But the most implausible part was Tom Cruise as a crane operator.
Watched "War of the Worlds" on DVD this weekend. This movie is one long plot hole; call it a plot tunnel. Spielberg really should have updated the "surprise" ending somehow. H.G. Wells' solution was no doubt ingenious 100 years ago, when germ theory was still a novelty, but now it seems hard to imagine an advanced civilization failing to foresee that eventuality. As my wife put it, "I wouldn't even go to India without bringing my own water." Spielberg's twist to the story -- that the tripods have been buried for a million years in preparation for the attack -- actually makes this problem more accute.
But the real problem is with the way the characters' behavior corresponds exactly to the needs of the plot at any given moment. Take the tripods: When they first emerge, they're racing around incinerating everything in sight. That's because this is the part when Ray (Tom Cruise) and his family are running. When we get to the part where they hide, the tripods are suddenly obsessed with examining every nook and cranny of a house rather than demolishing it. And when Ray and his daughter are flushed out, the tripods, instead of zapping people, are taking prisoners and draining their blood. If it's blood they need, though, why'd they atomize so many folks? And why dump a ferry full of juicy humans into the Hudson?
This expediency principle explains why Robbie, Ray's son, is filled with an irrational urge to run towards the tripods. If Robbie were with Ray in hiding, they would have no trouble overpowering Tim Robbins' crazy-eyed basement dweller. It also explains why the crowd waiting for the ferry decides to attack Ray's minivan after apparently allowing dozens of other cars through.
(Personal quibble: Can we retire the hard-hearted, anything-for-a-scoop journalist type already? I know an awful lot of journalists, and on the whole they are at least as compassionate as non-journalists, and maybe more so.)
Perhaps you're saying: What did you expect out of a Tom Cruise-Steven Spielberg blockbuster? In which case, I would say go back and read the reviews. Is it too much to ask that a "sci-fi masterpiece" adhere to some kind of logic?
But the real problem is with the way the characters' behavior corresponds exactly to the needs of the plot at any given moment. Take the tripods: When they first emerge, they're racing around incinerating everything in sight. That's because this is the part when Ray (Tom Cruise) and his family are running. When we get to the part where they hide, the tripods are suddenly obsessed with examining every nook and cranny of a house rather than demolishing it. And when Ray and his daughter are flushed out, the tripods, instead of zapping people, are taking prisoners and draining their blood. If it's blood they need, though, why'd they atomize so many folks? And why dump a ferry full of juicy humans into the Hudson?
This expediency principle explains why Robbie, Ray's son, is filled with an irrational urge to run towards the tripods. If Robbie were with Ray in hiding, they would have no trouble overpowering Tim Robbins' crazy-eyed basement dweller. It also explains why the crowd waiting for the ferry decides to attack Ray's minivan after apparently allowing dozens of other cars through.
(Personal quibble: Can we retire the hard-hearted, anything-for-a-scoop journalist type already? I know an awful lot of journalists, and on the whole they are at least as compassionate as non-journalists, and maybe more so.)
Perhaps you're saying: What did you expect out of a Tom Cruise-Steven Spielberg blockbuster? In which case, I would say go back and read the reviews. Is it too much to ask that a "sci-fi masterpiece" adhere to some kind of logic?
posted by Jeff at 9:12 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home