ग्रहों का महायुद्ध

I love the book and overall theme of the movie but Tom Cruise acting is annoying which is probably because he had to work with 2 most annoying kid actors ever seen on the film. I mean almost every scene is ruined by hysterical yelling of the 3 main characters. Little girl is the worst but Tom and his movie son are not far behind.

I mean it's watchable but by the middle of the movie I was hoping aliens will take them down so we don't have to suffer this atrocity of acting

It pays to have low expectations. Hearing nothing but negative remarks about this film, I never saw it until the other day when a friend offered the DVD for a free look. With nothing to lose, and being familiar with the story having seen the 1953 movie several times, I put it on.

Wow, I enjoyed it; the film was very entertaining. The only annoying thing to me was the bratty teenage boy, who needed some discipline and never got it. However, that type of kid seems to be stereotypical of teens among modern filmmakers. Other than him, and his little sister who I put with because it's Dakota Fanning, the film served its purpose beautifully, namely to 'shock and awe.' That it did.

The Martian tripods were awesome, particularly in the long scene when they first appear out of the ground. To really appreciate this film, you have to have a surround system because the sound is fantastic. In fact, earlier with the "lightning strikes," the sound gets attention in a big-way. In other words, special- effects-wise, it isn't just about visuals but the audio as well.

Although the story of the father (Tom Cruise) and his two estranged (is anyone pictured married in films nowadays?) kids is so-so at best, the film is all about the action. That "cute" family situation is just a sub-plot to give us some breaks from the intensity of the invasion.

Anyway, some of the action scenes were jaw-dropping good and, with the normal Spielberg garbage that always comes with the good stuff, too, it's still was a fun two hours. Now, I'll have to get the DVD because I would definitely watch this more than once.

"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.

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.

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.