Independence Day: Resurgence

The whole Independence Day: Resurgence felt a little lame. The first hour is downright boring and extremely rushed, a lot of things happen and a bunch of new characters are introduced, but those things aren't very important or spectacularly executed and you care less about the characters than you do about the Namibian regional elections. It's nice to see Bill Pullman and Jeff Goldblum in action after all these years, but it's impossible to say that their presence makes the second Independence Day a better film. If they thought we'd applaud the excitement of seeing a heroic president and a likeable nerd save the world years later, they miscalculated. Independence Day really isn't about the characters, so there's not much point in revolving around them for an hour. It's boring. The action does kick in in the second half, but honestly Roland Emmerich has made more interesting stuff, and pulling a Chinese big city and then dropping it on London no longer impresses in the blockbuster universe. This and the aerial battles and the finale on the ground are fine, but none of it is interesting enough to help the film get out of the "pretty OK summer sci-fi washout" box. Unlike the first film, there's a woeful lack of wit, workable pathos, and most of all, those one-dimensional but still likeable heroes you'd root for. Here, you have either anonymous characters bullshitting or quite effectively but not extravagant action. It doesn't hurt in the cinema, but I'm looking in vain for a reason to see it a second time. (2017-05-15)

Fans of the first and opponents of the second may be annoyed, but I have to say that I enjoyed Independence Day 2 as much as the first. Admittedly, in this case it's like a magnifying glass, so there's more of everything, everything is bigger and more apocalyptic and so on. But I had fun, just as I did with the first one. Roland Emmerich works the same way, so you could count on bombastic effects, a few WTF scenes and the blatant heroism of the main characters, and I didn't expect anything more than that. I went to the cinema mainly expecting to watch an audiovisual orgy of monstrous proportions, where I would have the power to switch off and not have to think too much, and that's exactly what I got. In short, a popcorn flick with all the trimmings that can evoke both a sense of nostalgia and a sense of outrage, and in my case it was a nicely made (if slightly silly at times) respite. (2016-07-16)

Total creative misery and a massive drop in quality. Emmerich seems to have completely forgotten what trademarks and directorial techniques made him rise to the top of the imaginary blockbuster ladder in 1996. His ID4 was funny, dynamic, emotional and at times very chilling. Above all, though, it was hugely entertaining, with interesting characters you rooted for even though (or perhaps because) they were so different. 20 years later, we have a new attack, which is only watchable thanks to the evolution of the digital effects. Because the script is out of the question, the new main characters are uninteresting and boring, and the old ones get little time or are treated reprehensibly badly. You could say that, with the exception of Goldblum, the director hasn't let them age with the grace and refinement they would need, while still being great draws for the young hungry crowd, who, by the way, average about 15 years old and pilot fighter jets, fly to the moon, and sacrifice themselves for humanity without blinking an eye. Overkill is fine, but here it’s often meant too seriously. The mix was simply wrong from the start. The blatant copying of Aliens and Sphere cannot be forgiven either. Truly a giant disappointment of intergalactic proportions, and I think back with nostalgia to the perfectly polished and charismatic first film. (2016-06-25)

“They like to get the landmarks.” Though it would have been good for it, Emmerich’s new movie doesn’t contain many more similarly prescient lines, and it does show any awareness of its own bullshit. The gravity with which the subject matter, reminiscent of a 1950s sci-fi B-movie, is handled gives one an idea of what Starship Troopers would have looked like if Verhoeven had taken it seriously. With a guilelessness that’s as endearing as it is disturbing, the new Independence Day turns the message of the Cold War-era The Day the Earth Stood Still on its head. A more advanced civilisation is not here to warn humanity of the risk of self-destruction, but to help it destroy the enemy. The purpose of war is not for people to learn from it, but to better prepare themselves for the next war, because without warfare the military-industrial complex would logically collapse. Solutions other than military force are not even considered and the effectiveness of using hard power (even against an ally) is not in any way questioned by the film’s message. It doesn’t explain why society was divided, but mainly shows that society was united by waging war. Military conflicts thus essentially have a positive effect, even if they usually result in a few major cities getting wiped off the face of the earth. Even though I am disgusted by the ideology that the film expresses (not to mention the character of the exceedingly incompetent president), and though its sentimentality and patriotism sometimes exceed the tolerable limit, I enjoyed the second Independence Day as much as I did the first one. In terms of composition, it is a perfect summer blockbuster in which every motif and every character has its own justification (and the extended exposition thus bears fruit later in the film). The multitude of characters allows Emmerich to change the point of view as needed and thus share with us information that is necessary to keep us in the picture while wanting to know more (by the time we get to the climax, we sense that there will be a snag, as all of the plot lines have not been resolved yet). The film is brilliantly paced throughout, including at the level of individual action scenes. The deadline that we are continually warned about comes ever closer, the aliens get bigger and stronger, the number of important characters in peril increases. The $200 million budget is evident and the battles are massive, but neither would matter if the action wasn’t a solid part of the narrative, helping to move the story along by eliminating certain obstacles and creating others. If you are going to make a big, dumb and not very original sci-fi flick, then do it with the storytelling skill found in Resurgence. 80% (2016-06-21)

Emmerich remakes his own work while managing to rip off about ten other films, sprinkles in cheesy lines, pathetic speeches, and huge monumental action that casually outdoes every orgy of destruction from any action film of the last three years (which is a major asset!). It’s really just 1990s stuff. But! Christ, did the first half-hour of introducing new characters really have to be that long? And the callous treatment of protagonists from the past? At a time when the studios allow 140 minutes for whatever, Emmerich's two hours are too tight, and his weakness is shown to be the lack of finesse in his shortcuts. But the monumental epic wins in the finale. Although it’s tight and quite ineffective, I've forgiven Emmerich for worse things. PS: When I want to think back to it two days later, all I can pull from my memory are high-five planets and new interplanetary ships. (2016-06-23)