Tatanka's TaTakes: Yet More Hairy Reviews

Okay...giving it a shot here. I'm starting off with an easy one, so have at it/me with rousing commentary, suggestions or sweet silence, if you prefer.

I've dabbled with this before, but I've much to learn and much of my cinematic repertoire to expand and you MoFo's are the right ilk to sharpen me.

At the end of my reviews and as a way to reveal myself a bit more to the MoFo community, I have included a "Hook Factor." This will be where I share what it was for me personally that drew me to watch this particular film.

From time to time, I may even take some theological perspectives from the films I review, where warranted by the overt human themes (such as the problem of evil, suffering, questions of God- either direct or implied, etc.). Granted, these perspectives will flow from a biblical/Christological worldview, just so you know. I promise to make as clear a case as I can for my positions and keep them open to investigation. Know that I am genuinely interested in your worldviews as well (no matter what they are) and I enjoy seeing how they inform our experience why we like certain films as opposed to others. Overall, I look forward to honest inquiry and great conversation on how cinema can often provide a window into our quest for Truth (or "mindless" entertainment), if you're so inclined.

But please...no matter what you believe and why....feel free to interact and know that I'll respect you and we'll have a good time hashing things out.

Theatrical Release: June 28, 2005
DVD Release: November 22, 2005
Official War of the Worlds Site
Sci-Fi/Thriller
Starring Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Justin Chatwin, Miranda Otto, Tim Robbins
(for violent and disturbing thematic sequences and language)
Running Time: 117 Minutes

When I saw a rerun of Byron Haskin and George Pal's 1953 Academy Award-winning (Special Effects) version of War of the Worlds in 1981, I was an instantly-smitten-fourth-grader, incessantly depicting the floating alien craft with its heat rays on all of my school papers. The ability with which this installment has to draw you into this kind of child-like wonder and awe is what makes the picture work.

With War of the Worlds, Steven Spielberg effectively hoisted somewhat of a new standard for what alien-invasion films should be. His demure-by-comparison sci-fi classic, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, was not even his initial directorial foray into the alien/UFO theme (cf., Firelight, 1964). CE3K was his big-time breakout in the subject matter, albeit with the "lemme-shake-your-hand-and-be-your-friend" kind of aliens.

WOW is where Spielberg is unrivaled and in touch with the boyhood fascinations that percolate in his edgier, imaginative movies.....and the film compels you to revel in its sheer spectacle. Spielberg rekindled/rediscovered his forte here and it is simultaneously fun and perturbing.

From the beginning of it all, the 1898 release of H.G. Wells' novel The War of The Worlds was seen as a literary condemnation of European colonialism around the world. Orson Welles' dramatic radio adaptation of the book the day before Halloween in 1938 produced a genuine panic in the war-fearing populace. Haskin and Pal's 1953 cinematic version played in the midst of a blossoming Cold War. Each of these representations occurred in a specific cultural context ripe with anxiety. Given the backdrop and specter of today's terror-weary culture of fear, WOW advantageously finds its place yet again.

It is known that the film chronicles the family's growth, maturity and unification in light of the alien onslaught. In truth, there is more of the human story to tell than a political statement to make and, in this instance, the former works better than the latter. Fortunately, the political innuendo (where it happens) in the dialogue and story line is overshadowed by the magnitude of the human situation. There are some instances where the story could easily diverge into tiring political blather if it weren't careful.

Tom Cruise plays self-absorbed and cocky dock-worker Ray Ferrier who inherits his preteen girl Rachel (Dakota Fanning) and his angst-ridden teen son, Robbie (Justin Chatwin) for the weekend when his ex, Mary-Anne, (Miranda Otto) and her husband, Tim, embark on a trip. From the outset, the familial tension is strained and protracted to such levels of disrespect flowing from unresolved emotional baggage that the girl, Rachel, appears to be the anchor of maturity amidst the older brother and father. This might be natural desert or just plain lucky for us given those were the days of Cruise's detached-from-reality Katie-frolic on Oprah's couch that was still fresh on movie-goer’s minds at the time.

As to be expected, Cruise holds his own as the aforementioned New Jersey stevedore. Fanning, as the preternaturally mature and wise-child--(whose character is a somewhat modern and revamped take on Ann Robinson’s in the 1953 version)-- emerges further into her place as arguably one of the best child actors to come in a while.She exudes an effortless air of natural believability that plays well across the emotive ranges required for this part, which—admittedly-- center on panicked yelping. At once she can be the epitome of a terrorized child in the back seat of a van with a teary whelp.

In the next instant, she can display the settling wisdom and serene calm of a knowing old-soul five times her age, but in a kid-like way. Of the human performers, hers is the most memorable. The relationship between the father and son seems concocted at times from the tired places of their mutual misunderstandings, but not more so than the cogent resolution the film offers the two characters later on.

We are quickly dispatched into the melee with Morgan Freeman's unmistakable and cadent opening monologue. The movie moves quickly to the freaky electro-magnetic storm, once having established Cruise as the bumbling dad. From the machine emerging at the intersection, the escape from the city, the plane scene, to the van scene all the way to the ferry, the pace is frenetic and numbing to the marrow. That is, as long as the picture goes with the machines.

However, it suffers and plods a bit when offering commentary regarding the tendency of human behavior when confronted with its finitude and limitation. This occurs partially in the attack on the van and especially in the sidetrack with the maddened and crazed Ogilvy (Tim Robbins). And it isn't so much that the movie doesn't have the right to do so......you're just left wondering more about what those machines are going to do next. Perhaps these vignettes may not be any more informative on human behavior than that to which we are already accustomed (such as greed, fight-or-flight and self-preservation under massive duress) because the human drama that can only occur is either radically tragic or surreal in its human victory. Given that, the success in this part of writers David Koepp and Josh Friedman’s (the latter of whom is credited for writing 12 episodes of Fox’s The Sara Connor Chronicles) telling of the story is that our fragility comes as awfully close to being our own undoing as are any alien activities that could ever close in to finish us.

Let it be said that the main characters are the insect-y and mechanical, three-legged nightmares enlivened by Oscar award-winning Dennis Muren and his Industrial Light and Magic (I.L.M.). I expected this WOW to garner an effects nomination here as well, but its only real threat to the prize back in 2005 was King Kong (which took the prize).

The initial appearance sequence of the machine, erect and eclipsing the sun, is as riveting and ghastly a scenario as one could dare imagine and it may have left its inimitably-cratered place in science fiction cinematic history. This scene is one reason why I would finally determine to come and see the film again- (one best experienced on a fifty-foot screen with the volume borderline deafening so that it can be felt in the chest). Camera angles are layered and revelatory, creative and playful as you would expect from Spielberg. Composer John Williams hones a score that cloaks and adorns the tripods to perfecting and horrific proportions. Williams mostly succeeds throughout in orchestrating a musical story in the portentous, droning, repetitive and anticipatory tones, trills and movements, but no track shines as much as the Intersection Scene with its ability to recall the listener visually back into the theater.

It isn't enough that the human characters progress throughout the movie. Concurrent with the earthly family is the story of the development of the tripods. In each of their featured sequences, they appear with progressively varying and dastardly objectives, carrying them out with horrendous purpose. The machines are afforded various idiosyncrasies, traits and physical characteristics as to be actual creatures in and of themselves and not just vehicles for tinier alien drivers. The machines creak, pump and grind as one would expect from other-worldly mechanical processes, but they also spew fluids and gases in very "bodily" ways.

In this eerie and seminal intersection scene early on, a stunned crowd and a towering two-hundred foot tripod behold one another for the first time in a nervous silence until the tripod finally bellows forth a "greeting" in an ominously deafening two-toned "honk." This honk-progression occurs in a musical minor-third, cleverly and tonically creating the atmosphere from which horrible portents will flow. Spielberg has the music tell the story again, when Tony Bennett's "If I Ruled The World" echoes from the Hudson Ferry between the “surprise” train and the triple tripod threat from over the hills to the ferry itself.

Giving the machine such a persona is deftly Spielbergian, a la Close Encounters, but with bloody fangs. This attention to fine detail makes the experience of the machines very believable. Overall, the viewer must definitely pay attention to even the most fleeting of details in the auditory and visual imagery because, in classic Spielberg fashion, the story is ongoing in the seemingly mundane.

The telling is Spielberg's own crafting with sprinkled bits of homage to the material of his predecessors. If you are cognizant of this, then the picture's landing may be more palatable and your romp with the film's real stars, more enjoyable.

My Hook Factor: I love the genre, generally love Spielberg in this setting and it hearkens me back to my childhood.

Very nice, a well written essay. Look forward to reading more like this. Thank you

Wow! That's one helluva review, Glenn. Refreshing to see such a thorough, fleshed-out take on a film.

I like your observation that the machines are given personalities, in a sense. They were definitely the most interesting part of the film. I can't tell whether or not I wanted more of them, or whether or not I only think I did. That is to say, they may have been interesting precisely because Spielberg didn't saturate us with them.

Either way, I agree with your rating; that's close to where I'd put it, too.

Excellent review (I would almost pay you for it ) and although I personally rated the film a bit higher than you, you seem to have enjoyed it for the same reasons I did. Good Job.

__________________

“The gladdest moment in human life, methinks, is a departure into unknown lands.” – Sir Richard Burton

Thanks a bunch. Working on chugging out a few more, here.

Thanks, Chris! You make an excellent point about not over-saturating us with the machines; they appeared where needed and with enough nuance to sustain interest.

Hmmm....I would have to unequivocally say that I'd MORE than almost take your payment...

BTW, did you do a review on the forum? If so, I'd like to check it out.

Thanks a bunch for reading and commenting.

JRS did one, but I didn't find anyone else.

__________________
I used to be addicted to crystal meth, now I'm just addicted to Breaking Bad.

Thanks for searching, though.

Nah - no reviews for WOTW here, my reviews are way too personal to be great. You have a wonderful way of meshing your vocabularic extensiveness with your eclectic machinations, seriously though.

two -

Capote


Theatrical Release:September 2, 2005
DVD Release: March 21, 2006
Official Capote Site
Drama/Biography
Starring:Philip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins, Jr., Chris Cooper
Rated R (for language, violent images)
Running Time: 98 Minutes

NOTE: To view second spoiler, highlight the text area with your mouse.

Cast whatever accolades one may at the feet of Philip Seymour Hoffman's rendition of Truman Capote: this is an undeniably accurate effort of a character reproduction of the real thing as one may see.

Hoffman captures the self-absorption of the literary star exquisitely, right down to the glibly-lisped one-liners and story-telling panache that tickles the ears of his raptured socialites who encircle his feet. With nonchalance, Capote is always looking down, perhaps faintly through his nose, at whatever is before him. But you never get the sense that genuine caring is beyond him, if even in his own sometimes misguided ways. It is just that his motivation is steeped in his star-ridden aspirations and his desire for attention ever muddles the lines.

Director Bennett Miller's Capote is a reference point for narcissism's inability to separate genuine concern for more self-serving ends, highlighting the gay author's friendship with convicted murderer Perry Smith (Clifton Collins). Capote's investigation began as an effort toward a magazine article, but quickly transitioned to a book once Capote realized the dramatic wealth present in the story. Capote becomes smitten by Smith and quickly blinded by his lure toward the convict. Compounding that are the prospects that his book might never be completed as long as there are stays of execution for the prisoners. Capote had secured legal counsel for the convicts early on, partly as much to enable more intimate time with Smith as to garner material for the book. But the move compounds the greater need Capote feels to finish his work and satisfy his publisher, his adoring crowd and subsequently his desperate ego needs.

The pair form a bond that is challenged by Capote's larger-than-life agenda. Capote wants to help, but he can't define the line between callous self-regard and compassionate concern.

Manipulative, journalistic endeavors employed to get "good story" is also central here, with underhanded betrayals and glad-handing bribery as the modus operandi with which to get in. Once "in," Capote could never have fathomed the exacting toll it would take on not only his professional life, but his personal life as well. It is this knowledge of the denouement of Capote's life in actuality that marks the film with vigor and makes it fantastic.

In 1959, Capote comes across the news of a Kansas family gunned down and subsequently contacts the editor of the New Yorker with the idea of a magazine article that quickly turns to a book proposal. Capote swooshes into the tiny place with his requisite fanfare and the hope that his work would detail how this small community was dealing with the news. He just begins to befriend a Kansas Bureau of Investigation agent (Chris Cooper) for some insider information when the two murderers are apprehended out west.

After their conviction, Capote entrenches himself in the story-behind-the-story-- mainly of the murderer Smith-- because he sees so much of himself in him. One wonders if the pity Capote feels for Smith is only a newly discovered vehicle to access his own lost sadness for himself. He says of Smith and himself:

He tells his friend and research assistant, Harper Lee (Catherine Keener), that he might have a nervous breakdown if their appeal for a stay of execution is granted. The film depicts, in the grayest of fashion, the line between what is true compassion and self-absorbency, because for Capote, you get the feeling he may not even be able to delineate that himself.

The six years of life that passes in the effort to finish the project would ultimately see the publishing of Lee's novel (and movie), To Kill a Mockingbird, in the meantime. The era would begin to spell out a spiraling downward of Capote, who did manage to finish In Cold Blood, a new genre that would change at least one facet of modern American literature to come. Unfortunately, heavy drinking and the ensuing emotional disintegration from the experience arguably quickened his demise. As a snapshot study of the some of the contributing factors to that, Capote has every leg to stand on and should not have been missed, if not for Hoffman's Best Actor Oscar-winning performance alone.



My Hook Factor: In a word: Hoffman. Capote was as colorful a character as he remains an establishment in American literature.

Fantastic review.
Brilliantly written, well structured, and you've picked a great movie to review as well.

Phillip Seymour Hoffman played the role almost perfectly, and congratulations on a great essay/review.

__________________

Thanks for reading and commenting!

Okay...can anyone see the second spoiler in the Capote review when you click on it? I have the text in the right place for the spoiler tags, but when I click on it, the first one pops up and nothing comes up in the second one.

Is that happening to anyone?

EDIT: NOW MY FREEKIN' PIC IS GONE!!!

I didn't get the second one.