When aliens invade the world, a divorced man and his two kids attempt to get to Boston, MA from their NJ home to reunite with the kids mother.

Rating: 3/10 (3 July 2005)

WAR OF THE WORLDS gives us the worst of Stephen Spielberg and Tom Cruise. I have liked films by both of them, made separately and together. This film is not one of them.
When Spielberg goes off track, it usually has to do with him getting so carried away with the technical and visual effects of sequences that he neglects giving us some plausibility in major sequences, especially with the character's choices. The writing and directing undermine the audience's belief in both the world he is trying to create and the characters who exist in it. In WAR OF THE WORLDS, the whole film comes off as loud and annoying. It is full of special effects, implausible sequences and zero character development. We are never able to believe in it for a moment.
Orson Welles said a good check for a plot twist is "Is it a coincidence or is it convenient?", meaning we should accept the plot turn as a "coincidence" and it should not seem a "convenient" way to move the plot along. WAR OF THE WORLDS is filled with "convenient" moments.
Without giving away the plot, suffice to say that the poorly developed characters regularly escape jeopardy through very "convenient" means. There always are "convenient" escape routes through the middle of total chaos. The characters aren't just one-dimensional; they make choices that are idiotic. Cruise again plays his "cocky, arrogant" punk, this time as a blue-collar man. In RAIN MAN and JERRY McGUIRE, Cruise plays this type brilliantly. I believe he should have won Oscars for both those parts, especially over those who did win in those years. However, the writing in this film is so bad, his character only comes off as unlikable. Supposedly a fairly poor father, we never really see him overcome this or come to any real discovery about himself. Dakota Fanning, also usually quite good, is relegated to nothing but screaming. It is supposed to increase the jeopardy of the piece, but it only comes off as annoying.
One never knows which Steven Spielberg has shown up to direct a film these days: the masterful Spielberg who brilliantly put together JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, E.T., TV's DUEL, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK (and their sequels), JURASSIC PARK and MINORITY REPORT (one of his few decent films of the past few years). Or the sappy Spielberg who excruciatingly puts us through implausible and manipulative failures like HOOK, EMPIRE OF THE SUN, THE COLOR PURPLE and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN (except for the brilliant opening 45 minutes of RYAN showing the landing on the beach - what comes after is pure schmaltz). The man can be so brilliant, but he constantly "tells us what to feel" rather than let us discover our own feelings by becoming involved in the story. His inability to deal with character only compounds the problems.
What surprised me about WAR OF THE WORLDS is that I expected it to be a lot of action sequences with cursory character development but I also expected it would be fun. Action sequences are often where Spielberg shines. In great action films like DIE HARD, THE TERMINATOR (first one) and Spielberg's own RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, the characters aren't complex. But they are likable and have some sense of growth and change by the end of the story. We believe in the story because we believe in the characters and root for them. In WAR OF THE WORLDS, most of the sequences are so implausible and the characters so poorly drawn that it is impossible to believe in them or the world they are trying to create.
For me, WAR OF THE WORLDS is the disappointment of the summer.