Independence Day: Resurgence review

Scientia
Scientia
Published in
4 min readJan 11, 2017

By Stephanie Sarah Tan

Alien flying saucers, explosions, screams, and alien blood and guts, what’s not to like? I bring you Independence Day: Resurgence, the shinier and equally ridiculous sequel no one should have to suffer through.

The original Independence Day (1996) film at the time of its release was the second highest grossing film of all time worldwide, grossing $300 million domestically and $500 million overseas, for a total of around $800 million. Given the wonders it accomplished with a budget of $77 million, expectations were high for the sequel filmed with a budget of $170 million. Perhaps fans should have paid attention to early indicators of the film’s impending disaster. Firstly, Will Smith was absent, and secondly, the movie was closed to critics prior to its release. Duhn duhn duhn duhn.

The movie begins with a dialogue taken from the president’s speech in Independence Day (1996) which inspired soldiers and viewers alike right before the titular Independence Day attack on the aliens. As much as I loved his speech on unity for mankind, thanks for the reminder that nothing short of an apocalypse can possibly bring about world peace by the way, can this movie get even more obvious how desperate it is to ride the coattails of its predecessor?

Apparently it can. The film brings back memorable characters from the first movie such as the President Whitmore (Bill Pullman), the environmentalist David Levinson (Jeff Goldblum), and mad scientist Dr. Okun (Brent Spiner). Pilot Steven Hiller (Will Smith) who opted out of the sequel is replaced by Dylan Dubrow starring as Jessie Usher, Steven’s now grown-up son, as the token black character. Speaking of token characters, I present Angelababy who is the movie’s token east Asian character.

Forty minutes into the movie, I was already internally wailing for it to end. It was so boring. While I do have to admit that the panorama shots and CGI have definitely improved compared to its 1996 predecessor, I can honestly say that the plot did not. The plot was unimaginative and too scattered, as evident from the seemingly haphazard cuts from one scene to the next. There were too many characters squeezed into too short a time frame, making it difficult to form attachments to any one of them.

The acting could have been good. The major characters portrayed their characters as well as they possibly could (more on that later), with my personal favorite being the awkward Dr. Okun. However the minor characters reduced their efforts to naught. Sometimes the main characters would be in focus with intense and even compelling expressions, before the scene cuts away to background characters (who must not have read the script) standing around with multipurpose wide-eyed mouth-half-open staresTM.

Acting aside, the characters themselves are inherently ridiculous. In terms of character development, there was none. Too many characters and too many unnecessary scenes crammed into 120 minutes resulted in forgettable archetypes whose only redeeming feature from blandness is their annoying dialogue. For all their characterization, they may as well been cardboard cutouts of characters from the 1996 movie who, for the record, were just as cliche but pretty memorable.

For a movie about on aliens, the lack of imagination was supremely disappointing. Honestly the lack of imagination on the entire movie was disappointing, but let us focus on the aliens. I am aware that the designs are from way back in 1996, but here’s an opportunity to talk about them anyway. The aliens in Independence Day have two arms and two legs which they use to control long tentacles on their organic armor. The tentacled humanoid shape is something safe. The octopus, a member of the cephalopod class, is a mysterious animal with a large brain and the ability to accomplish complex tasks. It is an invertebrate with all the abilities of an advanced vertebrate. I say that giving an alien this morphology is unimaginative as it merely combines forms easily found locally here on Earth. I will say kudos though for the idea of the aliens’ biomechanical armor. In the second movie, the creators apparently felt that an upgrade to an organic life form would be a cute white sphere that looks like it was designed by Apple. Of course if there are actual aliens out there, who’s to say what they look like? As living things it would ultimately depend on the planet where they evolved.

This is a movie that can’t decide what genre it wants to be, filled with elaborate but boring alien technology and wide-eyed characters. The “great the queen’s dead” and “oh no she’s not” back and forth successfully kept us on the edge of our seats… hoping for the movie to end so we could jump out and do something better with our lives, such as regret the last two hours wasted on this movie.

While the 1996 film was charming in a cringeworthy sort of way, featuring a classic, if cheesy, redemption story of humankind, Resurgence was just a cringeworthy bloated version of the same thing. Minus Will Smith. If you’re in the mood for an blown-up spectacle, then this is something you would enjoy. Though I don’t see why you wouldn’t rewatch the 1996 prequel instead.

I would give this film a rating of 2/5. One point for the graphics and another for effort. A third installment to this series has been in development since 2010. According to director Roland Emmerich, it is contingent on the success of Resurgence. I must say, given that the 100 million USD domestic gross of Resurgence is only a third of its 1996 prequel, it does not look good. But who’s to say? Perhaps the international gross will be better.

--

--

Scientia
Scientia

The official student publication of the College of Science, UP Diliman.