Related articles and links |  1 of 3

Tom Cruise has done a lot of running for his life in the movies. He's running again in Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, and he's never had such good reason to do so. Spielberg's vision of H.G. Wells's otherworldly invaders is terrifying indeed.

Unleashing some of the most convincing special effects and some of the most upsetting displays of destruction and urban chaos ever filmed, War of the Worlds excels in its technical execution. ILM serves up visual wonders that make Revenge of the Sith look dated already, raising the bar so high for scenes of devastation that it's unlikely to be surpassed—even when Peter Jackson's King Kong wreaks havoc in New York later this year.

It's one of Tom Cruise's best performances as an irresponsible father and divorcé e who annoys his rebellious teenage son (newcomer Justin Chatwin) and his unusually mature young daughter (Dakota Fanning) on days when they're in his care. Fanning's performance is so strong that she deserves an Oscar nomination. Spielberg proves he's still the greatest American director of children.

The most surprising thing is that Spielberg goes deep into horror territory; the violence is as troubling as anything in Aliens. The camera doesn't flinch when fleeing citizens are incinerated by alien death rays; and wait until you see what they do to the people they don't incinerate. This film will give nightmares to grownups, and it could be deeply distressing for children. War of the Worlds is 117 minutes of unrelenting bloodshed, terror, destruction, and chaos, at times as fierce as Saving Private Ryan.

Spielberg avoids many of his common mistakes—there are no goofy sidekicks or sermonizing asides. And it's refreshing to see a film that admits human endeavor is not enough to save the world. So it's truly astonishing when, against all odds, Spielberg once again blows the ending, with a lot of help from screenwriter David Koepp, settling for an abrupt, predictable, sentimental, thoroughly unsatisfying conclusion.

Even more distressing is the film's throwaway suggestion that we place our hopes in the possibility of a happy accident, instead of in the design of a benevolent creator. When it comes to offering comfort and perspective on violence, M. Night Shyamalan (Signs) is the superior storyteller.

My full review is at Looking Closer.

Christian film critics who survived the invasion have varying reports.

Peter T. Chattaway (Christianity Today Movies) says, "However warm Spielberg may feel toward individual persons, War of the Worlds just may represent the bleakest view of humanity as a whole that has ever come through in one of his films. Like disasters in real life, the film hits you in the gut with a vision of catastrophe, and leaves you to sort out what it all means. It's a daring approach for a would-be summer blockbuster—so daring it's almost admirable—but some viewers might want a little more guidance."

Christopher Lyon (Plugged In) says it's "classic Spielberg, but it's a much darker, scarier Spielberg. The brilliantly paced action sequences, hair-raising effects and detailed set pieces bring to mind his Jurassic Park, Minority Report or other classic adventures. But the tone of the film comes closer to the gritty, near-hopeless feelings deep inside Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan. Our heroes slowly give in to despair. Don't expect the congenial diplomacy of Close Encounters or the good times and chest-thumping found in alien invasion flicks like Independence Day."

next page... |  1 of 3

share this page

June (Web-only) 2005, Vol. 49