| | |  | Science Fiction & Fantasy | Home » » War of the Worlds (Widescreen Edition) | | | | | | | Description: | | special edition with HBO making of. | | | Product Details: | | | Actors:
| Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Miranda Otto, Justin Chatwin, Tim Robbins | | Format:
| AC-3, Closed-captioned, Color, Dolby, DTS Surround Sound, Dubbed, DVD, Subtitled, Widescreen, NTSC | | Language:
| English | | Subtitle:
| English, Spanish, French | | Number of Discs:
| 1 | | Studio:
| Dreamworks Video | | Run Time:
| 116 minutes | | DVD Release Date:
| November 22, 2005 | | Average Customer Rating:
|  based on 1050 reviews |
| | | | Customer Reviews: | |
Average Customer Review:
 ( 1050 customer reviews )
Write an online review and share your thoughts with other customers.
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
243 of 310 found the following review helpful:
ACTION MANJul 25, 2005
By DAVID BRYSON
The War of the Worlds is a great novel and Spielberg is a director of exceptional talent and accomplishment, so I had been hoping for a lot from this film. In the event, I have got part of what I was hoping for. Very occasionally, a novel can be 'walked' straight on to the screen (The Big Sleep, with a script by Faulkner, is a striking case), and I found myself wondering whether this novel might not have benefited from the same treatment. Some of Spielberg's changes are perfectly reasonable, others less so in my own opinion. It makes perfectly good sense to bring the action forward by a century into the present day, for instance. I suppose there's no harm either in changing the main actors from Wells's scientist with a wife and a brother to a dysfunctional American family, as this may provide enhanced 'human interest' or some such benefit for all I would know. Again, I have no real problem with the way the film combines the roles of the curate and the artilleryman in the book into the single persona of the former ambulance-driver, and I can well understand that Spielberg would have thought it prudent to tone down the socialistic elements in this aspect of the story in order to avoid setting off the wrong types of reaction in American audiences. What I do have a major problem with is the appearance of the Martians themselves. I'm sorry to report that these have far too much in common with a certain wretched TV series. The author's own description is one that stays in the memory, to say the very least, and Wells's Martians look the way they do for very clear reasons that he provides. What was gained by going downmarket in the way Spielberg chooses to do? Nothing that I can think of except perhaps better audience figures from harking back to that ghastly broadcast series.
In fact the best things in the film come directly from Wells. Even one of the best lines, where the statement that the invaders come from somewhere else is met with the question 'Where - Europe?' is a very clever adaptation of a good joke in the book comparing the attitudes of Mrs Elphinstone to the Martians on the one hand and the French on the other. The Martian tripods are simply terrific, their appearance lifted more or less exactly from the book. However The War of the Worlds is a work of political and social philosophy and speculation, not just some science-fiction yarn. I really would have liked Spielberg to be a bit more ambitious and reflect this more than he seems to have felt like doing. For one thing, the Martians are invading the earth because their own smaller planet is cooling and dying around them. Wells explicitly says that there is no reason to suppose them 'pitiless'. They have come for pressing practical reasons connected with their own very survival. We know now, as Wells did not, that all they were going to find on Venus is a searing hell under the rolling white clouds, so it would be more than likely, as Wells says again, that they would learn from the failure of their first expedition and come back to the earth better prepared the next time rather than stake everything on one throw, which is what the film seems to be suggesting. The last gesture of the Martians in the film is an expression indicative of hatred, which doesn't even make sense considering they saw us as their food source. What consumer of beef makes hostile faces at beef-herds? The Martians' purpose can't have been 'extermination' as someone is made to say in the film, only subjugation, another matter perfectly clear from the novel.
More survives of the view Wells takes of the behaviour of humanity itself, and Spielberg handles the mob-scenes rather well. However what he tones down more than I would have wished is the reflections, in the novel expressed via the persona of the artilleryman, on the likely behaviour of human beings towards one another once the Martian dominion was hypothetically established. The artilleryman's predictions are class-based like the vision of the Eloi and Morlocks in the Time-Machine, but they are far from endorsing Marxism and there is no reason to see them as any firm viewpoint held by the author himself.
Perhaps the very best things in the entire film are to be found in the voiceovers right at the start and right at the end. The words are lifted almost verbatim from the novel itself at these points, and they are simply awesome, the first page in particular of The War of the Worlds being surely one of the greatest in all English fiction with the last page not far behind it in that respect. The exquisite irony of the fact that the Martians, who might have viewed us as we view micro-organisms in a laboratory were in their turn thwarted and destroyed by just such organisms when nothing humanity could do availed in the least is obviously not lost on the director. I just wish he had raised his game more consistently to something like the level of the theme he was taking on.
245 of 323 found the following review helpful:
 Good homage to both Wells' novel and Pal's movie!Jul 07, 2005
By Reginald D. Garrard
"the G-man"
H. G. Wells wrote the novel over a century ago and Steven Spielberg has done a fantastic job of incorporating some of the literary tale's elements into his version: the tripods and their ear-shattering "ULLA!", the heat ray, the retaining baskets, the growth of the "red weed," the demented "Ogilvey" (Tim Robbins), the devastating onslaught from the invaders, man's futile efforts to defend himself, and the final "solution," among other parts familiar to fans of the book.
The director also paid tribute to producer George Pal's 1953 Technicolor classic by using a similar "probe" into the basement occupied by Cruise and daughter Fanning, the destruction of a church, an American setting, and a brief appearance by the earlier film's stars: Gene Barry and Ann Robinson.
There are many tense scenes, making this film not quite suitable for younger audiences. The sound is loud and abrasive, befitting the on-screen destruction. Surprisingly, John Williams's score is quite subtle and, on occasions, is barely audible.
Actingwise, Cruise, contrary to his behavior off-screen, asserts himself well as the estranged father of two kids who must now do all that he can to save his children, as well as himself. Fanning's strong performance shows why she is one of most popular child performers today. And Robbins is appropriately creepy as the man with the plan to bring down the invaders.
While megahit "Independence Day" toured similar ground, "War of the Worlds" is more the work of a master storyteller and his name is Steven Spielberg.
That alone makes it a film not to be missed!
18 of 22 found the following review helpful:
Cut the ending some slackOct 19, 2005
By Carlos
I won't offer a play-by-play of the movie's plot, but I do want to make one point. Let's cut the ending some slack.
Spielberg is often criticized for over-sentimentalizing his films' endings and going too far over the top. Like "A.I." and others, "War of the Worlds" has not escaped such complaints. I admit I was initially shocked by the level to which Spielberg asked that I suspend my disbelief, but after reflecting on the film as a whole, I've decided this isn't a problem for me. After all, during the film's run-time we've seen countless numbers of people not just killed, but utterly annihilated. We've seen buildings crushed and families torn apart. As far as his ending is concerned, Spielberg pulls no punches and goes for a solid emotional knock-out, which either works for you or does not. For me, seeing such an unabashedly happy ending was actually cathartic; after so much despair, I found it felt awfully good to see something I could feel happy about.
This is a great film and will certainly have a spot on my Wish List until its release date.
11 of 13 found the following review helpful:
 THIS is how you make an invasion from space movieJan 05, 2006
By AH-1Z
This is a really, really good movie. No, it's not a literal depiction of the H.G. Wells novel, but they never said it was going to be. It's sort of an "Inspired by" version. The basic elements of Wells' tale are here, placed into our time and world. To do that there have to be some changes.
This has both advantges and disadvantages. The latter include that we know already how the story has to end (although apparently some reviewers have never read the book, judging by their comments), but if you're good enough, you can still create suspense and maintain interest throughout the whole picture. Spielberg and Cruise are good enough. To draw a parallel, in the TV show "Smallville", we Know he's going to grow up to be Superman. We Know he's not going to end up with Lana. We Knew the friendship with Luthor couldn't last. Still, they made the journey itself interesting. Same thing here, in spades.
People have to understand this in order to review the movie fairly. Certain things about anyone doing the War of the Worlds just have to be there. Aliens; We're losing; An everyman who doesn't solve the situation, just survives it; TRIPODS! The 1953 version (which I enjoyed) didn't have them because the FX technology of the time didn't permit them to make them realistically. With what we can do now, any version that didn't have them would be unacceptable; Germs. Accept it, folks. The Titanic sinks at the end. Like it or not, Custer dies. Bruce Wayne is Batman. No one recognizes it's Superman behind Clark Kent's glasses. In Wells' story, we are saved by germs. Spielberg doesn't get to change that and still call it War of the Worlds.
One clever thing that was done here was that everything was seen from the Earthlings' point of view. There was no attempt to explain why the aliens came ("They need our land/resources/women, etc. so they can relocate from their dying world/save their dying planet/breed and save their dying race, etc..."). We have no idea why they're here, and It Doesn't Matter. They're just here, slaughtering everyone in sight. Apparently they need the planet itself becuase they don't just nuke Earth from space and they do start their version of terraforming. However, none of the characters in the movie know why this is happening, and again, It Doesn't Matter. The movie says to us, "Give us that it's happening, and we'll play fair with you in the context of Wells' basic plot". Some might argue that the "biological" ending wouldn't really happen (our bacteria might not recognize the aliens as food), but that's how Wells' ended it and any other ending would be a cheat.
Tom Cruise gives a brauva performance. Despite whether you like or dislike him personally, the man can act. This movie wasn't the only demonstration of that, just the best. He's totally believable in his characterization, performance and evolution, and at the point where it appears he's going to sacrifice himself, it's completely credible. It's not in there just to make the star look heroic, it makes total sense, given what's happening and what he expects the immediate future to be. He never gives up. Not a "Die Hard" type of never-gives-up, just a that's the way it has to be kind of never-gives-up.
Although I think it would have been more bittersweet and better at the end if Robbie hadn't been found, I can accept it, especially since Ray's relationship with his ex-wife doesn't magically turn into bliss as would a typical Hollywood ending. No, we don't find out what happens to the characters next. At the final scene, the movie is definitely over, as it should be. No tidy wrapping up. This is where the story we are being told ends.
After suffering through that total waste of time called "Signs", all I can say is that someone should tie M. Night Shyamalan to a chair and show him this film until he understands that THIS is how you make an invasion from space movie.
12 of 15 found the following review helpful:
 Not the War of the WorldsOct 27, 2005
By Fran
Even though the movie is perfectly made and designed, it is not the War of the Worlds. Only a very few details from the book remain, such as the tripods fighting machines, the red weed and the way the aliens die. Tim Robbins plays a part which should have been divided for three different characters: the artillery man who wants to build a new world underground, the curate who becomes nuts, and... Ogilvy, the astronomer, who, by the way, gets toasted in chapter 5.
I will not criticise the quality of the movie which remains a good entertainment, but it should have carried another title. Two adaptations may carry that title: Jeff Waynes's musical version (and which remain the best adaptation ever) and... (gasp!) Timothy Hines version but only because it follows the book very accurately. However, the filming, the acting, the editing and the special FX lack so much professionalism that I've seen fan films far much better made. So, forget about Timothy Hines's big mess, watch Spielberg's film for a good enjoyment, and read the book (or hear the musical) if you are looking for accuracy.
See all 1050 customer reviews on Amazon.com
| | |
|
