War of the Worlds

Apart from the bodacious special effects, perhaps the best thing in this film is Tom Cruise’s excellent performance as Ray: well-modulated and always believable, a likeable everyman. And the most annoying elements are Ray’s unbearably horrible children. The son is a snarky impertinent and callow spoiled egotist, whose anger is largely posturing (he spends half the movie with a curl in his lip or a grimace). And the daughter is even worse: a quintessential snowflake some years before the term became prevalent, who has panic attacks at the drop of a hat, during which she screeches and makes godawful scenes, having to be coddled at every step of the way, always having meltdowns at the most perilous moments, when any child of ordinary intelligence should know that this is NOT an ordinary state of things, and that making a ruckus might well result in death… again, a function of the narcissism and being so lily-livered one faints at the merest breeze. I short, I cringed through most of her scenes. I was reminded of the horribly bratty little girl in ROBOT MONSTER, and how relieved I was when Ro-Man finally did us all a favor by shutting her up permanently.There were some problems with the premise of the tripod machines being buried -- that many, buried all over the globe, and they were never detected? That strains an already quite strained credulity almost to the breaking point. I did like the homages, though. Setting the initial attack in New Jersey was a nod to the legendary Orson Welles broadcast. (Though in Jersey City, not Grover’s Mill—it has been pointed out that the fateful intersection where the tripod emerges has a street name, Van Buren, which is the surname of Ann Robinson’s character in the George Pal 1953 film. It is, however, also an actual street name in Jersey City.) They also quote the 1953 film, where General Mann says, “Once the tripods start moving, no more news comes out of that area.” There are a number of things harkening back to the original novel: the red weed, the scene where the train engulfed in flames passes, and the aliens harvesting people (to drink their blood). And a fine visual nod to INVADERS FROM MARS: when Ray’s daughter flees the farmhouse basement and Ray goes after her, he approaches a hillside down which a line of split-rail fencing snakes, and beyond which is a reddened swamp or fen, just like the swamp in the earlier film where the aliens were buried.The aliens seem to have only one, not two, rays; and it’s a bit beyond credulity how the heat ray works: any ray which would reduce the body to ash would almost certainly do the same to any clothing. But the explosion of ash and empty clothes IS an impressive effect.Unlike the 1953 movie, not a single landmark building is destroyed. I’m sure this was to avoid “the cliché” of such scenes, but then, in disaster porn, they’re part of the whole aesthetic.On the whole, a fun film, with some exciting and engrossing attack sequences, especially if you can wink at the illogical parts, and mute or fast-forward through the scenes with those flesh-crawlingly awful kids.

This came out long ago, so my comments join many others of a wide range of opinions. I wore out my first copy of War of the Worlds so I had to buy another here. I wish I had seen this production in the theater; the first time I saw it on my 7-inch DVD player, I knew I would have been blown away. Right out of the gate, the opening titles have descending stars as part of the studio's standard intro, which with later viewings suggest the upcoming assault. Morgan Freeman's opening narration is chillingly done, though his last few words ('plotted against us') are spoken very quietly and get stepped on. ILM did a fantastic job on the alien machines. Whoever was responsible for the sound did a superb job as well; througout the film, sound is used to set and sustain a deeply menacing atmosphere. The editing is perfect. The pacing is frenetic when it should be, and quieter times only serve to set up the next betrayal of the viewer's burgeoning complacency. The film opens with a dysfunctional family scene, but that's there to explain the character interactions coming up very soon. Each scene serves a purpose; unlike another movie I reviewed, you could list all the scenes here in your shoot table and fill in the Purpose column per shot. Film classes can discuss the various treatments of the 1938 story, from parables about the Nazi menace or Communism over the horizon, to this sociological approach: how does a dysfunctional group - a broken family in this case, but you could as easily focus on the old standby 'strangers in a boat - interact when placed under increasing stress? Sometimes they unite. Sometimes people turn against each other. Sometimes pre-existing resentments are broken from their restraints under stress, or unanticipated allegiances form, only to shatter once the external threat is removed. There are many treatments of that theme, and I compliment all involved here for not copping out by turning Dad and the kids into an Ozzie and Harriet God Bless Us Everyone family again at the end. Tom Cruise plays his Top Gun character - the irresponsible man-child flung into crisis who has to find inner strength to redeem himself - but I forgave him for it in this movie. Get ready: You don't have ten minutes to sit and get into this one. Things happen very quickly after it starts, so tell your friends you're out of town, take the battery out of the cell phone/pager/smart phone/iPad, pull the phone wire out of the wall, hang a "Moved to Alabama" sign on the door, and go for it.