Maailmojen sota

Though intimately conceived, War of the Worlds is an emotionally cold and, in terms of plot, concise summer blockbuster. Fortunately, however, it has such a large helping of horror excitement that it’s a joy to watch. The movie is a technically brilliant gem that made my heart pound and caused me to check the sky in paranoia as I was leaving the cinema. That’s what it was all about for the film’s creators – simply take us through a series of scenes, half of which are begging for deeper development in the screenwriting, but their visual and sound aspects (Spielberg’s directing + Kaminski’s documentary-style cinematography = gold), paralyze us with fear and nail us to our seats. If there had been more likable characters and an opportunity to really get to know them, this could have been the movie of the year. As it stands, the “only” thing that remains is tremendous amazement from the individual parts. Some of the film’s scenes will be quoted and imitated. (02.07.2005)

A film that has a higher ambitions than just to scare. Its added value are the scenes that make you think. It's as if Spielberg has no illusions about people and their ability to help their fellow humans when they are in the role of "prey" fighting for bare survival. This is evident in a great scene when the crowd, under the influence of mob psychosis, wants to lynch Ferrier's family; does a person have the right to kill a fellow human being if it helps their family? What would we do in such a situation? This really isn't about war, it’s rather an intimate drama where everything is seen through the eyes of Cruise’s character. That's why we don't see the carnage in other cities, why we don't see the battle on the hill because Ferriero is standing under it, and why the "quick" ending seems logical to me. For if we were to view the gradual destruction of the aliens globally, it would contradict the original concept of the film as an intimate drama – the fate of one family. On top of that, there are no American flags, no heroic president in a fighter jet, just a joy to behold. My only quibble perhaps are a few holes in logic, and then if Spielberg had pushed a little harder on the tragic fate of the Ferrier family, as opposed to the happy ending, that would have been hardcore. Five-star hardcore. (04.07.2005)

Mediocre in almost all respects. Except from a few individual scenes (the plane, the port, the train) and nice sound, this is nothing but a random onslaught of scenes, mundane actors, uninspiring music and a pleasantly “well-worn" look. If you’re looking for an intelligent, different slant on alien invasion, Signs is a better choice. This certainly isn’t bad or boring - Spielberg is too good and experienced a filmmaker to allow that, but I can’t help thinking that here we get his routine work and nothing more. Unfortunately he found support neither in the actors or in the screenplay. ♫ OST score: 3/5 (03.07.2005)

My final impression is not bad at all. Spielberg is too good of a director to make a forgettable film. He incorporated something into his film that was missing in his previous works - tension and darkness. The tranquility and childlike playfulness of E.T. were forgotten, and Spielberg made his War of the Worlds as a monumental disaster film, which is additionally likable because it is shot from the perspective of an ordinary outsider who is not trying to save the world, but simply trying to survive quite normally. Sometimes even at the expense of others. Several scenes are shot breathtakingly. Spielberg is very good at depicting the destruction of the city, the sinking of the ship, and apocalyptic scenes of fleeing crowds, and he uses all those aspects here. The basement scene with the mirror is even in my top ten and with its sophistication, it ranks among the highlights of the genre. Cruise is good, but he is outdone by the excellent Dakota Fanning as a current top child star. Tim Robbins also played his mentally disturbed man with ease, and the other actors are not important for anything else but future corpses. What deprived the film of a fifth star and a place among the best films is the unfortunate happy ending, which may be taken from the book, but does not suit the overall tone of the film. At the same time, the length of the film is also a problem, which in this case could have been 20 minutes longer because, after a very good start, the ending feels somewhat deprived. Visually, it is a remarkable film, characterized by the gloomy red of the alien organisms and the unsettling sounds of alien machines creating a suitably chilling atmosphere for most of the film. Overall impression: 80%. (04.12.2007)

Spielberg's version of War of the Worlds is a great counterpoint to the tradition of the disaster films. It is a film unusually turned in on itself, which mostly despises the monumentality of battles and the pathos of heroism. It focuses on three small, insignificant points that are desperately tossing in the wild tide of war, and they have no time left for any heroism, phrases, or nationalism. The actors' portrayals of the three points is famous – the chemistry of the family trio is especially dramatized by the tiny Dakota Fanning, whose life is worth much more, from the point of view of the film's narrator, than some Statue of Liberty, the White House and other hitherto indispensable elements of the genre. Tom Cruise doesn't surprise me anymore – I know he's one of the best, and Ray Ferrier just confirms it. Steven Spielberg uses the wonderfully functioning magic of the characters and holds them close to the body through Janusz Kaminský's phenomenal camera. The result is an intense and unusually intimate spectacle, into which the luster and glory of the great battles of mankind reaches only in the form of vague messages. John Williams' unusually introverted soundtrack and, of course, the magnificent effects, which are among the best ever, complete the dense atmosphere of War of the Worlds. The most impressive moments are scenes with hints of the destruction of mankind – the rain of clothes, hundreds dead in the river... Spielberg has become the ultimate leader of contemporary spectacular science fiction with this film. His films have a soul, they have an engaging visual, they have spark. And unfortunately, they have broken endings. In War of the Worlds, the problem is not in the idea, but the fact that the cliché, which had been successfully avoided until then, strikes like a bolt of lightning at the end. Too bad. A weaker 5*. (02.07.2005)