Print | Send to friend | Email update

Related Video Review: 'War of the Worlds' (3:48)

Related Links Movies Home

Sponsored Links

Dominic Corry
Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise team up for this mega-budget remake of the 1953 movie based on HG Wells' 1898 book.

War of the Worlds was rushed into production last year when producer George Lucas unexpectedly rejected the then latest draft of the script for the fourth Indiana Jones film, which Steven Spielberg was to direct. Around the same time, Mission: Impossible III lost its director just before shooting was scheduled to begin. Steven and Tom both suddenly had some time on their hands and decided to get the ball rolling on their long-planned updating of one of the most famous sci-fi stories of all time.

One thing about War of the Worlds I really appreciated going in was how little of the film we had seen. It seems these days like every big movie utterly oversells itself by cramming every bit of nice looking footage into the trailer, leaving no surprises for the experience of actually watching the film. Only power players like Spielberg and Cruise have the clout to prevent the marketers from giving away everything in advance. It displays a sense of old school showmanship.

Or maybe it's because the film was so last minute and none of the footage was ready.

Either way, War of the Worlds had a rare air of mystique (for a blockbuster at least) going in. Would we actually see the aliens? Would Tom save the planet single-handedly? What does the tagline "They're already here" mean? What is that thing rocking the ferry in the trailer?

In the interests of maintaining said air of mystique I'm not about to answer any of these questions here. All you need to know is what is obvious - this is a large scale film about an alien invasion.

And it rocks. Hard.

War of the Worlds is one of the tensest movie-going experiences I've had recently. Ever. Spielberg is at the height of his audience manipulating powers here. I felt like I was in the palm of his hand. The term "edge of your seat" has been thoroughly run into the ground, but I can think of no better way to describe the location of my bottom throughout.

The scenes of mass destruction and panic possess a ferocity and virility all too rare in most big budget films. The sense of terror is not only portrayed artfully on screen, but wholly conveyed to the audience as well. There is much dread to be felt in watching this film.

Spielberg brings the cataclysmic events down to a suburban level, but doesn't sacrifice the scale of the film.

There are several allusions made to the 1953 film, and a surprising number of allegorical moments relating to 9/11. But War of the Worlds succeeds primarily as a "ride" film.

In these times of blandly overproduced, overstuffed, overwrought big budget action extravaganzas (Jerry Bruckheimer, I'm talking to you), I'd forgotten just how enjoyable a well made "ride" film can be. War of the Worlds reminded me. In a big way.

For Spielberg, the film represents a smashing (or should that be globally destructing) return to form following the cloying crappiness of The Terminal (seriously - did anyone like that film?). It's not really the self-challenging Spielberg of A.I., but rather the skilled purveyor of large scale thrills that made Jaws and Jurassic Park.

There is arguably no working director better attuned to manipulating an audience with populist cinema, and he puts those skills to extremely effective use here.

I should mention that while the film is about as "big" as movies get, it strives to be intimate at the same time. There are numerous extended character moments where we experience the cataclysmic events of the film through the eyes of an absent father and his kids. These are the parts of the film where the sentimentalist in Spielberg gets the better of him, succumbing to ET-esque scenes of familial disharmony. But they in no way detracted from my enjoyment, and even at times represented a brief reprieve from the tension.

Tom Cruise very much impressed me with his last performance in the thriller Collateral, for which I contend he should've been at least nominated for an Oscar. I can generally get behind Cruise when the film warrants it, and although it takes a little while to accept the legendary pretty boy as a blue collar longshoreman with two kids here, he ultimately does a respectable job.

As his youngest child, the ubiquitous Dakota Fanning (Hide & Seek, Man on Fire), adds another scarily mature performance to her already overstuffed CV, and Tim Robbins has fun with his role as a militant crackpot Cruise and company hole up with for a while.

Unknown Justin Chatwin, as Cruise's teenage son, is fine, but suffers the most from Spielberg's unrelenting need to insert father-son issues into every single film he makes. Seriously dude, talk to somebody already.

But I digress.

War of the Worlds is a great film in the truest sense of the word. It's impressively big, bombastically loud, and a heck of a lot of fun.

Highly recommended.

Dominic Corry

Show me the funny!