I didn't SAY it had to be a NEW idea, I just wanted it to be great. And it wasn't! I don't care WHAT kind of changes it takes, or even keeping the basic idea the same, just make it GREAT. It's fucking spielberg for chrissakes.

Yes, exactly, it's Spielberg and Spielberg would not do Independence Day 2.

You are so desperately trying to get the final word when you keep misinterpreting my point. I didn't want an ID2, I wanted a classic, which this should have been, but because of plot holes and poor writing (direction was fine) and the fact that: The smaller outlook on the whole alien invasion is a fine idea, but because they couldn't make this aspect work the way it was supposed to (whether due to subpar acting, character development, amount of characters, poor writing etc), the idea churns out a poor result. PLEASE do not follow this with yet another post telling me I'm wrong in what I expected of this movie. I am not stupid. I understand what you're saying lecter, but that isn't even what I'm talking about.

You are wrong in what you expected of this movie.

: )

Shoot me now

Definitely expected to much on the first viewing. I hated the end so much I thought is was the worst blockbuster of the 05. after watching the it about six months ago it was much better with the second viewing.

A-

One of the scariest blockbusters in years, and definitely one of the most awe-inspiring. From the get-go, this is not a typical alien invasion film, as there are no wide shots of famous landmarks, nor scenes of government figures discussing counter-attacks. By focusing on just one family, Spielberg makes this a very human and emotional invasion flick. The first hour or so is fantastic film-making, as the suspense gradually builds up to the action scenes, the interaction of the characters is quite well-developed, and the special effects are top-notch. However, as soon as Tim Robbins enters the flick, there is an definite shift from wide open, general horror to claustrophobic terror. While taken individually, each scene is fantastic, they don't flow together at all. Put together with Robbins' manic, deranged, over-the-top performance, and a too-happy ending (not Wells' original, but Spielberg's family reunion), this film falls just short of being another Spielbergian classic. Still, it's a near flawless film, and a roller-coaster ride of thrills.

After watching The Day After Tomorrow (Good dumb fun), I started thinking about other disaster films, and I got back to thinking how underrated this movie has become. I saw it again on HBO last summer and once you get past the plot holes and that Spielberg fumbled near the end, it's an incredibly impressive film. As makeshift said, there were some truly, genuinely terrifying moments in the film (When everyone starts attacking the car ), and the ambition shown is damn fine. It's actually in a way the older, bigger but not nearly as bright brother to Children of Men, another sci-fi thriller with a singular POV shot hand-held in long takes and gray bleakness.

The lack of brightness in this movie is an unforgiveable trait in any sci-fi movie imho...

Yes, but he got seriously stupid. This film is worse than Independence Day, and ID, as a film, is really quite bad.

Decent, but nothing spectacular. The special effects were amazing.

B+

The last 10-15 minutes ruined what would have been the best film of that year

B+

WeLL no one may agree with me on this but IMO, its the best fiLm of 2005 and one of the most entertaining fiLms of this decade. From the jaw-dropping and breathtaking visuaL and sound fx (i.e. first tripod emerging from underground and the tripod horn), to the intense action-packed sequences Like the ferry scene and some shocking moments Like peopLe kicking the crap out of each other for survivaL and aLien machines sucking the bLood of human beings for harvesting, WotW brought me to a cinematic experience that Left me feeLing Like it reaLLy is the END OF THE F---ING WORLD!! . It was my most anticipated fiLm ever and it fortunateLy met and even exceeded my expectations. Too bad SpieLberg may have rushed it a bit on which shouLd have been one of the best fiLms this decade in most peopLe's eyes as weLL. For me stiLL, SpieLberg and his crew did an exceLLent job on this one for being different and originaL. It was just amazing.

A+

War of the Worlds (aka The Aliens Kill Everyone... Except Tom Cruise!)

The Pros:

-For 90% of the film, it's Spielberg and Cruise at their best.

-What trix said: no government BS. I don't care what President Asshole is going to do to save the US.

The Cons:

-That 10% really sucks the film down. It's not so much Robbie living as Robbie going from a typical dick teen to wanting to be a hero. Then not dying. And the ridiculously miscast Tim Robbins in a role only meant for the viewer to go "Hey, it's Tim Robbins! Why is Tim acting like a whackjob?"

I get the whole "we need a happy ending!" thing. But the rest of the movie is great.

Grade: B+

I thought the Tim Robbins scenes were great. Creepy.

I LOVE this movie, except for the damn final scene. I know it's directed by Steven "If I made it today, Dreyfuss wouldn't go with the aliens" Spielberg, but, ugh, the teenage son should've died on the hill. It made sense. It was right. A real sense of loss for our protagonist. Having him not only survive, but, as if by magic, get to Boston before Cruise and Fanning was just absurd.

It's sad, too because the "eh" ending is always there, slightly warping and staining what is otherwise a spectacular, harrowing science fiction film.

I'm not saying the Tim Robbins scenes were bad, per se. Just that I think he was miscast. It just seemed so random that he was playing that character. But I will give Spielberg credit: it was better than the alternative, President Tim Robbins.

The scenes themselves were some of the best in the movie when they're being hunted by the machine.

I'd echo that sentiment. It has some fantastic set-pieces, but the ending is so lame. I wasn't wishing that Tom Cruise's family was dead because the movie needed to be any darker, but because having his son and wife and in-laws all just waiting for him to deliver Dakota Fanning to them really nullifies the protagonist's whole arc. Instead of Cruise having to be thrown into actually being a seriously committed father, he just has to get his kids to his ex-wife. It's not very dramatically satisfying, and has no real linkage to Well's ending.

I think the Tim Robbins character would have been better if his last role wasn't almost exactly the same in Mystic River.

I always liked this film, and I actually think one of Cruise's best roles. Solid filmmaking and a truly imaginative disaster film, minus the last 5 minutes which just smells of studio interference. I find this film much more satisfying than Super 8 and any Emmerich film outside of ID4

I wasn't wow'd by this when it came out, but I also didn't remember it well and was curious how I felt now, so I re-watched it the other day. And my feeling is pretty much the same, the special effects and technical aspect of the film are pretty good, and of course it has Cruise, but I don't think it's one of his better roles and the story of the aliens is not interesting enough for me. I probably would have liked if we had gotten to know more about them, more than the Freeman voiceover gave us at the start and end of the film. Dakota Fanning is great though and the film has spectacle and suspense from time to time, but pretty much the screenplay can't keep up with the rest of the design of the film.

B

Funny enough I referenced this movie yesterday, funny how it gets a bump right after that.

WE LIVE IN A SIMULATION

The best film about 9/11. Yes I know I know, but what about aliens and tripods and lasers. That's just the surface. This is a movie about 9/11. The first major film about 9/11 in fact. And how a traumatized, dysfunctional nation (represented by Cruise and his annoying kids) deal with it.

A

Good call. I recall liking it but left wanting.