User reviews

What Spielberg, Cruise, and Koepp accomplish here in the first two acts is nothing short of revolutionary. They've made a big-budget summer blockbuster about massive destruction and action that manages to studiously avoid every cliché and expectation of such films. It stays resolutely on the characters' points of view, showing us almost nothing they don't see, even to the point of coming tantalizingly close to a raging battle, then avoiding showing it. It keeps its focus on character instead of spectacle. The "hero" of the piece remains decidedly unheroic, wanting only to escape, and trying to talk others out of fighting back. The purpose of every piece of action is to frighten and disturb rather than thrill, making ingenious use of familiar 9/11 imagery. At the end of the second act, it is hands-down the best alien invasion film ever made, and perhaps one of the best sci-films of all time.

Then something strange happens. The filmmakers lose their nerve, and remember that this is an extremely expensive summer film financed by two studios. Or perhaps it was the fact that it stars Tom Cruise, who up to this point has spent almost two hours doing nothing but run for his life. Suddenly, and tragically, the film changes, violating not only its carefully established tone, but its own internal logic. Suddenly, Cruise begins to act like a hero, and summer action clichés force their way into the story like a worm into an apple. The transition is jarring, and it creates a serious disconnect from the story.

While it's true that Wells' original ending creates a problem for a movie, here they try to remain faithful to it, while still shoehorning moments of triumph into the conclusion. Unfortunately, these moments come off as alternately false, unbelievable, and meaningless, since it isn't mankind that defeats the invaders in the end.

Is it recommendable? Well, I suppose that depends on what kind of viewer you are. If you feel that 75% brilliant material overshadows the 25% that falls apart, then you'll enjoy it. If, however, you're the kind of viewer who feels that the final impression a movie makes is its ultimate stamp on your memory, you may be in for a crushing disappointment. On the other hand, if you're the kind of viewer who just likes the cliché of the boom-boom summer action spectacle, you're likely to be bored and frustrated with the first two acts, and only engage in the end. It is confused about what audience it's trying to reach, and consequently, isn't likely to satisfy any of them.

I love the book and overall theme of the movie but Tom Cruise acting is annoying which is probably because he had to work with 2 most annoying kid actors ever seen on the film. I mean almost every scene is ruined by hysterical yelling of the 3 main characters. Little girl is the worst but Tom and his movie son are not far behind.

I mean it's watchable but by the middle of the movie I was hoping aliens will take them down so we don't have to suffer this atrocity of acting

I've never seen such petulant spoiled- rotten kids. The world is ending, and they scream and whine about every little detail. The older boy is the worst, he wants to fight the invaders...who have forcefields that can block ballistic missiles. These kids need a good spanking.

The Martians devouring those brats and spraying their remains all over the place would've redeemed this mediocre effort.

Aliens bury their ships underground. I'd like to know who came up with that nonsense. Like Humans who build tunnels and huge mines would never stumble on to these gigantic tripod machines. Spielberg what were you thinking?

"War of the Worlds" is Steven Spielberg's third movie in which extraterrestrials visit Earth, but the first in which their intentions are malevolent. It can't be coincidence that the arrival of the ETs is heralded with eerie lights flashing amid lowering clouds, as in "CE3K." From there, the similarity ends--no light show as friendly aliens come in for a closer look. These creatures (presumably Martians, as in the original H.G. Wells novel) aren't interested in making nice; nor is there any ambiguity about their ultimate objective (as there was for much of "CE3K"). They're here to wipe us off the face of the planet, plain and simple, a point we understand before the movie has played for even half an hour, and the giant walking tripods they deploy are remorselessly efficient. So, too, is the movie--at scaring the hell out of us, notwithstanding some gaping plot holes (what's up with that camcorder, anyway?) and a couple of sequences that are too reminiscent of other movies (particularly "Independence Day" and Spielberg's own "Jurassic Park").

That Spielberg uses imagery alluding to 9/11, the Holocaust, and perhaps the siege of London during World War II is, for me, less an exploitation than a reflection of how seriously he intends the audience to take the on screen mayhem. The atmosphere is heavy with threat, and the depiction of a populace numb with shock amid the devastation is chillingly convincing, despite a few moments of Hollywood cheese. We don't have Will Smith delivering snappy one-liners right after millions are massacred by the invading alien forces, a la "ID4." Nor is there much of a rah-rah, let's-kick-some-alien-ass mood as the outmatched Earthlings try fighting back. Even the ostensible protagonist (a low-key, effective Tom Cruise) crumples at one point under the enormity of what's happening.

I'm not really sure what the posters who complained of insufficient action and FX were talking about. Seems to me the tripods were pretty much a constant presence (if not always in the foreground) from about the 15-minute mark onward. And in fact the "war" of the title is waged from the beginning--it's just not on the level of humans vs. aliens combat that some viewers apparently were expecting.

Stephen Spielberg took the 1953 classic War Of The Worlds and remade it for modern times and the modern techniques of special effects. A lot of things that could not be done back in the 50s are done now to show the havoc that the invaders reek upon the world.

He also did something else that possibly might have offended science fiction purists but I think gave the audience a better identification with the protagonists of the story. Instead of having his protagonists be scientists as Gene Barry and Ann Robinson were in 1953, Tom Cruise is a blue collar divorced father who has his kids visiting him, but custody is with their mother Miranda Otto.

The kids are no prizes and are played by Justin Chatwyn and Dakota Fanning. And Cruise himself is no bargain either. But when danger develops it's his idea to take them from New York to Boston where their mother and maternal grandparents are. The film as it was in 1953 is mostly concerned with their efforts to avoid the terrible tripod machines that the aliens use in their destructive path.

The film does follow the Barry/Robinson escape scenario closely. The two had a scene avoiding the aliens while they were trapped in a cellar. To that Spielberg adds survivalist Tim Robbins. I think Stephen Spielberg feels the way I do that a lot of these survivalists pray for their doomsday fantasy to come true. That was sure the case with Tim Robbins who is quite mad on the subject of the invaders.

Cruise himself centers and anchors the film with his portrayal of blue collar America who just wants for him and his family to survive the holocaust. This classic may yet see a remake or three in the future.

It pays to have low expectations. Hearing nothing but negative remarks about this film, I never saw it until the other day when a friend offered the DVD for a free look. With nothing to lose, and being familiar with the story having seen the 1953 movie several times, I put it on.

Wow, I enjoyed it; the film was very entertaining. The only annoying thing to me was the bratty teenage boy, who needed some discipline and never got it. However, that type of kid seems to be stereotypical of teens among modern filmmakers. Other than him, and his little sister who I put with because it's Dakota Fanning, the film served its purpose beautifully, namely to 'shock and awe.' That it did.

The Martian tripods were awesome, particularly in the long scene when they first appear out of the ground. To really appreciate this film, you have to have a surround system because the sound is fantastic. In fact, earlier with the "lightning strikes," the sound gets attention in a big-way. In other words, special- effects-wise, it isn't just about visuals but the audio as well.

Although the story of the father (Tom Cruise) and his two estranged (is anyone pictured married in films nowadays?) kids is so-so at best, the film is all about the action. That "cute" family situation is just a sub-plot to give us some breaks from the intensity of the invasion.

Anyway, some of the action scenes were jaw-dropping good and, with the normal Spielberg garbage that always comes with the good stuff, too, it's still was a fun two hours. Now, I'll have to get the DVD because I would definitely watch this more than once.

Ray Ferrier (Tom Cruise) is a divorced father with daughter Rachel (Dakota Fanning) and angry teenager Robbie (Justin Chatwin). Then a strange storm appears with numerous intense lightning. Suddenly machines rise out of the ground to destroy mankind.

Director Steven Spielberg uses all his tech skills to create great CGI of this H.G. Wells vision. It looks great. There are great individual scenes like the train. Tom Cruise is good as a father looking out for his family. But a couple of things keep coming back to nag at me. The kids are a bit too much to take. I'm willing to take Dakota Fanning screaming at everything, but I can't take the annoying rebellious teen. The constant fighting with the father is so petty and so childish. The family melodrama just diminishes the scale of the movie. Then there is the change of the origins of the alien machines. It is simply a stupid idea from Spielberg to be different. There is no reason for it. Worst it makes the movie questionable. And the blood idea just adds to the silliness of the story. These are changes for the sake of changing without improving anything.

'War of the Worlds' had a lot going for it, considering the story, that it was directed by Steven Spielberg and a decent cast on paper. It turned however to be a frustratingly uneven film, with a good first half and a pretty lousy second half.

Starting with what's good, the film looks fabulous, the atmosphere that the cinematography and lighting evoked is just incredible and the special effects are without complaint too. John Williams can be relied upon to compose a good score and he does here, being both rousing and spooky. Spielberg does an impeccable job directing the first half of the film, giving a lot of the first half thrills, suspense and genuine scares.

Tom Cruise does a good job in the lead and Tim Robbins is eerily eccentric. As said, the first half has many great moments and is filled with unnerving suspense and scary chills. Truly imaginative details like the burning train, the birds/tripod scene and the river of the dead bodies burn in the memory for a long while after.

However, the human drama was not as transfixing as it should have been, being hurt by the dysfunctional family subplot being rammed down the throat with no subtlety at all with nothing relatable at all and especially by the kids.

Spielberg has demonstrated before that he is capable of directing great child performances, prime examples being Haley Joel Osment in 'AI' and Christian Bale in 'Empire of the Sun', but the performances of both Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin are incredibly irritating. Not sure which is more so, Fanning's constant screaming or brattiness or Chatwin made to act throughout the film but especially the second half like an indecisively written character who makes stupid decisions and acts rebellious in the most insufferable of ways. The dialogue is often insipid.

After a lot of promise in the first half, 'War of the Worlds' is let down significantly by the second half where the pace slackens (a notable example being that overlong scene in the basement) and the suspense dramatically wilts (such as when the aliens are introduced, and they are not menacing in the slightest) and is replaced by ridiculousness, frustrating character decisions and sentimentality. The Hollywood schmaltz kicks in and keeps assaulting the viewer at full throttle, while the ending is up there as one of film's most false, cloying and anti-climactic.

In conclusion, a frustratingly uneven film that starts off quite well and then completely falls apart. 5/10 Bethany Cox

It's been a long while since I either watched the original movie by the same name or read HG Wells' novel, on which both movies are based, but my memory tells me that Steven Spielberg did a pretty decent job of updating the story for a modern audience, while at the same time keeping the essential elements of Wells' story intact. The updates are necessary to make the movie relevant to the modern era. The basic change is that Wells story begins with radio reports of explosions being observed on Mars. This movie features television reports of strange, electromagnetic weather disturbances - a necessary change since (a) radio is no longer the medium through which we get news, and (b) we now know too much about Mars for the explosions to be believable. In another bow to the modern context, there are also some shades of 9/11. The kids think the alien attack at first is a terrorist act, and watching the dazed people walking by posters of the missing brought back memories of that terrible day.

Within the movie itself, there was sustained action right from the beginning, a pretty good flow to the story and generally good performances. Tom Cruise was good as Ray Ferrier, a divorced father who has to protect his children once the aliens begin their attack. I say Cruise was "good" only because that's my general reaction to his work. He always seems to handle his parts well, but there's just some intangible quality about him that prevents me from going any better than "good." In this movie, frankly speaking, his performance is not as good as Dakota Fanning's was as Ray's daughter Rachel. She nailed the part, I thought - showing exactly what I think would be the quickly rising level of terror a young child in such circumstances would experience. She is completely believable. I must say that I never really connected with the character of Robbie - Rachel's older brother, played by Justin Chatwin. I had trouble figuring out exactly where his character was coming from.

After so much action, the end of the movie is a bit anti-climactic, but so is Wells' story (and deliberately so.) The point of the rather sudden and understated ending is the irony involved in it - for all our military and technical prowess, it turns out to be something that we usually try to eradicate that saves us. On the subject of military prowess, one thing I found passing strange is that in putting this into a 21st century context, Spielberg didn't portray the military using nuclear weapons against the alien invaders which to me, given the desperate circumstances, would have seemed reasonable.

All in all, though, this is a very well done movie and well worth watching. 8/10

This movie would be a whole lot better if the characters weren't so annoying *ahem* Fanning. The effects look great and the storyline is interesting. The characters lack depth and are so bad that you end up not caring if they live or die.

This movie had huge potential. Everything to make this a science-fiction classic masterpiece were present; Spielberg's directing, a great concept, ILM special effects, Tom Cruise as the main character and lots of other professionals involved both in front and behind the cameras. Then where did it go wrong? The answer to that is the script. The story is very simple and lacks a real clear plot line. Basically the movie is only about Tom Cruise and his two children running and driving from city to city, from the aliens and their destructive Tripod-machines. Exactly why are we, out of all the people, following these persons? The character development is lacking, just as much as the story does. Both lack development and depth.

Of course the movie is by no means an horrible movie but it's just that the movie is a bit disappointing because of the fact that it had so much more potential. It still is a good and certainly spectacular movie to watch but it's not a movie people will still talk about in 5 or 10 years from now. The story makes this movie a bit of an easily forgettable movie that doesn't leave an huge impression afterward, even though the movie itself is pure eye-candy to watch.

There is no doubt about it that Spielberg is a great director. He directs his actors in this movie very well and everyone in the movie gives an amazing performance, especially Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning. Tom Cruise for once again doesn't play the action hero. He is an average Joe instead and I think he did this in a very good and convincing. Spielberg also uses the special effects very well. He doesn't use the special effects to impress the audience as much as possible, with lots of spectacular and action filled sequences, which he could had easily had done, he uses them as a tool to tell the story with instead. The movie is purely told from Tom Cruise and his family's perspective, because of this the movie gets a very realistic feeling. We don't get to see any close-ups of the Tripods and how they destroy entire cities and fight off the American army. I like this approach. It makes "War of the Worlds" different from many other alien-invasion movies. It because of this certainly is one of the most believable and realistic alien-invasion movies, along with "Signs".

Visually there also is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie. The special effects from ILM are very impressive and look extremely convincing. The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is also simply phenomenal at times and is typically gritty, which certainly adds to the tense and realistic atmosphere of the movie.

Unlike others, to me the ending didn't came really abrupt. But perhaps this was because to me the ending was already spoiled, thanks to the movie it's soundtrack, which featured the final narration of Morgan Freeman explaining how the movie ended. So I already knew what to expect. To be perfectly honest I liked the ending and I couldn't think of any other, or better way to end this movie, without losing any of its realism and credibility. I can understand how it might seem lame and sudden to most though but for me it was satisfying enough.

It certainly is a movie that will receive one or two, most likely, technical Acedemy Awards. And it deserves to. There isn't an awful lot wrong with this movie but it truly is the simple story that prevents this movie from being a classic or masterpiece. I still regard this movie as one of the must sees of 2005 simply because of the movie its look and acting. You can tell by watching this movie that there was lots of talent involved, both in front and behind the cameras. Especially Spielberg's touch still makes this movie better than just the average alien-invasion movie but still not even he can prevent this movie from being a bit of a disappointment. Not his or anybody else his/her fault, simply blame it on the script.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

First - a quick rebuttal: The peanut butter sandwich which seemed to stick to the window impossibly. This was a very visually interesting scene. In fact, the scene was shot from inside the house, and Cruise was shot in reflection against the window - so there is no problem here other than the reviewer not thinking what they were seeing through.

Now on to the review...

This film follows Tom Cruise - playing a not-very-adult divorced father - and his two kids through the Wellsian version of The War of the Worlds. Despite the fact that the film focuses exclusively on the harrowing experiences of this somewhat dysfunctional family, in a very basic way it preserves the elements of the original novel. As with Wells' book, a science savvy viewer will pick up on the biological plausibility of the main plot and realize the brilliance of Wells original points. Scientifically educated viewers will also recognize the geological impossibility of it. Neither of these facts should detract from the entertainment value of this interesting and exciting film. After all, it is a testament to Wells' genius that a novel written nearly 100 years ago still holds our attention today, and is still regarded as an intelligent take on improbable events.

An alien species, about which nothing is really known, has been planning to take over and terraform earth for millenia, or perhaps much longer. Using unknown technology, they manage to emplace operatives in enormous tripod machines equipped with horrendous weapons that basically carbonize any life forms they take aim at. The tripods had been implanted deep in the earth long before the advent of our species. There simply is no stopping the invasion. Cruise, whose character is not really built for heroism, digs deep into his soul to protect his children as they attempt to make it to Boston to reunite with his estranged wife and her new family.

Before I discuss the technical merits of the film, and the lavish production values, I feel that I need to make a comment on Dakota Fanning. Ms. Fanning gives one of the best performances I have ever seen a sub-12 year old give in The War of the Worlds. She is a match for Cruise, and actually manages to steal several scenes from him. The acting in this film is uniformly good, but Fanning really stood out.

Spielberg and his team make seemingly impossible film visions come alive in a uniquely well realized manner. War of the Worlds is one of the most visually stunning films I have seen in a long time. Though I would not call the special effects innovative, they are, more importantly, convincing and never over-done. The nearly first person story telling technique is both original and effective, and the non-heroism of Cruise's character makes for a much more compelling plot than I expected to see. There are indeed some problems with believability, but let me ask - why would anybody go to this film expecting something more realistic than a fairy tale?

Recommended for Wells fans, fans of the original 1953 adaptation, and action sci-fi fans. Mildly recommended to the average cinema-goer.

I feel like this movie is beyond underrated and gets voted down due to people not liking how different it is from the novel. This is a great sci fi film. Looks great, well acted, good story and a unique take on the original. 7.5/10.

War of the Worlds marks the second collaboration between 2 of Hollywood's most influential figures, that of director Steven Spielberg and megastar Tom Cruise. In this updated adaptation of H.G. Well's classic, we revisit alien territory already familiar with Spielberg (with evergreens like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, and E.T.), except that this time around, the aliens are not an iota friendly and wastes no time proving its point with its laser beams.

Cruise plays Ray, a middle class salaried worker whose ex-wife (Miranda Otto, in an underused role) leaves their estranged kids with for the weekend. Being the selfish carefree man that he is, it is no wonder why he doesn't get much respect, especially from his son. Before you can say move on with the melodrama, worldwide lightning phenomenon gets TV coverage, and soon enough, the horror begins, as the well known battle tripods rise from beneath the earth and annihilate everything on site.

The special effects are brilliant, and serves as an effective plot device for unspeakable, unexplainable horror. Spielberg teases you with indirect shots of the tripods, from mirrors and reflective surfaces, never letting you see from a first person's perspective for too long, keeping in pace with the initial suspense built.

Terrorist attacks were mentioned in conversation, and perhaps this movie also serves as a timely reminder of always being prepared, with emergency equipment, stashes of food, and familiarity with emergency procedures.

This film could take the easy way out and focus on the big explosions ala Independence Day, but since that was already done, we get to focus on the smaller picture, that of the survival of the family unit in crisis, and I applaud this approach. Conflicts arise and sometimes solved through unpopular decisions, and that's the way of life. Most times we do not have complete information, and need to make split second life determining decisions.

However, the pace slackens toward the end of the movie, and steers us back with reminders that this is after all a summer action blockbuster, with predictable endings, some plot loopholes and worse, rushed explanations.

Tom Cruise doesn't get to flash his pearly whites so often here, as we see a transformation from irresponsibility, and in his son's opinion, cowardice, to courageous dad whose children are his first priority. I'd dare say Cruise is in his element here, saving the day (in a not so direct manner).

Dakota Fanning shines as Ray's daughter Rachel, bringing forth a sense of vulnerability with her fear of enclosed spaces, and her love for her father and brother. Being the little damsel in distress, who wouldn't want to save her and ensure that she survives this horrible onslaught? Serves well as a Hollywood summer blockbuster, but not the "most anticipated" for this year as claimed by some.