Customer Reviews

War of the Worlds (Widescreen Two-Disc Special Edition)

5 star:		(263)
4 star:		(239)
3 star:		(194)
2 star:		(155)
1 star:		(199)

 

 

The War of the Worlds is a great novel and Spielberg is a director of exceptional talent and accomplishment, so I had been hoping for a lot from this film. In the event, I have got part of what I was hoping for. Very occasionally, a novel can be 'walked' straight on to the screen (The Big Sleep, with a script by Faulkner, is a striking case), and I found myself wondering whether this novel might not have benefited from the same treatment. Some of Spielberg's changes are perfectly reasonable, others less so in my own opinion. It makes perfectly good sense to bring the action forward by a century into the present day, for instance. I suppose there's no harm either in changing the main actors from Wells's scientist with a wife and a brother to a dysfunctional American family, as this may provide enhanced 'human interest' or some such benefit for all I would know. Again, I have no real problem with the way the film combines the roles of the curate and the artilleryman in the book into the single persona of the former ambulance-driver, and I can well understand that Spielberg would have thought it prudent to tone down the socialistic elements in this aspect of the story in order to avoid setting off the wrong types of reaction in American audiences. What I do have a major problem with is the appearance of the Martians themselves. I'm sorry to report that these have far too much in common with a certain wretched TV series. The author's own description is one that stays in the memory, to say the very least, and Wells's Martians look the way they do for very clear reasons that he provides. What was gained by going downmarket in the way Spielberg chooses to do? Nothing that I can think of except perhaps better audience figures from harking back to that ghastly broadcast series.

In fact the best things in the film come directly from Wells. Even one of the best lines, where the statement that the invaders come from somewhere else is met with the question 'Where - Europe?' is a very clever adaptation of a good joke in the book comparing the attitudes of Mrs Elphinstone to the Martians on the one hand and the French on the other. The Martian tripods are simply terrific, their appearance lifted more or less exactly from the book. However The War of the Worlds is a work of political and social philosophy and speculation, not just some science-fiction yarn. I really would have liked Spielberg to be a bit more ambitious and reflect this more than he seems to have felt like doing. For one thing, the Martians are invading the earth because their own smaller planet is cooling and dying around them. Wells explicitly says that there is no reason to suppose them 'pitiless'. They have come for pressing practical reasons connected with their own very survival. We know now, as Wells did not, that all they were going to find on Venus is a searing hell under the rolling white clouds, so it would be more than likely, as Wells says again, that they would learn from the failure of their first expedition and come back to the earth better prepared the next time rather than stake everything on one throw, which is what the film seems to be suggesting. The last gesture of the Martians in the film is an expression indicative of hatred, which doesn't even make sense considering they saw us as their food source. What consumer of beef makes hostile faces at beef-herds? The Martians' purpose can't have been 'extermination' as someone is made to say in the film, only subjugation, another matter perfectly clear from the novel.

More survives of the view Wells takes of the behaviour of humanity itself, and Spielberg handles the mob-scenes rather well. However what he tones down more than I would have wished is the reflections, in the novel expressed via the persona of the artilleryman, on the likely behaviour of human beings towards one another once the Martian dominion was hypothetically established. The artilleryman's predictions are class-based like the vision of the Eloi and Morlocks in the Time-Machine, but they are far from endorsing Marxism and there is no reason to see them as any firm viewpoint held by the author himself.

Perhaps the very best things in the entire film are to be found in the voiceovers right at the start and right at the end. The words are lifted almost verbatim from the novel itself at these points, and they are simply awesome, the first page in particular of The War of the Worlds being surely one of the greatest in all English fiction with the last page not far behind it in that respect. The exquisite irony of the fact that the Martians, who might have viewed us as we view micro-organisms in a laboratory were in their turn thwarted and destroyed by just such organisms when nothing humanity could do availed in the least is obviously not lost on the director. I just wish he had raised his game more consistently to something like the level of the theme he was taking on.

H. G. Wells wrote the novel over a century ago and Steven Spielberg has done a fantastic job of incorporating some of the literary tale's elements into his version: the tripods and their ear-shattering "ULLA!", the heat ray, the retaining baskets, the growth of the "red weed," the demented "Ogilvey" (Tim Robbins), the devastating onslaught from the invaders, man's futile efforts to defend himself, and the final "solution," among other parts familiar to fans of the book.

The director also paid tribute to producer George Pal's 1953 Technicolor classic by using a similar "probe" into the basement occupied by Cruise and daughter Fanning, the destruction of a church, an American setting, and a brief appearance by the earlier film's stars: Gene Barry and Ann Robinson.

There are many tense scenes, making this film not quite suitable for younger audiences. The sound is loud and abrasive, befitting the on-screen destruction. Surprisingly, John Williams's score is quite subtle and, on occasions, is barely audible.

Actingwise, Cruise, contrary to his behavior off-screen, asserts himself well as the estranged father of two kids who must now do all that he can to save his children, as well as himself. Fanning's strong performance shows why she is one of most popular child performers today. And Robbins is appropriately creepy as the man with the plan to bring down the invaders.

While megahit "Independence Day" toured similar ground, "War of the Worlds" is more the work of a master storyteller and his name is Steven Spielberg.

That alone makes it a film not to be missed!

I won't offer a play-by-play of the movie's plot, but I do want to make one point. Let's cut the ending some slack.

Spielberg is often criticized for over-sentimentalizing his films' endings and going too far over the top. Like "A.I." and others, "War of the Worlds" has not escaped such complaints. I admit I was initially shocked by the level to which Spielberg asked that I suspend my disbelief, but after reflecting on the film as a whole, I've decided this isn't a problem for me. After all, during the film's run-time we've seen countless numbers of people not just killed, but utterly annihilated. We've seen buildings crushed and families torn apart. As far as his ending is concerned, Spielberg pulls no punches and goes for a solid emotional knock-out, which either works for you or does not. For me, seeing such an unabashedly happy ending was actually cathartic; after so much despair, I found it felt awfully good to see something I could feel happy about.

This is a great film and will certainly have a spot on my Wish List until its release date.

This is a really, really good movie. No, it's not a literal depiction of the H.G. Wells novel, but they never said it was going to be. It's sort of an "Inspired by" version. The basic elements of Wells' tale are here, placed into our time and world. To do that there have to be some changes.

This has both advantges and disadvantages. The latter include that we know already how the story has to end (although apparently some reviewers have never read the book, judging by their comments), but if you're good enough, you can still create suspense and maintain interest throughout the whole picture. Spielberg and Cruise are good enough. To draw a parallel, in the TV show "Smallville", we Know he's going to grow up to be Superman. We Know he's not going to end up with Lana. We Knew the friendship with Luthor couldn't last. Still, they made the journey itself interesting. Same thing here, in spades.

People have to understand this in order to review the movie fairly. Certain things about anyone doing the War of the Worlds just have to be there. Aliens; We're losing; An everyman who doesn't solve the situation, just survives it; TRIPODS! The 1953 version (which I enjoyed) didn't have them because the FX technology of the time didn't permit them to make them realistically. With what we can do now, any version that didn't have them would be unacceptable; Germs. Accept it, folks. The Titanic sinks at the end. Like it or not, Custer dies. Bruce Wayne is Batman. No one recognizes it's Superman behind Clark Kent's glasses. In Wells' story, we are saved by germs. Spielberg doesn't get to change that and still call it War of the Worlds.

One clever thing that was done here was that everything was seen from the Earthlings' point of view. There was no attempt to explain why the aliens came ("They need our land/resources/women, etc. so they can relocate from their dying world/save their dying planet/breed and save their dying race, etc..."). We have no idea why they're here, and It Doesn't Matter. They're just here, slaughtering everyone in sight. Apparently they need the planet itself becuase they don't just nuke Earth from space and they do start their version of terraforming. However, none of the characters in the movie know why this is happening, and again, It Doesn't Matter. The movie says to us, "Give us that it's happening, and we'll play fair with you in the context of Wells' basic plot". Some might argue that the "biological" ending wouldn't really happen (our bacteria might not recognize the aliens as food), but that's how Wells' ended it and any other ending would be a cheat.

Tom Cruise gives a brauva performance. Despite whether you like or dislike him personally, the man can act. This movie wasn't the only demonstration of that, just the best. He's totally believable in his characterization, performance and evolution, and at the point where it appears he's going to sacrifice himself, it's completely credible. It's not in there just to make the star look heroic, it makes total sense, given what's happening and what he expects the immediate future to be. He never gives up. Not a "Die Hard" type of never-gives-up, just a that's the way it has to be kind of never-gives-up.

Although I think it would have been more bittersweet and better at the end if Robbie hadn't been found, I can accept it, especially since Ray's relationship with his ex-wife doesn't magically turn into bliss as would a typical Hollywood ending. No, we don't find out what happens to the characters next. At the final scene, the movie is definitely over, as it should be. No tidy wrapping up. This is where the story we are being told ends.

After suffering through that total waste of time called "Signs", all I can say is that someone should tie M. Night Shyamalan to a chair and show him this film until he understands that THIS is how you make an invasion from space movie.

Even though the movie is perfectly made and designed, it is not the War of the Worlds. Only a very few details from the book remain, such as the tripods fighting machines, the red weed and the way the aliens die. Tim Robbins plays a part which should have been divided for three different characters: the artillery man who wants to build a new world underground, the curate who becomes nuts, and... Ogilvy, the astronomer, who, by the way, gets toasted in chapter 5.
I will not criticise the quality of the movie which remains a good entertainment, but it should have carried another title. Two adaptations may carry that title: Jeff Waynes's musical version (and which remain the best adaptation ever) and... (gasp!) Timothy Hines version but only because it follows the book very accurately. However, the filming, the acting, the editing and the special FX lack so much professionalism that I've seen fan films far much better made. So, forget about Timothy Hines's big mess, watch Spielberg's film for a good enjoyment, and read the book (or hear the musical) if you are looking for accuracy.

I have always been a fan of the alien-invasion genre, and have long awaited a decent movie to exploit the subject. Independence Day was a joke; Signs was great until the preposterous ending and explanation of what did in the aliens; X-Files had a good tone and smart plotting, until they lost everyone with the whole bees-and-corn storyline. Huh?

When I saw that Speilberg was going to tackle this with Cruise in the lead, I couldn't wait. And you know what, I wasn't disappointed.

First things first: the plot, as Ebert pointed out, about where they come from, is illogical, yes. But once you see the first machine literally explode onto that small town, it sure won't matter, because it's creepy as hell. Once one of these things stands up and starts making all the ominous noises while everybody just stands there, you can't help but be rattled.

There's a nifty and creepy sequence right before about a sort-of lightning storm--but with no thunder, as Ray points out, and the wind blowing TOWARDS the storm and not away from it. Next thing everybody knows, all electrical devices are dead: cars, power, even Ray's watch. Nice setup for obviously impending doom.

Of course this is CGI at work and I always appreciate digital that's done so realistically you forget it's digital. And that is the case here (unlike, say, the embarassingly digital snake in the movie Anaconda).

Once the machine starts going on a rampage in that New Jersey town, it is frightening and freaky and for whatever anybody says, Cruise does a good job of downplaying the role throughout--he's not the hero who does in the beast but rather a sad father who's just trying to keep his two kids alive.

The the other big plus for the movie is how it portrays what monsters WE become in the face of catastrophes on this scale--the panic, the me-first mentality, the trampling over others, etc. There's a great scene when Ray and his kids--in a working car, which nobody has--is set upon by a mob that attacks them viciously. A mob of fellow Americans.

What's best about the movie is the horrific imagery: people covered in ash from you-don't-want-to-know-what, a downed airliner, a burning train speeding through a town, the mist of blood blowing in a window, the source of which becomes horribly apparent. Yes, there are obvious reminders of 9/11 from not only the destruction and the ash but the aftermath.

The downside to the movie was too often the carnage and action was immediately followed by what seemed like overlong drama pieces intercut throughout. Of course you need a "human" story to it lest it become a cartoon like ID4, but these were the only sequences that dragged.

Cruise underplays it nicely, Dakota Fanning is great as always and the kid who plays Ray's conflicted teenage son is quite a find. You even get to see Tim Robbins as a crazy guy in a tornado shelter who meets a fate you won't believe.

Best Spielberg movie ever? No. But definitely worth seeing, especially when the machines are wreaking havoc. They are quite horrifying to behold, especially the first one.

DEFINITELY worth a rent.

I sense and read a lot of mindless Spielberg bashing in some bad reviews here.
OK, lets face it from the start: this is no masterpiece; Cruise's character is not 100% likeable, the guy sometimes is immature, but this is a councious choice in the script, if it's a good or bad choice is arguable; the family characters are not 100% likeable either, thay are all antiheroes...nobody's perfect. Moreover, this is no faithful adaptation of the novel, which I have read; but why all movies that come from a novel MUST be ultra faithful screen versions of a novel? That would be always boring.

The viewer should'nt try to descypher all the extraterrestials intentions and means of operating, they are just a misterious and formidable force from another planet that want OURS for THEM. Not only about this movie, but other SciFi, I read a lot of people complaining about 'Why This?' 'Why That?'. This is a 2 hour movie, not V The Final Battle nor Galactica, that kind of criticism belongs more to the latter or Star Trek.

As a disaster movie, this work is almost a masterpiece, the FX are superb, there is great tension and desperation always, you just try to imagine yourself in the characters' various situations of this alien invasion, and lets see if you would always make the right decisions...you will figure out, that THERE ARE NO RIGHT CHOICES in such an extreme and unbelievable situation, your life depends of some luck and to stay away as possible from the powers that be.

As Science Fiction films are concerned, I avoid to compare remakes, specially if they are decades away (except if there is an obvious difference in quality, such as Planet of the Apes). 1953 The War of The Worlds is a work from another time, Spielberg's is a work of the 21st century that exploits 21st century's sensibilities, I do not see why that has to be negative.

The ending is very similar from the novel, and it is a whole and HUGE point of the main story. Spielberg surely knew this and wisely avoided a more climatic final, those who want humans blasting off and wasting aliens should look away. A footnote: this ending is far more wise than, for example, Independence Day...my God, I still cannot make some text files compatible between my Mac and my Windows PC! You know what I mean...

In a nutshell, of Spielberg's late SciFi works I prefer this one (the others being Minority Report and Artificial Intelligence) despite that in all of them you find masterful moments, this has the more thrills and surprises that are typical of his authoring. Forget Tom Cruise and give this film a chance. I wish that there would be more SciFi movies like this and less like Alien vs Predator or Supernova, Spielberg is still the 'master', even when he does not use his full power.

* Contains spoilers *

I didn't see this one in the cinema because of the very mixed reviews. But I remained curious, so eventually saw it on DVD. Some aspects of this movie are rather refreshing, I found. For once, the story of an invasion by an evil, alien force is not told from the perspective of scientists, generals and presidents who have to solve the problem, but from the point of view of ordinary people overwhelmed by something huge and incomprehensible. Yet this very incomprehensibility makes for an unsatisfying movie experience. Whereas many films suffer from the problem that they want to explain everything, this one hardly explains anything at all. The only explanations we get are given through the archaic and out of place device of an anonymous voice over, citing some sentences from Wells's novel. Otherwise, you might say that this film is actually plotless. Terrible machines pop up out of nowhere and start killing and devastating; one and a half hours later they just collapse and that's it. Who these aliens are, what exactly motivates them, where they came from - we're not told any of this. All we get are a few hints, and these cause more confuison rather than less. We are are led to believe that the tripods were planted underground before mankind even began; "They planned all of this millions of years ago". The notion is of course ludicrous: it`s like 21st century mankind going to war in a horse-and-chariot. Moreover, why did the aliens not invade right away then? They could have spared themselves the trouble of having to deal with billions of obnoxious humans. For an intelligence supposedly so far developed, the method chosen for the extermination of eartlings also seems rather cumbersome and labour-intensive. And what's with the blood-drinking? If these creatures need human blood, where did they get it before? That such a superior intelligence, which has been planning its invasion for so long, would overlook the obvious danger of alien microbes is of course silly, and is the crucial weakness in the storyline, which it shares with Wells's original. Finally (and then I'll stop, though there is much more) we are told the aliens watched our planet with envy - yet as soon as they invade it they set about turning it into a horrible wasteland. Why?

So what's the good news? Mainly, that the special effects are generally first rate. Don't expect any great originality - the aliens are your average mushroom-headed, mirror-eyed, spidery-bodied Quasimodo's - but it's all done with gusto, and we get some signature Steven Spielberg weird stormy skies to boot. The film does contain a few images that are truly memorable, and the huge size of the tripods is believably rendered - often by not showing them directly, but, for instance, reflected in the wind-screen of a car. Unfortunately, once Earth's landscape is transformed by the aliens the viewer finds that despite the whole CGI magic box, no convincing alternative has yet been found for the old fashioned matte painting and blue screen. Also, some of the sets were strangely reminiscent of Tim Burton's recent Charly and the Chocolate Factory.
There's not much to say about the acting. Tom Cruise does steer clear of his pretty boy imago and is fairly convincing as the somewhat dysfunctional father who suddenly actually has to take care of his brood. The spontaneous heroism of his unruly son, however, is almost as hard to understand as his miraculous reappearance in the final scene, after we saw him walking of into a blazing fire storm to go and fight the aliens. The obligatory, wide-eyed little girl (blonde, of course) seems rather more mature than her father and is rather more scary than the aliens; her insistent screaming is an absolute pest.

An intelligent action thriller? No, not quite. As far as I know there've been exactly two truly intelligent films about contact with aliens: Close Encouters, and Contact. Time spent with those is time much better spent than with this unsuccesful attempt.

War of the Worlds is not a bad movie, but it isn't exactly a good one either. The special effects are impressive, the movie is more or less true to the story, although Spielberg got a little creative here and there but hey, it's Spielberg so let's just run with it, right? I mean, if Spielberg did it, it'll be awesome, right? Wrong.

If you are going to change the story around and create completely new characters, wouldn't you at least expect the characters to be interesting? Well, forget it. In my opinion, Spielberg is one of the best directors in terms of character development. War of the Worlds has viturally NO character development from start to finish. Tom Cruise's acting is flat and his character is so far from interesting it's pathetic. In fact, even his self-absorbtion is difficult to follow. I kept waiting for that big movie moment when Cruise's character would have a revelation and therefore make him less disgusting. Nope, it never happened. He did make it to Boston though.

As for the kids, forget it. Robbie, the annoying son that for some inexplicable reason is determined to put everyone in jeapordy for his quest to kill the aliens, grates on your nerves from start to finish. He disappears about 2/3 of the way through the movie into a huge explosive battle between the military and the aliens and then just magically arrives safe and sound in Boston without a scratch and before his father and sister get there. I also wondered how the city of Boston could be in flames and virtually destroyed but the charming townhouse where Ray's pregnant ex-wife and her parents are is as good as new. They should sell that place...it's the only block in town that is alien free.

Rachel, the equally annoying daughter, has more high-pitched whiney screams than lines. We watch her order health food. We see her prized ribbon. We see her funky clothing. We hear her wise-beyond-her-years comments. We don't care. We want her to stop screeching at the top of her lungs. We want the aliens to get her just so she'll shut up!

The only character of any interest is Ogilvey, whom we are supposed to despise because he is putting everyone in danger with his crazy misguided plans. Of course, Robbie just did that same thing but we're supposed to forget that. First off, why did Ogilvey go out of his way to flag Ray and Rachel down so they could come into some house he took over when countless others were left running through a field, exposed and getting picked off one by one? NO one else thought to hide in that house? No, I'd stay exposed in a field while giant tripods skewered everyone. Too bad, Ogilvey is the only character that doesn't make you start rooting for the aliens. This character should have been developed more as well. But hey, why bother when we have a great tentacle scene coming up? Ooh, and don't forget the aliens will be along shortly to spin a bicycle wheel and look at some old photos. Of course, Ray the 5'6" superdad will be able to kick his butt even though Ogilvey is crazy, sports a shovel, an axe and a gun and has already smacked superdad upside the head and out-wrestled him before. But then again, superdad has to kill him...otherwise his quiet crazy mutterings will arouse the aliens supicions...unlike the repeated shrill squeals from his daughter.

Normally, I accept science fiction films for what they have become...special effect eye candy, but with Spielberg at the helm, I really expected much more and I doubt I was the only one. What we are left with is special effects and nothing more. I'm really glad I didn't shell out the dough to see this movie in the theater. What happened to Spielberg? Why take creative license and then do nothing with it? It's worth the rental especially if you just want to see giant blood-spewing tripods (which was cool, I have to admit) but don't expect anything of substance.

Steven Spielberg is a master of evoking moods. In "Jaws" he inspired in us the dread of a thing that we didn't even see till near the end of the film; in "Empire of the Sun" (my personal Spielberg favorite), he showed us the exhilaration and desperation of a child being forced to grow up but not always disliking it; in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind" he aroused a wonderment and thrill about life itself. "War of the Worlds" evokes a mood too, but here it is one of total dread and despair. Gone are the pleasant, curious aliens of "Close Encounters" or "E.T.," just dropping in to say hello; these aliens are mean, terroristic creatures whose only plans are destroying all life on our planet. Spielberg is still highly effective at inspiring in us whatever emotion he wishes to create, but here that is really all that he accomplishes.

For one thing, I believe casting Tom Cruise was a mistake. He is not incompetent, certainly, but one is never really able to see him and not think "he is Tom Cruise the international mega-star and he will triumph because he gets twenty million a picture and cannot die." Spielberg has used well-known actors to his advantage before, such as Harrison Ford in the Indiana Jones films and Jude Law in "A.I.," but here I found Cruise distracting rather than believable. He has more than a few good moments, especially when sharing the screen with Dakota Fanning, but mostly I couldn't shake the fact that it was just Tom Cruise up there. Unlike the amazing Johnny Depp, who can sink so far into his roles that he becomes invisible as a performer, Tom Cruise is unable to shake off his movie-starness, and that damaged the film severely. His presence constantly reminded me that he was Tom Cruise the Movie Star, acting, and that nothing truly terrible could happen to him precisely because he was Tom Cruise the Movie Star.

Dakota Fanning as Rachel is sorely underused; she is young but an actress of remarkable nuance and talent, and here is reduced principally to screaming uncontrollably for most of her screen time. Her eyes are still impressively communicative: she can convey wide-eyed awe and wide-eyed horror in the same expression. The addition of the daughter was a useful enhancement to Wells' story, as it gave the film a father-daughter dynamic that was compelling, but the inclusion of a son was unnecessary; Robbie is no more than the average movie teen, sullen and rebellious, and is so extraneous to the real action that he is sent away halfway through and not seen again till the very end of the movie. Miranda Otto too is sadly neglected; she has a compelling blend of delicacy and strength to her that is intriguing on camera, but her character is not really allowed to develop at all before she too is shuffled away till the end of the film. Tim Robbins is suitably creepy as the old and insane codger Harlan Ogilvy, who offers Ray and his daughter Rachel shelter. One of the film's most chilling moments comes when Harlan jeopardizes Rachel's safety, and Ray must deal with him in what one suspects (but never shown) is a very unpleasant manner. An ominously closed cellar door and a mysteriously appearing hatchet are involved to great effect, though we see nothing.

I was not convinced by the story, however, even though it follows fairly closely to Wells' novel; there are far too many questions raised which my brain could not suspend disbelief for. Why, for instance, would these aliens be so keen to annihilate that which they plan to harvest and utilize? And what exactly do they harvest humans for, anyway? If they need us so badly, how have they survived all these long years without us? And why, if they've been planning on all this for "millions of years," would they have failed to analyze a little detail like the bacterial and viral components of our biosphere? And, for that matter, why with all the underground tunnels and subways and water mains dug into our modern cities were these huge machines never discovered?

All in all, though, even with its weaknessess of plot I was not truly disappointed until the last ten minutes or so of the film. The mood of the movie, as I said before, is evoked very, very well, as one would expect from a master like Spielberg, who knows how to concoct an emotion-driven blockbuster like nobody else. We are grasped almost immediately by dread, followed closely by the sense of ineluctable devastation and doom. It is a disaster picture clearly informed by 9/11 and this age of terrorism awareness; the images of burning airplane wreckage, flaming trains rushing full-speed through stations, and people running down the street coated in human ash are haunting. However, even at 116 minutes the film is overlong. Particularly the middle section of the film, with the aliens' seemingly unstoppable march of destruction, becomes repetitive; there are only so many times we can see things being blown up and those bizarre tripod things ransacking Earth and zapping humans before it becomes just another something we've seen before. Another really depressing something.

The film's conclusion is what ultimately lost my respect for the movie. I found it utterly unsatisfying: having spent nearly the last two hours creating a very acute sense of inescapable annihilation, Spielberg suddenly ends it all in a great hurry with a fantastically implausible and rushed conclusion, seemingly concocted just because the film was two hours and needed to end. This isn't really the case; Wells has the same ending, but in the film it seems plucked from thin air and dismayingly out of place with what comes before. Morgan Freeman's portentous voice-over, seemingly inspired by National Geographic specials on PBS, doesn't help any. In the end, the elements simply failed to coalesce into a satisfying whole, and I left the theatre feeling nothing in particular at all about the movie, which is something I have never experienced with a Spielberg movie before. It is not as bad as many pictures released this summer - "Herbie: Fully Loaded" and "Fantastic Four" spring to mind - and you could do much worse at the multiplex; it's just that with Spielberg, you expect to be able to do much better.