Read Roger Ebert's review. He gave it 2 stars, and from his explanation of why he didn't like it, I'm reconsidering seeing it in the theater.

Ebert mentions the flaming train. This is, in fact, one of exactly three scenes that only Spielberg could have come up with. All three scenes are silent, last about 30 seconds, and do not advance the plot or involve the actor's participation. They are simply for the audience, and they are beautiful and elegant. And the ENTIRE REST OF THE MOVIE IS STOMACH-TURNING IN ITS SUCKINESS!

Yay! I don't have to see this and be horribly disappointed! :happy dance:

You know, I have to admit that I really enjoyed it as plot-riddled-with-problems-and-writers-conveniences-yet-visually-fun-to-watch cinema fare. Not a fan of Tom Cruise either, and the relationship-writing (and acting, for that matter, though I think Dakota Fanning is OK) is TV-MOW at best.

I don't mean to undermine all the reasons cited by people (critics and viewers alike) who don't like it. In fact, I agree with most of it. And yet, I'll still say that a good time was had by all in a darkened theatre. In Tom's words, "this is great fun cinema, isn't it?"

I would stop short of the glowing (and at times cloying OpEd piece about Spielbergian career introspective) L.A. Times review , but I agree with the sentiment of "good fun cinema."

Guess this is a bit of a thread-derail, by POV if not topic. So... back to the reguarly-scheduled program. As you were... :)

My thoughts:

The film is pure popcorn. It's a loving remake of the classic 50s George Pal production (and the book, radio show, tv series, rock opera, etc) and Spielberg hits hard, whether it's action, destuction or cloying sentimentality. Heavy handed? Sure. Clumsy? At times. Poetic? Dark and relentless? Yes. Lame-ass ending? You bet.

If you like simple, to the point sci fi disaster movies, then go. Run. Enjoy without shame. It's dark and it's fun and the martians are very destructive, and it's fun to watch stuff blow up.

Cruise is great in the picture, as is Dakota Fanning.

As far as the 9/11 references, that tragedy gave us a new visual lexicon to draw upon in order to accurately telegraph what the aftermath of a disaster would look like, at least to us in the USA. Flyers of missing people? Why not? That scene would most likely play out the same.

I went with a group of industry types who were mildly entertained. I really enjoyed the film, except for the maudlin ending. My friend David Hughes, who is a Fangoria writer, loved the film so much he would marry it if he could. I guess it all depends on your expectations.

I also like Blacula, so take my review with a grain of salt.

So maybe it's a good thing that when we got to the theater it was sold out.

Could it be so bad that it's entertaining?

Now I'm intrigued. I love a good crappy shoot-em-up as much as anyone.

Sounds like a rental for me, when GD is out of town or something. :D

That's all anyone needs to know. ;)

So what you're saying Commodore is that you didn't like the movie?

The Commodore gives "War of the Worlds" two thumbs up!

MY ASS!