La guerra de los mundos

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?

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.

Stephen Spielberg took the 1953 classic War Of The Worlds and remade it for modern times and the modern techniques of special effects. A lot of things that could not be done back in the 50s are done now to show the havoc that the invaders reek upon the world.

He also did something else that possibly might have offended science fiction purists but I think gave the audience a better identification with the protagonists of the story. Instead of having his protagonists be scientists as Gene Barry and Ann Robinson were in 1953, Tom Cruise is a blue collar divorced father who has his kids visiting him, but custody is with their mother Miranda Otto.

The kids are no prizes and are played by Justin Chatwyn and Dakota Fanning. And Cruise himself is no bargain either. But when danger develops it's his idea to take them from New York to Boston where their mother and maternal grandparents are. The film as it was in 1953 is mostly concerned with their efforts to avoid the terrible tripod machines that the aliens use in their destructive path.

The film does follow the Barry/Robinson escape scenario closely. The two had a scene avoiding the aliens while they were trapped in a cellar. To that Spielberg adds survivalist Tim Robbins. I think Stephen Spielberg feels the way I do that a lot of these survivalists pray for their doomsday fantasy to come true. That was sure the case with Tim Robbins who is quite mad on the subject of the invaders.

Cruise himself centers and anchors the film with his portrayal of blue collar America who just wants for him and his family to survive the holocaust. This classic may yet see a remake or three in the future.

'War of the Worlds' had a lot going for it, considering the story, that it was directed by Steven Spielberg and a decent cast on paper. It turned however to be a frustratingly uneven film, with a good first half and a pretty lousy second half.

Starting with what's good, the film looks fabulous, the atmosphere that the cinematography and lighting evoked is just incredible and the special effects are without complaint too. John Williams can be relied upon to compose a good score and he does here, being both rousing and spooky. Spielberg does an impeccable job directing the first half of the film, giving a lot of the first half thrills, suspense and genuine scares.

Tom Cruise does a good job in the lead and Tim Robbins is eerily eccentric. As said, the first half has many great moments and is filled with unnerving suspense and scary chills. Truly imaginative details like the burning train, the birds/tripod scene and the river of the dead bodies burn in the memory for a long while after.

However, the human drama was not as transfixing as it should have been, being hurt by the dysfunctional family subplot being rammed down the throat with no subtlety at all with nothing relatable at all and especially by the kids.

Spielberg has demonstrated before that he is capable of directing great child performances, prime examples being Haley Joel Osment in 'AI' and Christian Bale in 'Empire of the Sun', but the performances of both Dakota Fanning and Justin Chatwin are incredibly irritating. Not sure which is more so, Fanning's constant screaming or brattiness or Chatwin made to act throughout the film but especially the second half like an indecisively written character who makes stupid decisions and acts rebellious in the most insufferable of ways. The dialogue is often insipid.

After a lot of promise in the first half, 'War of the Worlds' is let down significantly by the second half where the pace slackens (a notable example being that overlong scene in the basement) and the suspense dramatically wilts (such as when the aliens are introduced, and they are not menacing in the slightest) and is replaced by ridiculousness, frustrating character decisions and sentimentality. The Hollywood schmaltz kicks in and keeps assaulting the viewer at full throttle, while the ending is up there as one of film's most false, cloying and anti-climactic.

In conclusion, a frustratingly uneven film that starts off quite well and then completely falls apart. 5/10 Bethany Cox

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.