War of the Worlds

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.

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.

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.

"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 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