could have been a great movie...not even Tom Cruise's son, fueled with the power of his father's love for Katie Holmes, could have survived

Rating: 5/10 (15 July 2005)

(Spoilers looming, you can read this, but heed the warnings when you get there)
War of the Worlds could have been a great movie. It should have been a great movie. It could have been a good movie. It should have been a good movie. It could have been an okay movie. It should have been an okay movie. It was a bad movie.
This said, let me introduce a few positives: Special effects were good, and great. Tom Cruise was solid. Casting was good. The acting was good. As a courtesy to the future of the world, Dakota Fanning should donate DNA samples to every family in America that wants to raise children. The world would be a better, cuter place.
Why is it a bad movie? It is bad because it fell completely apart about 2/3 of the way through, ending in a cheap cliché. Bad because Steven Spielberg lost sight that HG Wells wrote the novel 108 years ago, and I'm not even sure the end would have worked then, or in the 1953 version of the film. Bad for having special effects that were modern marvels, but a plot stuck in the dark ages. This is a shameful mess-o-Spielberg (and I am a fan).
What went wrong? Two words...Spielberg, Steven.
He seemed to get confused somewhere along the way. He should never have released this film, and instead pre-screened it to a bigger test audience, then called the actors back for a re-shoot of the last 1/3 of the movie, even if it meant delaying the release a year or two. He can afford it. War of the Worlds attempted to superimpose its 108 year storyline onto a modern world, and present it to a modern era of film goers. It failed.
Could it have worked? Yes. But the best special effects in the world can't make up for a weak plot. Modern audiences are monumentally more sophisticated when it comes to the movie going experience. They have the reasonable expectation that a plot should be dynamic, unfolding in an intelligible and logical way. This plot was stuck in 1898. The basic premise was sound...Aliens invade the earth, attack and eat the humans, they battle it out, and ultimately the humans win. That's an almost universal truth with the exception of Jerry Springer guests, whom I fear are aliens winning the battle of ignorance.
This plot was in desperate need of tweaking to meet modern needs. There were even a couple annoying sink holes in the beginning of the movie, but tolerable among the balance of action and special effects. And now, the spoilers...DON'T READ IF YOU WANT TO SEE THIS MOVIE (which despite my condemning review, might be worth your time just for the special effects, and for Dakota Fanning).
'da Spoilers...
Early on, the world is under attack and Tom Cruise is "borrowing" a car from the mechanic shop. All the other cars on the earth are not running, but this car is fixed within minutes after the attack. The mechanic (continuing to work while the world is under attack), is telling Cruise not to take the car because it will anger the owner, all the while people are running around in a panic being chased by giant tripods, tripoding around zapping people, yet this guy is totally oblivious and exclusively concerned about what the owner will think.... an extremely weak scene which should have been spotted and revamped.
From that poorly constructed scene War Of The Worlds becomes one long chase scene, Cruise and kids running from safe spot to safe spot, narrowly escaping a gruesome alien death all along the way. Then Cruise's son runs up to the top of a hill to watch a big battle between the army and aliens. The aliens win with a blast of atomic proportion. NOTHING, not even Tom Cruise's son, fueled by the power of his father's love for Katie Holmes, could have survived that blast.
Fast forward to the end of the movie, Tom drops his daughter off with her mother whose upscale brownstone neighborhood was miraculously spared, and out from nowhere comes the son, not even a limp - except for the one in plot.
Cruise and Fanning seek shelter underground with Tim Robbins. Something feels off in this scene. Soon after Cruise's character kills an alien tripod, and suddenly all the aliens are dying -- under attack from birds . Huh? Then it's over. Huh?
Then the screen fills with an image of the night sky, full of stars, and Morgan Freeman is heard narrating that the aliens were killed by microbial organisms. This leap to the end might have worked in 1898, and possibly 1953, but it doesn't work today. They needed to unfold that ending in the context of the movie. This, and letting the son die, would have made this movie a solid 7, and worth seeing.
Should you see it?
If you absolutely have to see some cool special effects, mostly in the first half of the movie, then you should see it because chances are they will not be as impressive on TV as they are on a big screen.
If you like seeing Dakota Fanning's toothless smile, you should see it, though her character in Man On Fire had far more depth.
If you like the idea of seeing Steven Spielberg make a flop, then see it.
If your name is Katie Holmes and your boyfriend is threatening to make you convert to a new a religion, then you should probably see it.