I just watched this on DVD. My God what a POS! Other than the special effects it was pure formual -*bad formula * movie making.
There was so much that could have been done with an updated re-telling of this this tale, but none of these possibilities came to pass. The effects were OK (not great) and the acting was the worst I have ever seen Cruise do. Between Mr. Smirk and Mr. Tension there wasn’t much in between. That and the incoherent plot made for a shambles all round. How does a script like this mess get green lighted.
It wasn’t bad, I thought(It wasn’t great either). The Martians were plenty scary, even though there were plenty of plot holes(why not invade way back when their machines first arrived?)
And I agree that Cruise didn’t add anything to the movie. On the other hand, this was the kind of movie where he didn’t need to, because his only job was to react to the martians.
I still like it better then the 1950’s version though, just because of the tripods.
I agree it wasn’t that bad. As to why it got green-lighted, Steven Speilberg could take video of himself taking a poo and Sony Pictures would be interested. We’re talking about the guy who made Jaws, E.T., Saving Private Ryan, Schindler’s List, All the Indian Jones pictures, etc. The guy has the golden touch in Hollywood.
As for Tom Cruise, I also agree he seems to have no more than three modds or expressions in most of his movies. (“Jerry McGuire” being a notable exception.) But Hollywood doesn’t demand deep acting in a big-budget action flick about an alien invasion. You might as well critique Will Smith in “Independence Day.”
Ditto. I really enjoyed the movie and thought Cruise was fine. It didn’t change my views on life, the universe, and everything; I simply enjoyed it. Then again, I watched *The Cave *yesterday and thought it was a pleasant way to waste 90 minutes, so take my opinions for what they’re worth.
Saw it on the big screen, and on the rare occasions I do that my basic barometer is “did I enjoy it for the money?”
And this movie garnered an unqualified yes.
It’s a popcorn flick and had some great thrills and great scenes. The ending was terrible, there were some scenes that screamed ‘overacting’, but all-in-all I enjoyed it.
I didn’t go in expecting to see the next “Godfather” or “Citizen Kane”.
I’m another dissenting voice on this. I have loved the writing of H.G. Wells for half my life. I have never cared for Cruise, and half the time I see a movie with him in it, I feel like I have to do my best to put up with him (and especially his 500 close-ups in Mission: Impossible 2 . Still, considering the demands of updating the story, Speilberg and the writers managed to do a surprisingly good job. Being as familiar with the story as I am and the first movie version, I still held my breath in horror for about the first 20 minutes.
This is one of those movies I am glad I saw in a theatre with the THX sound system instead of on a little TV screen.
Another one who liked it. I found the tripods scary.
I didn’t care that burying them on Earth millions of years ago made no sense, and I also didn’t find the actors distracting. Often things like this would have detracted from my viewing experience, but for some reason it didn’t here. I was happy just to see the tripods zapping everything and people fleeing.
I liked it a lot and thought Cruise had a good performance. Seems like it’s a popular movie for the Cruise-haters to bash, for no apparent reason other than that he’s in it. Shrug. I don’t hate him or love him—he’s had performances I considered bad and others I liked. But I don’t usually let an actor’s private (or public) life color my impression of his or her role. If I did, I wouldn’t be able to watch most movies.
I vote for abyssmal. It’s possible for a movie’s bad parts to not ruin the good parts, but not here. (Yes, there were good parts.)
Can Stephen Spielberg please make a movie where a main character is killed and/or things don’t turn out all right in the end?
Cruise was fine. I think he’s a great actor. Not his best work, but he had nothing to do with the problems in this movie.
It was awful. Beyond awful. I will never watch another movie with the Fanning chick again. And what’s so special about a brownstone in Boston that escaped the terror. The tripods were cool, but every time they showed Tom Cruise I wanted to throw up. And why do all the main characters have to be single parents these days?
Steven Spielerg has gone from being able to tug at your heartstrings gently to trying to jump up and down on them.
I just couldn’t buy that damn teenage son. When people are running around screaming and your Dad is yelling at you to get in the car, even the surliest teen is going to get in the god-damned car. He’s not going to be all “Dad, I’m not moving until you give me a detailed explanation of what’s happening, complete with footnotes and an annotated bibliography.”
Did anyone else feel that the kid survivingwasn’t a happy ending?
Huh. I actually agree with the dead trout thrower. On this point anyways.
Part of the problem with the TC/DF version was that the characters were shit. DF was an annoying little brat, TC was a creepoid loser of a non-dad. I can’t recall the names for the other characters, so no more initials for me.
The effects were superb. Amazing. Amazingly amazing. Like a commercial of what movie FX potential is (are?). But story? Characters? Dialogue? Bleah.
A different Spielberg movie: Saving Private Ryan had Tom Hank’s character get killed. He was arguably the main character since Ryan doesn’t show up until the last act.
I sorta like the flawed characters, it was more interesting then watching the usual action movie set, whre the characters are all charming, witty and adorable with maybe one flaw tacked on by the screenwriters to make them seem 3 dimensional.
Characters have never really been Spielburgs strong point, and his attempt here with Cruise et al. was hit or miss, but it was at least interesting.
