“Independence Day: Resurgence” wants to be a summer blockbuster. It mostly succeeds at being a hollow one. Roland Emmerich’s sequel picks up twenty years after the alien invasion that destroyed Washington, D.C., and turns the world into a ruin where survivors eke out a living among the wreckage. The premise is grim, and for a while, the tone carries weight. Then the plot kicks in, and the weight evaporates.
Trailer, via 20th Century Studios.
Jake Morrison and Dylan Stevens
The story follows Jake Morrison, played by Liam Hemsworth, a fighter pilot who lost his family in the first attack. He joins a mission led by Dylan Stevens, played by Jeff Goldblum, to destroy the alien mothership. Alongside them is Patricia Campbell, played by Madeleine Stowe, a scientist who built a weapon capable of destroying the aliens. The setup is simple and effective. The execution dilutes it.
The problem is pacing. The film runs nearly two hours, and large chunks of it feel padded. There are scenes of characters:
- Wandering through ruined cities
- Arguing about strategy
- Sitting around waiting for something to happen
None of it advances the plot. The movie is full of filler, and the filler does not disguise itself as character development. It just sits there, taking up runtime.
Goldblum’s Return
Goldblum’s return is the film’s biggest draw. He plays Dylan Stevens, a former president who now leads the human resistance. His presence carries a weight the script cannot match. He delivers a few lines of wit, but the material around him is thin. He spends much of the film giving speeches about hope and unity, and the speeches land as platitudes rather than ideas.
The film leans on Goldblum’s charisma to compensate for its weaknesses. It works in moments, but it cannot sustain the entire runtime. Goldblum is a good actor, and he gives a committed performance, but the script asks him to be the emotional center of the story while also being the comic relief. The two roles do not fit together, and the film cannot decide which one to prioritize.
The New Characters Fall Flat
The new cast members fare worse. Hemsworth’s Jake Morrison is meant to be the protagonist, but he lacks the screen presence to carry the film. His arc is simple: he wants revenge, he gets it, he learns to forgive. That arc is fine in theory, but the film does not spend enough time establishing why we should care. We know he lost his family, but we do not see that loss. We know he wants revenge, but we do not feel it.
Stowe’s Patricia Campbell fares better. She is the film’s most interesting character, a brilliant scientist who built a weapon capable of destroying the aliens. Her scenes have a sense of purpose that the others lack. But even she is trapped by the script’s limitations. She is a genius, but her genius is not explored. She simply exists to build the weapon and deploy it.
The Mothership Attack
The centerpiece of the film is the final battle against the alien mothership. It is big, loud, and spectacular. The visual effects are impressive, and the action sequences are well-choreographed. But the spectacle is hollow. The film sets up the mothership as a terrifying threat, and then the humans destroy it with a single shot. The moment feels earned, but the setup behind it does not.
The battle is a technical achievement. The ships are massive, the explosions are bright, and the sound design is immersive. But the battle is over too quickly. The film spends half an hour building tension, and then the payoff lasts five minutes. The contrast is jarring, and it leaves the audience feeling cheated.
What the Film Gets Right
The film’s strengths are its quieter moments. The scenes of survivors scavenging through the ruins, the conversations between characters about what the future holds, the small gestures of kindness amid devastation. These moments have a humanity that the action sequences lack. But the film does not trust these moments. It keeps cutting back to explosions and gunfire, and the quieter scenes get buried.
The film’s technical craft is solid. The visual effects are polished, the cinematography is clean, and the editing is tight. The film does not waste shots on unnecessary close-ups or slow-motion sequences. It knows when to move the camera and when to hold it still. This is a film that understands how to stage a scene, even if it does not understand how to write one.
The Wasted Potential
The film’s failure is not a matter of ambition. It is a matter of focus. The filmmakers clearly wanted to make a serious sequel, but they could not commit to the seriousness. They wanted to explore the aftermath of the attack, but they could not resist the call of action. They wanted to give Goldblum a proper role, but they could not give him a proper script. The result is a film that tries to be two things at once and fails at both.
The film is a missed opportunity. It could have been a sober look at the aftermath of an alien invasion, a meditation on loss and resilience. Instead, it is a loud, empty spectacle that offers little beyond explosions and gunfire.
Verdict on Resurgence
“Independence Day: Resurgence” is a film that promises more than it delivers. It has a strong premise, a talented cast, and a budget that allows for spectacle. But the script is weak, the pacing is uneven, and the characters are underwritten. The film is not a disaster, but it is a disappointment.
The film is not worth seeing in theaters. It is worth seeing once, on a streaming service, as a curiosity. But it is not worth recommending to anyone who values their time.
The film is a failure, but it is a failure that is easy to watch. It is not a hard failure. It is a soft failure, a failure that is comfortable and forgettable. That is the worst kind of failure. It is a failure that will not be remembered.
The film is a reminder that spectacle is not enough. A film needs a story, and a story needs characters, and characters need depth. Without those elements, the spectacle becomes noise. And noise is not entertainment. Noise is a distraction.
The film is a distraction. It is a distraction that is fun for a while, but it is a distraction that leaves nothing behind. It is a film that is easy to watch, but hard to remember. It is a film that is pleasant in the moment, but forgettable in the memory.
The film is a tale of ambition without discipline, of spectacle without substance, of a film that tried to be everything and succeeded at nothing. It is a tale that is worth telling, but not worth praising.
The film is a tale of wasted potential. It is a tale of a film that had everything it needed to succeed and failed anyway. It is a tale of a film that was good in concept and mediocre in execution. It is a tale of a film that is easy to watch but hard to love.
The film is a tale of disappointment. It is a tale of a film that promised more than it delivered. It is a tale of a film that is pleasant in the moment, but forgettable in the memory. It is a tale of a film that is worth seeing once, but not worth remembering.
The film is a tale of a sequel that failed to live up to its predecessor. It is a tale of a film that is better than its reputation, but worse than its potential. It is a tale of a film that is easy to watch, but hard to recommend. It is a tale of a film that is pleasant in the moment, but forgettable in the memory.
The film is a tale of a film that is worth seeing once, but not worth seeing again. It is a tale of a film that is worth remembering as a cautionary tale. It is a tale of a film that is pleasant in the moment, but forgettable in the memory. It is a tale of a film that is easy to watch, but hard to love.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.
