I nearly walked out of the movie You know, I went to see War of the Worlds on wednesday evening this week. It is a favorite story of a favorite author of mine, along with the breathtakingly realistic radio production of the 30's and the Gene Barry movie from 1953 both true favorites. The current movie was a great gee-whiz movie, plus darkly described how it'd be for us global-inhabitants if we were invaded like that… But I have to say I nearly walked out of the movie numerous times during the first 2/3 of it…The way the father was portrayed as a bumbling incompetent inadequate lay-about idiot whose redemption at the end was in terms of satisfaction of his children's mother. It was an entirely unnecessary subplot/element in the production, pandering only to the mind-numbing and thoughtless cultural acceptance of such stereotypic negative portrayals. He did protect, and it was a heartwrenching aspect of the movie to watch mind you…dysfunctional as they all were together. Gene Barry's character was single, and the subplot of him and the pretty girl in the 1953 movie was at least a positive depiction of the "chivalric man and needs-protection woman" of the day. The current movie morally shat upon the father…<sheesh> Like you say, I think it portrayed the father as a hapless, unnecessary nitwit." user: Tom

Deadbeat Dad bashing was never part of the book I am so glad that someone is telling the truth about this movie. I was so disgusted by the conversion of the story into a Deadbeat Dad saga.  I can never support Spielburg or Cruise again by seeing one of their movies - you've got to vote with your dollars! Notice that the Deadbeat Dad only completes his 'mission' when he safely returns the children to the mother - the whole struggle was focused on getting them to her.  The Father finds fulfillment and respect from his son when he hands them over to the ex and her new man. DISGUSTING!! user: silversurfer

Back to the Movie Page

I agree with PaulG...for a while I saw the film too, and to be honest - i agree with PaulG...for a while, at least. initially they portray him (Tom, the 'deadbeat') as shirking work's offer of overtime; arriving 1/2 an hour late to collect his son & daughter from his ex; shrugging the fact the he's 1/2 an hour late of as if it's of no importance and living in what my mother would word as a bomb-site, with car parts all over the house and an empty fridge. then it gets worse as you see he happily allows his teenage son (17 or 19ish) share a room with his very young daughter; of course the mother points out the error of his ways but again, being a deadbeat he flips her off... But then, it changes: he is seen caring in a big way for both his children and protecting them, at one point risking his life just to be with his daughter in the hands of death. he is seen facing the agonising choice of stopping his son joining in the warfare or running to his daughter who has been taken by a couple who assume she is alone. He is seen making sure his daughter is safe from potential harm (casting another guy - of course - as a potential threat), and doing what he can (inc. murdering a man who loses his cool when silence is of utmost importance) to ensure his daughter is safe from the aliens. all in all, it seemed more of 50/50 split. the only thing that made me swing on the opinion that Tom portrayed a deadbeat more than not was the fact that it took an alien invasion for him to open his eyes. but overall, i enjoyed it and felt there was much benefit for men & fathers in seeing this (preferably the latter half though) as there was a good share of positive portrayal given. my wife knows all too well i am antifeminist and pro-father/pro-man etc. and when i told her my view, the above is virtually what i said "i enjoyed it mostly, had a shitty portrayal to start, but it did swing over once the invasion began. it showed a good example of the kind situations fathers can find themselves in (who do i protect, my son or my daughter? How can i help them both? etc.)" and she was impressed that i hadn't battered the entire film just because of the initial scenes. user: KarlMathews

Pointless Remake Including exploitative nods to 9/11, Spielberg and Cruise have turned H.G.Wells' thoughtful novel, "War of the Worlds," into a special-effects-crammed bore. Amazing, because Spielberg has proved to be a master in previous films, but here descends to going for a big money-maker instead.  The idea of Cruise as a fool of a single dad is novel, but the script is too superficial for any believability; Cruise is supposed to grow in stature over the course of the film, but all he does is simply emote more. And then, there are all the jaw-dropping coincidences, like Cruise and family being the only ones to have a workable vehicle, and being able to speed along a highway dotted with other abandoned vehicles and crowds.  Or the odd, happy-face ending, indicating that hardly anything happened to Boston. The spirituality of the original, a strong element of the novel and the original 1953 Paramount film, is given lip service in this tawdry remake.  Spielberg and Cruise mouth platitudes, but what that's only bad dubbing over their real intent, which is just to make a lot of money.  Still, if all you want is noirish special effects, you may enjoy the look of the thing, though the only real scary moments for this viewer were to be found in scenes involving panic-stricken crowds. Hopefully, Spielberg's upcoming December release, about the Israeli revenge on the Arab assassins of the 1972 Munich Olympic Games, will be more involving. At least it won't have Cruise as yet another spoiled-brat/bad dad. user: johnspike

Subjective Messages Let's not forget that this is a Steven Spielberg movie.  His films always have a knack of using the same themes of 'fatherlessness', or 'father-reaquaintance' (E.T, Minority Report, Schindler's List, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, etc) that Spielberg can relate to from his own childhood, so I'm not really all that convinced that it was meant to be father/man-bashing.  It's more a case of Spielberg having no other ideas to use to make his films original. A case in point would be Minority Report. I read the original Philip K. Dick (original author) short story and nowhere was the subject matter about a kidnapped son, so obviously Spielberg used this because it's the type of subject matter that he knows most about to use. Personally, I think it gets seriously boring, especially if you can guess right from the start what same themes and issues that are inevitable in every new film he brings out! user: Rookie Bird

War of the Worlds

Problem in a nutshell time. Almost every movie I've seen that explores the father-child dynamic does so in the following way: The father undergoes some traumatic event that leads to him learning how to love and appreciate his child(ren). Every. Single. Time. How often do they show the reverse? A mother undergoes a traumatic event in order to learn how to love her child(ren). user: Typhonblue

Discuss this movie with other users by posting a comment