War of the Worlds - a tepid affair

Rating: 3/10 (29 June 2005)

Many months ago, when I had first heard that Steven Spielberg was at the helm directing a remake of one of my very favorite science fiction films, I couldn't have been more pleased. Who else, I thought, could have possibly been a better selection? A man's whose undeniable skill in generating excitement, suspense and awe has yet to be surpassed by any director, alive or dead. Alas, imagine my disappointment when I found myself looking at my watch less than halfway through the film, wondering when the entertainment would start.
Although this film is much more faithful to H.G. Wells' allegorical novel of British imperialism than the original 1953 film of the same name or the abysmal 1996 ripoff "Independence Day", I found this to be its main weakness. The novel's plot can be pretty slow going at times and I had hoped that the screenplay and/or Spielberg's talent would have gotten around this pitfall. Unfortunately, Spielberg depends on the hackneyed "children in jeopardy" sub-plot so familiar in some of his films in an attempt to generate suspense but it just doesn't work here. I mean, subconsciously you KNOW nothing bad is going to happen to the little girl, now don't you?
Additionally, what should have been a series of mind boggling scenes of battle and destruction are, for the most part, merely implied by artillery flashes behind a hill encrusted with the US Army. One of the more irrational aspects of the plot was the revelation that the alien machines had been buried underground for tens of thousands of years which begs the question why hadn't any been inadvertently discovered by now? How the film makers thought this concept was superior to the impact of seeing hundreds or thousands of alien machines raining down from the heavens escapes me. There are, however,some noteworthy scenes, one of the most notable being when Tom Cruise is fleeing from the first alien machine as his fellow humans are being blasted into dust by its death ray.
As far as the performances are concerned, Tom Cruise played at being Tom Cruise once again though he managed to avoid bouncing up and down on any furniture (though this may have raised the excitement level in the theater, I imagine). Dakota Fanning has the "little girl always in jeopardy" down pat but, after a time, this becomes more of a nuisance factor than generating any kind of audience sympathy. Tim Robbins plays what was modeled on the curator in the novel but the innate creepiness of his performance makes him unappealing in spite of his character's situation.
All in all, it would be difficult to recommend this film on any level. If this movie was supposed to jump start the industry's box office take in 2005, I fear many in Hollywood are going to be sorely disappointed.