I watched War of the Worlds last night - Tom Cruise version and...?

Question

What a load of rubbish! The best bit was the voice over by Morgan Freeman. Did anyone else feel the same? Or did you enjoy it?

Answer 1

I find that the first version done, I think in the 50's, was much better. Not withstanding the fact that I don't like Tom Cruise, why was his the only car in the area that worked? Also why at the end did his ex-wife look as if nothing happened at all. Outside of the effects, didn't really like it.

Answer 2

Let's face it - Hollywood blockbusters are usually bloated and soulless disappointments. We keep going along in the hope that we'll see something worth seeing. Well this is one of those rare occasions when our persistence pays off. By most rationale judgements 'War of the Worlds' is superior entertainment. It is also a remarkably faithful adaptation of Well's novel, which after the Spielberg-produced 'Time Machine' of a few years back was a major concern. Some reviewers have accused the film of a stereotypical happy Hollywood ending; they obviously don't know the source, it is in fact very faithful. The homages to the 1953 film are appropriate and touching without being cute.

This dark and realistic film convinces that this is what it could be like if we were indeed invaded by extraterrestrials. There are several scenes this viewer found disturbing including a confronting event witnessed from a diner. As mentioned elsewhere references to 9/11 and the Holocaust abound. At one point as Cruise witnesses the feeding of the invaders he examines and wipes his hands in an echo of Schindler's response to the ash belched from the Nazi death camps.

Despite this and because of it's direct storytelling, Spielberg's film succeeds at being a lot of fun to watch, much like the 50's sci-fi movies that it at times so successfully tributes.

The performances are of a high calibre with Dakota Fanning being the stand out. Some complain about her evident neediness throughout the film, which they find annoying. It's difficult to imagine how anyone, particularly a child, could not be needy under such circumstances.

Tom Cruise's portrayal is something of a revelation displaying vulnerability refreshing in this genre. Compared to say Mel Gibson's character in the similarly premised 'Signs', Cruise's character displays considerably more human frailty, convincingly breaking down on several occasions. His performance is more than competent despite assertions to the contrary by some who seem to be more concerned by his off-screen behaviour and persona.

Despite these character strengths it is the war machines themselves that impress most. They are truly formidable. Their design, walking gait and especially the heat ray are very effective. Here I must defend the heat ray, which others have criticised as a very inefficient method of genocide. True enough, though I doubt many would find thousands dying from gas or infection particularly 'entertaining'. Wells agreed. His invaders used a form of gas but the heat ray was his Martians' weapon-of-choice.

This said the film is not without its shortcomings. Primary among these is the appearance of the alien which to this viewer is spookily similar to another recent alien invasion flick. Spielberg and others associated with the production must have been aware of this similarity. Other than homage, it's difficult to explain the resemblance.

I also agree with others who have said it may have been better to keep the invaders more obscure. Wells was vague in his descriptions knowing that allusions to the hideous was more frightening. Once again however, the director would have been criticised had he not clearly shown the beasties.

The ending mentioned earlier does seem a little rushed. I feel it would have been better if there had been a slower growth in awareness of the invader's predicament. This is where the film may once again have done better staying closer to the novel. Descriptions of Well's dying Martians calling to one another across a deserted London are haunting.

However considering the total achievement of this film these are minor carps. War of the Worlds requires a suspension of disbelief typical of fantasy film. What is does not require, necessary for so many summer blockbusters, is a suspension of critical judgment.

Answer 3

I liked it. Wasn't great. But was better than expected. You guys keep calling it Tom Cruise's version of the film, but he IS just acting in Steven Speilberg's VERSION of the film. The slow plotline and all were the blame of the director in charge here, not the overpaid actor ;-) Hate on Tom for a reason, not just because. His turn in this movie and MI3 has renewed my faith in his acting, as in my humble opinion, he went downhill after/during 'Top Gun'... He took his potential in a direction I was hoping he would not. Now, to see him do these 'cardboard cutout' characters in the last 2 movies has actually been refreshing to me. I don't care about his personal life. His jumping of couches and declarations of love on Oprah. Hell, if I met somebody that made me feel like telling the whole world how much I loved them, I'd gladly go on Oprah and make an *** of myself for a little heart-felt nookie...lol I saw the '50s version AFTER I saw Speilberg's version AND it was indeed the better movie. Those were some good effects to be from the 50s and they didn't get much better here in the new century.

Answer 4

I did not even bother. the British version (being the 1st) is the best. Mind Independence Day which is based on War of the Worlds was pretty good! The Film was just put together for Tom Cruse to get publicity Again!

Answer 5

I really enjoyed the movie! I thought it was done very well. Last night I watched Mission Impossible III, I have come to the conclusion that Tom Cruise may be the most succesful actor of all time.

Answer 6

i thought it was quite good. the acting was fairly reasonable too. i'm not a big Tom Cruise fan but this was most deffinately one of his best performances.

i have to admit... the movie was very cheezy at times. but, Dakota Fanning did an acceptionaly good acting as a little girl for her age! i was amazed.

the graphics were great, too. all the space monsters (or whatever they were) are all cool and well done. the only thing that seems cheezy to me is the whole plot...

other than that i thought War of the Worlds was a good movie. if not that... than it was just Ok!

Answer 7

I liked it, it is after all a remake from about 1950s (?). It was decent to see Tom Cruise play a very different role. The voice over was well done as a way to explain the whole story.

Answer 8

I started to watch the Tom Cruise version anticipating to hate it. I enjoyed it in spite of myself. I hate to say this but I like Cruise's version better than the original.

Answer 9

It was quite a good film, i especially loved the bit when the wind drops and everything's totally quiet, but the mistake in the film is too focus entirely on T Cruise and his daughter. They should have follwoed the adventures of at leats three different persons or group of persons. Otherwise, i loved the scary bits..

Answer 10

I thought it was a complete load of rubbish. It started slowly and then jumped in the middle. The storyline was weak, there didn't seem to be a story at all.