An underrated Spielberg spectacle.

Rating: 9/10 (27 November 2005)

After the disappointing "AI" and the bloated "Minority Report", I figured the last great Spielberg sci-fi film would be "Jurassic Park", so I decided to skip this movie during its theatrical run. What a mistake! "War of the Worlds" has everything that made Spielberg great in the first place.
The director fails in this genre when he has a hidden agenda, force-feeding the thematic undertones of the material to the point where we forget what brought us to his flicks in the first place. That is not the case here. "War of the Worlds" is everything you should expect it to be: spectacular thrills and breathtaking visual finesse.
Is that all you get? Yes, and thankfully so.
This is one of the most action-packed movies I've ever seen. Literally, there are thrills one right after the other. Don't think that I'm calling this a Michael Bay movie, now. Unlike anything that odious director has ever tried to make, "War of the Worlds", despite its continuous action, has style. Not very many movies scare me anymore, but there are countless scenes in the movie that are downright terrifying.
And believe it or not, Tom Cruise doesn't ruin the movie. In fact, I think it's one of his most accomplished performances. This is the cool Tom Cruise, not the one that makes me want to pop Ritalin. Both Cruise and Spielberg have been rather disappointing in their recent theatrical offerings, so "War of the Worlds" is a refreshment.
Of course, every movie has its lowpoints. The ones here are easily-forgettable logistical errors concerning very insignificant plot points.
I expected "War of the Worlds" to be typical SpielSchlock. And I got a riveting action tale. I was impressed, unlike "AI" where I expected deep sci-fi themes, and got lame, fairy-tale sentimentality. That was a disappointment. This one isn't. Wake up, people! This deserves a better score.
9/10