This guys kids have to be the most worthless of any apocalyptic movie I've ever seen. I see the movie as more of a struggle with the guy keeping his sanity over his own kids rather than the alien creatures.
Add a Review
-
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. -
tiberijegrozni30 November 2019I 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 -
"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. -
mrscifiguy1 July 2005I would've had more respect for this movie, if it had been a completely new adaptation of the original novel, but instead it's a re-tread of the 1953 original George Pal film.
Spielberg blatantly rehashed several scenes, most notable is the alien camera looking through the farm house and someone hacking at the camera with an axe.
Surprisingly, the 1953 original had far more scenes of massive destruction in the cities, and a much more complex script. The subplot of the scientists and the military trying to find a way to defeat the Martians was much more interesting than Spielberg's re-hash.
Here's a few things that really bugged me about the remake. Why would the aliens bury the machines long before the cities were built? If they wanted to conquer the Earth, it would have been easier to do it before humans evolved and multiplied! If the aliens were invincible and needed us for our blood, then why did they disintegrate masses of people with their ray-guns? And the worst detail is, the aliens themselves being transported within the bolts of lightning, thru the ground and into the machines!?#@wtf! How absurd!
Frankly, I found long stretches of the remake to be boring and unnecessary, like going through the box of condiments and throwing the peanut butter sandwiches against the wall. The bread and peanut butter was the only real food they had. They're in a life & death struggle, and he just threw the food away. They had to write this stuff. Again, absurd!
The best scene in the original was the battle of the Martian machines against the American military forces. Some of the best special effects ever produced for a film of that era. The remake has such a battle hidden behind a hill, while Tom Cruise whines to his kids in an effort to get their cooperation. They saved a lot of money on f/x for that scene.
They spent over 130 million dollars for a weak remake and the special effects are the only redeemable value. The original 1953 movie only cost 2 million to make and it was a far better film.
"Rachel, shutup!" -
tieman6426 June 2005James Cameron and Stephen Spielberg famously ushered forward the CGI revolution in the early 90's with films like "Terminator 2" and "Jurassic Park". They set a trend, and since the late 90's we've been hit with one CGI adventure movie after the other.
But Spielberg had his fun with his CGI dinosaurs, and soon moved on. While lesser directors scrambled onto the CGI bandwagon, churning out soulless nonsense like "Resident Evil" and "Tomb Raider", Spielberg changed gears and directed "Saving Private Ryan", "Minority Report", "The Terminal", "AI" etc. Argue about the quality of those movies all you want, but what I'm trying to get at is that this guy tries his best to stay ahead of the game. Ahead of the trends.
"Saving Private Ryan" broke new ground. I think it's a bad film, but nevertheless, it now serves as a template for all future war movies. Look at "Black Hawk Down". Can you imagine it shot with the static feel of, say, "Platoon"?
So here we have "War of the Worlds", and again we see Spielberg developing a new "eye". And that is what fascinates me most about this film. The camera stays fixed on Cruise and his family. We catch fleeting glimpses of the alien invaders and their war machines. The destruction and special effects whir by in the background, ominous and looming but never dominating the screen.
Spielberg's camera is always running away, frantic, afraid to look at the destruction, panning away from the effects, terrified! And what's terrific is that this new eye suits the story.
I suppose it was only a matter of time before a director decided to consciously play down special effects for dramatic purposes. Spielberg treats his CGI as though it isn't special. It doesn't hog the limelight. Instead we catch fleeting glimpses, too scared to look at the horror. Of course this filming style is not new. But like "Ryan", no other movie has ever used this technique from start to finish with such intensity.
Aisde from this "eye", the movie is actually pretty standard. Instead of children hiding from Raptors in cupboards, we have Cruise hiding from invaders in basements. Spielberg handles the tension well, but its all stuff you've seen him and others do before.
Like "Jurassic Park", the human drama is slight and the characters are never believable, but this is a popcorn movie and so we don't demand such things. That Spielberg quickly sketches relatively three dimensional characters in such brisk time is admirable. And of course there are numerous iconic set pieces. The night sequences in particular have a nightmarish quality and the first hour is very engaging.
The film's big flaw, however, is it's final act. Tom Cruise battles a Tripod in silly a 1 on 1 showdown, before the plot slowly fizzles into nothingness. Spielberg also misfires by choosing to show the alien invaders. His aliens are unimaginative and badly designed. But what do you expect? Here's the guy who couldn't resist showing us inside the UFO in "Close Encounters". Sometimes too much imagination denotes a lack of imagination.
The choice to "show" so much during the last act also goes against the aesthetic rules of the film. Early in the film, Robby runs up a hill yelling that he "wants to see!" the battle on the other side. "I need to see this!" he screams. His father holds him down and says "I know it seems like you have to see this, but you don't!" Meanwhile all around them, extras run about chanting "turn around!". Spielberg acknowledges that his camera is always "turned around", running from the creatures. The irony is that Spielberg, like Robby, isn't strong enough to hold himself back. By the final act, he loses strength and undoes all the brilliance he set up.
Still, the camera work here is worthy of De Palma. I suspect within the next few years, everybody will be copying the style of this film. It will be interesting to see how Spielberg chooses to shoot his next movie.
8/10 - Worth multiple viewings. Despite it's flaws, this is excellent popcorn fun. In the wake of 9/11 the film can also be read as another propagandistic Spielberg movie, America under attack by technologically advanced "sleeper cell terrorists" buried within the homeland and waiting to strike. Thank God Spielberg didn't put beards on his aliens.
Note: People complain that the "red blood" sets at the end of the film are fake, but this is a homage to Menzies' expressionistic work on "Invaders from Mars". Those who hate the fact that Cruise's son lives, should see "The Mist", Frank Darabond's brilliant re-imagining of Spielberg's film. -
SnoopyStyle9 January 2014Ray 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. -
Boba_Fett113819 November 2005This 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/ -
ccthemovieman-110 September 2006It 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. -
bkoganbing3 November 2013Stephen 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. -
TheLittleSongbird20 January 2017'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 -
jonathan-kistanis15 January 2016I'm a young fan of Steven Spielberg, and all his movies are wonderful and phenomenal. War of the Worlds (2005) is no exception. I don't know why it only got a 6.5/10 on IMDb. In my humble opinion, considering how intense and dramatic it was, it should've got a 7.0 minimum.
But hey, if I like a movie, then reviews don't matter to me.
Anyway, Steven Spielberg did it again with this bone-chilling, suspenseful, and INTIMIDATING movie. When you watch if, you feel as if you're a victim yourself of the Martians and their Tripods. They sealed a plan many years ago to destroy humanity and make our planet theirs. With their high-tech technology they can disintegrate a human- being in one nanosecond.
What made this film excellent was the acting. Tom Cruise plays a divorced man who, in the end, is the one who saves the day despite an estranged relationship with his children. You can tell he wants to protect his family at all costs, even if it means the end of the world, Dakota Fanning, being only 10-11 in the film, did a PHENOMENAL and convincing job as a terrified, anxious and innocent little girl. I could feel her shock and hysteria. I don't know any girl her age at the time who could've done a better job. Spielberg did a successful job at giving the atmosphere a claustrophobic, impacting-doom feeling. No one is safe; regardless at how well they protect themselves. Not even the US military. When you see one of those three-legged tripods all you want to do is sit at the edge of your seat!
I overall love the plot basis of how a dad can prove to his children how much he loves them during an alien invasion. I also love the comedic elements added in that were amongst Ray, Rachel, and Robbie; such as how when Ray says he's going to tattle on Mom every time they disobey him. Haha! It's a very simple plot yet dramatic, suspenseful, and TERRIFYING!
If I could choose, I would've given the main movie's rating an 8.0 out of 10. It's unique and never dull for a single moment. Wonderful movie with just the right amount scares, emotion, and triumph. You're amazing, Mr. Spielberg! -
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. -
jeffstotler28 June 2005After the screening, some people cheered and clapped, others sat in disgust and laughed. I felt cheated. Spielberg was not even playing within his own rules. When the attack begins, every piece of electronic equipment stops working. There is even a nice shot of Tom Cruise's watch, stopped, of course. However, moments later when the Tripod rises from the earth, people are snapping pictures on digital cameras and one person is videotaping everything on a camcorder.
The movie does have some great effects but the storyline is seriously lacking. The part of the movie that left me feeling cheated is the end. We have just seen the destruction of millions of humans, but Cruise is able to make it to Boston, a large city, where the streets are deserted. We focus in on a row of Brownstones where a single family emerges. The family looks as if they are about to go to a wedding. Everyone is clean, well dressed, and Tom Cruise's ex-mother-in-law looks like she just had a manicure. We are supposed to believe that after this horrible attack, this one family is unscathed and reunited in a major city? Don't be ridiculous. I hoped this movie would be a blockbuster. Something to make me believe Hollywood is generating creative, and innovative stories to take me away from reality for a couple of hours. This movie was a serious disappointment. -
MovieAddict20163 July 2005Nobody makes a summer blockbuster better than Steven Spielberg. With "War of the Worlds" he attempts to show the other boys (namely Roland Emmerich and Michael Bay) how it's done and for about seventy minutes, he succeeds. Whereas "The Day After Tomorrow" relied solely on special effects, and "Armageddon" was downright boring, "War of the Worlds" spends time dealing with its characters, then moves on to the action; I felt a connection with them, and even as human carcasses are zapped into dust particles by attacking alien tripods, there were basic human emotions at stake that translated well across the screen.
Unfortunately, the last twenty minutes of the movie are rushed, sloppy, insulting and oh-so-typical of Spielberg. Even in his evil-alien movies he isn't satisfied with a grim conclusion. Everything has to be wrapped up all nice and peachy.
The movie stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier, a dock worker in a small Northern US town who is left to care for his estranged children when their mother and her new husband pick up and leave to head for her parents' in Boston.
At first everything is normal his teenaged son and 11-year-old daughter, both of who are less than enthused to be spending time with their biological father, ignore Ray. However, strange occurrences in the weather violent thunderstorms and enormous earthquakes -- mark the appearance of a huge machine that rises from underneath the ground and begins to tear apart the town, killing everyone in sight, destroying buildings, and tearing apart the roads.
Running scared, Ray manages to find a working vehicle and escapes with his two children; further north they find similar attacks under way and narrowly avoid death many times, continuing their search for Ray's ex-wife or shelter, whichever comes first.
"War of the Worlds" is clearly a product of the times. Whereas ten or twenty years ago alien attacks in a Spielberg movie would have surely elicited no response from children, or at most a self-reference to other Spielberg films (had Elliot from "E.T." seen "Close Encounters"?), the first thing Ray's daughter (Dakota Fanning) presumes during the initial onslaught is that terrorists are attacking America. The movie also deals indirectly with the Bush administration and the war in Iraq; Ray's son leaves to join the resistance and fight with the Army. "I know you feel like you have to do this," Ray yells, "but you don't! You don't have to!" There are numerous such references, with Tim Robbins' fanatical underground patriot the epitome of the disillusioned, naïve gung-ho American.
The movie marks Spielberg's second collaboration with Tom Cruise; their first was 2002's Philip K. Dick-inspired sci-fi adventure "Minority Report." Cruise and Spielberg share similar traits both are tremendously popular in their fields and have been around long enough to know what works. The first hour of "War of the Worlds" shows promise because of how well Spielberg and Cruise manage to bounce off each other Cruise keeps the human elements under control while Spielberg ups the mantle on the SF/X and disaster. Scriptwriter David Koepp keeps the story rooted in reality while maintaining a science-fiction edge. John Williams' score evokes the rhythm and patterns of B-budget 1950s sci-fi, and he's clearly having a lot of fun with his orchestra for this soundtrack.
But then it all falls apart. The ending is like a hazy dream sequence, illogical and unbelievable. Rarely have I seen a movie so belittled by its finale.
I am not referring to H.G. Wells' ending, of course, but rather Spielberg's tacky additions - the closure is simultaneously insulting and underwhelming.
Is "War of the Worlds" a good film? That's hard to say. As I mentioned above, the setup and first few attacks in the film are great fun. The stark realism and rather gratuitous violence is a nice addition to an otherwise highly unbelievable story; like this year's "Batman Begins," the ideas are ridiculous, but the movie treats them as if they are not, and manages to do so without coming across as pretentious and insulting.
As it is, this is an entertaining picture, and exactly the sort of film that most people will go into the theater expecting to see something to help pass a couple hours and overwhelm the viewer with spectacular visuals and pretty faces.
But I can only imagine how much better this would have been if they had taken a risk on the ending. "War of the Worlds" could have been a masterpiece, the disaster movie of all disaster movies instead it's just another summer Spielberg flick, and it's disappointing to see a director of his caliber resorting to mediocrity. Spielberg has proved in the past that he's got what it takes with daring projects such as "Duel," "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan." This is not one of those movies. -
james_corck34 January 2006First of all, we must despite the first version of War of the worlds, with George Pall and weird flying saucers moving scarily across a model of a city. Cheap effects, but effective enough to make us tremble in our seats.
Steven Spielberg made, here, a movie that fits his regular summer blockbuster. This is not Dinosaurs, giant sharks, benevolent aliens or bullets and blood. This is nasty aliens, anti-heroic Tom Cruise and paced rhythm with John Williams notes lost. This is a report of the end of the world seen across the eyes of a regular American family.
The revealing tripods sequence is, so far, a lesson of how to build the suspense in a movie. You see the lighting's, the hole on the road, what is that rumble?, oh noes the floor is breaking, look that cathedral, is being tear apart!, take cover with that car!. What is that three legged thing? All that from the lower POV of the little humans, that suddenly became a bunch of flying ashes.
While we are more or less safe into that repaired working car, the menace turns from the three legs to the two legs of humans. That violent attack on the car, beating Cruise to the ground while we see his daughter being suffocated by the mass, that can only make two reactions into us: Tear the seats of the cinema screaming, or look in the other way. I tore the seats, not very nice really. So this is another message in David Koepps effective screenplay, a not very welcome message: Even in the worst situations, humans are dangerous animals. Some people wont understood this message, but is a kind of irony about how the world is being destroyed by invaders, and we keep destroying between each others.
The film is ironic to the very end. Specially the part dedicated to the regular cold killing the rampaging tripods and their evil pilots. Tim Robins' part is far from pleasing and nice, is another scary moment.
So to finish this long comment, WOTW is a Spielberg movie, where the Cruiser is far from his hero status, and that ending part with so many anti-climax and "it's-over-get-out-of-the-theatre" is a direct copy from the HG Wells book. Now looking forward to the other versions of this never ending alien invasion. -
DICK STEEL29 June 2005War 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. -
ptmcq0529 June 2005The first half hour it leaves hour breathless. The characters don't know what hit them, but we do. We know all about it, a world of the worlds is about to take place, with nasty creatures from outer space. This elementary rule, we, the audience are a few steps ahead of the characters on the screen. It makes our anticipation of their realization an spectacular thrill. Then, of course, it's all downhill from there. Well, not all. Tom Cruise is in it. I have to hand it to him. Looking at his name in the poster, lots of useless but unavoidable information came to mind. Katie Holmes and Brooke Shields and L Ron Hubbard, Oprah, Matt. The lot. And I'm one who doesn't watch much television, imagine someone who does! In any case, much to Tom Cruise credit, I completely forgot all that nonsense as the movie started and I was able to concentrate on the nonsense at hand. He is really good. I took him seriously. I felt for him. He's playing a loser with an empty refrigerator and I believe it. Totally. The problems in the movie are of a different kind. The same way that you can't mix Kubrick and Spielberg and A.I was a blatant example of that. In War of the Worlds we discover H G Wells and Spielberg don't go together either. Wells, H. G as well as Orson Welles played with our inner fears without computer generated images. I imagine that playing with the intellect would have been too frightening to Spielberg, Paramount, Amblin and Dreamworks. So I guess that part of the master plan was to give us something of what, they imagine, audiences the world over expects of them. But, it doesn't work like that. It should be the intellectual wallop of H G Wells or the sentimental pyrotechnics of Steven Spielberg. Together, they do not go. Okay, I've unburden myself of my thoughts, now, I recommend you to see it and make up your own mind. Within the sad desolation of the film going summer of 2005, there is enough solace within the horrors of War of the Worlds to make you feel you haven't wasted your afternoon.
-
rrella21 June 2022I 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.
-
chas4376 March 2023I'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? -
Leofwine_draca1 December 2016Spielberg's remake of the 1953 classic and the absolutely fabulous H.G. Wells novel is something of a mixed bag. It starts off really well, with the first hour offering plenty of spectacle and awesome thrills, but things descend rapidly into chaos (both literally and metaphorically) in the second hour, where the plot loses focus and the aliens become figures of fun rather than the terrible invaders they're supposed to be. Like THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW, Spielberg seems to be going back to basics, with a very small cast and a frightfully simplistic storyline, and the result is just as uneven. Tom Cruise is workable in the leading role, but hardly surpasses himself like in THE LAST SAMURAI, whilst the majority of the acting is left to child screamer Dakota Fanning (what's the fuss about?).
The special effects are generally fantastic, with the arrival of the first tripod being a wondrous moment and thoroughly convincing. The scenes of devastation and destruction are also quite a thing to behold, but sadly these are few and far between in the two hour running time – more shots of the army vs. the aliens would have increased the rating no end. Sadly, Spielberg loses his way when our protagonists hole up in a basement with a weirdo Tim Robbins, then half an hour is wasted in kiddie scare shots as they play hide-and-seek with the aliens, who look rubbish and should have been left unseen. The ending comes in a slap-bang hash of inferior effects and, wait for it, cringing sentimentality; looks like Spielberg couldn't resist throwing in a schmaltzy epilogue where a character returns from certain death uninjured and the realism flies straight out of the window. What a shame; the opening sequences of this film seemed to offer so much more, and we're left with a seen-it-all-before sci-fi flick. Spielberg should have stuck to his source material. -
sunman21022 January 2006Always a bit of trepidation going to see a remake of a major movie - The original was quite good (for its time).
I think part of it is the "I know what's going to happen" feeling and so I approached War of the Worlds in this light.
However I was entirely delighted with the movie, the updated story line, and the excellent special effects. I think it totally blows away the other big Sci Fi remake of 2005 (King Kong) in no small part because of the "reality" feel to it. Kong was a fantasy pure and simple where as Worlds felt as if you were there with Tom Cruise about to get zapped with the other citizens.
The children's performances were excellent and Tom did a suburb job of it. -
bob the moo25 July 2005Ray Ferrier is a New Jersey man working on the docks, living alone, separated from his ex-wife and two children. Rachel and Robbie come to stay with him for the usual few days and none of them are particularly happy to see one another. However their visit is livened up by an intense electromagnetic storm that is powerful, exhilarating and exciting. What nobody could have known though is that the storms are only cover for an invasion of an alien species, after all, the chances must be a million to one of such an event. As the alien craft rise out of the ground and begin cutting an unstoppable swath across the world, Ray takes his children and flees the city not sure where he is going but just hoping to survive long enough to work something out.
With the names involved in this film you could be forgiven for expecting something more than just a blockbuster film and, in some ways you'd be right but then in almost as many ways you'd be wrong. In many ways this is better than a normal effects blockbuster, but mainly this is down to the fact that, since 9/11, few studios want to launch a massive film that takes pleasure in death and destruction in the way that Independence Day did. Instead this is much darker and more effective for it scarier and tension than if it had been made with just spectacle in mind. It still delivers the goods in that regards but the effects are used well, producing scenes of destruction as well as a particularly impressive scene where the camera moves around a moving car in a way that would be impossible without computers.
The downbeat and dark presentation suggested that there is more to this film that effects and I was tempted to look into the subtext as I watched it. Here I didn't find much of interest and perhaps I was trying to see things that weren't there. With the obvious awareness of real events and emotions, the film seems to promote "everyman for himself", sacrificial heroics and other strange meanings that the film can't do anything with. Maybe I was expecting too much and really there wasn't anything below the surface but if there was then it didn't make a great deal of sense. Ignoring this aspect though, the film still works well enough as a dark "alien invasion" film that entertains and thrills without letting the audience actually revel in or remain remote from the death and destruction.
Spielberg keeps it moving well and gives the film an convincing feel; darkness and light are used well and the locations are good, certainly making for a nice change from us watching the usual landmarks being destroyed his focus is more on the people and real communities. For most of the film he manages to avoid the mawkish sentimentality that invades many of his films but he gives it up right at the end; the final few minutes had me walking out of the cinema shaking my head. I'm not referring to the bacteria ending (everyone knew that was coming) but to the terrible family reunion scene that is so horribly corny and cheesy that it turned my stomach. Did we need it? It smelt like a tacked on ending from a test screening but part of me knows that Spielberg is probably as guilty as anyone. For such a dark and destructive film it was a terrible ending and the previous 110 minutes deserved much better.
Cruise is pretty good but he is far from being the ordinary working Joe that the script asks him to be. He can do the action stuff well and he is well practiced in acting alongside special effects but he is not a New Jersey shoreman! Fanning is as good as ever, convincing in her emotions but again perhaps a bit too precious to be a "real" child. Chatwin is OK as Robbie but his character made very little sense to me and he didn't seem to understand what significance he played either. The support cast are mostly screaming extras; Robbins is quite good but Robinson and Barry's cameos are minimised by the fact that they are involved in that terrible, terrible ending. As with all blockbusters, the effects are the stars and they are worthy of the billing.
Overall this is a good summer film that has a post-9/11 darkness and tone to it that some might find not quite conducive to enjoying the bangs that the summer audience usually want. However I quite liked this approach and found it more engaging and impacting. The effects are good and the performances fit in with them well but be warned the cloying sentimentality of the last few minutes is really hard to stomach and will leave you with a really bad aftertaste. -
Neomax3824 March 2019I thought the film was ok, the effects were good and Tom and Dakota would have been a great story..... but why oh why did they have to create such an idiotic, painfully acted and utterly pointless Character in Robbie. I like realism to a film (or at least semi realistic), but this character totally destroyed any credence for the film. He was totally unbelievable and utterly annoying. In reality, both kids would have been scared s***less, but like all American Jock types, he wants to take on the world. Totally obnoxious and even more totally pointless. Try and watch the filmand TRY to ignore the fact he's there. THE CHARACTER ROBBIE, SPOILT THE ENTIRE FILM...... shame on you Spielberg!
-
wtbe75609 July 2005Ugh, what an awful movie! War of the Worlds is the "modern adaptation" of the classic tale of murderous aliens come to do us harm. This movie starts, runs, and ends with a serious of contradictions and ridiculous situations that beg the question, "What's the point of this movie?" Tom Cruise plays Ray Farrier, a crane operator who ends up having to babysit his two kids while his now-pregnant-by-another-man ex and her new dude go to Boston for a weekender (can you smell the dramatic tension?). From there, mysterious lightning storms erupt near Cruise's house and everyone runs to see what's happening. Of course, killer robots from Mars or whatever come up from underground and the slaughter begins.
Cruise apparently has several superpowers in this movie. He has the uncanny ability to avoid the alien death beams while people in front, behind, and next to him are vaporized. He has cat-like reflexes, which allow him to run, jump, and hide while holding his 10 year old daughter. He can also bore you to death with his mostly emotionless performance.
Several glaring plot holes exist: First, the EMP from the lightning storm wipes out every car in the city, but the mechanics at the local shop manage to repair a minivan in the few minutes between storm's end and the carnage beginning. Cruise and crew hide out in a basement cellar while an airplane (!) lands on the house, and emerge unscathed. (BTW, why did that house have a boiler when they also clearly show a gas furnace in the next scene). EMP in this movie seems to operate selectively - all the cars are wiped out but the ferry still runs, as do the military vehicles. The diner still has power when nothing else does.
By the end of this magnificent turd, you end up rooting for the aliens and wishing they would squish Cruise already and turn him into fertilizer. There is no plot, it's two hours of watching Cruise run from basement to basement hiding until the aliens just all mysteriously die at the end. The lesson here? When the world ends, all you need to do is run aimlessly around the countryside carrying a 10 year old and if you run long enough, the evil aliens will all just drop dead.
This movie stunk.