Almost needs a second viewing to get a first impression.

Rating: 7/10 (30 June 2005)

I'm not sure if a second screening would benefit War of the Worlds or detract from it, but since most of us only watch films once in theatres, I suppose it should be judged on the first go around. The most impressive thing Spielberg accomplishes here is effecting fear. You might think in our multimedia world that folks would be immune to the manipulation of cinema, but sure enough when I looked down my row, my girlfriend had her hand over her mouth, the guy next to her was absentmindedly chewing on a serviette, his girlfriend's mouth was agape, etc. Whatever you might think about Spielberg, this is an impressive feat. That said, with the weapons at his disposal I honestly think he could have done more if he was willing to take some chances. The Orson Welles' version worked precisely because the world he broadcast to was not plugged in to the media. Welles capitalized on this, playing to an audience that listened to radio for both news and drama. Because they couldn't see the events described they were forced to use their imagination, which we know can be more terrifying than reality. As Marshall McLuhan would say, the medium was the message. But in a world of 1000 TV channels, live Internet streaming and embedded war reporters, a film must truly do something remarkable to transcend the medium. Perhaps this is why Hollywood is in such a slump: they keep trying twists on the same narrative structures, and people are willing to stay home and wait for these stories. If ever a movie called out for some experimentation to rattle the audience's cage, this is the one. Films like Elephant, Gerry, 5 x 2, Memento, Irreversible and 21 Grams are the future of cinematic narrative because they challenge and force a viewer to participate. As impressive as the references and special effects are here, this is a movie you can set your watch to  even if some electromagnetic pulse manages to stop it.