Reviews

Like many science fiction fans, I've always considered 'The War of the Worlds' one of the best alien invasion stories ever written. My first introduction to this classic tale by H.G. Wells was during childhood. As a big comic book fan, I recall being enthralled reading the 'Classics Illustrated' version of the story (which prompted me to read the book shortly afterward). And, while the original George Pal version was released about the time I was born, it was some years later (around 1960) that I first saw that movie. It is inevitable, then, that comparisons between the original novel and Pal's film are made. Other reviewers have done this quite well, and accurately, in my opinion. There's no need to rehash to plot, so these remarks will focus on what I consider the positive and negative aspects of this version.

The positives are that, as expected from Spielberg, the special effects are stunning. He kept the basic design of the alien machines consistent with Wells' description of huge tripods, and they were quite realistic in their depiction. They moved almost fluidly across the landscape, leaving death and destruction in their wake. The 'death rays' were effectively done; people would simply dissolve in a cloud of particles after being struck. The use of tentacles from the tripods to snatch victims was pretty scary as well. The film did a superb job in creating a very realistic and frightening depiction of the world being utterly destroyed by these unstoppable machines. To me, some of the best scenes were the few that showed futile confrontations between the military and the alien machines. The realism of these clashes made it seem you were actually there. Very well done.

The performances were, generally, excellent. Tom Cruise turned in a gritty and realistic turn as the film's main character, Ray Ferrier. Dakota Fanning as Cruise's daughter, and Justin Chatwin as his teenage also did good jobs in their respective roles. The supporting actors were not particularly noteworthy, as none (except Tim Robbins) were given any significant screen time.

There were a few flourishes made to this version that I felt were well done, including the aliens' spreading of strange, red foliage to alter the earth's topography. This was in the Wells novel, but was not included in the Pal version of the movie. The scenes where throngs of people were fleeing the deadly machines, and the sense of panic and desperation, were effectively done as well. Contrary to some reviewers, I actually thought the alien creatures were well designed and realistic as well. Lastly, the DTS surround provided excellent effects, which helped enhance the realism of the events (DTS is inherently superior to Dolby Digital in reproducing surround effects).

The negatives? First was the decision to caste Cruise as a rather unlikable character, a somewhat arrogant and callous person, who was a lousy father. As good as his performance was, it was hard to sympathize with his character. Also bothersome was the excessive screaming by Dakota Fanning. Sure, anyone, especially a kid, would scream if witnessing such an event, but it was way overdone. It seemed every few minutes she would shriek like a banshee, to the point that I had to fast forward through it. It got on my nerves, frankly. Which leads to a serious flaw of this film. There was simply too much focus and screen time devoted to the angst of Cruise trying to reconnect with his family. It slowed down the momentum of the film, and just got boring after a while. The scenes featuring Tim Robbins (in the basement) were unnecessary, adding little to the film beyond making Cruise seem even more of a unlikable figure.

Among the most egregious flaws of the film, however, were the many lapses in simple logic. In this version, the alien machines came from under the ground, activated by flashes of strange lightning on the spots where they were buried (a major departure from Wells). In the film, it's noted that the aliens must have buried them "a million years ago, before we were here." Why the aliens didn't simply colonize earth at that time, instead of waiting a million years and then have to 'exterminate' humanity is never addressed. At no time in the film is the word 'Martians' used. The origin of the aliens is never explored. In the bonus material on the DVD, it's revealed that Spielberg came up with the idea of the aliens coming out of the ground just because "they always come from the sky…let's be different." Other scenes that fell flat all revolved around Cruise and family. A jetliner crashes into the neighborhood, strewing a huge debris field, yet Cruise and kiddies walk right to their car, start it up and drive through a conveniently cleared path in the debris. No other vehicles work (except military vehicles), yet both his car and a van he steals both run like watches. No explanation given. And as noted by most reviewers, the ending is so ridiculously Hollywood 'feel good' that it is laughable.

All in all, to borrow another reviewer's phrase, it's a great "popcorn movie', if you check your brains at the door. This version does nothing to harm the George Pal original, in spite of superior special effects and big name stars.

Had Spielberg avoided the sappy subtext of Cruise and his family problems, and focused more on mankind's efforts to combat the aliens (such as more scenes of military confrontations), this could have been one of the best sci-fi films ever made. As it is, it's a mixed bag.

As a long-time horror movie fan, I was resistant to seeing this film when it opened in theaters. Like many who consider George Romero's original the best zombie flick made, the idea of remaking such a classic seemed unnecessary and, frankly, almost blasphemous. However, having read many fairly positive reviews of the film, I decided to get the DVD and see for myself. My comments, then, are for the 'Unrated Director's Cut', with additional scenes not found in the theatrical release. The film started off quite well; the ten minute pre-credit prologue delivered a real jolt, setting the stage for the rest of the film. While the basic premise was much like the original (see other reviews for story line), the inevitable comparison allows the differences to stand out. In this version, the main characters seem to easily walk into a nearly deserted mall; in the original, finding and getting into the zombie-infested mall was much more dramatic and realistic. This version, while entertaining, lacked the dramatic tension of the original, in large part because of the larger cast. There were simply too many characters, which detracted from the feeling of despair and isolation found in the original. There were, to be sure, some good performances. Sarah Polley was quite good as the no-nonsense heroine and Ving Rhames turned in another solid performance. The best acting, however (IMO), was that of Jake Webber as Michael, the television salesman who quickly shows leadership abilities. There were also less noteworthy performances. For me, the subplot involving Mekhi Phifer and his wife (played by Inna Korobkina) simply detracted from the overall effect. The whole business (spoiler alert) of Phifer's character, a petty crook, becoming Mr. Family Values in his unshakable desire to 'raise a family' didn't work. It really got ridiculous with his wife turning into a zombie (zombification is spread by the bite of one), and him making sure that she delivered a zombie infant (!). Those scenes stopped me cold, and seemed to be added simply to increase the gore factor. Now, the Director's cut reportedly contained more "gore and character development" than the theatrical release, but that may not necessarily be a good thing. In my opinion, there was just too much going on with these other characters, and they really didn't make the viewer care any more about them. On the subject of gore...yes, there are some very well-done effects (although not any more gruesome than the effects in 'Land of the Dead' or the original, for that matter). One thing that, to me, detracted from the film was making the zombies fast moving. During the film, the inclusion of 'news reports' and CDC (Center for Disease Control) spokespeople revealed that the cause of this infection is never identified, yet it is revealed that the zombies "are dead...their circulatory, respiratory and other systems no longer work." Okay, then how do the zombies manage to run like marathoners, break down doors, jump, etc. while their bodies decay? In the film '28 Days Later', one could accept fast-moving killers, since they were not the 'living dead' but rather people who turned into homicidal cannibals by a virus. Come on. If zombies are the reanimated dead, who are decomposing daily, it doesn't add up that they can run, jump etc. The bottom line for me is that, as another reviewer notes, it "didn't suck," but certainly does not put the original in any jeopardy. Entertaining, with some solid performances and good special effects, but still inferior to the original.