The Flaming Train . . .

Rating: 4/10 (13 March 2014)

definitely isn't a metaphor for Spielberg's retelling of Wells' classic. In fact, the blazing Amtrak is one of the few things I found startling and innovative in this dark, dreary "message" about how mean and nasty we Americans are for "occupying" Iraq.
Yup, the movie is the metaphor, and what a dull one at that.
Oh, don't get me wrong, I watched the thing on TNT, with some language and gore snipped out, and I got emotionally snagged again on the concept of Armaggeddon, but I simply didn't care about the characters. I don't know if it was my dislike of Tom Cruise or the distance I had between Tim Robbins or Dakota Fanning or the kid who played Cruise's son and me as the viewer. I just spent my time watching how Spielberg would breathe life into a story I first learned from the great (I wish I could italicize the word "great" on IMDb) George Pal production from 1953.
There was no breath, no wisp of a breeze that would have raised this dull, boring, episodic, and truncated piece of space junk out of the hole it was buried in before the cameras first rolled. Even the Martian tripods lumbered along as if their drivers were on the clock, but their souls were elsewhere. The only time I shot straight up and paid close attention was when we finally got to look at the aliens, creeping, bipedal, sea creature-like entities that (they're sentient so I should say "who") take interest in family photographs before they skitter away to answer the blaring horn coming from their tripod.
And then they are gone.
Until we see one hanging out of a crashed tripod, gasping for air, thick rills of snot vibrating from its mouth.
And then its dead.
The train, the Martians in Tim Robbins' basement, the one almost begging for help from a group of soldiers--that's all we get. Everything else was so much CGI noise and nastiness.
I was begging, pleading with the movie gods to send in a great white or a velociraptor. Why did we get stuck with Tom Cruise? Couldn't Spielberg find someone like Richard Dreyfuss or Roy Schieder? I swear, War of the Worlds is nothing more than one of those Jaws knockoffs from 1977, only this one had lots of cash to throw around. The whole thing reeks of cynicism, of a desire to stick it to the audience and deliver a "message" few people wanted to receive.
Oh, well. The movie made a bunch of money. I know I write these reviews (this is my 400th) for my health and my love of writing. I accept that Stephen Spielberg remade a movie in his vision. I know it failed my test, but if my review keeps one person from bothering with it the next time it's shown on ABC or TNT, then it's not a pointless exercise in self-indulgence.
Which is exactly what Spielberg created here.