Review: War of the Worlds

Published 10 years ago by , Updated February 9th, 2012 at 9:05 pm,

By Brian Rentschler

Short version: The visual effects are impressive and the crew does a technically competent job. However, the heart and warmth we have come to expect from Spielberg’s films are missing. Has Spielberg already forgotten why he became one of Hollywood’s most successful directors?

wotw Review:  War of the WorldsDidn’t I already see this in 1996, and wasn’t it called Independence Day? (I’m only half-joking.) Actually, this movie is better than the aforementioned schlockfest, but to my surprise, it wasn’t all that much better. I haven’t read the book by H.G. Wells, on which this movie and its previous incarnations were based, but after seeing this latest remake, I really want to read the book. I suspect I’ll enjoy it more than I enjoyed this movie.

Before I really delve into the review, I want to lament the loss of the old Steven Spielberg, the one who gave us such classics as The Goonies, the Indiana Jones series and, of course, E.T. I remember watching A.I. a few years ago and expressing surprise at how bad it was. I still feel that way, but despite that, what really permeates throughout A.I. is a high dose of sentimentality, and yes, even some warmth at times. But since then, Spielberg movies have been almost entirely devoid of warmth. I thought Minority Report was a decent movie, but it had almost no warmth at all. Even Schindler’s List had some warmth to it at times, but War of the Worlds is almost completely devoid of the heart and warmth we have come to expect from Spielberg’s movies. (Vic wrote an article about Spielberg’s changing directorial style here.) Of course, Spielberg is free to do as he chooses, but he would do well to remember why he became one of the most successful directors in Hollywood.

Tom Cruise plays Ray Ferrier, a dock worker in New York City. He’s cocky and has a chip on his shoulder (sound familiar?). He’s also divorced with two kids, and he’s not much of a father to them. His son Robbie (played by Justin Chatwin) basically won’t even speak to him, and his daughter Rachel (played by Dakota Fanning) is growing more estranged from him every day. Ray’s ex-wife Mary Ann (played by Miranda Otto) has married a rich guy named Tim (played by David Alan Basche), which only adds to the stress a working-class guy like Ray must feel. Long story short, this family puts the “fun” in dysfunctional.

Not long after Mary Ann drops the kids off at Ray’s house for a visit, strange things start happening. The sky becomes very overcast, and a fierce wind starts blowing towards a big hole in the sky. Shortly after that, a series of lightning knocks out pretty much anything electrical in the area (except a few choice objects of the filmmakers’ choosing — bah!). Wanting to find out what happened, Ray heads down to where the lightning struck. As it turns out, all the lightning bolts hit the same location, causing a big crater in the road. The crowd gathering around the crater doesn’t have to wait long to see some action, though, because a huge alien vessel with three legs (henceforth called a tripod) pops out of the ground. Despite their fear at the fact that several city blocks have already been destroyed, the crowd’s mentality is still one of curiosity, at least until the tripod starts shooting a laser beam at everyone in sight, instantly cremating them (but not their clothes, oddly enough). Ray immediately high-tails it back home, just barely avoiding the laser beams on several occasions. He quickly has his kids pack whatever they can, and since Ray knows where a working vehicle can be found (of course), they head for Boston to find Mary Ann and Tim.

Of course, as you might guess, the trip to Boston doesn’t go exactly as planned, and they end up losing the vehicle because when you have the only working vehicle in New York City, people tend to get a little envious. They end up trying other methods to reach their destination, primarily walking and the ferry, all of which put them in harm’s way because it turns out that there are quite a few tripods in quite a few locations throughout Earth. The vast majority of the movie features Ray and his kids trying to avoid being killed by the aliens. There are a few scenes where they hide out, but most of the time they are running for their lives. There are so many questions throughout this movie. Will Ray and his kids survive? Will humanity be able to defeat the powerful aliens, and will it somehow involve Ray? Will the audience groan in disbelief at an ending that feels like it was pulled right out of thin air?

The technical aspects of this film are very well done. The special effects are great, and most of the actors did fine jobs. I didn’t really like Dakota Fanning’s portrayal of Rachel. It seemed like half the time she was wise beyond her years, while the other half she was screaming her head off. I’m certainly no expert on what a ten-year-old should act like, but somehow I thought it should be more consistent. It’s not all Dakota Fanning’s fault, primarily because many of her mannerisms were script-driven. Tom Cruise does an admirable job of acting; you can always tell he works hard, and I see that as a good thing. He also does a good job of integrating one-liners into his scenes without making them seem cheesy or out of place.

So is the movie worth seeing? That depends on what you’re expecting. If you’re expecting to walk out of the theater with a big grin on your face while shouting, “That was AWESOME!” this movie won’t fit the bill. It’s too dark, somewhat depressing and very bloody and violent. (The PG-13 rating is well-deserved, so please do the little ones a favor and leave them at home.) If you’re after great special effects and a high adrenaline rush and you don’t mind the fact that the storyline takes a back seat, by all means go and see it. To be honest, this movie is better than most of the dreck coming out of Hollywood these days. The only problem is, considering the high caliber of talent behind the camera (and in front of it), I was expecting quite a bit more.

Our Rating:

3.5 out of 5
(Very Good)

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I am real surprised that you gave this movie as high a rating as you did. Yes the special effects were pretty great and yes most of the actors did an amazing job, but to me, the movie was a “So what” movie.

    The night I saw it I questioned seeing it. I actually got into a debate with my best friend over seeing this movie. I said “There is going to be a problem with this movie if the only hype is Tom Cruise going crazy on talk shows. There is a reason that he is doing this.”

    There are so many plot holes in the movie it was transparent. Things like he has the only car that works, his son running off with the army, making it to Boston in what appears to be 2 days (its a 200+ mile trek), the aliens only destroying SOME neighborhoods and not all in a major city, the Japanese destroying some aliens, and of course the ending that left me going “Huh?”

    I was extremely disapointed with this movie as it could have been so much better. You said that ID4 was a worse movie, and I have to disagree. I did draw some comparisions and had to watch ID4 the day after I saw War of the Worlds. While it was cheesier (due to Will Smith), it at least made sense. Sure the computer hacking at the end was a little not so believable, but at least it explained it in a way. ID4 took you on a ride and really made you suspend your disbelief. War of the Worlds did not really take me on a ride, and by the end I was just so not into the movie.

    I would have given this movie a 2.5 because it was a “So What” movie.

  2. I saw this yesterday, and since Brian reviewed it and I would also give it 3 1/2 out of 5 I won’t bother writing a review.

    I agree with Brian’s assessment of Dakota Fanning, although I suppose you could ascribe it to the insanity of the situation. Just because a 10 year old is cool in a normal situation doesn’t mean she’ll remain so when all hell breaks loose… especially when she’s outside her comfort zone (“good” parents).

    As to Brent’s comments, I didn’t have so much of an issue with the son wanting to fight as I did with him showing up in Boston. As to the other points, here you go:

    - The reference to Japanese destroying alien ships was based on complete rumour, much like the “Europe hasn’t been hit/Europe has been leveled” comments.

    - I took the “destruction of some neighborhoods” simply as they had not yet gotten to others yet.

    - As far as having the only car that runs… I actually thought that was quite plausible. The mechanic happened to replace the one item susceptible to an EMP in an older vehicle that didn’t have computer chips.

    One area where the movie fell apart for me was when Tim Robbins came in. I felt like it took a left turn (no pun intended) :P and went off track. Another thing that they should have done was to NOT show the aliens. If they had just shown the arm flopping out at the end it would have left things to our imagination and been a nice tribute to the original film. Yes, the ending was abrupt, but it was in line with the original story and the first film.

    Finally, this film was not a “so what” movie, it was about evoking an emotional reaction about what it would truly be like to be in this situation. I couldn’t help but feel what it must be like to experience war in a country where the battle is occuring in your own city. On that level it succeeded quite well IMO.


  3. Yeah, there was no meaning to the aliens’ death. I posted on this myself.

  4. Great point on your blog concerning having been watched for millions of years and yet they weren’t prepared for our “germs”. :P


  5. Movie is a waste of time. See the original of 1956,or whatever. That original movie is better, the story and script are incredibly close to this movie. I have read that Spielberg’s movie is “based” on the movie of the 1950′s. My opinion is that Spielberg should be sued for plagiarism, it is that close. Special effects are nice, but I was never scared. Normally I think Tom Cruise to be one of the worst actors of our day, but he did a decent job in this movie. Wait for the dvd or you’ll come out of the movie angry, like me, that you’d spent the time and money to see a poorer version of the 1956 movie.

  6. It’s the bacteria that they werent prepared for, I thought that was really cool and downright realistic.

    Well…what did I just say? *winks*