War of the Worlds

Jackie Mason | July 3, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | July 3, 2005
I say that to myself every time Tim Robbins shows up in a movie. :-)

David Mitzman | July 4, 2005
My dad told me he read critics were saying that this is Spielberg's best. Now maybe if it was Spielberg's non-union Mexican equivalent, Senior Spelibergo, it would be his best. Lest we not forget Raiders of the Lost Arc, Jaws, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., Schindler's List, et al. Those top Spielberg's best movies, not this. This movie was an excellent movie with great effects and a good story (with a few bits a little far fetched). Only one scene really dragged along and that was the part with Tim Robbins. Other than that, it was great and worth it to see on the big screen.

Jackie Mason | July 4, 2005
[hidden by request]

Scott Horowitz | July 5, 2005
Is it me or did the last 5 minutes just kill the entire movie?

Kris Weberg | July 5, 2005
I still want to see a well-directed, well-cast version of the original book, with massive Martian tripods and blood-red vines demolishing late-Victorian London.

As far as I can tell, no one's ever filmed the book in its original setting with a decent cast and budget.

David Mitzman | July 6, 2005
It was a decent budget, Tom Cruise is ok, not the greatest but a decent actor (we can overlook his little "issues" as of late). I also wanna say that Spielberg doesn't direct poorly, you can see the quality in his work. Now whether or not the movie is great is another story.