Genres

Visitors Review

gclagett 2012-05-12 01:23:19

Great effects. Good acting. Disturbingly incomplete plot.

Visually, this was an impressive film and I did enjoy it - hence myrating. The scene with the "tripod" emerging from beneath the pavementwas superb and truly frightening. Unfortunately, the story line had somany holes in it that it appeared unfinished and one wonders what wasgoing on behind the scenes.H. G. Welles' original story is great but quite dated by today'sstandards and needed some serious but careful revisions to make itplausible. Some of us have a deep respect for the "science" in "sciencefiction" and the discipline and creativity that is required toaccommodate it. It is a shame that Hollywood nearly always feels thatmaking a "statement" is sufficient in making a science fiction film andthat special effects supersede the human brain.And what about those red vines, anyway?

dakki78 2012-05-11 07:37:23

Amazing War of the Worlds

After I saw the original War of the worlds movie from 1953 I was prettyimpressed by the story. The only thing that bothered me was the factthat the original tripods from H.G.Wells' book had been replaced byswan-looking flying saucers. Fortunately Mr.Spielberg didn't make thesame mistake.The tripods in this new opus are very impressive on all accounts. Thewar cry and the tentacles and everything works very well. And I haveseen many movies with Tom Cruise, but I think this is one of hisstrongest performances. The best part is that he is more worried abouthis family than trying to be a big shot and take everything into hisown hands.Overall a very impressive movie, I recommend it to all fans of War ofthe worlds and/or the BBC series The Tripods for that matter.

pchr100-1 2012-05-04 20:06:42

Mediocre at best

Despite having a humungous budget, great special effects and... no,wait, that's all it's got. Lousy script, terrible pacing (there arescenes which should last less than a minute that go on for, literally,ten) & intensely irritating principal characters played by one-trickmeat puppets combine to ring - again & again - that wee Pavlovian bellthat makes you instinctively jab the fast-forward button. I honestlyspent the whole movie hoping that slow & painful deaths would be metedout to Tom Cruise's character, his grimacing, mulish son & thatunbelievably annoying blonde child that's always cast when there's alot of screaming to be done.Having said that, if you just stick to the action scenes, the movie'spretty good. There's no real storyline, so you won't miss much, and,praise the Lord & pass the Novocaine, the ending is true to Spielbergform. Fortunately, the movie's so bad that even a Spielberg endingcan't really do much damage...I gave it a 4/10 rating because it's marginally better than its Asylumequivalent. Though I'd recommend that you do something moreconstructive & socially beneficial with your time instead of watchingeither, such as preaching the Good News door-to-door in a gayneighbourhood, carrying out surveys of tattooed, gum-chewing teenmothers in shopping malls or writing IMDb reviews that no-one will everread...

Boba_Fett1138 2012-05-04 00:26:49

Could have been a real classic but is an above average alien-invasion movie instead.

This movie had huge potential. Everything to make this ascience-fiction classic masterpiece were present; Spielberg'sdirecting, a great concept, ILM special effects, Tom Cruise as the maincharacter and lots of other professionals involved both in front andbehind the cameras. Then where did it go wrong? The answer to that isthe script. The story is very simple and lacks a real clear plot line.Basically the movie is only about Tom Cruise and his two childrenrunning and driving from city to city, from the aliens and theirdestructive Tripod-machines. Exactly why are we, out of all the people,following these persons? The character development is lacking, just asmuch as the story does. Both lack development and depth.Of course the movie is by no means an horrible movie but it's just thatthe movie is a bit disappointing because of the fact that it had somuch more potential. It still is a good and certainly spectacular movieto watch but it's not a movie people will still talk about in 5 or 10years from now. The story makes this movie a bit of an easilyforgettable movie that doesn't leave an huge impression afterward, eventhough the movie itself is pure eye-candy to watch.There is no doubt about it that Spielberg is a great director. Hedirects his actors in this movie very well and everyone in the moviegives an amazing performance, especially Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning.Tom Cruise for once again doesn't play the action hero. He is anaverage Joe instead and I think he did this in a very good andconvincing. Spielberg also uses the special effects very well. Hedoesn't use the special effects to impress the audience as much aspossible, with lots of spectacular and action filled sequences, whichhe could had easily had done, he uses them as a tool to tell the storywith instead. The movie is purely told from Tom Cruise and his family'sperspective, 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 destroyentire cities and fight off the American army. I like this approach. Itmakes "War of the Worlds" different from many other alien-invasionmovies. It because of this certainly is one of the most believable andrealistic alien-invasion movies, along with "Signs".Visually there also is absolutely nothing wrong with this movie. Thespecial effects from ILM are very impressive and look extremelyconvincing. The cinematography by Janusz Kaminski is also simplyphenomenal at times and is typically gritty, which certainly adds tothe tense and realistic atmosphere of the movie.Unlike others, to me the ending didn't came really abrupt. But perhapsthis was because to me the ending was already spoiled, thanks to themovie it's soundtrack, which featured the final narration of MorganFreeman explaining how the movie ended. So I already knew what toexpect. To be perfectly honest I liked the ending and I couldn't thinkof any other, or better way to end this movie, without losing any ofits realism and credibility. I can understand how it might seem lameand 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 lotwrong with this movie but it truly is the simple story that preventsthis movie from being a classic or masterpiece. I still regard thismovie as one of the must sees of 2005 simply because of the movie itslook and acting. You can tell by watching this movie that there waslots of talent involved, both in front and behind the cameras.Especially Spielberg's touch still makes this movie better than justthe average alien-invasion movie but still not even he can prevent thismovie from being a bit of a disappointment. Not his or anybody elsehis/her fault, simply blame it on the script.7/10

moviewizguy 2012-05-01 11:29:25

Run! Run for Your Lives!

The plot is easy to understand: Ray Ferrier lives in New Jersy,divorced by his wife who got his two kids which spends with one anotherevery couple of days. Ray works in the docks. Rachel and Robbie arenever happy to see Dad compared to Mom, for a couple of days to stay.As they stay and Mom leaves them with Dad, a lightning hits the ground.The ground shakes and a tripod comes out and we figure that aliens areinside and are invading the Earth. Now Ray must protect his two kids tosurvive from the invasion as they walk to Mom's in Boston.The tripods shoot people with their heat rays which turns them to dust.The designs for each tripod are amazing. There are three types oftripods that do different things. The movie is one of StevenSpielberg's best movie. The CGI effects are terrific. It's a first rateedge-of-your-seats thriller! It's so exciting, you'll have to watch itagain! The acting is great in this film. Steven's vision for the filmis good. Do not believe the other reviewers who said that this film isbad because it's not. Maybe the ending is what bothers them. The endingwas the true ending from the book by H.G. Wells. The ending issatisfying for me enough.Once, Steven made a film called E.T. It's sweet and heart warming, Thismovie is no where close to that. this film is rather dark and scary insome parts. If you compare the special effects to The Day AfterTomorrow, The Day After Tomorrow will win, although it would be close.Steven also makes it feel that they might survive in the invasion asmany bad things occur to the family.It's just a harmless fun entertaining summer blockbuster. Yes, thereare some clichés here and there but don't bother with them. Just watchit and you'll forget it.

Brian Webster 2012-05-01 06:59:04

You could do a whole lot worse if you're looking through generic science fiction or disaster movies, but Steven Spielberg's standards are usually much higher than this.

michael-t-bee 2012-04-26 07:32:38

May contain a spoiler...

This is not a worthy treatment-if you compare it to the book. Therewere a few lines / themes adapted gave a hint of consistency with theoriginal material, but, these were obscured by Hollywood "twists".EXAMPLES:They came from beneath (movie ala-"Tommy Knockers?") vs. came fromabove (book). The book gives the reason for invasion - movie left youbefuddled. What, aliens wait until we develop the state of civilizationin order to invade and destroy civilization with cinematic effect? Aninvasion of stone age earth would have been less dramatic, but, also,less costly. The book, at least, presented a plausible reason:attenuated atmosphere/environment forced them to seek a new world - agreen one they could see from Mars.The crazy caretaker (movie) vs. the crazy curate (book). This,apparently, was the reason for the basement scene. In the book, themain character shares a basement hide-a-way (for some time) with acrazy curate. But, here it only serves to show Tom Cruise poor acting. What failed: -plodding dialog & situations -"They want our blood" -this was more 1950's than 21st centuryWhat worked: -Alien sequences they were fairly creepy. -Tripods - theywere great

ruff rider 2012-04-25 23:48:40

FAKE CGI + No Empathy = DUD

The plot had no cohesion making it difficult for many in the audienceto get caught up in the film. That's a big surprise because if youdon't empathize with the lead character, what's the point of a disasterfilm? I had hoped that this would be better. I found myself trying hardto like the film but failing miserably. Despite the number of effects,they were very ho-hum as well. Sad to say that War of the Worlds was ahuge misfire. I was SO looking forward to this film and was justseverely disappointed by this unsatisfying and incredibly shallowmovie. Also, this movie just wouldn't end and I wanted it to sobadly…always the sign of a good movie right? I'd have to say thatyou'll want to skip this one.

Payback1015 2012-04-25 06:47:03

Why couldn't they do this in the 50s version

I can't Believe it! I read this book that had to do with fictional andreal UFO's and they had a picture of what the spaceships from the bookwar of the worlds would look like. A black high tech cylinder withthree legs and a heat beam. In the 1950s version of the movie, thealien's ship looked way different. It had the heat beam, but thoseidiots at the movie business changed the look on the ship itself. Allit looked like was a giant warped metal plate. No wonder they made aremake of it. Steven Spielberg was a good choice to direct the movie.This is how the line of directors go from best to close enough. StevenSpielberg, George Lucas, David Cronenburg, Wes Craven, Brian De Palma,M. Night Shalmahan, and John Hughes. Every thing else about the war ofthe worlds franchise is great but did they have to leave the ending thesame? I can't believe that the aliens still died of disease. Theyshould change the ending. THEY DO THAT TO REMAKES ALL THE TIME!

moovbuf 2012-04-24 18:57:27

Biggest letdown of the summer

I waited months to see War of the Worlds. Let me say that the firstthirty minutes of this movie is great. Great performances all around,and by now everyone knows that the special effects are some of the bestever seen. Then after thirty minutes the picture turnedinto....GARBAGE! Steven!! What has happened to you? You were at the topof your game. Then during A.I. you fell apart (except for MinorityReport). I don't mind plot holes. But some of the holes in WOW areoutlandish. I had heard how bad the ending was. But nothing prepared mefor the stupidness of it. This is not the work of anyone withintelligence. Don't take my word for it, though. Spend your money, andyou'll see for yourself.

Rob Blackwelder 2012-04-18 00:15:35

A problematic blockbuster with one essential saving grace: It's profoundly frightening in a way that few directors have the talent to capture.

Peter Rhydon 2012-04-17 14:49:23

Forget the little saucers

"Independence Day" wasn't good. Not bad, but not good neither. Therewere some exciting and entertaining moments with an eye-poppingpresentation and self-parodying characters whose only good point was tobe funny. But these characters were frankly ridiculous, the storywasn't any better and the quotes seemed to be prefabricated. RolandEmmerich tried the best way he could to revive the alien invasiongenre, but his lack of seriousness resulted in a mixed bag of a movie.That was in 1996.Nearly ten years later, it was mythic filmmaker Steven Spielberg's turnto bring us his vision of the extra-terrestrial invaders who came toEarth with the one and only goal of destroying us, in this new versionof the H.G. Wells novel. Obviously, because it was Spielberg, thestakes were very high. It must be said that the astronomical budget ofthe movie ($132 million) and the casting of Tom Cruise made the stakesclimbing even higher. The final result is an exciting and terrifyingadventure that really acts as a resurrection of the genre."War of the Worlds" starts with a narration from Morgan Freeman takenalmost word by word from the novel, then Cruise takes the command andnever lets it go until the movie is over. Cruise plays Ray Ferrier, adivorced father who is rather selfish and unable of assuming his parentresponsibilities. We see that he's rather distant from his daughterRachel (another extraordinary performance from Dakota Fanning), butespecially from his son Robbie (Justin Chatwin). This confrontation iseven reflected in their baseball caps (Yankees vs. Red Sox).And if trying to get care of his children wasn't difficult enough,deathly alien tripods have just emerged from every part of the world,including from Ray's neighborhood.What comes next is an incredible thrill ride for Ray and his childrenwhile he tries to bring everybody to a safe place even if he doesn'thave any precise plan and is not sure of what he's doing."War of the Worlds" is one of Spielberg's most exciting and thrillingfilms. We're beginning to get used to adrenaline-upping flicks andhuman dramas in the famed director's work, but he rarely mixed bothelements as well as in "War of the Worlds". And it's the human dramapart that puts Spielberg's film above Emmerich's one, but the specialeffects are also better in "War" than in "Independence Day".I say better because the special FX of "War" does own a characteristicthat "ID4" doesn't: FEAR. It's the main difference between both moviesand it's useless to say that it's a winning hand for "War"."ID4" special FX were only made for presentation use and spectacle andthe viewers didn't have to care about the thousands of people that weregetting "killed". These were good special effects, but there wasn't anysubstance."War of the Worlds" owns the great advantage of coming at the rightmoment, that is after the 9/11 events. The movie characters and theviewers (especially the American ones) are now fully aware thatdisaster film-styled scenes can really happen and this fact is wellechoed in the images of the film. The social context becomes crucial.And Spielberg uses it very well."War" also avoids from falling in the landmark cliché. There's noEmpire State Building, no Statue of Liberty, no White House and noCapitol in "War". Only typical suburbs, which proves that nobody isprotected from the aliens' attack. Not only the people from greatcenters...So fear is the primary emotion of the movie. The second one isundoubtedly selfishness. We just have to look Cruise's character to besure. People can say what they want on Tom Cruise, but it remains thathe's a great actor and his Ray role is one of his career best. Theother representation of selfishness is that famous sequence where thecrowd turns against each other only to get Ray's vehicle (because it'sthe only one that works). In a moment where unity and cooperationbecome vital, these scenes are upsetting. It's a rare example ofpessimism in a Spielberg action picture but it's impossible to ignoreit.Many viewers coldly reacted to the movie's ending, but I personallyfound it satisfying, logical and full of sense. You just have to listento the narrator. We see the annihilated tripods, then Spielberg zoomson bacteria in a drop of water. Why? Because they are responsible forthe invaders' defeat. Because they come from "somewhere else", we couldthink that they're not immune to the particles that we don't care aboutbecause they don't have any effect on us. Yet, everything lies onexoticism. Just take the difference between people from temperatedregions and people from tropical regions. A person from Canada couldeasily be infected by some tropical disease while locals won't care toomuch about it. But in my hometown, a cold would only disturb me for ashort week while it could be lethal for somebody from Central America.It's this concept that inspired Wells and was taken over by Spielberg.I have the impression that what disturbed the viewers is that theconclusion comes too quickly...Aside from these little shortcomings, "War of the Worlds" really is themovie that makes the alien invasion genre living again. And as aSpielberg film, it's another gem in his filmography and it shows prettywell that the great filmmaker doesn't slow as the years pass by.

David Topping 2012-04-15 20:41:59

Thank goodness for DVD and Fast Forward

The War of the Worlds is a great book. For its time it was a tremendousleap in imagination; the story of humankind brought to its knees by atechnologically superior alien invader told through the eyes of anunnamed observer.The War of the Worlds (1953) was an interesting adaptation, re-locatingthe story to the USA and providing a slightly more human backdrop tothe futility with which the human race battles the invaders.The War of the Worlds (2005) is a great piece of commercial filmmaking. It's the story of a dysfunctional family incidentally setagainst the backdrop of some sort of conflict. It allows the stars toshow off their huge acting skills with lots and lots of close ups, ohand there are some special effects as well. It contains all thenecessary commercial ingredients, two major box office stars, kids, anda heart-warming ending. Unfortunately it seems to have nothingwhatsoever to do with telling the story of the War of the Worlds.Please! I thought we'd stopped making star vehicles but obviously not.Fortunately I rented it on DVD and could skip the bits which wereboring, mainly any time Cruise was on the screen, oops, that's 99% ofthe film!Not even worth the rental.

Darryl 2012-04-15 07:12:51

Horrible Movie, waste of good time and money

This was such a silly movie. At first it seemed rather interesting, butas the story ran on and through all the actions scenes I was ratherexpecting something big, although all this was going to culminatinginto something big. Boy, was I let down. This movie dragged on ratherpointlessly for what was it 2, 3 hours. I was bored halfway through,and was trying to keep interested. Overall I though it was a dumbmovie, and rather disgusting with what the aliens were doing with thepeople, and hardly worthy of Spielberg. And what was the point of TimRobbins role? Babbling lunatic murdered when Cruise's character did notwant to listen to him anymore??? As for Cruise........ well in light ofrecent events, can't say I am surprised about his acting in this movie.It was terrible. What happened to Cruise? He used to be such a goodactor. Disappointing a waste of good plot and talent.

Boloxxxi 2012-04-08 14:16:10

Alien Invasion

I would have enjoyed this movie (I love science fiction) but for onereason: there's a kid in it that kept tweaking my nerves from thebeginning of the movie to the end. Those who have seen this film knowwhat I'm talking about. For those who have not seen it don't botherunless you know you will have high tolerance for a kid with ahigh-pitched squeal that stabs at your nerve endings through out thefilm, who keeps asking 10 questions per second, and who seems to have atalent for doing the opposite of what she should do.I felt sorry for Tom Cruise's character because he not only had to dealwith the alien invasion but his baggage of spoiled neurotic kids aswell. Don't get me wrong folks, I love children, but this one caught meoff guard. Funny thing is that I have seen this kid in 2 other filmsand found her adorable. But in this one.....sheeesh!! She should havegotten an Oscar for ANNOYING. I give this film 5 stars out of ten, butwould have given it 7 or 8 just for imagination and special effectsalone ---BUT FOR THAT KID!!!! If you decide you want to see the moviehave aspirins handy! Love, Boloxxxi.

Thomas Delapa 2012-04-07 21:23:27

Don't expect Reese's Pieces or mashed potatoes to be on the menu in Spielberg's shock-and-awesome version of Wells.

Mike Cover 2012-04-04 16:37:46

Visually, it's a great film...

First of all, I went to this film not expecting too much. I love theoriginal WAR OF THE WORLDS, & don't think highly of remakes.Visually, the SFX in this film are outstanding. This new version is allabout breaking into new territory of the special effects category.Dennis Muren & ILM deserve big fat raises.As for the acting...it wasn't good or bad...but fit the film. I didn'tgo to this film looking for great acting, & I'm sure most other peoplefeel the same.The new version was closer to the original story by HG Wells, so itdoes deserve credit there. As most know. we first see the aliens whenthey bust through the streets of Brooklyn in their buried walking*tripod* machine. This scene was outstanding. The streets cracking,along with a corner building & church was definitely fantastic. Thenthe cracked *circle* in the road got sucked down, & then...the buriedmachine comes out of the ground.I first didn't know what to think since I knew the storyline about thehidden machines...but then after seeing the first to appear, I realizedthat they were down a lot further than I expected, since it took sometime for them to climb out from the ground.Then the actual invasion scene. BAM! The aliens start obliterate allhumans in their paths. Their laser cannons are so powerful, that thevictims are shot to ashes.All in all, this was a very entertaining film. I definitely got mymoney's worth. This is definitely a popcorn flick; don't go to see itif you are going to nit-pick & try to find logic. Hey, anything ispossible I guess...who's to say that there can't be a more master racethan us humans out there. And you never know what is underground.

drboss-1 2012-04-04 03:36:34

First version from 1953 is great, this one is only terribly expansive

I saw both interpretations of this great book from H.G.Wells and only afew details in new one movie are worthwhile to sit and wait until movieend. Dakota Fanning - She is only 9, but I newer saw so genuine show,like she made. I was scared, when she was, I was happy, when she wasand so on. But this is almost all of good on this movie. Tom Cruise,totally untrustworthy, Tim Robins, oh god what it was, I do not know,but definitely not a dramatic art. On the other side animations andtricks are excellent and also crowd scenes are very real (it was mainproblem in 1953 version). And the end, this is really a disaster. Movieis somehow graduating when mankind loses. Last 10 minutes when aliensare dying because of bacterias and Tom meets his family, have to becut-ed out from movie. This is disgusting and totally devaluationH.G.W. book artwork. So finally, in one sentence, 200 millions buckswasted for nothing.

CAL FORD 2012-04-01 11:59:38

Worse ever

A rating of "awful" is fair for this movie. I have never seen such abad movie, even comparing to the cheesy sci fi's from the 1950's. Themain problem with this movie is how offensive the cast are and the lackof plot. The plot is not the same as H.G. Well's book, not even close.Tom is not too bad, other then his character is unreal, disjointed, andacts as a complete supplicant to his offspring. The little girl is thetypical sick representation of a brat that Spielberg seems to beobsessed with. A mouthy brat girl who always observes important eventsfirst, out smarts all adults, and asks questions well above her agegroup. There is something deeply wrong with Spielberg. The brat son wasessentially the same. All three primary characters, and the freak inthe farm cellar, were not related to anything real, they were non-humancharacters. I've seen Japanese Anime with much more believablecharacters.The only reason I can conjure that motivated these people to make thistrash movie is some kind of agenda to make Americans stupid and empowerchildren over their dumb and impotent parents. Now that theory is theonly good sci fi in this flick.

callum29 2012-03-31 20:29:55

who liked this movie?

Maybe had I not read the book, or seen the 50's movie, or had anyexpectation that the movie would be the least bit good, it may havebeen OK. I will not even rent it when it comes out. Dumb.The book is considered a literary masterpiece because it had an awesomestory. There's no story to this movie other than the obvious, aliensattack. This film has Tom Cruise running around scared the whole timewith kids you kind of hope the aliens kill anyway. This had me wantingthe aliens to zap cruise, the earth would have been better for it. Andno, I don't hate Cruise, I was blown away by his part in 'Collateral'.Even though I expected WotW was going to be bad, I somehow thought Tomcould save it.If you haven't read the book, or seen the 1953 movie, or you are easilyimpressed by bright, shiny objects, you will probably like this movie.The 1953 movie is waaaaaay better story-wise, and not bad effectsconsidering the year. (It even won an Oscar). I watch anytime it comeson TV.P.S. I wonder if Spielberg will remaster it and add deleted scenes withthe alien ships killing ewoks with walkie talkies on the DVD version. Istill wont watch it.