Világok harca

Bensőségesen értelmezett, de érzelmileg rideg és cselekményileg túlságosan rövid nyári blockbuster. Szerencsére azonban olyan adag horrorizgalommal, hogy lehetetlen nem felsóhajtani a boldogságtól. Technikailag briliáns gyémánt, amitől a szívem megdobbant, és a moziból hazafelé paranoiásan az eget néztem. A filmalkotók itt nem is akartak mást - csak végigvinni minket egy sor jeleneten, amelyek fele mélyebb forgatókönyvírói kidolgozásért kiált, de a vizuális és hangi kivitelezésük (Spielberg rendezése + Kaminski dokumentarista stílusú operatőri munkája = arany) megbénít és a székünkhöz szögez minket. Ha szimpatikusabb karakterek lennének, és ha igazán közel kerülhetnénk hozzájuk, ez lehetett volna az év filmje. Így "csak" óriási ámulat marad a részletekből. Néhány jelenetet idézni és utánozni fognak. (2005.07.02)

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. (2005.07.03)

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*. (2005.07.02)

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 (2005.07.03)

The more logic he gets on his side, the more surprisingly Steven Spielberg is able to win in completely different fields with suspense and unexpectedly perfectionist action. With Tom Cruise as the traditionally determined main hero, he couldn't possibly go wrong. (2006.01.24)

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%. (2007.12.04)

This was a big deal ... a German blockbuster according to an intelligent original script in the hands of the legendary Steven Spielberg, I was rightfully thrilled after the first viewing. I was always annoyed by that emphasis on traditional values in War of the Worlds, but otherwise it's still great even after ten years... 85% (2015.08.02)

An intimate, well-written and very minimalist action flick with stunning visuals that relies on a cohesive cinematic experience with a precisely blended mix of all the key ingredients. (2005.06.30)

Even on my third watch, War of the Worlds didn’t quite win me over. Honestly, this ranks as one of Spielberg’s weaker films for me—50%. (2009.02.22)

No other film has been able to portray the sheer terror of confronting an unknown alien enemy like War of the Worlds. A nightmare with superb editing and glorious sound design, whose overwhelming aura of hopelessness and the defencelessness of the characters in a terrible situation is unpredictable and makes it a strong candidate for the best blockbuster of its decade. The pace is thrilling and some of the scenes are chilling not only because of their virtuoso audiovisuals, but also because of their strong humane subtext (the scene of the car being attacked by a mad mob is the film's most moving moment), which makes even more disappointing the slightly unfinished ending, when the level of horror and depression, culminating in the sequence with Tim Robbins, begins to stagnate and is replaced by the mandatory, but nonetheless annoying, family pathos. I don't agree with the general hate of the hysterical Dakota, which on the contrary is very important to Spielberg's cunning intent to exhaust and terrify audiences of all ages, but on the other hand, it's true that there’s no other film that will make guys be so eager to never have children and appreciate the subtle allure of condoms. If this was Steven's intention, then I'd throw in a fifth star. 85% (2017.11.08)

Why do such movies revolve and why does Tom Cruise play in them? After all, why do I watch such movies, no one is forcing me... (2010.04.08)

Nope. Upon watching this a second time, it definitely wasn't the same, and there are plenty of things that typically bother me about Spielberg - the melodrama, which is sometimes unnecessary, the excessive pathos, and scenes that are stretched out without affecting me. In fact, I didn't even feel the tension anymore. It almost seems like I want to start a "I Hate Spielberg" club, but this film still belongs to those that I can tolerate from him. (2015.12.10)

I have to go up to 4 stars after the 2nd screening, and that's mostly because of the great Cruise and the talented Fanning. Spielberg combines the invasion of the "repulsive creatures from outer space" + the family drama as a sideline as only he can. A pleasant viewing experience. :) (2009.03.29)