Oh my God! All the reviews that guy's written over the years, and he still writes like a 6th grader. Not to mention, because of it's total lack of information, that review could have just as easily been written by someone who didn't even see the movie. "Ain't it cool" indeed.

I liked Chud's review much better (they loved it, btw):
http://chud.com/reviews/3507

"It's a rare thing -- a summer movie that demands to be taken as a serious emotional experience."
-- Michael Atkinson, VILLAGE VOICE

Anytime those snobby bastards like anything it must be incredible.

what the hell? this isn't listed on Movie fone for either cineplex here??!??!?! but it is for all the little rinky dink theaters within 100 miles

nevermind....i just talked to a friend who said all the GKC theaters were bought by Carmike - some small market southern chain (who refuses to show anything unrated ) - i checked their site and it's on for tomorrow....wonder how packed it will be at 1pm?

The theater I go to didn't have it on their website until yesterday.

True. But Spielberg has all but disowned DOOM (one of my favorite films). Besides, I feel DOOM is bubblegum and madcap, WAR is deadly serious.

Carmike isn't really all that bad. At least they have THX certified sound systems at some locations.

Ebert didn't like it.

Must be the end of the world... or about it.

We've posted a podcast review on it:
http://www.dvdtalkradio.com

We kept it spoiler free and would love to hear what you think.

Steven Spielberg's meticulous, thrilling and chilling War of the Worlds is a testimony to tension."
-- Philip Wuntch, DALLAS MORNING NEWS

"We knew Spielberg had action chops, but didn't know he had this in him. This anti-E.T. is so rigorously realized it makes Independence Day look like Finding Neverland."
-- Bruce Westbrook, HOUSTON CHRONICLE

"With War of the Worlds [Spielberg] has made what is arguably one of the best 1950s science fiction films ever."
-- Kenneth Turan, LOS ANGELES TIMES

"War of the Worlds reinvigorates the pulse-racing thrill and unalloyed paranoia of vintage '50s sci-fi."
-- Jan Stuart, NEWSDAY

"Spielberg seems to have resigned himself to the fact that he'll never match the impact of the radio show, but he's making no bones about going after that FX Oscar."
-- Jeff Strickler, MINNEAPOLIS STAR TRIBUNE

"Steven Spielberg's reasonably entertaining rendering of the 1898 H. G. Wells novel is an elemental story of predator and prey."
-- A.O. Scott, NEW YORK TIMES

"Drawbacks aside, with War of the Worlds, Hollywood is calling on Spielberg to deliver this summer's blockbuster, and he accomplishes the task. The movie is solid all the way around, and Spielberg's touches are everywhere."
-- Bill Muller, ARIZONA REPUBLIC

"A gritty, intense and supremely accomplished sci-fier about some distinctly unbenign alien invaders."
-- Todd McCarthy, VARIETY

"When it's in full throttle, there's not been and probably won't be a better action movie out there this summer."
-- Bob Longino, ATLANTA JOURNAL-CONSTITUTION

"Exploring the dark side of his old films E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial and Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Spielberg more than does justice to the granddaddy of all alien-invasion tales, H.G. Wells' still terrifying novel published in 1898."
-- Kirk Honeycutt, HOLLYWOOD REPORTER


So far 82% fresh at rottentomatoes....

with 92%fresh from the cream of the crop reviewers...


This movie looks promising!

It's funny how the Cream of the Crop reviews through Wednesday morning had 11 of 12 critics liking the film.

The only one who didn't was Roger Ebert. The man who has now given the Honeymooners a higher rating than WOTW.

I know people are always saying he has really lost it, but this just takes the cake. I think when he lost all that weight some of his brains must've been sucked out too.

Well, kind of spoiler free. You guys spend a few minutes talking about how the ending is pretty much the same as the book and other incarnations (with an *) then later on give away the ending to the book.

In terms of Ebert, I remember he only gave Jurassic Park three stars, and that was for the FX work. At the end of his review(which I had access to for a while due to the Cinemania '94 software, lord I miss that!), he made a statement that what made Close Encounters so impressive was that you never saw the aliens until the end, unlike JP where you saw the dinos in the first half-hour. He then made a smart aleck remark about how if Close Encounters were made today, Spielberg would probably show the aliens in the first twenty minutes and at about the half hour mark they would be attacking everyone with death rays. When I heard Spielberg was making WotW, this blurb stuck out in my mind and I figured then and there, Ebert would feel betrayed by this movie and not like it. Guess I was right!

All of Eberts reviews are available on rogerebert.com.

Here's your quote:

Thanks for finding it. Reading that one could reach the conclusion that he wouldn't like WotW.

Of course I'm sure if the lead role had been played by Angelina Jolie wearing a Sports Bra he would have given it a thumbs up.

According to this critic the film scary but not Speilberg best effort.

http://www.sacticket.com/static/movi...theworlds.html

Well it is not his best effort, but I could appreciate a good pop corn flicks, and War of the World did just that.

But do you actually read Ebert's reviews? While I don't always agree with the man, he always backs his opinion up. He makes it clear why he liked or disliked a film.

And really...comparing his Honeymooners rating to his WoTW rating is pointless. Those ratings aren't relative, and it's stupid to compare one to the other. He thought Honeymooners was a funny comedy...he didn't think WoTW succeeded (and surely he held that to a different standard). He hasn't lost his mind...people just can't handle critics not agreeing with them. Which is...crazy.

Either way, the positive reviews on this thing are quite encouraging.

jaeufraser is right; Stars are relative and serve as a quick index. Just as a grade of A in a 9th grade bio class cannot compare to a B in a college level bio class.

I don't know how many times Ebert has to say the stars system is all relative for it to sink in for people.

LOS ANGELES (Zap2it.com) - Some concerned citizens have drawn up a petition to urge the moviegoing public to boycott Tom Cruise's "War of the Worlds," which opens Wednesday, June 29.
The petition -- found at www.petitiononline.com/Tomkat -- is a letter written to director Steven Spielberg listing reasons, based on Cruise's "abhorrent behavior," that the undersigned refuse to spend ten bucks to see the sci fi film.

"We will not be spending our good money to support the ridiculous and potentially dangerous antics of this raving narcissist," the missive begins.

The complaints are as follows:


Cruise's criticism of psychiatry and using drugs for treatment: "The potential impact on those in need of treatment, who might heed the advice of a 'celebrity' over a trained professional, is dangerous. If Mr. Cruise believes that vitamins can cure mental illness, then perhaps he should consider increasing his dosage."


Cruise spreading the teachings of Scientology: "If he is so concerned about mind control, he should not be part of an organization that seems to use this tactic as its Modus Operandi."


Cruise's romance with actress Katie Holmes: "If it isn't the publicity hoax it appears to be, is a pathetic, juvenile, attention-mongering display. Tom's obvious control of his Stepford-Wife-To-Be is frightening."


Cruise's recent criticism of Brooke Shields, Matt Lauer: "This man cannot even articulate a coherent sentence. He should stick to reading movie scripts."

The petition also points out that the actor's most compelling movie role was in "Magnolia," in which he played misogynist inspirational speaker Frank T.J. Mackay, "a control-freak with a pathological need to assert his obsession over not just those around him, but the public as well ... Mr. Cruise was playing himself."

As of Wednesday morning, nearly 3,000 people have signed the petition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gosh... who cares people... get a life

I just think it's funny, and I do read his reviews. I don't care if he disagrees with my opinion and I know that you can't rate a comedy and sci-fi movie on the same scale.

It seems like 4 stars used to mean something, but he gives so many films that rating these days that it has lost being special.

i enjoyed the movie but the last half hour or so once tim robbins shows up the movie slowed down and did not end well. weak ending.

I just came back from seeing this. It is so mediocre! I was very disappointed.

Firstly, Dakota Fanning. I kow the girl can act but if you don't give her any good dialogue of worthwhile direction, she can't do miracles. I wanted her to die more than Saffron Burrows in Deep Blue Sea. Add to that the her character was basically every annoying kid in almost every action/adventure movie times 50... I was in hell. And then Spielberg wasn't satisfied with one anyoing kid. He had to have two! Why Cruise didn't punch out his son (there were plenty of scenes where the kid deserved it) is beyond me.

I'm glad they stuck to the ending of the book (somewhat) but

Cruise, as always, was great, especially when you consider that he had the thankless job of carrying a very weak film practically on his own (the effects helped).

On the positive side, I adored the camera work and the fact that Spielberg relied on implied danger rather than relying on special effects every chance he got. And the effects themselves where fantastic. Only two scenes bugged me. The first car tossed in the air looked terrible. And there was a composite scene where for whatever reason some power lines were noticeably added to the scene. They look very poor due to this bright white halo around them. Other than those two instances, I saw nothing to complain about effects-wise.