Ruined by schmaltz and bad casting

Rating: 2/10 (31 January 2006)

The problem with making a film of 'War of the Worlds' is that your source material - H G Wells' classic sci-fi novel - is over 100 years old. Many of the concepts in the book are standard children's science fiction fare these days and have been for decades, so they lose their impact. Also, in Wells' book, the narrator is primarily an observer and diarist. He is neither a protagonist in any Hollywood sense, nor does he experience the kind of dramatic tension or conflict that a hit movie requires.
So, instead of Victorian suburban London we have modern day suburban New Jersey (or somewhere like that). This means that the invaders can't come from Mars, as Wells imagined; instead, we get an even less plausible, less fully thought-through explanation that the tripods had been buried underground for millions of years, with the aliens arriving on lightning bolts. (I'd have preferred Victorian-era Woking and huge missiles from Mars with screw-top lids, personally).
And, in addition to the simple struggle for survival that Wells describes, we have an intensely annoying plot line about Tom Cruise being a lousy parent. It makes for an unconvincing Hollywood action drama, and yet also a feeble adaptation of the original book.
Primary responsibility for destroying a project that otherwise had potential falls with Cruise himself. Acting has never been Cruise's strong suit, and his talents remain firmly within the wet paper bag from which they have been fighting to escape. We see just one of the three facial expressions he is capable of, and you are left wondering why Spielberg never explained to him that 'shouting' isn't an emotion.
With better writers, a different cast and no annoying children, this is a movie that might still be worth remaking again.