Una famiglia lotta per sopravvivere dopo che la Terra è invasa da alieni.Una famiglia lotta per sopravvivere dopo che la Terra è invasa da alieni.Una famiglia lotta per sopravvivere dopo che la Terra è invasa da alieni.
- Candidato a 3 Oscar
- 16 vittorie e 49 candidature totali
Yul Vazquez
- Julio
- (as Yul Vázquez)
Camillia Monet
- News Producer
- (as Camillia Sanes)
Trama
Lo sapevi?
- QuizWhen the aliens are investigating the junk in the basement, one of them plays with a bicycle wheel. This is a reference to the original book; the main character observes that, with all the advanced technology the aliens possess, they do not use any wheels, and wonders if the alien life form had skipped the invention of the wheel.
- Blooper(at around 25 mins) A camera is seen filming the alien despite all electronics being disabled earlier in the film.
- Citazioni
Robbie Ferrier: What is it? Is it terrorists?
Ray Ferrier: These came from some place else.
Robbie Ferrier: What do you mean, like, Europe?
Ray Ferrier: No, Robbie, not like Europe!
- Curiosità sui creditiThere are no opening credits after the title is shown.
- Versioni alternativeFor the U.S. theatrical release, the Paramount logo appeared before the Dreamworks logo at the beginning of the film, and the poster credits said, "Paramount Pictures and Dreamworks Pictures present." Since the U.S. version's home video/DVD rights are owned by Dreamworks, the Dreamworks logo at the beginning of the movie appears before the Paramount logo, and the back of the box's cover art says, "Dreamworks Pictures and Paramount Pictures present." In the European version, the original order of the logos and studio names is preserved (and the DVD is released by Paramount).
- ConnessioniEdited into The Arrivals (2008)
- Colonne sonoreFlatline
by Jeffrey Scott Harber, Jayce Alexander Basques, William Peng & Drew Dehaven Hall
Performed by Aphasia
Courtesy of Luke Eddins at Luke Hits and Joint Venture Recordings
Recensione in evidenza
What Spielberg, Cruise, and Koepp accomplish here in the first two acts is nothing short of revolutionary. They've made a big-budget summer blockbuster about massive destruction and action that manages to studiously avoid every cliché and expectation of such films. It stays resolutely on the characters' points of view, showing us almost nothing they don't see, even to the point of coming tantalizingly close to a raging battle, then avoiding showing it. It keeps its focus on character instead of spectacle. The "hero" of the piece remains decidedly unheroic, wanting only to escape, and trying to talk others out of fighting back. The purpose of every piece of action is to frighten and disturb rather than thrill, making ingenious use of familiar 9/11 imagery. At the end of the second act, it is hands-down the best alien invasion film ever made, and perhaps one of the best sci-films of all time.
Then something strange happens. The filmmakers lose their nerve, and remember that this is an extremely expensive summer film financed by two studios. Or perhaps it was the fact that it stars Tom Cruise, who up to this point has spent almost two hours doing nothing but run for his life. Suddenly, and tragically, the film changes, violating not only its carefully established tone, but its own internal logic. Suddenly, Cruise begins to act like a hero, and summer action clichés force their way into the story like a worm into an apple. The transition is jarring, and it creates a serious disconnect from the story.
While it's true that Wells' original ending creates a problem for a movie, here they try to remain faithful to it, while still shoehorning moments of triumph into the conclusion. Unfortunately, these moments come off as alternately false, unbelievable, and meaningless, since it isn't mankind that defeats the invaders in the end.
Is it recommendable? Well, I suppose that depends on what kind of viewer you are. If you feel that 75% brilliant material overshadows the 25% that falls apart, then you'll enjoy it. If, however, you're the kind of viewer who feels that the final impression a movie makes is its ultimate stamp on your memory, you may be in for a crushing disappointment. On the other hand, if you're the kind of viewer who just likes the cliché of the boom-boom summer action spectacle, you're likely to be bored and frustrated with the first two acts, and only engage in the end. It is confused about what audience it's trying to reach, and consequently, isn't likely to satisfy any of them.
Then something strange happens. The filmmakers lose their nerve, and remember that this is an extremely expensive summer film financed by two studios. Or perhaps it was the fact that it stars Tom Cruise, who up to this point has spent almost two hours doing nothing but run for his life. Suddenly, and tragically, the film changes, violating not only its carefully established tone, but its own internal logic. Suddenly, Cruise begins to act like a hero, and summer action clichés force their way into the story like a worm into an apple. The transition is jarring, and it creates a serious disconnect from the story.
While it's true that Wells' original ending creates a problem for a movie, here they try to remain faithful to it, while still shoehorning moments of triumph into the conclusion. Unfortunately, these moments come off as alternately false, unbelievable, and meaningless, since it isn't mankind that defeats the invaders in the end.
Is it recommendable? Well, I suppose that depends on what kind of viewer you are. If you feel that 75% brilliant material overshadows the 25% that falls apart, then you'll enjoy it. If, however, you're the kind of viewer who feels that the final impression a movie makes is its ultimate stamp on your memory, you may be in for a crushing disappointment. On the other hand, if you're the kind of viewer who just likes the cliché of the boom-boom summer action spectacle, you're likely to be bored and frustrated with the first two acts, and only engage in the end. It is confused about what audience it's trying to reach, and consequently, isn't likely to satisfy any of them.
- Nigel St. Buggering
- 1 lug 2005
- Permalink
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paese di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- La guerra dei mondi 3D
- Luoghi delle riprese
- JF Kennedy Blvd., Bayonne, New Jersey, Stati Uniti(Ray's house - soundstage)
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 132.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 234.280.354 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 64.878.725 USD
- 3 lug 2005
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 603.873.504 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione1 ora 57 minuti
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti