We love watching Tom Cruise on the big screen. We don't care if he believes we have alien matter clouding up our psyches or if he calls Matt Lauer "glib" for not agreeing with everything he says, or even if he divorced our beloved Nicole Kidman. We love the Tom Cruise Movie Star machine. We loved him in Eyes Wide Shut and in Legend and even in Magnolia. We really loved him in Vanilla Sky and Minority Report and, duh, Jerry Maguire. Recently we even loved him being a white haired bad guy in Collateral. Tom Cruise may not have it all together as a human being (or maybe he does and the rest of us without $250,000 to spend on enlightenment are wrong), but he sure is good at being a movie star. And in this latest version of War of the Worlds, he is one fine hero, flawed and cocky though he may be.
War of the Worlds is a popcorn movie--it's a summer disaster/sci-flick that has so far grossed $114 million, six days after its release. It is a popcorn flick, but it is also--my gosh--good, and dark, and haunting, and deep, but--my gosh--also fun and thrilling and even, yes, heartwarming. Here's where you say, now just wait a gosh darn minute, Austinist, popcorn movies can't be good. Sure, yes, of course! Unfortunately they rarely are. That's because frat boys with fast cars and too many bad opinions run Hollywood. It's because people work more often from fear than guts. It's because Michael Bay is allowed to make films.
War of the Worlds is refreshing because we don't have to see the Statue of Liberty be shot down by giant lasers to be thrilled. Instead of major bridges and famous landmarks, we see the destruction of actual people (Unheard of! there are people that actually die? Yes.) and suburban homes and ferry boats.
We assume you know the gist of the plot. You can get the details at the IMDB, or from any number of other reviews. But all you really need to know is that while all the alien stuff is cool and badass, what we really liked about the film is the character stuff and the theme stuff and all that stuff film studies students write papers about. We like that the main character is kind of a jerk. He speeds home in his car with little care for the possible accidents he may cause. He doesn't remember that his daughter is allergic to peanuts. He doesn't bother to clean up his house when kids he hardly sees come over for the weekend. So he's kind of a lame ass, but he's not an altogether bad guy and when push comes to shove he's got the guts and the give to fight for his family, not to mention mankind.
Some have reasoned that the film makes a huge statement about war and colonialism, perhaps a certain war. It's not difficult to see the many scenes of chaos and destruction being a reference to the horrible day that was September 11, 2001. We all know that 9/11 brought out the best in us--the everyday heroes, but it also brought out the worst--a desire for revenge, a "kill them all and let God sort them out" kind of mentality, and Spielberg doesn't shy away from this either.
But it's a summer blockbuster, after all, and we like two hours of total destruction as much as the next guy (or ist). And Tom Cruise can have our 8 bucks anytime (unless he decides to do a Days of Thunder sequel. We do have our limits).



I thought it sucked terribly. The arch was totally contrived and weak and unbelievable. There was basically no suspense. THe first 15 minutes were good, then i had to stand in the back of the theater to stay awake.
Not you, Mark Hammer!
but i like the headline quite a bit.
maybe coulda been: "War of the Worlds, huh, god god y'all; what is it good for? Absolutley nothin, ha, say it again, now!"