film, he's in every single scene? I don't think there's a frame of this movie that doesn't have his face in it. Is it rampant egotism on his part, or the movie makers trying to get their moneys worth?
If the film hadn't been called War Of The Worlds, I think it would have fared a bit better. The movie bears so little resemblance to the book that it seems pointless using the same title. Not only pointless, but a bit of a slap in the face for H G Wells. If you haven't seen this movie, but want to experience a sci-fi classic, read the book. If you haven't seen this movie, but want to watch a sci-fi film about the Earth being invaded by aliens, watch Independence Day. It says a lot for War Of The Worlds when it can be bettered by a movie starring Will Smith.
Languages
Perhaps my expectations were too high, but I was disappointed by this movie. It is one you can miss. I would not say thumbs down for this one, but instead perhaps thumbs sideways, as in "worth watching if it is on TV anyway".
However, I thought Independence Day was much worse, although I have generally found not many people share this opinion. In fact, I suspect others will be shocked that someone does not like this movie and will post glowing commentary referring to it as one of the best movies of all time.
I give Independence day a thumbs down.