La guerre des mondes

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.

I don't wish for any civilization ending event to take place in my time... but since the chance of that may be low but never zero... I will actively avoid having children.

The photography is Spielberg level quality, you know you'll get that from a movie he's directing. The story is not all that bad considering that the choice of the protagonist is an everyday guy. You don't get government insight into these things, no "Mr. President, we're getting reports that these things are showing up in every major city in the world" scenes, no grand counter attack plans or any other trope you'd expect in an alien invasion. There is no 4th of July speech outside the hangar on Area 51 to motivate the people into a fight.

This is just about survival. Pure and simple survival.

Over the course of the movie, the characters stumble from one set piece to another, each time presented with a challenge to overcome and then moving on towards the next one. Simple.

That can work if the challenges are well developed and, far more important part, if the characters are good. This movie lacks the latter. While Tom Cruise' everyday man is fine, clearly way over his head, struggling to make sense of what's happening around him, trying to survive and to keep his children safe. And that's where the movie falls apart.

In every. Single. Scene. At least one of those two children are making a very bad situation even worse. Either the little one is screaming or spazzing out or the big one is running off on his own little adventure completely devoid of any common sense or care for his family. Both of those characters were designed to make things difficult for Tom Cruise and I can't for the life of me figure out why do people insist on making characters like that present in movies like this.

Survival of the fittest is a simple character development guide to follow in a story like this. Write characters that are out of their depth, sure, but who also have a grain of salt between their ears and are applying common sense in order to survive. I mean, sure, have stupid characters... and then show the audience what happens to those stupid characters when they make stupid decisions in the worst possible moments... and move the story along without them.

But not here. Here, you're stuck with nightmare kids. One is useless and either terrified or annoying most of the time. It makes sense, little girl like that would be out of herself in a situation like this. But that doesn't have to be annoying. The big one, he's clearly designed just to make things harder for Tom Cruise and I feel zero shame in wishing he gets killed so we can move on without him.

Anyways. It's a good looking movie with great effects, fairly solid main character and typically stable Spielberg direction... but everything around that is just meh.