Some very interesting elements but overall disappointing

Rating: 7/10 (29 June 2005)

I will warn before all spoilers, because there are very few and so those of you who don't want them could read most of this review without issue.
The Mercury Theater radio production of "War of the Worlds" makes a nearly impossible standard--its realism was so extreme as to famously induce panic that its events were truly unfolding--and Steven Spielberg, perhaps wisely, doesn't even attempt to match this level, instead opting to make a film with only the basic storyline and opening monologue in common with that production.
Instead, Spielberg's film follows a pattern used previously in George Romero's "Dawn of the Dead," Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds," and the Stephen King novel "The Stand" by getting the catastrophe out of the way quickly, *SPOILER* destroying the world in about 20 minutes. *SPOILER OVER* This structure can lend itself to deep psychological drama, as in "The Birds," or social satire, as in Romero's films. Spielberg opts for something more akin to the latter, making a big deal of the feelings of anger and need for revenge that some feel while others do not and downplaying the (admittedly very tired) family dynamic and the mystery of what's going on or what the invaders want. We know from the opening monologue that the "storm" we see is an invasion--before Ray or anyone else knows--and it's never really explained why they do what they do. Even the ending is explained post-mortem in another Morgan Freeman monologue rather than in the film itself. Meanwhile, the family is the same as every other broken family we see on film--from the selfish father to the ever-frightened little girl to the kind and rich stepfather and so the fact that the drama of the family is only a minor subplot is perhaps a good thing.
Spielberg instead focuses on how people react to the events--with thoughtful confusion (Ray), with anger and a lust for revenge (Robbie), with panic (Rachel), or with a frightful mental collapse (Ogilvy). There's also a heavy war analogy played out throughout, culminating in a frighteningly beautiful scene *SPOILER* showing a man letting his son go off to fight a war he doesn't believe in because the son does believe in it only to watch the entire zone engulfed in flames. *SPOILER OVER* There's also a frightful element in the look of one of the tripods when it captures the Ferriers--*SPOILER* it resembles a female reproductive system to such a degree that its familiarity was disconcerting and yet there was seemingly no other reason for it *SPOILER OVER*. Still, the truth is that there's very little storyline and we can all predict that these would be the various reactions, so it's nothing too interesting.
The acting in the film is hampered by a lack of character, but in the meatiest role Tom Cruise is able to provide more depth than the character would otherwise have, providing one of his stronger performances in an almost note-for-note return to his previous role of Charlie Babbot in "Rain Man." Meanwhile, Dakota Fanning is appropriately annoying as the whiny, panicky daughter and Justin Chatwin is utterly unbelievable as the angry son who turns out to be more capable than anyone of handling the shock of the invasion. The only other performance of note is Tim Robbins, who is always brilliant and no exception here. Ogilvy may seem the most unbelievable character, but Robbins's performance turns him into the most real.
Overall, "War of the Worlds" is somewhat disappointing and yet it remains interesting enough to entertain. Spielberg provides some beautiful shots and some of the scenes are magic, but the dull, unimaginative characters, the plot holes, and the lack of storyline drag the film down from its possibilities. I personally would much rather have no visual and just listen to Orson Welles.