George Taylor
First; this isn't a rethinking (a word I'm totally sick of) of the original
film, nor is it a true adaptation (even updated) of the classic novel. What it
is, honestly, is a post 9/11 mish-mosh that plays on peoples fears as well
as lifting the best parts from the book and the 1953 film, while adding a
silly and contrived sub-plot.So where do we start? Like this: The Good: The SFX was spectacular. The scenes of destruction were absolutely beautiful. The War machines were awesome (and a bit of a nod to the old Classics Illustrated version); the aliens were somewhat original, but reminded me of the creatures from ID4 for some reason, and they had the hands of the Martians from the 1953 version. One of the end scenes is an homage to the end of the original film.Other good: The ferry being flipped by the Tripod as it crosses the Hudson was right out of the novel. Of course in the Novel the
Steamram, Thunderchild destroys that Tripod by ramming it. Also earlier in the
book artillery fire destroys a Martian capsule before they can build their tripod. (See the bad for more on
this).The Bad: David Koepp and Steven Spielberg should be ashamed of themselves
for allowing this crappy story to see daylight. The 9/11 references are way too
plentiful. As someone who watched it unfold from my home and had to wash the
ash of the burning Towers off my car, I found this irresponsible and unnecessary. Can't one simply make a great SF movie (see original War of the Worlds for an example) without beating the audience over the head with symbolism reminding us of a real event? Another thing, the whole Tom Cruise as divorced dad was so damned contrived as to be silly. What, a single person isn't going to want to survive this kind of horror as much as a married person? Also the kids had no personality. The son was a bland, anti-Dad kind of guy, all Dakota Fanning did was stare and scream. This whole aspect of the plot just bored me. If Koepp was adapting/updating the book, then why did the aliens have shields, ala the 1953 version? In the book the Tripods are tough, but 19th century weapons bring two down. Also the scene where Gene Barry chops off one of the aliens spy devices (on a long neck) is lifted for this film. Hey dudes, that didn't happen in the book, ok? Finally, if these aliens had been here for millions of years, having planted their war machines, why the hell didn't they think to test our air and water? Yes, the ending is right out of the book with the aliens dying of Terran bacteria, but it makes no sense. In the original film and book, there was no preparation time, the aliens landed and started blasting us out of existence. So these aliens, who have some kind of
Transporter technology, didn't have the brains to check things out first? Were these cousins to the morons from Signs, who came to a planet 70 percent water (which they were ALLERGIC to) so they could die?The Ugly; At the beginning, when the aliens are riding lightning down to
Earth, all electrical power shuts off. How was this one guy able to freaking
take pictures with his camcorder? Also, can someone explain the physics of a
heat ray that dissolves human beings but doesn't destroy their clothing? This
was a very heavy handed parallel to the deaths on 9/11, which was unnecessary. A further point, Cruises son goes to watch the military take on the aliens,
the entire brigade is wiped out - yet his son survives to make it to an
untouched (mostly Boston). In fact at the very laughable end, Cruise and his
daughter make it to Boston, see the machines start to topple and fall. Cruise
notices birds sitting on the one machine (another homage to the book, where the astronomer sees the birds feeding on the dead Martians), yet trained military
men don't? He notices the shield is down? And when he gets to his ex-wife's
parents home, the block is untouched. Looks like a Sunday morning. And his son
is there, it looks like they've all been wakened from breakfast! (And this isn't Boston, its Carroll Gardens, in Brooklyn, New York. A total nitpick, but they spent 100 million plus and couldn't afford to film in Boston?). This was just a silly excuse for a 'message' film, that failed to give me any message at all, other than Steven Spielberg shouldn't be allowed to do SF. A.I. stunk, Minority Report was a joke and if I never see this again, well I'll be pretty damn content. The original film was much better and probably had 1/100th of the budget. The difference is the original film and book both entertain without beating a reader/watcher over the head, while this ham-handed mistake of a film doesn't.
WubsTheFadger
Short and Simple Review by WubsTheFadgerGangbusters effects and terrific camerawork propel Steven Spielberg's film well into its last act, when it runs out of energy and ideas. This collapse is especially disappointing because War of the Worlds begins as a provocative look at how terror affects family and community, that is, something more complicated than an explosion movie. If the first part of the film offers an absorbingly detailed look at the family's dysfunction, the ride in the minivan tightens the focus, as they struggle to make sense of the disaster unfolding around them. "Is it terrorists?" asks Rob. No, says Dad, this "came from someplace else." Rob tries again: "What do you mean, like Europe?" This brief comedy only sharpens the scares that follow, not all caused by aliens. Indeed, two of the most awful scenes involve people fighting each other.This and other particulars -- a monstrous surveillance eye on a sinuous, seemingly endless arm invades Harlan's basement; clothes from disintegrated victims float through tree branches; a peanut butter sandwich Ray has thrown at the kitchen window slides almost imperceptibly down the glass as he wonders what to do next; Ray asks a man who appears to have survived a plane crash, "Are you a passenger?" -- create a potent mix of recognizable and fantastic moments. The film's last minute breakdown is really the loss of such clever details.Overall Rating: 6.4
