War of the Goonies. No serious spoilers, except the movie!

Rating: 4/10 (29 June 2005)

War of the Worlds, 2005 No spoilers to speak of I have seen the complete film in the USA. It doesn't matter how or where. This is my opinion on this film and is just one person's opinion. Paramount deserved better. I hope we see another version of War of the Worlds by a fiscally responsible director who will allow the money to be seen in the production rather than the payroll.
Not scary.
Mr. Spielberg is quick to call George Pal a corny producer. I understand that desperate people do and say desperate things. I can tell you, I believe this film will be pretty much "history" after about the first 20 days in release. Mr. Pal's version, which Paramount released in 1953 and continues to be a respected, if flawed, classic fifty years later. I can't imagine this new and limited effort will be held with respect in 5 years, much less 50 years.
Let me look at a few points..
Corn.. I consider the Martians playing with the bicycle as corny.
Spielberg criticized Pal's version. Yet, did you notice five full segments were copied From Pal's film rather than Spielberg coming up with something better than what he ridicules as corny.
Promotion  Does anyone beside me wonder about those "faux-chat" rooms that open, are full of sales crap and strangely closed before any "real people" have an opportunity to feedback. Didn't Columbia / Sony get in trouble with the Justice Department for doing this kind of thing? Direct to video! I wonder about films made in the "ready for TV format" rather than in scope. If the picture were to be truly impressive, it would need to have a big screen, not a small flat image that's ready for TV. I know the excuse that small pictures make the image more claustrophobic and other b.s. Fact is, if you only plan to fill the image with 60% of the image of a scope picture, you save some big bucks on special effects.
What climax? None of us felt there was one.
Martian rip-off. The Martian, to me, seemed to be a dead ringer for one used in Independence Day a few years ago. Different size, different color, but what do you think? The little kid.. I don't know if little kids belong in this movie or not. She was certainly the best actor. I suppose she will attract children to a movie many adults will consider inappropriate for children.
Tom Cruse. Time to retire. Did you see him on David Letterman? The effects are the better part of the movie thanks to ILM. Cruse didn't know what ILM was! Maybe he's on too much medication.
Music  Good.
Effects  So much rain, fox, smoke, darkness and Jump Cuts, I found it hard to see what was special. Makes me feel Bert Gordon was involved with this film. For the limited time LucasFilm had to do the effects for Spealburg, well done for no original concept.
Anything new? Not really. **spoiler?**We've seen most of it before. The train was something new, but came across like the flaming cows in MARS ATTACKS. Even under the guise of might, it didn't work very well. But it was a very good idea. Most of this film is a direct rip off from others.
Wrap it up!. I have come to the conclusion the biggest problem with this film is getting a green light in November and having the film "in the can" in May. There was time pressure to get things done that could not be done "properly" on a short schedule.
You can have 500 or 5000 effects shots, sure. But this is the first time in years I can remember seeing razor edges on traveling mats. Perhaps this should have been held up for Christmas to allow the film to be anchored properly.
Good to see Ann Robinson and Gene Barry fora few seconds.
My hope is George Lucas will do this film properly for Paramount. Great book. Pal's version is a true classic. This version will give people the squirts. Needs to be done again by someone who can do it with a little integrity for HG Welles and Paramount.