A rare piece of classic sci-fi.

Rating: 9/10 (12 November 2005)

There are two main types of sci-fi out there. 1) The straight-forward tales of adventure, from Star Wars to Independence Day. Hollywood loves these. Heros to get behind, big action, and happy endings. Fun, fun, fun. 2) Then there are the old fashioned kind about ideas, getting us to ponder 'what if?' and jolting us out of our complacency about how we see our world and the universe - the stories of John Wyndham & H G Wells, 2001: A Space Odyssey & the original Planet of the Apes. Huge thanks to those behind the script and direction of War of the Worlds for not dumbing this one down. I'd agree with one frequent complaint about this film - the ending feels unsatisfying and could have easily been modified a little, to more adequately explain the death of the aliens, and tone down the cheesiness of the family reunion. Other than that, it's great, and a near-perfect updating of the novel, especially in the outstanding first half of the film. The alien tripods are completely convincing and were very frightening on the big screen. The script sticks to the book and accurately shows that people DON'T necessarily act like saints when their world is blown apart and they've got no hope of going back. The book was never about getting behind the main character, so we don't have to love or admire him (or his kids) - it was about watching him trying to survive and making sense of what's going on, seeing it through his eyes. Thank god they didn't add any ridiculous Tom Cruise Saves The World heroics along the lines of the laughable second half of Independence Day (fun film, but Will Smith and President Bill Pullman saving the world from aliens - yeah, right!). There's one change to the novel which I thought was a little disappointing. In the book, the man in the cellar who's lost the plot can do nothing but go on with mindless religious ramblings. There was nothing of this in Tim Robbins' performance. Maybe the film producers were worried this would be too disturbing for their audience (considering Tom Cruise's ultimate actions towards him)? There are nice touches in the script relating the chaos and the general lack of comprehension of what's going on to the immediate aftermath of terrorist events in recent years. It's very unusual for a current Hollywood film to be this brave, and reflect this reality. Post 9/11, Hollywood started showing American civilians sticking together more than in the past (Spiderman intentionally featured New Yorkers on their best behaviour). But all battles can't be won, whether we like it or not. As the book repeatedly points out, the animals on our planet are used to coming last. We destroy their homes, eradicate those we consider pests, and put others on our dinner plates without a second thought. Would we have more sympathy for them if we could relate? We even lose sympathy for victims of war in other countries, as long as their wars are far away and don't feature too much on our TV news. Also, I give this film credit to sticking with the dark conclusion of the book, where the only salvation available to humanity is something beyond our control. This film wants to make us face our fears, rather than reassure us. Yes, there's a happy ending, but only just. There are some things even Tom Cruise can't save us from.