La Guerre des mondes

Pourquoi fait-on des films comme ça et pourquoi y trouve-t-on Tom Cruise ? Et puis, pourquoi est-ce que je les regarde ? Personne ne m’y oblige… (08/04/2010)

Film estival ambitieux mais émotionnellement faible et trop succinct sur le plan du scénario. Heureusement, il offre une telle dose d'excitation horrifique qu'il est difficile de ne pas y succomber. Un diamant techniquement brillant qui a fait battre mon cœur comme jamais, me faisant vérifier paranoïquement le ciel en sortant du cinéma. Les créateurs ne visaient qu'une chose ici : nous guider à travers une série de scènes, dont la moitié pleure un approfondissement scénaristique plus poussé, mais dont l'exécution visuelle et sonore (réalisation de Spielberg + caméra documentaire de Kaminski = un chef-d'œuvre) nous paralyse et nous cloue aux fauteuils. Si les personnages étaient plus sympathiques et qu'il était possible de vraiment se rapprocher d'eux, cela aurait pu être le film de l'année. Mais ainsi, il ne reste "qu'une" énorme admiration pour les particularités. Certaines scènes seront citées et imitées. (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. (03/07/2005)

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)

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)