LYT's Weblog

I liked Freeman's narration for two reasons:

a.) it is lifted directly from Welles' novel
b.) it saves us from the Spielberg's dreaded 4th act syndrome

Dakota's character's name is Rachel. Which is the same name as Katie Holme's character in Batman Begins. CREEEPY.

I dug the movie, too, and even accepted the remarkable level of coincidence in the first forty five minutes (mainly because I found them so intense and well-staged that I wasn't really paying attention to credibility). I'll post a link to my own review when I'm done writing it in an hour or two.

Dude that was fucking funny. You made my night.

But you know nothing about extra-terrestrials and I do! And stop being so glib! Educate yourself! You have no idea what effect NOT seeing this film might have on those trying to get off of Ritalin!

Oh, and as I continue to procrastinate in writing my own review - here's a link to my reinterpretation of that Today Show interview.

http://www.road-dog-productions.com/cruise.jpg

That doctored photo is not funny. That was a sacred orb I was holding and I simply am trying to get people to understand how Scientology can save them from the evil corrupt drug companies and psychiatric associations. If you want proof how these drugs have affected people's minds, just check out this link:

http://www.amiannoying.com/(pxqyqcakz5ejagibaoz3oq45)/ranking.aspx

They have obviously brainwashed people into thinking I am more annoying than Paris Hilton. Get real...

Don't worry, Tom, Paris is still vastly more annoying. You've still got your acting skills to back you up on your bad days.

My review: http://www.road-dog-productions.com/reviews/archives/2005/06/the_war_of_the.html

Acting skills? Acting skills??? Oh, yeah, right... Lol. Good one.

Great review...

And Morgan Freeman rocks, even just in voice-over.

Oh yeah. Tom is definately NOT gay. He LOVES Katie Holmes. A Lot.

This is one of the suckiest reviews I've ever read! Seriously, learn how to write about your subject, good or bad, don't just jaw away with an occasional shocking (to your kidde readers) word here and there and call it a 'review'. Christ!

fucking hilarious

This may be your best review ever!

That review was simply... amazing.. !!!

Funny...

Oh yeah, and if you like Dakota Fanning being traumatized, check out Cat in the Hat...

The funniest review I'd ever seen so far. Anyway, I'm gonna see the movie tomorrow.

Hilarious review! I've already got tickets for a 6:30 show tomorrow, and these reviews are only upping my excitement for this film.

Dude - That is really, really, funny. And I'm an old conservative-type guy... I'll be back for the scoop on all future movie potentials. You doing an oscar preview??

I knew Tom Cruise, Tom Cruise was a friend of mine,
Senator, you are no Tom Cruise,
- you are as gay as Elton John.

Tom, Tom, Tom, Tom.
You are a great ACTOR with big screen charisma. Remember you are the biggest star in the world. Don't blow this???

Your are a goddamn racist antisemite - I hope one of this "Black People" or "Dead Jews" Speilberg writes about will find your mother fucking mother and take care of her.

I know you know what IMDB is. I think you just wanted to complain about the lack of press kit.

Hitler calls me an anti-Semite -- I guess given the source, that's praise?

If I can't say "dead Jews" or "black people," please help me with the following questions:

-Generally speaking, what religion of people, in what condition, would one find buried in an Israeli cemetary?

-what kind of people were enslaved in the American South prior to the Civil War?

As for my mom, I doubt she's scared of the corpses of Oskar Schindler's employees and Cinque coming to get her.

"The goal is to get to Boston, to see Eowyn." That made me laugh for about 15 minutes straight. I was in tears after reading that. Because during the movie that's really all I was thinking of. Cruise and Dakota are setting out on a journey to see a fat Eowyn.

Note: She's pregnant. They never say who the father is, so I'll entertain myself and continue thinking she's a whore.

Thanks... i've just found my favorite website!
we just saw this movie and your review
says it all! LOL!

sexy dakota...ohhhh....unngh!

You forget the most important part: Starship Troopers was the prelude-propaganda message for the coming desert wars, "Can you tell us what Saddam is thinking? He's afraid of us!" Private Ryan was about the need to paint our 'faded flag' with new red stripes of blood. And what's the message in Spielberg's movie? Simple, that is if you are between 16 and 18 - 'Did your old dad ignore you? Did he fall short in any way? Was he cooler than you? Well then my boy, everytime you see a chance to avenge some wrong to your nation and everytime you see a convoy of the US army driving by, be sure and RUN (Don't Walk!) toward the troopers and demand they allow you to join the army so you can be all you can be!!!'

That is the one message of the entire show - its a pathetic Recruitment film. Typical for Hollywood these last 10 years.

Let's see,
1. Aliens were busy burying huge ships all over the world a million years ago but forgot to notice the germs. The germ routine worked in the old War of The Worlds movie cause in that one the guys from Mars were studying us from afar and had not been here until they came to invade.
2. It was fair to make the first War of The Worlds without mentioning too much about UFO lore, but in 2005 its bad form to fail to connect the two - War Of The Worlds has to be updated. At least Independence Day did update its motif to include Aera 51 and so forth.
3. Unless the forcefields kept the mud from between the toes of the Tripods, I suppose the simple use of landmines and hidden pits would have taken car of them.
4. Last I noticed crows don't land on top of moving heavy machinery, especially machinery that looks scarier than a 7 story scarecrow.
5. The little girl seemed to be an advertisment for the use of Ritalin - the heavy use - or stun guns.
6. The ray guns turned humans into dust, cut through cars and buildings but could not burn clothing. The leason here was the army should have covered its tanks with denim cloth.
7. I think the one lesson I took away from this show was that when under attack always run toward ground zero. Head for the Bull's Eye everytime. If the aliens are out to kill huge crowds of people, why then just run toward huge crowds or cities of people. Or head for a heavily lit up ferry boat.
8. Someone should talk to that ferry boat captain and find out why he stuffed his boat with cars when the docks were swarming with thousands of humans trying to escape? Was he working for the aliens?
9. Spielberg should give it up and retire.

The new show was dull after they reach Eowyn's country house. The new movie just talked about what the aliens were doing and did not show much of the action at all! The old movie is still better http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/

"8. Someone should talk to that ferry boat captain and find out why he stuffed his boat with cars when the docks were swarming with thousands of humans trying to escape? Was he working for the aliens?"

Probably the cars stopped working while they were on the Ferry, so they couldn't get moved.

"6. The ray guns turned humans into dust, cut through cars and buildings but could not burn clothing. The leason here was the army should have covered its tanks with denim cloth."

It's completely plausible that the ray worked like this: it pierces through our clothing, and since the Aliens know so much about us (due to their obsession with our blood), the Ray is actually a carrier of fiery flesh-eating nano-machines that only attack human flesh. And thus, leaving the clothing intact.

But all your other points (except for #9) are completely credible.

"War" sucks. Totally implausible. I looked at my watch 4 times and that's not good. For Samurai, I think it was twice. 'Course, I'm a guy who walked out of "Lord Of The Rings".....

Well dear cars can be rolled and pushed even when they don't work. Perhaps you should consider that mr. West. I didn't think the clothing thing made much sense either nor your ideas. Walls, clothing, not much difference really when you think about it. Wood, cotton, just plant fiber. Those who were turned into dust were not juiced like the ones who were caught and sucked of their blood. So your blood idea doesn't make sense.

"If I can't say "dead Jews" or "black people," please help me"

As a Jew, I found did find this offensive. Not over-the-top offensive, but I think your phrasing could be more sensitive. The word "Jew" itself is a little offensive, I think most Jewish people would prefer being referred to as Jewish people. Notice you did say black People, not "Blacks." A small point, to be sure, but I did enjoy your review, and will return to this site again, and wanted you to know one (Jewish) man's opinion. Thank You.

Good points Crosby. My take was that the cars did work since I saw lights on in the town, and the ship was lit up with power and its engines worked and I saw people sitting inside their cars. It seemed to me that the Tripods had not reached this town yet and it had not suffered a special lightening event. That would explain why the boat's power system was still up and running. It seemed unlikely that people would have pushed dead cars miles to reach the ferry boat that still had power itself.

Actually I highly respect Spielberg - I just think he should either new play video games until he understands what this generation has come to expect and what does and what does not scare them, or he should admit he's a wuss and stay away from scary shows.

But the news today is that now he is moving into some realy dangerous territory if you know anything about the Mossad!

"Mr. Spielberg quietly began filming the most politically charged project he has yet attempted: the tale of a secret Mossad hit squad ordered to assassinate Palestinian terrorists after the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich." From Drudge

Yep, wonderfully entertaining film, except for the Morgan Freeman prologue/epilogue which, after Saturday Night Live last season did a Weekend Update with Freeman as the "guest" (but focusing on an empty chair while Tina et al. "interviewed" him chatting back with her sans corpus, you'd think that even Hollywood would have gotten the message by now.

But golly gee, no kidding, I thoroughly enjoyed myself. About midway through when I realized my pulse hadn't leveled off yet, I remembered that this was the guy who brought us "Jaws" and then resigned myself, as one does a few seconds after boarding an amusement park ride that you know right off was a BAD IDEA, that I was at his mercy for another hour.

Hi -

Regarding that "dead jews" phrasing - well, you _should_ take into account that the murder of 6 million jews is no light matter. I don't know how knowledgeable you are in this subject, but I think it's mandatory reading for any journalist in your stature.

The bottom line is that the Nazi partial-success, ideology, methodology, national support and final aim to exterminate all Jewish people have created a mental scar, for all Jews, and for all humans. It will marr mankind forever, and so the Holocaust is totally unique in history because of the traits I mentioned above.

The term "dead Jews" is not equivalent to "dead Europeans" or "dead people" or whatever - it's sort of a personal insult, a degradation, to any Jew, since the dead are his direct relatives.

And truthfully, LYT - it ought to be a personal insult to any person - since it means that that person has not learned those lessons that should have been learned from the Holocaust.

Suggested viewing:
* The Last Days
* The Hitler Youth

And please come to Israel - and visit the Holocaust Musueum - get to know some Jews and Israelis and see that they're just like you.

OK? War of the Worlds is Sci-Fi, the Holocaust was real, and in many ways is not that different and Death not that quick.

Okay, this is getting dangerously close to turning into a debate on anti-Semitism, which I really don't want, as I already had to delete one race-baiting post.

But for the benefit of those who have posted with their concerns:

-I think Schindler's List and Amistad are lousy movies, period. That's why I'm flippant about them. I'm not going to get into why in this space -- that's another bunch of movie reviews for another time. Suffice it to say that it isn't because of any hatred for races and religions involved.

-I know plenty of Jewish people (check my links page), and in fact I asked a couple of them if they found the term "Jew" alone -- and the phrase "dead Jews" when referring to Schindler's List -- as opposed to "Jewish person," offensive. A right-wing Orthodox Jewish friend said that was nuts, and a non-religious liberal ethnic Jewish friend send it was "pretty idiotic."

-As a film critic, I get to see at least one new Holocaust movie a year; often more. I also get to see movies about various other genocides. It's your right to think that I'm not reverent enough, but my basic point here is that I find Spielberg's idea of cinematic "reverence" annoying and condescending.

-Fixating on words people use is easy to do, but really, your energies are better focused on individuals who actually do hate and slander Jewish people. I'm not one of them.

Nice review, good movie. Some lady sitting next to me was covering her ears and eyes the whole thing jumping and screamin. Apperantly it was scary
As for speilberg and jews and all. When he works his jewish angle into his movie it gets kinda annoying, and i am jewish.
"Dead Jews", "Black People" whatever.its offensive, until common sense kicks in and tells you to GROW UP

OK OK settle down Beavis... thanks for clarifying, and thanks for caring to clarify. Perhaps I am sensitive to this issue, and normally to not react knee-jerkingly. Consider this case closed, and have a great 4th of July everyone! Shalom and Peace Out Homeys....

Is it me, or is anybody else wondering why nobody turned on a tv or a radio at the country home, instead of just grouching about PBJ's? And how miraculously the van was unscathed by the crashed airliner? And there wasn't enough debris to block it's leaving?

What WAS the purpose of the "bloodweed", or whatever it's called?

Always had a problem with galaxy-spanning alien invaders too stupid to know about germs......

I think War of the Worlds could have have been a blast if Tom Cruise had not been in it and Spielberg had not made it. War of the Worlds
would be a great film for a new director with a
wild imagination and a talented unknown star
who is not as self absorbed and predictable as Tom Cruise. I hate blockbusters made by millionairs and no reason to take risks. This movie is nothing more than an excerise in special
effects.

I wonder why this guy doesn't get a press kit? Maybe because he write reviews as well as Hellen Keller shoots hoops.

"this guy"?

You're on my site. Don't talk about me like I'm not here. You get to make imbecilic analogies about me like the one you just did because I front the cash to keep this thing going.

Do you make a living reviewing films? Or do you work at Paramount, perhaps? If the answer to either of those questions is "no," your theories as to why press kits are available to me at certain screenings and not at others mean precisely nothing.

Good review, great film. One question: Why wait until men had invented reasonable weapons to invade? If I were the aliens, I'd have landed in 1900 or something...

This movie is just plain dumb. Ditto on all the other flaws that were mentioned above.

1. Machines coming up through the ground, supposedly buried for millions of years. So here the earth is mostly uninhabited, just primordial ooze, oceans, insects, GERMS, GERMS, and MORE GERMS. hmmm. (Ok, a few animals are roaming around and maybe an Australiopithicus clan or two).
But back to antiquity... aliens bury tripods of incredible scientific advancement, such to the extent that they are impervious to GERMS - which live all over and under the earth in Googlians of huge numbers. But why would they do this? I mean the planet is void of any civiization or industry, and the aliens have enough predictive foresight to know tht in 6.3 million years, the planet will become home to 6 billion industrious, seft centered barbarians that need to be exterminated? They supposedly need blood to live, so they just had a hunch that the planet would be teeming with tankers full of in millions of years later. And add the to premise that the makers of the tripods had enough foresight to know that their lineage would somehow exhaust their planet's resources and need to come to earth (which at the time is filled with the very GERMS that will doom them)to drive a million-year old tripod around and start randomly atomizing humans? How stupid must these supposedly extraordinarily advanced aliens must be to exterminate their own food source? I mean, where's the payoff for a millon years of investing in this exhaustive project only to annielate every living and non-living thing on the planet? Is this just the mother of all video game fixes for them?

2. And where the hell is the world's arsenal of military might and fighter jets, surface-to-air missles and nukes? Is everybody in Iraq, oblivious to the carage in New Jersey? Oh, that's right, it's just New Jersey so who gives a shit right?I mean the world is being summarily destroyed, and nowhere, not even NORAD did we even launch a nuclear strike? Even more so, these where million-year old tripods, and we couldn't even take out one of their legs?

3. Ray's son wants to kick the shit out of the aliens and tells Dad to beat it. He's going to unload a haymaker on those fuckers. So as soon as Ray releases his grip and his son scurries off with the tanks and Humvees, the whole hillside gets completely torched. You know the army is totally wasted, but here's fully unarmored Ray junior miraculously being spared, and later in the movie emerges unscathed from his grandparents house in Boston.

This movie is BAD... save your $ for Batman.

I have to admit...I am humbled by the number of logical inconsistencies that readers and other reviewers find in the film. I cannot disagree with any of them.

However, the fact that I did not notice them at the time, and enjoyed the film nonetheless, is testament to some sort of skill on Spielberg's part. I believe the term is "misdirection."

Saw the film last night, loved it until it turned out his son had survived (am I the only person to find him utterly annoying?)as had Boston. Loved your review too, very goddamned funny. In my head I rewrote the final two minutes to see Eowyn coming out of a blasted building on her own and still not kissing Tom, with Dakota Fanning completely traumatised and blessedly silent.
Cheers for the review...
FK

I have a possible explanation for the "Why did the aliens arrive and destroy their food source?" crowd.

I would propose that humankind (or, more specifically, human blood) is a crop, and that the Earth is one of many farms. And, after God-knows-how-many years, it was time to harvest this crop and reseed Earth for the next season.

As for the germs? I find it wholly credible that a species would lose its resistance to a biological agent over a million years (give or take) of non-exposure. Nature does not tolerate excess baggage.

A.

Saw the movie two nights ago and was shocked by
all the plot holes. I can't believe he killed the Robbins character because he was being to noisy. That's not heroic, that's just rude.

Seatco's message above is a nice example of how some people are so eaten up with politics and hate that they can't squeeze a moment's enjoyment out of life. Take a chill pill man. Its a frickin MOVIE.

"Mr. Spielberg quietly began filming the most politically charged project he has yet attempted: the tale of a secret Mossad hit squad ordered to assassinate Palestinian terrorists after the massacre of Israeli athletes at the 1972 Olympics in Munich." From Drudge

I saw this movie already. It was called "Sword of Gideon."

Killing the Robbins character completely destroyed the movie for me. It was illogical, nasty and mostly unnecessary (yes and rude). Couldn't he have just tied him up for God's sake or just left and found your own bolt hole. And the kid still being alive. Give me a break. Enjoyed the movie though!

Ok, my opinion might be unpopular, but the moment where Cruise's character kills Robbins' character is actually my favorite moment in the movie. I am perfectly aware that in a civilized society this is most certainly considered "rude".

In fact, according to new movie etiquette, our heroes are rarely, if ever, supposed to kill anyone intentionally. If they are forced to take another's life, then it must be as a result of a vicious attack only after all other means have been exhausted. For example, the recognized "bad guy" has been apprehended and handcuffed. Then, suddenly, the villain manages to grab a gun and make a last desperate attempt to kill the hero. At this point the hero of the movie puts a bullet in the "bad guy's" brain and the audience breathes a collective sigh of relief, confident that justice has been served.(The only recognizable exception to this is shoot-em-up movies when the bullets are flying and anonymous bad guys are dying).

That said, I understand that Robbins' character is not a typical villain. There is the creepy implication that he might be a molester, but his only real crime is talking too loud. However, Cruise's character is an anti-hero, and this movie is about the loss of humanity. (Remember, he loses the mother and child as he enters the ferry, even though he promises to help keep them safe.)As Cruise's feelings of love grow for his daughter, his purpose becomes single-minded. There is something primal about his behavior towards the end of the movie - he loses his connections to a disintegrating society, but forges a connection with his family.

Jeeez. Don't you guys get anything?! God.

It all about symbols. Its Spielberg being theatrical, and all of these plot "holes" are examples of his unique childlike mind in an adult body, which makes him, like Michael Jackson, more valuable and financially rewardable in our society than a neurosurgeon, the President (who if you notice is nowhere to be found when he is needed in this movie, though the three Aliens we do see look suspiciously like Cheney, Ashcroft, and Rumsfeld, a "tripod" of leadership), or even a really good baseball player.

And everything about the aliens makes perfect sense. E.T. and his homeworld were devastated by contamination from Reese's pieces in the same way the aliens in this film were by that drop of water Morgan Freeman was talking about. They used their time machine to go back and plant the iPods for vengeance, not realizing that even if this movie had no Reese's Pieces there still might still be the germs. It is a natural oversight. They were angry. It is hard to both think logically and feel passionately at the same time. A key moral of the tale.

And if you know anything about aliens, note that these were the LGMs, they are stupid, immature sub-aliens, the grunts, just sent to kill people. Look at their manners: They stumble around in the basement sucking on ketchup bottles they find in the wreckage. Of course they are going to get germs! Even the screeching little girl knows better than that.

The real aliens are the Greys. They are in low orbit, watching all of this on their TVs. Paying for it with their galactic tax dollars. But not participating in person, that would be highly unpleasant. Perhaps this is where the president is.

I could go on, but come on, people, lets just pay attention. Jeeez.

DId enjoy the movie, and was incredibly tense for the first hour. Can't remember a movie doing that to me before. I think the 9/11 imagery of the dusting was part of it, but definitely have to credit Spielberg with ccreatiing a tense movie.

That said, the movie has non-sensical holes galore and was typical hollywood sci-fi. Sci-fi means you can do anything and none of it needs to make any sense because its sci-fi. I had expected better from a spielberg film but i guess his goal was all about the horror and suspense--which he succeeded.

things others didn't mention--

- Parts of Boston are fairly unaffected, abandoned cars, leaves on the ground, no broken windows, no trash, no dust, no fires. The grandparents are immaculately and color-coordinate dressed and clean. Guess they have working water and food. Athens, NY, Pop: 4,000 has three to six Tripods scouring it, but the Boston(pop 600,000) block Eowyn's parents lives on is unscathed.

- a city block sized hole explodes open a few blocks away and buildings are being blown apart. Kids at home here and see nothing. LOcal businesses don't even know a 10 story tripod is setting everything on fire--no screams no noise no explosions

The ending was horrible. the son is still bloody so their arrivals are perfectly timed together. The only thing interesting was a friend pointed out that symboliclly nothing changed. the father stood alone, the rest of the family united together. What he did didn't change the way things were. Then again, he's an idiot and a murderer, and a bad, bad daddy.

Freakin' hilarious review. I will return to this site!

You suck at writing movie reviews and you have a crappy sense of humor.

Have a good one!
-j

Yeah, funny how I manage to make a living doing something I suck at, ain't it? Helluva racket I've stumbled onto.

This movie kicked serious ass, your review sucked big-time. A little obsessed over Cruise's sexuality are we? Nothing like a latent-homosexual-borderline-anti-semite-pseudo-intelectual to brighten one's day...and just because you make a living reviewing movies --- doesn't mean you don't suck majorly!!

You think you are funny, but the joke is on you joyboy!!

Hey, if Tom Cruise will insist on forcing his heterosexual lifestyle down our throats, he should expect that it will be duly noted.

As for pseudo-intellectual...I have NEVER claimed to be an intellectual. You take that back!

Its stumbling upon sites like this that make perusing the internet actually fun to do. Your review rocks!!! thank you for the good read.

This is the worst movie in history. Iam English and Iam getting fed up with every single new American film being about terrorism and 9/11 inparticularly.

Please get over it and move on...

Just saw the movie last night. And I have some possible explanations for the various apparent plotholes that have yet to be considered. I'm a Trek fanboy, and can make just about anything work.

I believe that everyone could have been wrong about the tripods being in the ground for millions of years. The news van showed the slow-mo of the ships traveling with the lightning. The aliens could have had a technology that built the tripods underground. It seems unlikely, but it's more plausible than they being there the whole time. Of course, this doesn't explain why Boston was left untouched.

If they were underground, then they might have thought that Boston would have been an unlikely place to build a city. Or maybe things happened tectonically and whatnot that made the tripods unusable. A million years is a long time. Long enough to lose any immunity from Earth microbes. Besides which, they didn't think on the microscopic level like that. If they didn't foreshadow it in the beginning, and if you didn't know anything about the War of the Worlds story, then would you have thought that alien microbes would be a problem? These don't have to be experienced invaders like the Irken Invaders or the aliens on ID4.

The red weed-looking things are obviously the main food-source for the aliens. They looked upon our world with anger and contempt and jealousy. If we are to assume that they are Martians, as in the book, then their world is a cold, arrid wasteland. It is believed that the planet was once similar to Earth, based on the evidence that water once existed there in liquid form. Life could have evolved there and the world could have been very hospitable. The Martians looked at their world, then at ours, and realized we got the better deal. It was suddenly a goal that they possess the Earth, and regain the beauty they once held. It became an obsession. If our positions would have been reversed, our technological advancements might also have been reversed. We might be the agressor species. They didn't need our blood for anything. They didn't need to kill us all. They didn't need to cage us up and spread our blood all over the place. It was revenge. They are a malevolent species, looking to rid Earth of every last man, woman, and child because we [by chance, by fate, by God] have the better hand.

I agree with whomever said it, that Ray's morally ambiguous decision to kill Robbins' character was very single-minded, so that he could save his daughter. He's lost a son (apparently) and he's not about to lose his daughter. Besides which, Robbins' character was crazy.

I do wish they had gone into a little bit more detail how Ray's son survived. It seems impossible, and the ending does seem to be a copout (esp w/Boston surviving). BTW, Eowyn was made pregnant by her new husband, in case you hadn't seen him at the beginning of the film (Keddaris). Though, I didn't see him in Boston, which I thought was kinda off.

The lasers which seem to destroy human flesh, but leave clothes largely intact could easily be explained (without the use of nanotechnology). The aliens seem to have a certain fascination with red (Mars) and our red human blood in particular. The lasers could just be heating our blood to the point that it explodes with anything that's flesh. I'm sure that doesn't make sense right now, but it did when I originally thought it up. And the "ash" on Ray's face ... I thought that was just dust from the debris that was all around him, not human ashes. Eh well.

Regarding the cars and why Ray's worked but no one else's. The news in the beginning reported that in the Ukraine that an electromagnetic pulse (EMP) was responsible for the loss of certain conveniences. If anyone remembers what happened in The Matrix whenever someone blew an EMP, we realize that anything that's ON or RUNNING is instantly disabled (cars, watches, cell phones, power plants, etc.). Where things that weren't on, or are not using electric parts, might still work (cameras, digital camcorders, ferries, parts for cars, etc.) I didn't quite make out what Ray told the mechanic to fix, then again, I don't know that much about cars.

Which brings me to the oblivious mechanic. There are many possibilities for his failure to realize what was going on. He, also, was very single-minded. His life was his job and he didn't pay much attention to anything else. He might also be partly deaf, but can lip-read. This would explain why he could understand Ray, but not realize what was going on past his garage. We're not given enough information about the character to make an accurate assessment either way.

Where was the president? Two things can explain this. First, he was probably one of the first to have been picked off. Second, where did anyone have access to the media so that our characters could hear things directly from the president. This film wasn't about him (or her) or our respective governments. It was about this family, and about humanity's fight to survive, despite the loss of humanity in many instances (killing for Ray's van). Furthermore, the presence of government was quite there in the form of the military personnel trying to battle this alien presence and protect whoever remained.

Why were the birds landing on the still moving, yet wobbly, tripod towards the end? What kind of bird were they? We can't really tell from that distance. I was assuming they were a scavenger-type bird like vultures, circling around a dead or dying prey. Some may have already been dead, and the vultures were trying to get through. Also the blood that was no doubt covering the tripod probably provided some tasty snacks.

I did find it odd that Ray in his van could find a navigable path through the backed up traffic, and through the plane wreckage.

The ferry could have fit them all (or most) especially if they dumped all the cars overboard or out of the way. There weren't too many of people there.

I do like Morgan Freeman. I do like what was said by the narrator at the beginning and end of the film. But if Mr. Freeman was going to narrate a bit of the film, you would think he would be in it, too. I do think it would have been better if one of the primary actors had done it. Maybe even Tim Robbins. Though, I suppose Mr. Freeman is one of the few actors who can site God and get away with it in Hollywood (Deep Impact, Bruce Almighty) and have a good narration voice to boot. Edward Norton also likes to narrate. But that's another story.

Altogether, I thought it was a great movie and the inconsistancies can be easily overlooked.

I just rented the movie and my first impression was the number of messages that it has in relation to terrorism and the Iraq war, from the essay that the teenager is supposed to do about the "French occupation of Algiers", to Tim Robins assertion that no invasion can ever succeed" (historically inaccurate in general but may be accurate to a particular ongoing occupation). But the scene that I founded most controversial, was when Ray( the characters that supposedly we should identify with) in order to save his daughter almost become a "suicide bomber", only spared from that role by the initiative of a soldier that managed to pulled him out at the last minute with the help of the others captives.
It surprise me also that no one pointed at that particular scene, that is bizarrely unlikely to really work, surviving a close explosion and dropping from hundreds of feet trapped in a cage right on top of a tree which branches should have impaled every single human.
Well, just a comment.

The item that was replaced in his car was a solenoid. However, there's nothing sophisticated about it. There is only ONE TIME that it operates. When the key is turned ALL THE WAY so the starter motor operates. Let's assume that an EMP could destroy a solenoid, which it can't, by the way, since it's just a magnetic coil. (Just like the IGNITION COIL! Which operates continually when the car is running. HELLO!!!) Okay, assuming the solenoid could be destroyed, the only time it could be destroyed was when it was actually operating. And that means the ONLY cars which would stop working would be cars that people were trying to start at that exact moment. Also, if solenoids can be destroyed anytime, how come the spare solenoids behind the parts counter weren't destroyed? -------------------------------------------------------------------Now here's something NO ONE MENTIONED so maybe it's just me. After the aliens bit the dust and there was a close up of Tom walking to somewhere with a group of people in the daylight, there was some ham actor guy just behind him with a "concerned" expression on his face, his eyebrows furrowed. This makes no sense. By this time, he would have been basically bone weary or shell shocked with virtually no expression on his face. But hey, that's just my take.

You know, I just remembered something else. That second house they were in? That was the childrens house. How could it not be? They had to live with their mother so they were basically home. If Dakota was allergic to peanut butter, why was there any in the house? Who was the peanut butter for? The mother? The teen-age son? Not even. At that age, during his growth spurt years, he's wolfing down lump after load of ham and turkey sandwiches. Screw that kid stuff peanut butter.

Someone earlier mentioned that there was no flight cover to speak of for the military. The problem here is that this story was written in the 19th century, in 1898, to be exact. Giant three legged machines would pretty much be unstoppable back then. Not now though.
Against an F-14 Tomcat, an F-22 Raptor, a Harrier, a Phantom, an F-111? What chance would one machine have being harrassed simultaneously by 4 jets at supersonic speed? Plus, the sheer magnitude of fire power on the humans side makes it no contest. How many machines do you think there might have been? Even one thousand of those things is no match for one hundred thousand fighter jets, in our country alone. Now add Britain, France, Israel, Russia, China and kiss your ass goodbye.