Oh no, oh no, OH NO THANK YOU Spielberg!!!!!!!!!

Rating: 5/10 (30 September 2009)

OK, so I know this has been out a while, but I have just re-read Mr. Wells excellent 1898 science fiction novel, and it made me quite angry with this film.
Lets start with the good points. I like the way Spielberg keeps all the action secondary to the characters. Take the scene with the collapsing bridge. Tempting I imagine to have a repeated 360 degree camera shot of it collapsing, but I appreciated the way it all happened in the background as the car sped away, panning of the vehicle only for a brief moment. I like the way that your taken right to the very edge of a huge battle, but never really see it. I thought these techniques were refreshing, allowing the scenes to flow along nicely without being overshadowed by CGI. The Tripods were a pretty damn good adaptation of what I imagined them to look like (should have had more of a hood though) from reading the book, and the sound of the Heat-Ray was really very good as well as there effect.
And I think that's were the good points end.
Now then, the biggest most damming unexplained hole in its crudely twisted adaptation of the original story I thought was the way the aliens arrive. So let me get this right... they buried there Tripods deep underground, and then buggered off... and why was this? It can't have been because the earth was inhospitable, because it has been hospitable for a very, very long time, long enough for the aliens to 'invade' before humanity had organised itself into a civilisation which could pose a threat to there plans, even if perceived as only a minor one. So why do this? It makes less than any sense. And the fact that the script made NO reasonable attempt to explain this I found very insulting. The only explanation I could think of, and this is purely speculation and massive leap of logic, is that they possibly arrived before the aliens because the aliens despite the hyper- advanced technology couldn't withstand the extreme forces exerted on them from super-fast travel... but then they came from Mars, so this really does not quite fit, unless they came from outside our Solar System... but I really think I'm clutching at straws here.
Then we have the moment when Cruise is forced to let his son Robbie dash off into the thick of a battle, followed moments later by what looks like the entire area being blown sky-high. OK then, no problem there. But, after numerous tedious following scenes and a dismal performance from Tim Robbins, we see Cruise manages to make his way to the home of his ex-wife's parents to reunite his daughter with her mum. And what's this? A perfect looking street, inside a city large enough to be a definite target for the aliens, and not piece of litter to be seen, only lovely golden fallen autumn leaves blowing magistracy along the road. And oh my giddy-aunt, here comes the son, completely unhurt it seamed following his close encounter on the battle field, and then managing to find his way there with obvious greater ease than Cruise... What the 'F' Spielberg... Do you really think we are all brain dead zombies? Oh wait, yes, by this point in the film, most of us probably where brain- dead-zombies... THANKS TO YOU!!!!!
I was then rather angry (and this is more patriotic than much else) with the fact the an American production company has taken this classic piece of British literature, and then used only two concepts (aliens invading, and them using Tripods with Heat-Rays), chucked the rest of the book in the bin, and retained its name because it's already in peoples minds with a connection to an excellent Sci-Fi story. What really annoyed me, was that they could have at least hinted towards it's origins of Victorian England when, near to the end, some soldiers are talking about the Japanese taking one of the Tripods out, with a line along the lines of ..."A British Destroyer THE THUNDERCHILD managed to take one down by ramming it!". But oh no... If the yanks can't do it, I guess us little Brits stand no chance at all, so introduce an element never even mentioned in the original story. I'm not being insulting, I AM INSULTED!
I guess my annoyance ultimately comes from the fact that they have taken the name 'The World of the Worlds' and have successfully stopped anyone else making a more faithful adaptation for quite a while, when this film hold little at all with the story. I suppose I find it a rather cheap move really, purely using someone else's epic success as a way of making a mediocre Sci-Fi flick. It had the potential of being so much more. I can understand some of the changes. It needed to be brought up and set in modern times really: I don't think it would have worked at all set in Victorian London, at least not in the hands of Hollywood anyway. And I can see why they decided to set it in America, that's its primary audience, but I felt that for a British story, it was far to Americanised. And I can understand the possible argument of 'well if you wanted it set in Britain, then a British company should have stumped up the cash'. I get that, but I don't like it!