War of the Worlds

User Score
6.6

Generally favorable reviews- based on 1295 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. FrankO
    Jun 29, 2005
    4
    If your sole reason for not watching this movie is so you don't support Tom Cruise and Scientology then you'll have another excuse. The movie just plain sucked!
  2. Aug 28, 2010
    5
    the plot of the original war of the worlds film was better then this. the original was about how helpless we where against a aliens invasion focusing on the the military just getting beatin down . the new one is all about the survivle of tom cruises charicter and his 2 obnoxous kids. the aliens are only there to chase him down . while this is not completely unentertaining it just doesntthe plot of the original war of the worlds film was better then this. the original was about how helpless we where against a aliens invasion focusing on the the military just getting beatin down . the new one is all about the survivle of tom cruises charicter and his 2 obnoxous kids. the aliens are only there to chase him down . while this is not completely unentertaining it just doesnt bring what the original had to the table . woulda been better served being called some thing els . Expand
  3. Melissa
    Jul 2, 2005
    6
    Okay film, but not as great as I was lead to believe from the reviews. Cruise did no acting in this film, he was just himself - a jerk.
  4. JustinN.
    Jul 9, 2005
    6
    Well directed and even well acted, but the story basically comes down to aliens being so stupid, they can't invade Earth right. I still enjoyed it though compared to M. Night's Signs (what a stinking pile).
  5. RJSamson
    Jun 29, 2005
    6
    War of the Worlds is a visual spectacle but pointless. The aliens just came and died without much exposition. As a result, it was flat, but still something to watch.
  6. [Anonymous]
    Jun 30, 2005
    4
    The movie had a really nice look to it and that was about it. Tom Cruise's acting was exactly the same as it is in every other movie. Spielberg seemed to just rip off all of his old movies, Jurassic Park, Jaws, Minority Report. In fact just combining if you combined Minority Report and Jurassic Park, that would be enough. There were way too many scenes that simply dragged on for far The movie had a really nice look to it and that was about it. Tom Cruise's acting was exactly the same as it is in every other movie. Spielberg seemed to just rip off all of his old movies, Jurassic Park, Jaws, Minority Report. In fact just combining if you combined Minority Report and Jurassic Park, that would be enough. There were way too many scenes that simply dragged on for far too long. Too much just waiting around and nothing happening. The pacing of the movie was far to slow. Even the action scenes, although they looked wonderful, didn't seem too engaging. Expand
  7. JohnH.
    Jun 30, 2005
    5
    A 10...until the final 5 minutes. The worst ending since Signs & AI.
  8. RenaudA.
    Jun 30, 2005
    4
    I'm sorry you all, but the level of this film is very low.... The good point at it are a couple of good scenes like the one with the airplane and the boat, but please, why do ETs must always be like that? Awful, big, like monsters, attacking... It's too clichee.... And there are a lot of mistakes! How can the guy film what's happening if no electronical device works! And I'm sorry you all, but the level of this film is very low.... The good point at it are a couple of good scenes like the one with the airplane and the boat, but please, why do ETs must always be like that? Awful, big, like monsters, attacking... It's too clichee.... And there are a lot of mistakes! How can the guy film what's happening if no electronical device works! And why does only Tom Cruise has a working car? I'm sorry, but I don't recognize this film as a real Spielber's one. Expand
  9. Bron
    Jul 1, 2005
    5
    Sort of a mess.... sort of okay. Tom Cruise is just not believable as a dockworking single dad in New Jersey. Please. Dakota Fanning, as talented as she is, just shrieks and shrieks and is given nothing else to do. Do we really need yet another movie, no matter how "allegorical" or "timely" it may be, that involves destruction of the known world? It's numbing. And say what you will Sort of a mess.... sort of okay. Tom Cruise is just not believable as a dockworking single dad in New Jersey. Please. Dakota Fanning, as talented as she is, just shrieks and shrieks and is given nothing else to do. Do we really need yet another movie, no matter how "allegorical" or "timely" it may be, that involves destruction of the known world? It's numbing. And say what you will about the faitfulness to the book (and its original ending), but the last minute or so was terrifyingly ... lame. The entire audience giggled in confusion and embarrassment for what is quite possibly the most lackluster, anti-climactic cinematic finale of the past decade. Can you say "cop-out"? Expand
  10. Droog
    Jul 1, 2005
    4
    It boggles my mind when I see the superlative reviews being bestowed upon this movie by the LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, and others because War of the Worlds underachieves like no other movie I've seen in the past few months. In what is basically a B movie with an A movie budget, War of the Worlds delivers a threadbare plot of aliens hellbent on vaporizing everything on earth. It boggles my mind when I see the superlative reviews being bestowed upon this movie by the LA Times, Entertainment Weekly, and others because War of the Worlds underachieves like no other movie I've seen in the past few months. In what is basically a B movie with an A movie budget, War of the Worlds delivers a threadbare plot of aliens hellbent on vaporizing everything on earth. Granted, this is straight out of HG Wells original story. But in the absence of any compelling rationale for the alien attack, the burden of carrying the momentum of this film falls on Cruise, Dakota Fanning, and Justin Chatwin. Ugh. Three one-dimensional characters do *not* create three-dimensional characterization! Cruise's flawed hero spends 3/4 of the movie running around like a buffoon, incapable of speech. Dakota Fanning overacts and screams so much that within the first thirty minutes I wish she would be vaporized. Justin Chatwin's caricature of a misunderstood, angsty teen is incredibly annoying. In essence, the family subplot fails miserably. And while Speilberg does a fine job directing the CGI sequences, the utter simplicity of the original tale falls flat when reinterpreted in the present because it fails to acknowledge the increased sophistication of the 21st Century masses. People in this movie seem incapable of rationale thought. Aliens are killing humans? Try running away instead of perpetually gawking at them! Aliens are following large herds of people? Hmm ... maybe we ought to hide in back roads and basements instead of gathering like idiots at the pier! The fact is that people are not stupid. Spielberg's failure to acknowledge our basic intelligence dooms this movie to being another dumb action flick when it could have been so much more. Expand
  11. PaulL.
    Jul 19, 2005
    6
    I was entertained for 2 hours. It's not that bad. You get what you expect. The most annoying thing for me is that the story does not treat people or the characters with much respect. They become a murderous mob over one of the few working cars (hey there's only 200 of us, we can all fit even though we have no where to go), they want to run to the aliens instead of away from them I was entertained for 2 hours. It's not that bad. You get what you expect. The most annoying thing for me is that the story does not treat people or the characters with much respect. They become a murderous mob over one of the few working cars (hey there's only 200 of us, we can all fit even though we have no where to go), they want to run to the aliens instead of away from them (Dad stop fighting me. Don't you get it I have to get closer to those human killing machines.), they continue to use tactics that don't work (Hey these missiles don't work. Let's keep using them. But this time get really close so that their lasers can shoot us.), or they just plain turn stupid or crazy (hey instead staying really quite, let's make lots of noise. That way we'll survive. Oh and run away from your Dad and towards the aliens while you're at it.). The irrationality of the aliens didn't make much sense either. (let's destroy everybody one person at a time and wait to colonize the Earth after humans have evolved). Despite these annoyances, I was entertained. The saving grace is the special effects, and the movie does an excellent job of portraying the feeling of utter helplessness and doom, like you're in a scary nightmare. Expand
  12. MikeH.
    Jul 2, 2005
    5
    Disappointing acting...nice effects...and no real feeling to it.
  13. NickH.
    Jul 2, 2005
    4
    Stay home, read the book (it was written in 1898), and then watch the original movie (made in 1953 I believe). It's a much more rewarding experience than seeing this new, louder, more annoying "film." My biggest problem is Speilberg didn't try with this movie like he did with Jaws, the effects and acting are all sub-par. Further more, Dakota Fanning (the daughter) steals the Stay home, read the book (it was written in 1898), and then watch the original movie (made in 1953 I believe). It's a much more rewarding experience than seeing this new, louder, more annoying "film." My biggest problem is Speilberg didn't try with this movie like he did with Jaws, the effects and acting are all sub-par. Further more, Dakota Fanning (the daughter) steals the film when Tom Cruise is the hero. This doesn't bode well. And on a final note, people who complain about the aliens not being able to scan our air for bacteria and then create antidotes, look when it was written. Give Wells all the credit he deserves for thinking this up in the 1890s! It doesn't work well in todays settings because of the fact that now we know we CAN scan the air for bacteria dangerous to us. Not a good movie, anyways. Cruise, watch your ass or you may go the way of Costner. Expand
  14. CherylS.
    Jul 3, 2005
    4
    A string of flashy set pieces held together with nothing at all - please take the trouble to tell a real story next time you charge us $9.50 to sit through one of your overblown spectacles, Speilberg.
  15. LeeF
    Jul 5, 2005
    5
    Ham-fisted, but a great summer matinee. Not the best movie ever made, and certainly doesn't rate a 10 by any stretch.
  16. QBeing
    Jul 6, 2005
    6
    This is definitely Matinee Fare. Don't spend full price to see it, but it does need a big screen to do it some justice. Overall very true to the book, but the application very contrived. Its the little thing that piss me off, like when every car in 30 miles is suddenly incapacitated where they stood, Tom Cruise is still able to drive at speeds in excess of 80 mph because miraulously This is definitely Matinee Fare. Don't spend full price to see it, but it does need a big screen to do it some justice. Overall very true to the book, but the application very contrived. Its the little thing that piss me off, like when every car in 30 miles is suddenly incapacitated where they stood, Tom Cruise is still able to drive at speeds in excess of 80 mph because miraulously there is alway enough room to drive 1 car through. these little3 iconsisitencies are what destroy a film for me. other than that about what I expected. Some seens a little long but overall not bad. Expand
  17. TimL.
    Jul 6, 2005
    5
    The most disappointed I've been in a theater in a long time. Was THE movie I was looking forward to seeing the most this summer...oh, well, bring on Charlie.
  18. vermind.
    Jul 8, 2005
    4
    What a missed opportunity that was. It could have been such a good film, all the elements were there, they just got put together in a lousy way. At the beginning I quite enjoyed it, but it seemed to fall apart around the scene where Cruise and family lost their car to the mob. After that I found myself yawning a lot. And another thing about that scene, how come out of a crowd of about What a missed opportunity that was. It could have been such a good film, all the elements were there, they just got put together in a lousy way. At the beginning I quite enjoyed it, but it seemed to fall apart around the scene where Cruise and family lost their car to the mob. After that I found myself yawning a lot. And another thing about that scene, how come out of a crowd of about three hundred Americans, only two of them had guns? In the most war like nation on earth they Expand
  19. SharonB.
    Jul 9, 2005
    6
    So many plot holes... I can't imagine H.G. Wells not filling them in for us.
  20. Z.Weber
    Jul 9, 2005
    4
    The movie wasn't believable. I understand the book was written many years ago, but come on! The worst was when Robbie runs into the alien gathering then everything blows up and he is perfectly fine. And when they are trapped in the house and the aliens send in hundreds of probes, there must have been at least one other house intact. The most clever thing in the movie was the ending.
  21. Jogilius
    Sep 4, 2005
    6
    A thrill-ride with a crappy ending. Could have been a 9 with a less stupid and less hasty ending (and perhaps not so humanoid-like aliens).
  22. PatC.
    Feb 10, 2006
    4
    Good special effects, but once again Tom Cruise plays a character with the depth of personality of a potato. Whether this movie is about humanity's best or worst tendencies under stress, it is painful to contemplate.
  23. JamesC
    Jun 29, 2005
    5
    5 for the aliens 0 for Mr. Spielberg. Why Mr. Spielberg refuses to grow as a director is beyond me. I felt like I was watching ET. The whole human plot with Tom Cruise is beyond pathetic. Wait until you see the lame-o son storyline! The special effects are great but you almost can't blame the aliens for wanting destroy us. Maybe they wanted to be in a decent movie and just got bored 5 for the aliens 0 for Mr. Spielberg. Why Mr. Spielberg refuses to grow as a director is beyond me. I felt like I was watching ET. The whole human plot with Tom Cruise is beyond pathetic. Wait until you see the lame-o son storyline! The special effects are great but you almost can't blame the aliens for wanting destroy us. Maybe they wanted to be in a decent movie and just got bored . What a waste of a great book. Expand
  24. pato.
    Jun 29, 2005
    4
    Bad acting, bad script.
  25. TimC.
    Jun 29, 2005
    5
    Not what I expected, had glimpses of greatness, but fell flat. I can see why Cruise has been acting so strange, he may be responsible for the first Spielberg picture to fail that has had this much hype.
  26. ElliottM.
    Jun 30, 2005
    6
    The special effects were truly spectacular, but the film was horribly cliched and manipulative to the utmost degree in terms of domestic drama. And to all the people complaining about the ending: THAT'S THE WAY THE STORY ENDS. So... I am somewhat grateful that Spielburg managed to be somewhat faithful to the story. Anyhow, the movie works as escapist fare, but as far as big summer The special effects were truly spectacular, but the film was horribly cliched and manipulative to the utmost degree in terms of domestic drama. And to all the people complaining about the ending: THAT'S THE WAY THE STORY ENDS. So... I am somewhat grateful that Spielburg managed to be somewhat faithful to the story. Anyhow, the movie works as escapist fare, but as far as big summer movies go, I still think Batman Begins is the film to beat. Plus, the rock opera version (!!!) of War of the Worlds is still exponentially scarier, even after all these years. Expand
  27. Lucsdf
    Jun 30, 2005
    4
    Spielberg is dead! If you want to see a good remake Peter Jackson is da man!
  28. CoreyO.
    Jun 30, 2005
    4
    Highly ineffective, largely disappointing and nearly completely pointless, this film was not very good. O and why and hte aliens have to look like the ones from Independence Day?
  29. TonyL.
    Jul 1, 2005
    6
    Great special effects, but the story was lousy. I really wanted to slap the the teen-aged son. What is it with Speilberg and happy endings? He ruined A.I. by doing this. I wish James Cameron would have been given this movie, it would have rocked!
  30. DanaM.
    Jul 1, 2005
    5
    This movie should have been entitled "How to save two obnoxious kids from being killed by the Aliens". If that little girl screamed one more time. And the ending was the worst. How is it the inlaws are waiting at the front door in Beacon Hill dressed in Sunday-best after Boston is flattened. And what purpose did Tim Robbins play in this movie. What purpose did he serve, except to be as This movie should have been entitled "How to save two obnoxious kids from being killed by the Aliens". If that little girl screamed one more time. And the ending was the worst. How is it the inlaws are waiting at the front door in Beacon Hill dressed in Sunday-best after Boston is flattened. And what purpose did Tim Robbins play in this movie. What purpose did he serve, except to be as annoying as possible. And how is the carnage always leaves Cruise and his kids a clear lane to drive through in the only car that works in the city? So many indiscrepancies. Avoid until DVD. Expand
  31. IanP.
    Jul 1, 2005
    4
    What we have is the movie version of the original alien invasion story. Unfortunately we've seen this story told in better movies already. Independence Day was a better action movie, and Signs was a better drama. WOTW tries to be both and fails on both accounts. Although the movie does have some fantastic over-the-top action special effects scenes, that just can't make up for a What we have is the movie version of the original alien invasion story. Unfortunately we've seen this story told in better movies already. Independence Day was a better action movie, and Signs was a better drama. WOTW tries to be both and fails on both accounts. Although the movie does have some fantastic over-the-top action special effects scenes, that just can't make up for a plot where nothing makes much sense, and we're left with too many questions. Tim Robbins gives probably the best performace. Tom Cruise shows that he has very little emotional range. Dakota Fanning is under-used, as she spends the whole movie just crying and screaming. Overall, it was fun, but underwhelming. Do yourself a favor, go rent ID4, Signs, and Close Encounters and you'll have a better time. Expand
  32. CamelT.
    Jul 11, 2005
    4
    First half good, second half lame. The story has so many holes, hollywood should be embarassed.
  33. Chuck76
    Jul 1, 2005
    6
    It's really hard to pin point why this film isn't that good, the acting was mostly spot on and I actually cared about the fate of the main characters. Strangely for a film based on such a superb story with plenty of room for padding it's actually a very short film which I couldn't understand before watching it. Afterwards though I knew why, this film has absolultly It's really hard to pin point why this film isn't that good, the acting was mostly spot on and I actually cared about the fate of the main characters. Strangely for a film based on such a superb story with plenty of room for padding it's actually a very short film which I couldn't understand before watching it. Afterwards though I knew why, this film has absolultly nothing to add to the original story or even the 50's film, it's completly devoid of any fresh ideas and only detracts from them it also casts even more of a shadow over the faultering Speilberg. I quite enjoyed the relatively slow build up getting to know the background of Cruise's family but for this there is no pay off later in thrills and shocks and the film just seems to happen without that much happening. This alone would be bad enough but it's hardly a special effects fest, the effects you do see are good but too few. The lightning strikes and the cool Close Encounters style alien horn are the best parts to this empty experience of a film. Oh yeah and beware of some serious Speilberg schmaltz pretty much all the way through but mostly at the end, luckiest family in America maybe even the world if you ask me. Expand
  34. JamesL.
    Jul 1, 2005
    5
    A lot of holes in the story. Special effect over-powering the plot. Director tries not to convince but to amaze us to technical effects.
  35. GuyylL.
    Jul 1, 2005
    6
    Should have been terrifying but two things got in the way: PG-13 and Tom Cruise. And you can't ask a three feet tall Dakota Fanning to save such a humongus movie.
  36. SteveG.
    Jul 2, 2005
    6
    It's okay. It has some good moments (the train on fire, the airliner bit, bodies floating by) to make you think you are watching a great movie. Trouble is, the storyline which gets stuch late on. W of the W is something of a hike film rather than road movie, if you get my meaning, and while Spielberg does a good tension-building job at times there is something about the ending that It's okay. It has some good moments (the train on fire, the airliner bit, bodies floating by) to make you think you are watching a great movie. Trouble is, the storyline which gets stuch late on. W of the W is something of a hike film rather than road movie, if you get my meaning, and while Spielberg does a good tension-building job at times there is something about the ending that just - even if you've seen the 1953 version - doesn't fit. Sort of a smugness... The aliens have it seems a mixed approach to killing and destroying and no strategy at all worth speaking of. And why exactly does one of them hold a photo of a human tenderly? By all means see this if you like disaster and redemption stuff but don't look too deep into it. Expand
  37. Jay
    Jul 2, 2005
    5
    Just a flat story. Very dissapointed.Good effects though.
  38. Docta
    Jul 20, 2005
    6
    Great visuals but no story. You basically watch Tom Cruise run away from aliens for two hours. Shallow but still enjoyable.
  39. Raver
    Jul 27, 2005
    5
    Not a bad film and not a good film either. plenty of action to start with and then it spends to much time in someones basement. this film would have worked if told a diffrent way. Anyway unlike the idiots who have written reviews scoring it a unrelistic score of 0, I have decided to give it a relistic score so people can properly understand what the film deserves, and that is a 5/10.
  40. AMovieCritic
    Jul 3, 2005
    6
    It was just a fun movie to watch. However, I just didn't find it suspenseful enough, and not action-packed enough to really be the spectacle it wants to be. And much like Spielberg's Minority Report, War of the Worlds really lacks a climax; a finale. There is never a high point in the action. The movie just ends. Anyway, it was decent entertainment, but lacked a big showdown. It was just a fun movie to watch. However, I just didn't find it suspenseful enough, and not action-packed enough to really be the spectacle it wants to be. And much like Spielberg's Minority Report, War of the Worlds really lacks a climax; a finale. There is never a high point in the action. The movie just ends. Anyway, it was decent entertainment, but lacked a big showdown. Still, though, worth a watch. But Spielberg, (who directs this movie very well otherwise,) has to learn that movies like this really need a big action scene at the end. Expand
  41. MichaelA.
    Jul 3, 2005
    6
    This first half is fairly rousing stuff, but after that, the movie (literally) falls into a basement and never recovers. After that, one of the worst and sloppiest endings for a major blockbuster ever. Definitely worth it as an undemanding DVD rental, but save your $$ as far as seeing it in a theatre.
  42. KuoT.
    Jul 3, 2005
    6
    The new Steven Spielberg movie is a little disappointing. The storyline is simple: aliens killing humans and Cruise tring to survive and protect his children. The potential of the story and the characters had not been fully developed. The ending is not exactly believeable, probably revised for public's expectation of happy endings. The movie mainly just shows the dark side of The new Steven Spielberg movie is a little disappointing. The storyline is simple: aliens killing humans and Cruise tring to survive and protect his children. The potential of the story and the characters had not been fully developed. The ending is not exactly believeable, probably revised for public's expectation of happy endings. The movie mainly just shows the dark side of humanity and stupidity. But in spite of its faults, it is still worth seeing for its wild imagination and spectacular special effects. Expand
  43. BruceR.
    Jul 30, 2005
    5
    I was never engaged by the characters, and it all seemed so trite and predictable. I expect better than this from Spielberg.
  44. ArmandoS.
    Jul 4, 2005
    5
    This movie is basically a pointless remake. The H. G. Wells novel that it is based upon is simply dated and Speilberg does not do a very good job of reinventing it. Also, the aliens are so advanced from us, but they do not know about germs? This is basically a rather dark, bloody popcorn movie with a lot of special effects that pound you into numblessness.
  45. DavidM.
    Jul 4, 2005
    6
    The classic story is updated, yet the science is old. The tripods manage to stay balanced on three limbs and the so-called advanced alien race is killed with simple germs. And why didn't they use a weapon that could wipe out millions of people at once rather than using a laser that kills people one at a time. The most unbelievable aspect to the story is that the aliens planted their The classic story is updated, yet the science is old. The tripods manage to stay balanced on three limbs and the so-called advanced alien race is killed with simple germs. And why didn't they use a weapon that could wipe out millions of people at once rather than using a laser that kills people one at a time. The most unbelievable aspect to the story is that the aliens planted their machines undergrounds for a million years and no one found one in all that time. With the flawed science aside the main characters did not carry the story. In the original text there were several characters that experience the invasion for the reader. In this movie we follow the predictable account of a negligent father who is transformed into a carrying and protecting parent. After the first ten minutes I knew that he would be change so I did not take an interest in him. All the other actors are just used as a backdrop so there is not one else to care for. Technically the file is great. The tripods appear real and the explosions are convincing. However, the story is two dimensional and boring. Not one of Spielberg's best. Expand
  46. AbdurM.
    Jul 4, 2005
    6
    Slow paced movie with anti-climactic end. Not even the special effects can save this one.
  47. GregA.
    Jul 5, 2005
    6
    I think this was overall a lame, big-budget summer movie. But what I really want to address is some of the user reviews. You can't really complain about the ending because it is faithful to the source material and it would've been a lot worse to change it. Also, BADEST is not a word. People on here are stupid sometimes. Want my opinion? No? Okay, fine. But I would see Batman I think this was overall a lame, big-budget summer movie. But what I really want to address is some of the user reviews. You can't really complain about the ending because it is faithful to the source material and it would've been a lot worse to change it. Also, BADEST is not a word. People on here are stupid sometimes. Want my opinion? No? Okay, fine. But I would see Batman Begins instead of this if I were you. Expand
  48. PaulH.
    Jul 7, 2005
    5
    Steven still can stun us with visuals, but he's forgotten how to tell stories.
  49. MattE
    Jul 7, 2005
    6
    Very overrated movie. The ending was so stupid. i mean the whole movie you see and hear about how advanced the aliens are, with there super awseome incrediable death lazers that blow people apart and thier massive forcefield protected walking tripods and there supersonic speed of lightining travel pods. however they didn't count of one very basic simple thing. i can't believe Very overrated movie. The ending was so stupid. i mean the whole movie you see and hear about how advanced the aliens are, with there super awseome incrediable death lazers that blow people apart and thier massive forcefield protected walking tripods and there supersonic speed of lightining travel pods. however they didn't count of one very basic simple thing. i can't believe it. the aliens are soooooo unbelievably smart but they don't know about this one thing that kills them. worst ending ever! Expand
  50. DavidH.
    Jul 9, 2005
    4
    War of the Worlds disappoints in numerous ways---in its lack of credible story-telling, in character development, script and substance. Fear and violence simply for the sake of same is not justification for making a high budget flick---but we see it time and again. We don't expect it from Speilberg. The cast if fine---they simply act scared and run. Sometimes they don't run and War of the Worlds disappoints in numerous ways---in its lack of credible story-telling, in character development, script and substance. Fear and violence simply for the sake of same is not justification for making a high budget flick---but we see it time and again. We don't expect it from Speilberg. The cast if fine---they simply act scared and run. Sometimes they don't run and we can't help but wonder why. The alien villians are impressive but not that imaginative. We've seen them in better movies---pick an "Alien". A real letdown. Expand
  51. MichaelP
    Sep 1, 2005
    4
    After the previous Spielberg/Cruise/sci-fi combination of Minority Report, I had high hopes for this. Consequently I was very disappointed - it starts off convincingly, but once the tripods arrive it alternates between schmaltz and aliens incompetently attempting to kill everyone.
  52. CaioO.
    Jul 10, 2006
    4
    Critic seems to like it, but to me it was just a bunch of aliens coming and killing everybody during the whole movie, until a stupid end.
  53. DanC.
    Aug 6, 2006
    5
    Sure, it looks great, the special effects are seamless, but is it any good? Nope. It's weak sauce, as the kids say. Nothing compelling, a lot of awkward missteps (everything from the missed details of newscasters referring to "THE Ukraine" to Tom Cruise unconvincingly being unpleasantly surprised by the taste of humus to the son's inexplicable behavior after the invasion). But Sure, it looks great, the special effects are seamless, but is it any good? Nope. It's weak sauce, as the kids say. Nothing compelling, a lot of awkward missteps (everything from the missed details of newscasters referring to "THE Ukraine" to Tom Cruise unconvincingly being unpleasantly surprised by the taste of humus to the son's inexplicable behavior after the invasion). But the biggest misstep is the casting of Cruise as the everyday working stiff just waiting to be a hero. Weak sauce indeed, Mr. Spielberg, Mr. Cruise. Expand
  54. HadynW.
    Nov 9, 2005
    6
    Ok i guess but to be honest it was all run a bit, hide a bit, run a bit. not forgetting scream ALOT (which is all the girl ever did). Also a pity that it was so far away from the original story - its now the story of cruise trying to get to his wife, nothing more, nothing less.
  55. JesseM.
    Dec 4, 2005
    4
    Surprisingly terrible movie.
  56. RaschidA-M
    Dec 5, 2005
    4
    The first 15 to 20 minutes are excellent. You'll be grinning from ear to ear if you have a projector and digital surround, but the little girl and the son are unbearable. It's absolutely outrageous. I found it physically uncomfortable to sit through the screaming and the bickering amongst the family when the real movie was going on all around them. It's not the acting, The first 15 to 20 minutes are excellent. You'll be grinning from ear to ear if you have a projector and digital surround, but the little girl and the son are unbearable. It's absolutely outrageous. I found it physically uncomfortable to sit through the screaming and the bickering amongst the family when the real movie was going on all around them. It's not the acting, it's just those Spielbergo moments that drive me... Anyway, for me this has everything you could ever love and hate in a movie. Expand
  57. Unagiboy
    Dec 5, 2005
    6
    Neat visual effects. Cruise and family must be the luckiest people to survive all their obstacles - over the top.
  58. brian
    Dec 6, 2005
    4
    5 mins, ok 15 mins, got very intrested 20 mins,wow im gonna love this 30 mins, gonna put the kettle on 45 mins, getting bored but im sure it will pick up again 60 mins, hang in there im sure something spectacular will happen any min now 80 mins, ok im starting to get worried now im sure it will start to get intresting 100 mins WTF is going on i thought this was War Of The Worlds 105 mins, 5 mins, ok 15 mins, got very intrested 20 mins,wow im gonna love this 30 mins, gonna put the kettle on 45 mins, getting bored but im sure it will pick up again 60 mins, hang in there im sure something spectacular will happen any min now 80 mins, ok im starting to get worried now im sure it will start to get intresting 100 mins WTF is going on i thought this was War Of The Worlds 105 mins, is that it 110 mins, OMFG what a dissaster of a movie and it started so amazingly with me on the edge of my seat. i give it a 4 because i thought the tripods saved the film from a total disaster. Expand
  59. RexS.
    Jun 29, 2005
    6
    SPOILERS: You'll succumb to the visual effects, but it's the astounding denouement when Tom Cruise stands on the shiny hull of a downed Martian ship, as if in human victory, and then peels off his latex head to reveal he is a "Kate Lovin' Monster of Love" seemed ... forced. Nothing wrong with Cruise that a tranquilizer dart filled to the brim with antidepressants SPOILERS: You'll succumb to the visual effects, but it's the astounding denouement when Tom Cruise stands on the shiny hull of a downed Martian ship, as if in human victory, and then peels off his latex head to reveal he is a "Kate Lovin' Monster of Love" seemed ... forced. Nothing wrong with Cruise that a tranquilizer dart filled to the brim with antidepressants wouldn't cure. Expand
  60. MIke
    Jun 29, 2005
    6
    Overall a very enjoyable movie. Great special effects, but with no story.
  61. RR
    Jun 29, 2005
    5
    First hour and a half were great. But someone please tell me, what was up with the ending? It just ended. Kinda like the camera just ran out of batteries.
  62. AlexE.
    Jun 29, 2005
    6
    Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" is, in the end, a missed opportunity. Here are all the makings of a truly unique summer blockbuster: a visionary director, focus on characters over effects, a palpable sense of dread. But for some reason it just doesn't come together in the end like it should. The movie is worth seeing for its moments of absolute brilliance. For example, Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" is, in the end, a missed opportunity. Here are all the makings of a truly unique summer blockbuster: a visionary director, focus on characters over effects, a palpable sense of dread. But for some reason it just doesn't come together in the end like it should. The movie is worth seeing for its moments of absolute brilliance. For example, the first attack and the ferry scene are masterful sequences that demand to be viewed in a movie theater. There are also many haunting images (a river of corpses, a train in flames, Tom Cruise blindfolding his daughter) that will linger in your mind long after the rest of the movie has vanished, and it will. Because the script is predictable at best, and smothered in cliches at worst. Because the film, in the end, just doesn't know what it wants to be. Halfway through, the characters the film has been following are sort of passed over for a larger sense of danger and panic, and the film just can't recover. The first 40 minutes or so are packed with real dread, and Spielberg succeeds in creating a feeling of disorientation and panic in the viewer that mirrors that of the character, shooting almost all of the attack sequences from street level. Also, a third-act detour into a basement inhabited by Tim Robbins' deranged survivalist holds several eerie thrills and a satisfying, somewhat shocking conclusion, but the sequence degenerates into a subpar retread of the kitchen scene in "Jurassic Park". And by the time the film reaches its borderline-absurd conclusion with little to know explanation given, the audience is likely to feel cheated out of the film that could have been. Expand
  63. SimonN
    Jun 29, 2005
    6
    The loudest and most visually arresting film I've ever seen, Speilberg's War of the Worlds (as filtered through an American Dream-type narrative) is let down by some of his thinnest plotting to date and characters so ancilliary to the mayhem that they become annoying when the blowing of stuff up ceases for a breath every 10 minutes or so. As such, it's no Jurrassic Park The loudest and most visually arresting film I've ever seen, Speilberg's War of the Worlds (as filtered through an American Dream-type narrative) is let down by some of his thinnest plotting to date and characters so ancilliary to the mayhem that they become annoying when the blowing of stuff up ceases for a breath every 10 minutes or so. As such, it's no Jurrassic Park (his best work, a mix of compelling storytelling and incredibly realised visualisation), but is worth the price of admission for the way he imagines Wells' world through a 21st century lense. However, whilst the visual and aural, ear-ringing experience is second-to-none, the story suffers from a Hollywood ending where the world blows up at night but you find your family and live happily ever after in the morning. Expand
  64. Wendy
    Jun 30, 2005
    5
    Great special effects, but I just didn't care about any of the characters.
  65. JeffM.
    Jun 30, 2005
    6
    This was an entertaining and well-crafted excuse for a film. It failed to get me involved with the characters, but succeeded in terror, awe and paranoia. There weren't extra endings to satisfy every audience member but I left the theatre feeling this was a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
  66. LarryS.
    Jul 10, 2005
    5
    Very disappointing! Not up to Spielberg's usual standards. Spielberg drags himself down to the average American movie that features blow em up, shoot em up, smash em up movie making. The ending is the usual silly American finale when the family is reunited. UGGGH with a brief glimpse of Gene Barry. The movie builds no suspense. Spielberg should have learned something from the success Very disappointing! Not up to Spielberg's usual standards. Spielberg drags himself down to the average American movie that features blow em up, shoot em up, smash em up movie making. The ending is the usual silly American finale when the family is reunited. UGGGH with a brief glimpse of Gene Barry. The movie builds no suspense. Spielberg should have learned something from the success of the Gene Barry original. SHAME ON YOU SPIELBERG!!! Wait for it on video!!! Expand
  67. Rex
    Jul 1, 2005
    5
    This movie did not blow me away at all. Way too much "Oh my God what do we do!? Aliens are killing everyone!" I found the movie more scary at parts than entertaining and was bored for 70% of the film. The special effects were very good, but it just didn't feel like the blockbuster it was billed to be. Batman felt like a blockbuster, this movie was just a bust. If the movie industry This movie did not blow me away at all. Way too much "Oh my God what do we do!? Aliens are killing everyone!" I found the movie more scary at parts than entertaining and was bored for 70% of the film. The special effects were very good, but it just didn't feel like the blockbuster it was billed to be. Batman felt like a blockbuster, this movie was just a bust. If the movie industry is trying to make back the money it has lost with movies like this they are going to keep losing money. I love Spielberg and Cruise but this movie was VERY average. Expand
  68. juliusa.
    Jul 1, 2005
    5
    Great special effects are the only reason to even bother with this mess. the teenaged son and little girl were absolutely annoying as hell and should have been the first ones to go. tom crusie was awful and the ending was the worst of any movie in recent history. ohh yeah...and where was the plot?
  69. shaunh.
    Jul 11, 2005
    6
    Fairly good throughout, my main disappointment was the last 15 minutes - the ending was weak and left you feeling a bit deflated after the intensity throughout.
  70. EdWoodJr
    Jul 1, 2005
    6
    When I realized I actually somewhat cared about the fates of Tom Cruise and company (saying that I feel his recent tirades were insane is putting it mildly) as this movie progressed, I knew it had to be doing something right. And it does: there are scenes of such death, destruction, and chaos that I couldn't help but feel pretty engrossed. The scenes of mobs of fleeing people beating When I realized I actually somewhat cared about the fates of Tom Cruise and company (saying that I feel his recent tirades were insane is putting it mildly) as this movie progressed, I knew it had to be doing something right. And it does: there are scenes of such death, destruction, and chaos that I couldn't help but feel pretty engrossed. The scenes of mobs of fleeing people beating each other down to try to escape any way they could really was rather effective, and the sights of people and their property being dissolved, smooshed, incinerated and downright "blowed up real good like" were both exhillirating and terrifying, making me feel many of the same emotions of hopelessness that also come from my personal favorite film subject, zombie invasions. However, problems continued to reveal themselves which made me remember that I'm watching a Spielberg/Cruise summer blockbuster. Cruise waltzes around like an arrogant ass, Dakota Fanning screams in a way that makes me want to pour acid into my ears to ease the pain, and a sometimes over the top score really annoyed me. But it's the sappiness that is the real offender here, and I'm talking about the damned ending (not about the whole aliens dying thing, which is a classic twist which I respect). When Tom's recently incinerated son walks through the door looking right as rain, I half expected the narration to end with "and then the magic fairy found a way to bring all the dissolved people back to life, and helped rebuild New York City". Gimme a break. Go for the awesome visuals and destruction, leave mildly annoyed but without feeling you wasted 7 bucks and two hours. Expand
  71. LeeF.
    Jul 1, 2005
    6
    Good summer matinee movie. A few screwed up things, but good and scary and some truly horrifying scenes. Don't know why all the critics are blathering about there being no REASON for the aliens to invade -- like we'd ever know, sheesh. Do we issue a press release when we wipe out an ant colony? Heavy handed in the 9/11 references -- just ignore then and enjoy the ride.
  72. Alessandra
    Jul 16, 2005
    5
    Props to Speilberg for creating those mind-blowing special effects. However, this movie was so unrealistic that it made me laugh many times. What I found especially remarkable is how Cruise managed to escape the enemy so many times while every single other soul around was dying. Very well acted. Lighting and editing were equally impressive. Overall concept was not.
  73. DieTom!
    Jul 3, 2005
    4
    Tom Cruise did alright. The kids just pissed me off! The aliens I've seen designs that were similar before...might as well have watched Independence Day, it was a lot better... Overall it wasn't that good people... Go see good movies like Batman Begins..
  74. RafaelC.
    Jul 4, 2005
    6
    Great special effects, predictible story ( with some good and bad points ), and the Badest ending in any movie i have seen in years. Worth your money ? yes ( at least once ) if you wanna have some fun go for it, but if you wanna have More Fun go watch Batman Begins. WARNING: Not one of the best steven spielberg Movies, but dakotas acting is great and it has really good Special Effects!
  75. OmarB.
    Jul 5, 2005
    5
    What is good: - The aliens - Tom's acting - The special effects (although its value is deprecated for me now that every movie seems a long CG generated scene). What is bad: - The humour (oh my god, talk about LAME jokes). - The plot (What?? they caught a cough? WTF... again, lame ending. - The storyline... during the first half of the movie, nothing happens. Suddenly, during the What is good: - The aliens - Tom's acting - The special effects (although its value is deprecated for me now that every movie seems a long CG generated scene). What is bad: - The humour (oh my god, talk about LAME jokes). - The plot (What?? they caught a cough? WTF... again, lame ending. - The storyline... during the first half of the movie, nothing happens. Suddenly, during the second half some aliens invade the earth to die FROM A FLU??. - The dialogues... oh yeah, again lame dialgoues trying to be funny. The movie is OK if you want to go to eat popcorn. Do not have high expectations when going to see it as it will dissapoint you. Of course, you must consider the Spielberg factor (as director), that is, the movie is kind of cheesy and lame. Expand
  76. DanB.
    Jul 9, 2005
    5
    This film is such hokum. Am I betraying my ripe old age of 26 by thinking that CGI-based movies are getting worse? Nothing in this movie seemed real, or felt very exciting. There was exactly one decent line of dialogue, about the possibility of the aliens coming from Europe. ... anyway this movie was much much better when it was called Independance Day. I dunno what happened to Spielberg, This film is such hokum. Am I betraying my ripe old age of 26 by thinking that CGI-based movies are getting worse? Nothing in this movie seemed real, or felt very exciting. There was exactly one decent line of dialogue, about the possibility of the aliens coming from Europe. ... anyway this movie was much much better when it was called Independance Day. I dunno what happened to Spielberg, he should've stayed with directing and not gotten into producing and running a studio. All that business has probably sapped his ability to make great films. Expand
  77. ConorM.
    Aug 15, 2005
    6
    Flashy, preictably-paced, laden with unnecessary special effects, but not too boring. Dakota Fanning makes up for most of the rot. This film brings nothing new to the big screen or to sci-fi. Typical Cruise.
  78. C.B.Browne
    Sep 20, 2005
    6
    Not horrible, but not good. Predictable, sappy ending.
  79. AJH
    Dec 7, 2006
    5
    First off, this movie was visually stunning. Some of the best sets and special effects I've seen. I was definitely on the edge of my seat throughout most of the film. However, this movie is hampered by the minor detail that the entire premise makes absolutely no sense. Morgan Freeman's opening narration tells us that the aliens have grown envious, watching humanity. But then it First off, this movie was visually stunning. Some of the best sets and special effects I've seen. I was definitely on the edge of my seat throughout most of the film. However, this movie is hampered by the minor detail that the entire premise makes absolutely no sense. Morgan Freeman's opening narration tells us that the aliens have grown envious, watching humanity. But then it turns out that they buried "tripods" millions of year ago, before humans were even here. Then for some reason the aliens waited for a few million years, until our civilization thrived, and then came to blow us up. That's quite a lot of foresight...I wonder if they bury their spaceships on every planet, just in case they need them millions of years later? This is just one of the massive plotholes (never mind the "I survived somehow" ending). Blah. Expand
  80. PeterB.
    Feb 23, 2006
    4
    Overly exaggerated acting (if you could call it that). This was just one of those movies that revolved around special affects, and used acting to fill the gaps. Although the effects really were neat, they did not carry the film.
  81. AndrewH.
    Jun 23, 2006
    6
    This was a really exciting and entertaining movie....until you watch the last ten minutes of it.
  82. AdamE.
    Apr 19, 2007
    5
    What could have been an awesome alien movie is crippled by the fact that most of the movie is "Tom Cruise hiding in a basement" and the story is riddled by innumerable flaws: Why didn't anyone find a tripod? Why does some American nutjob now about events in Osaka? How does Robby survive "going to fight" an alien death machine? If aliens observed people, wouldn't they notice What could have been an awesome alien movie is crippled by the fact that most of the movie is "Tom Cruise hiding in a basement" and the story is riddled by innumerable flaws: Why didn't anyone find a tripod? Why does some American nutjob now about events in Osaka? How does Robby survive "going to fight" an alien death machine? If aliens observed people, wouldn't they notice disease? Why do the tripods store people when all they want is blood? Why are the aliens nude? How did a plane crash next to the house Cruise and kids were hiding in without vaporizing it? Why did Dakota Fanning's character not stop screaming? Why are clothes not vaporized when people are? I could just keep going, but you get the idea. Expand
  83. JayH
    Oct 5, 2008
    4
    Between my dislike of tom cruise, the poor acting and average special effects this wasn't a very good film.
  84. ConnieS.
    Oct 22, 2005
    4
    AAAhhhhhh! The Ending! the horrible ending! Scarier than aliens and Tom Cruise put together is the tacked on, cheezy whimper of a finale. What a terrible way to end a movie that was scary, laden with 9/11 symbolism and true xenophobia! I hope the DVD has an alternative ending or an explanation for such a waste of a classic American sci fi. btw: Kudos once again to Dakota Fanning who AAAhhhhhh! The Ending! the horrible ending! Scarier than aliens and Tom Cruise put together is the tacked on, cheezy whimper of a finale. What a terrible way to end a movie that was scary, laden with 9/11 symbolism and true xenophobia! I hope the DVD has an alternative ending or an explanation for such a waste of a classic American sci fi. btw: Kudos once again to Dakota Fanning who continues to act circles around her adult 'star' coworkers. she deserves better than this and bumped my grade up. tip of the film: exit stage right about 3 minutes early and don't look back the ending will be gaining on you!! Expand
  85. Mike
    Dec 20, 2005
    4
    This movie is what is wrong with movies. You find a big name director, a big name actor, and then people will actually think it's a good movie. This movie had a dead plot to begin with, and they didn't make it anymore interesting. Just like any other action film out there: mindless and hopeless. So over-rated.
  86. ChadS.
    Jun 29, 2005
    5
    I like the film about the illegal alien better. Say what you like about "The Terminal" as being terminally mawkish, at least the filmmaker's heart was in it. I also like the film by Spielberg Jr. better, too. Say what you like about "Signs", at least the filmmaker took chances, nutty chances ("Swing, Merrill, swing!") that you might hate, but ought to respect since risk-taking story I like the film about the illegal alien better. Say what you like about "The Terminal" as being terminally mawkish, at least the filmmaker's heart was in it. I also like the film by Spielberg Jr. better, too. Say what you like about "Signs", at least the filmmaker took chances, nutty chances ("Swing, Merrill, swing!") that you might hate, but ought to respect since risk-taking story choices is in short supply these days. Shyamalan's alien couldn't work a doorknob. That's an achilles heel. Spielberg's alien can't smell the presence of three live humans. That's a contrivance. "War of the Worlds" is boring. Seeing droves of people running away from danger is something we've seen too many times before. There's not a world of a difference between this H.G. Wells adaptation and "The Day After Tomorrow." In a nutshell, the narrative of "War of the Worlds" is run, rest, run, let Tim Robbins be creepy, run some more. Expand
  87. HollyC
    Jun 29, 2005
    6
    Definitely a spectacle, though lacking in some areas. It's worth a matinee price on the big screen, but it certainly isn't Spielberg's best--that's for sure. Though exciting & fun nonetheless.
  88. RussellW.
    Jun 29, 2005
    4
    Special effects were top notch... I thought that the acting and plot was okay, except for the son's part... all in all it was an amazing movie....... right up until the last 2 minutes which instantly brought this movie from what would have been an 8 or maybe even a 9 to a pitiful 4.
  89. RobinNovaScotia
    Jul 26, 2005
    6
    Ok movie but very weak for Spielberg. I have no problem suspending disbelief, but this movie has more gaping plot wholes than $120 million of special effects and press junkets could ever cover. The performances are good. The writing is Ok. There are some pretty cool shots. But overall, way too much just plain did not make sense - not taking me away (like Saving Private Ryan, Minority Ok movie but very weak for Spielberg. I have no problem suspending disbelief, but this movie has more gaping plot wholes than $120 million of special effects and press junkets could ever cover. The performances are good. The writing is Ok. There are some pretty cool shots. But overall, way too much just plain did not make sense - not taking me away (like Saving Private Ryan, Minority Report, Close Encounters, even AI) but rather constantly reminding me that I am only watching a movie. Expand
  90. JW
    Aug 23, 2005
    4
    Are you telling me than during an alien invasion that is destined to distroy the world, the most interesting story is a bad father and his two kids? Cool special effects but a worthless story.
  91. KenW
    Apr 27, 2008
    5
    I must admit that I agree with alot of the other reviews in regaurds to the fact the movie could have been better. I personally do not like Tom Cruise an any way, shape or form, but at least the movie did keep me going. Yes the constant screaming of Dakota Fanning did get on the nerves, but given the point of view of a little girl in a crazy situation, it could be understood. Overall I must admit that I agree with alot of the other reviews in regaurds to the fact the movie could have been better. I personally do not like Tom Cruise an any way, shape or form, but at least the movie did keep me going. Yes the constant screaming of Dakota Fanning did get on the nerves, but given the point of view of a little girl in a crazy situation, it could be understood. Overall though the movie was definitely worth watching. Expand
  92. JamesB
    Dec 28, 2005
    4
    I have just finished watching this movie for the second time and can say in all honesty that Speilberg's update of the classic War Of The Worlds tale is a complete disappointment. This picture could have been one of the best science fiction epics in recent years, however its success was inevitably going to be mared by the lack of scope and imagination implemented by those producing I have just finished watching this movie for the second time and can say in all honesty that Speilberg's update of the classic War Of The Worlds tale is a complete disappointment. This picture could have been one of the best science fiction epics in recent years, however its success was inevitably going to be mared by the lack of scope and imagination implemented by those producing it. The trailer made the film look nothing short of breathtaking, hinting and teasing audiences with samples of the Spielberg and Cruise creativity madjesty that we've seen before in the likes of Minority Report. Unfortunately, this is exactly what the movie itself demonstrates; pure speculation. At the best of times the film is prolonged, slow and uninspired, and whenever the amazing special effects that the film makers have created are shown, they are again limited to a smattering of brief action sequences that you hope will accure countless times throughout the course of the picture. however this is not to be. Overall War of the Worlds is an underdeveloped experience that could have been so much more. I personally am a huge fan of Tom Cruise and feel incredibly disappointed to see him placed in role where he can cannot fully express his true talent and form as his character is hardly ever given anything demanding to do besides runaway and act dumb. This movie is a victim of its own limitations and if more time was spent illustrating epic encounters between the invaders and us humans instead of focusing on a dead end plotline about a single family, this film could have ultimately been much improved. Expand
  93. Mar 31, 2012
    6
    Not the best film, but it certainly delivered. It was smart of Spielberg to leave the audience wanting more. I totally picked up on the frightening vibe and the movie was intense. Still... I thought it was boring and don't really have a desire to watch it again.
  94. Nov 13, 2013
    5
    War of the Worlds only battles with viewers interest.
    Based on the classic sci-fi novel; War of the Worlds is somewhat limited by design. Characters are left as shells, and the ongoing threat never is really addressed with any rhyme or reason.
  95. Dec 20, 2013
    5
    Guess the overacting was appropos given this was a cataclysmic alien invasion, but when the supposedly hyper-advanced super sophisticated beings show up as naked savages suspension of disbelief ends.
  96. Jun 16, 2014
    6
    Not so great and amazing. I actually demanded much more from my favorite director, Steven Spielberg - creator of E.T, Close Encounter of the Third Kind and Minority Report, to deliver another thought-provoking, visually striking sci-fi thriller rather than this somewhat flat, boring, tension-free summer blockbuster. I even fell asleep for the last 20 minutes of the film, which, i was toldNot so great and amazing. I actually demanded much more from my favorite director, Steven Spielberg - creator of E.T, Close Encounter of the Third Kind and Minority Report, to deliver another thought-provoking, visually striking sci-fi thriller rather than this somewhat flat, boring, tension-free summer blockbuster. I even fell asleep for the last 20 minutes of the film, which, i was told later by one of my friends, "explained" the sudden fall of these machines rising from the deep ground beneath Earth's surface. I don't know, to tell the truth, because after staying tuned for over the first hour, i don't care much about what happened in the end. I suppose a 6 would be rational, as sound editing, color blending and interesting description of the three-leg machines, to some extent, made up for the film's lack of good ideas to work on Expand
  97. Aug 13, 2014
    4
    It is too witless as a sci-fi film, but delivers some thrills and some interesting visuals. Most leads overact and there is a lack of meaning behind the plot that makes it look empty. A disappointing addition to Spielberg's directorial filmography, with the only merit of a horror-like tone darkening it.
Metascore
73

Generally favorable reviews - based on 40 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 33 out of 40
  2. Negative: 1 out of 40
  1. 70
    In an unfortunate case of star casting, Cruise strains credibility as a hard-edged Jersey dockworker.
  2. Might be too realistic for its own good: The film takes perhaps a little too much glee in its abilities to manufacture mayhem. That being said, the ride is extraordinary.
  3. Reviewed by: Todd McCarthy
    90
    A gritty, intense and supremely accomplished sci-fier.