A Zombie movie but with war machines... aka. "It's still better than Jurassic Park2, which isn't saying much"

Rating: 7/10 (13 July 2005)

War of the Worlds, the Spielberg version, I must add, wasn't one of the movies I was most eagerly waiting to watch this summer (trailer reminded me of some Michael Bay movie). To add, I've already seen the classic 50's version, which I really liked, and didn't think it needed a remake (I sort of have similar thoughts about the upcoming King Kong, but then again, that movie would really test Peter Jackson's skills as a director--it's like redoing Star Wars). Can remakes be good? Yes, if it's more like an adaptation of the original source material (if it's a book) than a remake of a movie version of that material.
As mentioned, I did finally decide to watch this film on Sunday evening, after hearing a plethora of poor reviews from friends and critics, knowing that I can now watch it without all the hype and expectations. To add, my friends just wanted to see it (which is usually a good enough reason for me)... AND it was matinée, after all.
The movie starts off with the alien invasion (perhaps Martians) on Earth, and with many parallels to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the citizens are attacked unexpectedly, seemingly without reason, by gigantic alien war machines referred to as "tripods" (they resemble walking tripods with lasers that destroy everything in its path). As destructions ensue, much of the movie is spent around the Tom Cruise's deadbeat dad character and his kids, facing many near misses, and running away most of the time. There are some interesting character developments, however, as Tom Cruise's character do take more of a parental role as the movie progresses. Cruise, despite the fact that he looks a bit too movie-star-ish to play the average joe, does a pretty good job, and the young actors (who play his kids) do their part, as needed, in a movie like this.
Meanwhile, as the public is in chaos, normal people start to turn against each other, sometimes killing each other, just so they can survive the massive annihilation. Certainly, the movie does touch upon the darker aspects of human nature (which I found interesting), but just briefly. Majority of the focus, however, is spent on Cruise's plights and the visuals. In terms of look, in the 50's version, we had flying saucers (which indeed looked very alien, cold, sleek, and fairly well-designed, I might add). In comparison, it would've been cooler if the tripods in this movie looked more alien as well--as it is, they look rather retro, metallic, somewhat antiquated (something akin to a steam-engine). The way the machines operate just don't seem as cold and efficient.
Overall, I liked the movie for what it was (a chase movie--think "Zombie movie," but replaced with gigantic alien machines--though Zombies might've been less costly, and more entertaining). However, there's a bit of disappointment for what could've been. There is certainly a lot of budget to work with here, but they hardly seem to service the story, or enough thrills, for that matter. What's kind of missing is the sense of wonder Spielberg alien films like Close Encounters and E.T. had. There was a sense of mystery and had that other-worldly atmosphere. It's creepy because you're not exactly sure what to think. This movie rather relentlessly throws it all at you. Although I knew how it was to end, the movie's ending felt rather abrupt (without a certain feel of progression) and doesn't really wrap it up as well as it did in the 50's version.
Yes, it's kind of unfair to compare this movie to the classic, but that's what one must expect whenever you have a remake. As mentioned, I enjoyed it for what it was, a series of destructions and CG-laden action sequences and the character development is fairly good for the first half of the movie. There are parts that seem longer than it should be (particularly the scenes where Cruise and his kids are hiding in someone else's basement) and parts that don't really amount to much other than serving up for more action. As a Spielberg film, it's not as tight, nor as stylistic, nor satisfying as his previous works. It's still better than Jurassic Park 2, though.
(I have heard some rumors that Spielberg didn't get enough time from the studios to really work on it, which might explain why the film felt a bit like it was rushed)