*** Official WAR OF THE WORLDS Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[Colton]

Sure would have loved seeing different types of alien machines. The gathering machine would have been awesome to watch. Also, in the original book, didn't the aliens set up something that was changing our air into theirs? Too bad Speilberg didn't use the black smoke either.

Still a good movie, but felt rushed. Lots of potential not fully utilized.

- Colton

 

[Chris Atkins]

WAR OF THE WORLDS

:star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star: :star: (8/10)

The best thing WAR OF THE WORLDS has going for it is the direction of Steven Spielberg. Unfortunately, filmmaking polish can only cover so much for script deficiencies in the last fifth of the film.

WAR OF THE WORLDS certainly creates tension, and it's certainly very well directed, acted, scored, and edited. But what is the raison d'etre for this movie's existence? Big alien movies have been made before (artfully by Spielberg himself in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, spectacularly in INDEPENDENCE DAY) and small, family-focused alien movies have been made too (SIGNS). Sure, WAR OF THE WORLDS is a remake, but what does Spielberg have to say here that: a) hasn't been said before by another filmmaker, and; b) hasn't been said by Spielberg himself in other films (MINORITY REPORT, A.I.)?

Fortunately for Spielberg, the pure spectacle makes this a worthwhile experience in the theater. The effects are great, though I think ROTS still is the front-runner for the Oscar. The score, when utilized, is perfect, and the performances are top notch too (particularly from Dakota Fanning).

But the underlying material isn't all that compelling, and I believe a lot of the comparisons to 9/11 are a bit overblown, etc. It's good, but not great, filmmaking.

I'd put this one pretty far below the other summer tentpoles I've seen (SITH and BATMAN). While WOTW boasts filmmaking just as good as those two, they have the benefit of better scripts, more compelling characters, and more fluid narrative.

 

[Edwin Pereyra]

As a science fiction-horror film, Steven Spielberg’s War Of The Worlds works. However, as a family drama, it is very light, uneven and without depth. I’d recommend it for its good acting and special effects but other than that, it lacks dramatic intensity for a more emotional experience.

How come the word “aliens” was never uttered, or did I just miss it? In their intent to make this look like a serious fare, was Spielberg & company afraid to have that word uttered in the film to make it sound cheesy? Very weird but that’s how normal people would refer to these creatures. If it was uttered, disregard this comment.

:star: :star: ½ (out of four)

~Edwin

 

[Greg_S_H]

I liked it. Even though it was transported to current times, it was close enough to the source material to keep me happy. I think the tripods were well-realized, and the initial appearance of their rays was very effective. The vignette with Ogilvy was a fairly successful compaction of two vignettes from the original novel. The camera probe was okay, but I think I would have liked it better if the aliens had used some kind of tactile feedback to explore the cellar. Also, I was just dying to see one of the tripodless aliens get shotgunned in the face. It would have shown that they were vulnerable outside of their machines.


I missed the things other WOTW fans missed, such as the black and white smoke and the brief triumph of Thunder Child, but things do get lost when translating a novel to a two-hour movie. I certainly had no problem with the aliens dying of our microbes, since that is the way the original story was written. I will say that Wells probably sold it a little stronger, since his Martians had troubles adapting to our world from the beginning. Gravitational differences were the reason they needed their tripods and other machines, for instance. But, I was fine with it, and the imagery of the dead tripods was very effective. Two things I wish were different about it: the aliens' ullaling should have been constant and nerve-wracking at the end, and we should have been shown the birds pecking an exposed alien. Maybe I'm sick on that last point, though.

I know some don't like the happy ending of Robbie being alive. I can go along with that--maybe Ray shouldn't have come through the experience basically unscathed--but it didn't really bother me too much. That's the movies.

One last thing: we had birds in the air, so why didn't we drop a few daisy cutters on those suckers? I guarantee their shields wouldn't have helped them then.

 

[Inspector Hammer!]

Finally checked this out a couple of nights ago and was half impressed and half disappointed.

I was IMPRESSED, big time, by the visuals, that's high-tech, state-of-the-art destruction there boys and girls, just...WOW!

The tri-pods laid waste to entire blocks as easily as a kid at the beach kicking over another kid's sand castle!

My problem, like many others, came with the ending, and i'm not even talking about Cruise' son making it and the happy ending stuff
, that did bother me to a degree, but i'm actually referring to the whole idea that the alien forces are brought down by water.

Now, I realize this is how it happened in the original film and in the book, bt that still doesn't make it okay IMO. They come all this way, we have our asses handed to us in spectacular fashion, they've thought this thing out to the letter, and then they just...keel over.

A let down, again, IMO.

The performances were nice, but the whole bit with Tim Robbins seemed odd to me, he was wasted in that bit part IMO.

Anyway, it's early and I don't have the energy to keep typing, so i'll leave it here. Good, but not great Speilberg.

 

[Michael Reuben]

This is the Review thread. If you want to comment on or respond to something said here, please use the Discussion thread.

M.