Guerra de los mundos

This movie would be a whole lot better if the characters weren't so annoying *ahem* Fanning. The effects look great and the storyline is interesting. The characters lack depth and are so bad that you end up not caring if they live or die.

This movie had huge potential. Everything to make this a science-fiction classic masterpiece were present; Spielberg's directing, a great concept, ILM special effects, Tom Cruise as the main character and lots of other professionals involved both in front and behind the cameras. Then where did it go wrong? The answer to that is the script. The story is very simple and lacks a real clear plot line. Basically the movie is only about Tom Cruise and his two children running and driving from city to city, from the aliens and their destructive Tripod-machines. Exactly why are we, out of all the people, following these persons? The character development is lacking, just as much as the story does. Both lack development and depth.

Of course the movie is by no means an horrible movie but it's just that the movie is a bit disappointing because of the fact that it had so much more potential. It still is a good and certainly spectacular movie to watch but it's not a movie people will still talk about in 5 or 10 years from now. The story makes this movie a bit of an easily forgettable movie that doesn't leave an huge impression afterward, even though the movie itself is pure eye-candy to watch.

There is no doubt about it that Spielberg is a great director. He directs his actors in this movie very well and everyone in the movie gives an amazing performance, especially Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning. Tom Cruise for once again doesn't play the action hero. He is an average Joe instead and I think he did this in a very good and convincing. Spielberg also uses the special effects very well. He doesn't use the special effects to impress the audience as much as possible, with lots of spectacular and action filled sequences, which he could had easily had done, he uses them as a tool to tell the story with instead. The movie is purely told from Tom Cruise and his family's perspective, because of this the movie gets a very realistic feeling. We don't get to see any close-ups of the Tripods and how they destroy entire cities and fight off the American army. I like this approach. It makes "War of the Worlds" different from many other alien-invasion movies. It because of this certainly is one of the most believable and realistic alien-invasion movies, along with "Signs".

Visually there also is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie. The special effects from ILM are very impressive and look extremely convincing. The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is also simply phenomenal at times and is typically gritty, which certainly adds to the tense and realistic atmosphere of the movie.

Unlike others, to me the ending didn't came really abrupt. But perhaps this was because to me the ending was already spoiled, thanks to the movie it's soundtrack, which featured the final narration of Morgan Freeman explaining how the movie ended. So I already knew what to expect. To be perfectly honest I liked the ending and I couldn't think of any other, or better way to end this movie, without losing any of its realism and credibility. I can understand how it might seem lame and sudden to most though but for me it was satisfying enough.

It certainly is a movie that will receive one or two, most likely, technical Acedemy Awards. And it deserves to. There isn't an awful lot wrong with this movie but it truly is the simple story that prevents this movie from being a classic or masterpiece. I still regard this movie as one of the must sees of 2005 simply because of the movie its look and acting. You can tell by watching this movie that there was lots of talent involved, both in front and behind the cameras. Especially Spielberg's touch still makes this movie better than just the average alien-invasion movie but still not even he can prevent this movie from being a bit of a disappointment. Not his or anybody else his/her fault, simply blame it on the script.

7/10

http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/

What Spielberg, Cruise, and Koepp accomplish here in the first two acts is nothing short of revolutionary. They've made a big-budget summer blockbuster about massive destruction and action that manages to studiously avoid every cliché and expectation of such films. It stays resolutely on the characters' points of view, showing us almost nothing they don't see, even to the point of coming tantalizingly close to a raging battle, then avoiding showing it. It keeps its focus on character instead of spectacle. The "hero" of the piece remains decidedly unheroic, wanting only to escape, and trying to talk others out of fighting back. The purpose of every piece of action is to frighten and disturb rather than thrill, making ingenious use of familiar 9/11 imagery. At the end of the second act, it is hands-down the best alien invasion film ever made, and perhaps one of the best sci-films of all time.

Then something strange happens. The filmmakers lose their nerve, and remember that this is an extremely expensive summer film financed by two studios. Or perhaps it was the fact that it stars Tom Cruise, who up to this point has spent almost two hours doing nothing but run for his life. Suddenly, and tragically, the film changes, violating not only its carefully established tone, but its own internal logic. Suddenly, Cruise begins to act like a hero, and summer action clichés force their way into the story like a worm into an apple. The transition is jarring, and it creates a serious disconnect from the story.

While it's true that Wells' original ending creates a problem for a movie, here they try to remain faithful to it, while still shoehorning moments of triumph into the conclusion. Unfortunately, these moments come off as alternately false, unbelievable, and meaningless, since it isn't mankind that defeats the invaders in the end.

Is it recommendable? Well, I suppose that depends on what kind of viewer you are. If you feel that 75% brilliant material overshadows the 25% that falls apart, then you'll enjoy it. If, however, you're the kind of viewer who feels that the final impression a movie makes is its ultimate stamp on your memory, you may be in for a crushing disappointment. On the other hand, if you're the kind of viewer who just likes the cliché of the boom-boom summer action spectacle, you're likely to be bored and frustrated with the first two acts, and only engage in the end. It is confused about what audience it's trying to reach, and consequently, isn't likely to satisfy any of them.

I've never seen such petulant spoiled- rotten kids. The world is ending, and they scream and whine about every little detail. The older boy is the worst, he wants to fight the invaders...who have forcefields that can block ballistic missiles. These kids need a good spanking.

The Martians devouring those brats and spraying their remains all over the place would've redeemed this mediocre effort.

Aliens bury their ships underground. I'd like to know who came up with that nonsense. Like Humans who build tunnels and huge mines would never stumble on to these gigantic tripod machines. Spielberg what were you thinking?

"War of the Worlds" is Steven Spielberg's third movie in which extraterrestrials visit Earth, but the first in which their intentions are malevolent. It can't be coincidence that the arrival of the ETs is heralded with eerie lights flashing amid lowering clouds, as in "CE3K." From there, the similarity ends--no light show as friendly aliens come in for a closer look. These creatures (presumably Martians, as in the original H.G. Wells novel) aren't interested in making nice; nor is there any ambiguity about their ultimate objective (as there was for much of "CE3K"). They're here to wipe us off the face of the planet, plain and simple, a point we understand before the movie has played for even half an hour, and the giant walking tripods they deploy are remorselessly efficient. So, too, is the movie--at scaring the hell out of us, notwithstanding some gaping plot holes (what's up with that camcorder, anyway?) and a couple of sequences that are too reminiscent of other movies (particularly "Independence Day" and Spielberg's own "Jurassic Park").

That Spielberg uses imagery alluding to 9/11, the Holocaust, and perhaps the siege of London during World War II is, for me, less an exploitation than a reflection of how seriously he intends the audience to take the on screen mayhem. The atmosphere is heavy with threat, and the depiction of a populace numb with shock amid the devastation is chillingly convincing, despite a few moments of Hollywood cheese. We don't have Will Smith delivering snappy one-liners right after millions are massacred by the invading alien forces, a la "ID4." Nor is there much of a rah-rah, let's-kick-some-alien-ass mood as the outmatched Earthlings try fighting back. Even the ostensible protagonist (a low-key, effective Tom Cruise) crumples at one point under the enormity of what's happening.

I'm not really sure what the posters who complained of insufficient action and FX were talking about. Seems to me the tripods were pretty much a constant presence (if not always in the foreground) from about the 15-minute mark onward. And in fact the "war" of the title is waged from the beginning--it's just not on the level of humans vs. aliens combat that some viewers apparently were expecting.