I saw a review that said the book originally was a reaction to industrialism (which I really don't see...and not sure where that came from )

My interpretation is that the book was a reaction to colonialism. The British Empire had just spent the last two hundred years swanning into places and completely decimating them for their own purpose, the indiginous people be damned. It was a 'How would you like it?' fable.

Dave

I had wanted to go see this, although I had no delusions of it being nearly as great as the 1953 movie. Now I'm wondering whether I should bother.

I'm one of the few adults I know who enjoyed this movie. Don't know what that means, except that I can throw myself into a film and watch it like a 12 year old, totally suspending all belief and taking what's on the screen as real. I immerse myself in a movie in a way that ... well, that no one else I know does. It leaves me with a very visceral experience, and I like that.

However, as I said, none of my other adult friends liked it, and it seems few on this board have either. But I thought it was good enough for a second viewing, and I liked it the second time around, too.

It does have its flaws, though.

I loved Alan Moore's take on WotW in the second Extraordinary Gentlemen series.

My interpretation is that the book was a reaction to colonialism. The British Empire had just spent the last two hundred years swanning into places and completely decimating them for their own purpose, the indiginous people be damned. It was a 'How would you like it?' fable.

Dave

Yeah that was always what I thought too Dave. Makes tons more sense then the industrialism thing. Like I said not sure where the reviewer came up with that one.

I'm one of the few adults I know who enjoyed this movie. Don't know what that means, except that I can throw myself into a film and watch it like a 12 year old, totally suspending all belief and taking what's on the screen as real. I immerse myself in a movie in a way that ... well, that no one else I know does. It leaves me with a very visceral experience, and I like that.

However, as I said, none of my other adult friends liked it, and it seems few on this board have either. But I thought it was good enough for a second viewing, and I liked it the second time around, too.

It does have its flaws, though.

The longer I have had to think about this movie the less I like it. It is to the point now that I wouldn't even call it good. But everyone has their opinions. I don't discount anyones over mine but that is just how this is progressing in my head.

Maybe it has to do with the fact that I finally saw Batman Begins and having chosen to see WoTW over Batman last week I realize I made a huge mistake. The two movies aren't even close to being in the same league. IMHO.

... Batman Begins and WoTW ... The two movies aren't even close to being in the same league. IMHO.

I agree 100%, and I still liked WOTW. Saw BB twice, too.

War of the Worlds - well worth renting.

*** MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW ***

*****************************

My verdict: Spielberg's weakest effort since 1941. After seeing several good reviews, I was expecting something much more suspenseful than I got. Instead, I often found myself bored, just waiting for the movie to finally conclude. It wasn't unbelievably terrible, but I think Ebert may have been a bit generous to give it two stars. My fiancée and I were both disappointed.

And what's up with the whole "human drama" thing? Dakota Fanning's very talented, but she screams so much in this movie that it makes her annoying (to us anyway). And she's the only character with any real appeal. The son is an annoying whiner. Cruise's character is just... well, it's just Cruise. Then you have the mob scenes where humans are being despicable to each other, which made me think, "Wiping them out is bad because... why?" Even Independence Day, which I personally think was an overrated B movie, did a much better job of creating sympathetic human characters that I actually wanted to see win. War of the Worlds, instead, seems to be more about one family surviving rather than the human race "winning", and that's a valid course to take... if it works. I just didn't think it did here because I didn't care much whether the family survived or not.

The bad: Sappy ending, annoying characters, unsympathetic and stupid humans. Showing the aliens was a bad idea, too. They would've been much more intimidating without seeing that they're a mutated version of "Gremlins".

The good: The mystery involved in showing the "invasion" from the perspective of only one family was interesting. You basically learn things as they do. Tim Robbins had one of the more interesting characters, and the resolution of his interaction with Cruise's character was fairly well done. There were also some individual shots here and there that kept my interest, most notably the plane wreckage scene.

All in all, not enough good and too much bad for my money. Your mileage may vary.

Blake

Steve D
This is the post I would have posted, but Blake beat me to it. But I will add: WotW WAS Signs with the family outdoors instead of indoors. Compared to the 1953 version, where the focus is mainly on the military's strategies, this new version focuses on Tom Cruise's strategies. AND we didn't get to see Los Angeles City Hall blowed up. A grade of C- from me.

I had a lot of problems with this movie. The Seeing Eye scenes were generic and totally worthless to me. Not the least bit frightening. Other things that others here have mentioned. At the end when they find mom and her parents who look like they just finished Sunday tea amongst a totally destroyed neighborhood. The convenient way that there are areas to drive a van through tons of carnage and destruction.

Aside from all that, I thought it was very entertaining as a summer brainless action movie.

I love the way Dakota Fanning can appear terrified with such ease and make me feel terrified also, but I hate the fact that it is about all she can do (or is given to do, maybe).