PDA

View Full Version : War of the Worlds



Slicker
06-29-2005, 06:45 PM
I have only one word for this movie: Totally f**king awesome. You really have to go and see it. One of the best movies that I've seen in a long time. It's got some really creepy parts and, except for about 20 minutes, the movie is complete action.

This one gets a 5 out of 5 on the Slicker scale.

General_Grievous
06-29-2005, 10:18 PM
I gotta agree with you there. This was the most fun I've had at a movie since...well, ROTS. But I thought it was great.

SPOILERS

-The alien tripods were pretty frightening. I liked the noise they made just before they would start to attack. It sounded like a foghorn mixed with a dinosaur noise from Jurassic Park.
-The cast did a pretty good job. But Tim Robbins did get kind of annoying after five minutes. Thank god Tom Cruise snuffed him.
-It was really dramatic when the son was believed to be dead, but at the end when he showed up...I just thought it was kind of cheesy. I would have preferred a darker ending.

But I do have one question:

How did the aliens actually die out? When Tom Cruise blew up the ship that captured him, was it the mothership, which caused the other ships to malfunction, or was it the birds that had something to do with it???

END SPOILERS


Anyway, I think that this is a great movie. In my opinion, it's Spielberg's best since "Saving Private Ryan".

Rocketboy
06-29-2005, 11:45 PM
I've been skeptical.
And Tommy going off the deep end lately hasn't really helped my interest in seeing it.


Then again, it is a Spielberg flick...

Plus, Slick does tend to have a similar taste movies.

Slicker
06-30-2005, 02:35 AM
But I do have one question:

How did the aliens actually die out? When Tom Cruise blew up the ship that captured him, was it the mothership, which caused the other ships to malfunction, or was it the birds that had something to do with it???
SPOILER AHEAD HIGHLIGHT TO READ (ESPECIALLY YOU GENERAL GRIEVOUS ;) )

The machines died because of the organisms in the human body. At least that's what I got from it. It's kinda like when the white man came to the "New World" and brought disease unknown to the natives and they died of easily curable diseases that there bodies hadn't built up an immunity to.

END OF SPOILER

Monstermile
06-30-2005, 04:00 AM
Can't wait to see it. Looks awesome. I have a weakness for summer popcorn flicks.

Captain Spoon
06-30-2005, 09:18 AM
For some strange reason (and I have no idea why) I have no intrest in seeing this movie. I know I should...but I don't. What the hell is wrong with me?? I am much more interested in seeing Charlie and the Chocholate Factory. I guess I'm going to need a good beating lol

DarthBrandon
06-30-2005, 12:18 PM
My friend & brother in law all went to see this last night, I have to say I did not like this movie as much as I thought I would. We all agreed that it was non stop action from start to finish, Mr. Cruise & the rest of the cast did an excellent job, but it lacked something IMHO, I'm not quite sure what it was. Mr. Cruise & his private life antics did not play a part in any of our opinions or anything like that; we just thought it fell short of the mark so to speak. Yes the movie looked realistic, but come on, the whole family survived without a scratch nor a missing limb. The mothers house at the end untouched & looking as rich as the day it was built weighed on our minds as well as the fact these aliens invaded & took over a planet in four to five days only to killed by bacteria. Geeze you would think that all the planning they did over a million years that someone on their team would look into the compatibility with their species vs our planet. This movie was pointless from start to finish with a craptacular ending IMHO. The only thing that was moving was Mr Cruise (the deadbeat dad) doing his best to cope with things to save his kids, in the end that was the only moving point I guess. (deadbeat to loving caring father) We tried hard to like this movie but all three of us thought it came up short on some level.

JimJamBonds
06-30-2005, 12:46 PM
I don't think I'll be seeing this one, I love Spielberg's work but I'm not a fan of Tommy's although there are some films I liked him in. When it comes to him in a Mission Impossible/Last Samurai/WoW type flick it just does not work for me. I just can't believe that he is the one that is supposed to save the world/mankind. The same goes for Revees, Keanu. I just can't believe that he is the one to save the world maybe that is due to me thinking about his Bill and Ted days.

CaptainSolo1138
06-30-2005, 01:07 PM
For some strange reason (and I have no idea why) I have no intrest in seeing this movie. I know I should...but I don't. Factory.
Don't worry, you're not alone. I feel pretty much the same way about it. I'll go see it at the discount theater or rent it, but I'm in no big hurry to see it (sorry, Slick!).

Slicker
06-30-2005, 01:51 PM
If anything the end sucked complete *****. I utterly hated how there ENTIRE family survived when 1,000,000,000 people died.

General_Grievous
06-30-2005, 05:02 PM
That's pretty much shared all around. Practically everyone didn't want a happy ending to the movie. Spielberg should have had the son die, end of story.

jonthejedi
07-02-2005, 06:43 PM
I loved it, as many critics have(see EW's A- review). It was in your face, documentary style editing...ala Saving Private Ryan. I think it should get an Oscar for sound design. The ending did not bother me...for those who didn't get it like General Grievous...read the classic book..it's both faithful to the source novel & the classic 1953 Paramount film(great cameos by Orig. stars Gene Barry & Anne Robinson). It stirred up alot of post 9-11 anxieties that societies have. Cruise's character is a deadbeat Dad, who completely copped out on parenthood. That's why the ending is appropriate...just as in Signs, it's about redemption. I hated Independence Day...too many glossed over stereotypical characters, like Towering Inferno or Poseidon Adventure. All Roland Emeriich did was rip off War of the Worlds, anyway. Dakota Fanning continues to amaze. Tim Robbins was all too creepy. I'm glad the war machines were faithful to H.G.Wells vision. For those who didn't dig it, I'm curious why? To have a survival scenario, you have to have survivors. I went thru Aliens like that too...somebody has to make it. I was glad he kept the alien vs. military stuff to a minimum. How about that King Kong trailer!!!

2-1B
07-04-2005, 02:17 AM
What a terrible movie. A total disappointment and I want my money back. The first 20 minutes or so was good (the stuff with the family) but as soon as they went on the lam, I didn't find it very interesting.

The Cruiser did alright, yes I think he's a nutjob but I couldn't help but enjoy his performance for the first part of the film. He wasn't a problem for the movie, so I'm not blaming him. He wasn't great or anything but he was alright.

That son should have died, period. I hated him, the character was supposed to be hostile for awhile so I get that, but the actor was very annoying to me. Even though he ran off to "die" because he had to see what was going on or some other nonsense (the sister cries because Who's gonna take care of me, so there's that relationship there, yet he runs off and leaves her), anyway even though "we" "thought" he was dead, I knew he would be back there at the end. Lame.

The effects were decent, sure, but I didn't care about any of the characters. Well, Dakota did a good job but overall, Meh ! Watching those people behave like animals trying to steal Cruise's van, well quite frankly I saw that and thought "yeah, maybe it's best that these aliens DO wipe us all out because humanity has really failed in so many ways."

That's some really poor planning by the aliens (the design of which was terrible, I thought, not as bad as ROTS' Polis Massan or the goofy creatures that refueled Obi's ship but still poor). So they planted all those tripods how-many-years ago and waited but never checked to see if this place would be survivable ?

I must have missed something, but why did that guy's video camera still work when even a wristwatch was shorted out ?

EW gave this POS an A- ? I can't say I'm surprised, not at all. :rolleyes: Definitely the biggest disappointment of 2005 and I also give it the award for being the worst movie I have seen in theaters this year. (Charlie and the Chocolate Factory retains the title of Worst Movie I Won't Be Seeing lol lol lol )

If you want to see a great survivor movie, go see the infinitely superior Land of the Dead and skip this bore. :)

Pendo
07-04-2005, 07:31 AM
Except for the happy ending, I realy enjoyed this movie. I thought the effects were brilliant, it was suspensful in parts, good acting (especially Dakota Fanning who was amazing as usual).

I don't think it will ever be considered one of the greatest movies of all time, but it was certainly a really enjoyable two hours for me :).

PENDO!

stillakid
07-04-2005, 10:18 PM
I haven't seen it yet and judging from the real reviews coming in, I most likely won't...

As I said a long time ago, War of the Worlds has already been done. It was called Independence Day and it didn't take itself seriously as this Spielbergian mess apparently tries to. Seems as if Steven and George have the same disease. :(

http://agentarc.blogspot.com/2005/07/sound-fury.html
Sound & Fury


I had expected Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds to be many things, but dumb as a box of rocks wasn't one of them.

It was dumb.

Dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb.

Too damned dumb.

David Koepp's script doctoring of Josh Friedman's material was beyond weak. Convenience rules the day here.

SPOILERS BEGIN



Convenient: The pandering characters, made from the ground up for us to identify with. Example:
HELLO, I AM ALL AMERICAN TOM CRUISE
I DRIVE A FORD
I LIKE THE YANKEES
I WORK FOR A LIVING AT A BLUE-COLLAR JOB THAT PUTS OTHER BLUE-COLLAR JOBS OUT OF WORK
I'M DIVORCED, BECAUSE THIS IS A SPIELBERGO FLICK
MY ALL AMERICAN BLONDE DAUGHTER USES TIVO AND WATCHES SPONGEBOB SQUAREPANTS
SHE HAS A RIBBON FROM SCHOOL FOR SOMETHING SOMETHING
MY SON IS TOTALLY EMO
HE CALLS ME, HIS FATHER, BY MY FIRST NAME
HE WEARS TOTALLY USELESS EMO GLOVES
HE DITCHES HIS KID SISTER TO STEAL MY MUSTANG
WE ARE ALL RIPE FOR REDEMPTION
AREN'T WE JUST LIKE YOU AMERICA?!?!

Dumb: While the main street is being torn apart from under them, and as buildings are crumbling around them, the giant crowd of people just look on TWO FEET AWAY from the destruction (instead of, you know, running for safety), as the first Half-Life-esque "Tripod" (as it is named by nine billion different people throughout the film) comes to life from the underground (Chrono Trigger much?).

Dumb: The Tripods. Ebert put it best... "The tripods are indeed faithful to the original illustrations for H.G. Wells' novel... But the book and radio program depended on our imaginations to make them believable... The thing is, we never believe the tripods and their invasion are practical. How did these vast metal machines lie undetected for so long beneath the streets of a city honeycombed with subway tunnels, sewers, water and power lines, and foundations?" or as another reviewer put it... "Nevermind that geologists have been studying the ground beneath our feet for hundreds of years; how they managed to miss these metal behemoths lying just beneath our largest cities escapes me, and I’m still confused as to why, if these aliens so badly wanted the planet Earth, they did not merely take it over when they first buried the three-legged killers.

Why would the aliens even go to all that effort in the first place? How do they benefit? Why not just wait to ship the tripods here until they’re actually ready to invade? What’s the advantage of having them here in advance instead of doing it all in one shot? Suppose in the past century or two we had happened to discover their (GIGANTIC) tripods and somehow disable them or even learn to use them? Or suppose we had blown ourselves, the tripods, and the rest of the planet into oblivion? Then what good would all that elaborate preparation be?"

The fact that a bipedal (quadpedal?) race decided to use "Tripods", a mechanical design proven flawed over these past years of engineering, says a lot about how much thought went into this production.

Dumb: The tripod "DEATH BLARE", aka the T-Rex roar 2.0. From time to time, the tripods scream out a heavy siren, which is used later on to alert the aliens to stop dicking around and to return to the Machina-O-Death. A simple, quiet, buzzing device ON the aliens could have been used for this purpose, but instead the Death Blare is used, alerting all humans in the area (which are to be hunted down) to scatter. DDDUUUURRRRRRR.



Convenient: All electrical devices have stopped, except for camcorders that can be used in "inventive" shots to reveal the tripods through their flip screens.

Convenient: Man-Child Tom Cruise isn't vaporized, even while he's the closest to the tripod itself, while dozens of others are. Instead of running the OTHER way (behind the tripod), he runs on the direct path of LASERING the Machina-O-Death is aiming at.

Convenient: Cruise just happens to live across from an auto-body shop, which just happened to fix an easily stolen van, just before the owner (the only voice of peace in the flick) is turned to ash.

Dumb: Cruise & Co. decide to go to Boston, another major city most likely crawling with these tripods.

Convenient: The road on the way to Boston is PACKED with cars, but all are thankfully off to the side of the actual road. Spielberg cheats here with a revolving one shot of the van (ala What Lies Beneath), used to keep our eyes off the road.

Dumb: Once arriving at a new house (with electric power), instead of checking the fridge for REAL FOOD, Cruise makes peanut butter sandwiches with the junk he brought from his own hellhole. Instead of checking the television for INFORMATION, he holes up in the basement (despite the fact that the alien LASER beams from before were both ripping open entire buildings, and precision sniping folks who were inside). Instead of gathering MEDICAL supplies, or other essentials, he sits around.

Convenient: The basement just happens to have another sub-level, so that Cruise & Co. won't get fried from an incoming fireball, which was caused by...

Convenient: An entire AIRPLANE lands DIRECTLY on the house Cruise & Co. are staying at, which neatly destroyed the home, neatly kept all the wreckage in a twenty feet radius, and neatly left the stolen van just fine, which was parked only FIVE FEET AWAY from the crash.

Dumb: People continue to mass together outside on roads, making it all the easier to LASER them.

Dumb: The best scene? An entire train speeds out of control by another crowd of refugees, with all of it's cars are engulfed in flames. At this point, my jaw dropped. This was game over for me. The aliens have won. The reaction from the folks onscreen? Nothing. At all.

Convenient: From another review, "Science is eliminated from this tale. In the original, a group of scientists desperately tries to discover a way to defeat the Martian invaders. Irony abounds as the cargo bus containing the experiments and equipment needed to save Earth is overturned by a riotous crowd. Spielberg uses a similar scene, but instead of man proving to be his own worst enemy, the director opts to insert a social commentary on gun ownership." The MOB goes totally silent once Cruise fires off his gun? His family just happens to be OUTSIDE of the van when someone shoots the new driver to death?

Convenient: The GIGANTIC tripods use their REAL ULTIMATE NINJA POWERS to sneak up on an entire city (with most of the folks already outside). This once again happens later in Boston to an entire Army unit.



Convenient: Cruise & Co. find a way onto a boat that was guarded by the Army, through unexplained means and choppy editing. A small sub-plot with a pair of old friends proves to be meaningless.

Dumb: A mass of people run TOWARDS an EPIC BATTLE the Army is waging on the tripods in the middle of NOWHERE. If the film wants to be placed in the real 9/11 world, it has to learn to be the real 9/11 world. People don't run towards battles. They don't rip open windshields with their barehands. They run away from destruction. Of course, the EPIC BATTLE here involves fighter jets sweeping too close to the ground, and tanks firing before they reach the other side of the hill. We never see the battle of course, like we did in the original film, just flashing lights and smoke.

Dumb: Cruise's emo son leaves his father & sister behind, because "he has to see it (the aliens killing the Army)" for himself. Emo Kid 9000 pulls a Pat Tillman, with no knowledge on how to fight, let alone how to fight these ****ers.

Convenient: A house, only a few hundred yards away from the EPIC BATTLE, has whacky "survivalist" Tim Robbins invite only Cruise & Wide-Eyes to stay with him in. No one else in the fleeing mass of people try to stay there.

Dumb: Robbins states that "Occupations never work." Tell it to Germany and Japan, pal.

Dumb: Unlike Signs hide-from-the-aliens-in-the-basement scene, where the heavy darkness, sounds, and brisk pacing worked, this one just outstays it's welcome by a good ten minutes.

Dumb: Spielbergo rips off his raptor hiding scene AGAIN (see also: the Minority Report spiders) with an alien optic camera (designs ripped from The Abyss and Flight of the ****ing Navigator) searching the basement. Why don't the aliens just vaporize the joint like THE ENTIRE TOWN from before?

Dumb: The aliens. They're cute. Downright adorable, really. When the first one pops out, we can't help but want to pet it and give it a biscuit. They also seem to have time to just mess around with the bike from E.T., and random photographs in basements out in the middle of nowhere, instead of helping secure large cities like Boston. In all the rush, the creators gave the aliens the standard protective forcefields, Independance Day styled large heads and eyes, no speaking language, and naturally, no armor or handheld technology to protect themselves with during a ****ing WORLD invasion.

Convenient: Just as whacko Robbins is about to plug an alien and give away their hiding spot, which wouldn't have mattered much as they were totally defenseless anyways, the DEATH HORN from a tripod blares on, making the aliens retreat just in time.

Dumb: While the aliens seem to need human blood to fertilize the ground with "Red Weed", the first half of the movie has them LASERING masses of people indiscriminately.

Convenient: Robbins, playing shades of the same supposed child molester character of his own from Mystic River, freaks out, screams "Not my blood!" over and over, and starts digging a Shawshank Redemption tunnel. Cruise has to kill him (like we care) to keep him SILENT, but tells Wide-Eyes to start SINGING as he performs the deed.



Convenient: Searching for a reason to get them out of the "safe" basement, the writers employ ANOTHER alien camera to come down and sweep the basement AGAIN. Instead of staying inside the house, Wide-Eyes runs OUTSIDE into the red weed.

Convenient: Some guy decides to save Cruise from getting sucked up into the RED ANUS of a tripod, all without snapping Cruises' leg in two from the pull. This isn't just any guy, oh no, but an ALL AMERICAN U.S. Army serviceman. Where were your balls when the non-grenade holding guy got sucked in beforehand, Captain America?

Convenient: The tripod explodes, yet the cage attached underneath with Cruise & Wide-Eyes inside just happens to unhook and land in a tree, breaking open apart of the bars just large enough to escape through. The cage full of victims most likely fell directly to the ground, or was crushed under the tripod's debris. The grenades unloaded inside the open RED ANUS thankfully only 'sploded the tripod, and not the attached cages.

Convenient: Cruise is the only one (without binoculars) that notices DOZENS of birds perching on the tripods, even as plenty of other bazooka-wielding servicemen (who're thankfully NOT bogged down in the Middle East) have been watching the tripods all day.

Convenient: The aliens quickly die from bacteria. No surprises here. Yes, the aliens have been watching us for countless ages. No, it didn't make sense that they forgot this point of weakness in the original, and no it doesn't make sense now. Let's just move on.

Convenient: Unlike the original film, nukes aren't used here. Imagine this long journey to Boston cut short from man's own hand of God, not the aliens.

Dumb: Cruise's PREGNANT ex-wife, her new husband, and her OLD parents (the silent Gene Barry and Ann Robinson, from the first film) are perfectly fine, in the heart of Boston, a city that most likely would have been hell on Earth in any real invasion.

Dumb: Oh, and his emo kid also happens to be alive, even after an entire lake of fire erupted from the side of the hill where he had just crossed over to in his last scene. One more quote from another review: "I lately want Spielberg films to reveal themselves as ironic fantasies--I want Tom Cruise's character in Minority Report to be in a tube dreaming of a happy ending instead of rubbing the belly of his knocked-up wife for real. And so when Ray arrives in Boston to see his family alive and well and languishing, completely unshaken, in a brownstone with no explanation of how the world could be flattened except for this 'burb, I wanted, badly, the scene where Ray wakes up, hooked to a machine with a horde of aliens probing him in an L. Ron Hubbard fever dream. Spielberg is the only one who can mess up a Spielberg film." Unlike the relentless horde demanding the alternate Minority Report ending, I find myself warming up to this idea every time I gloss over it.

Another alternate version going around is that in the original reveal of the aliens, they're wearing heavy armor or biological suits. They move differently. Talk oddly. We never see their actual bodies, but the impression is menacing. Then, in the final ending reveal, the same orange goop flows out but a HUMAN arm streches out. A HUMAN face is shown pale and dying. Yes, the invaders were just us from another time, "saving" the planet before our own kind could screw it over in one form or another. Lay off the cheese, and it could explain why they died from a current bacteria strain, one that had died out by their time. Alternatives aside, the general reaction was negative to another Speilberg ending once again.

Dumb: The performances. Nevermind the hundreds of jacktards surrounding the film, let's just look at the two leads. Cruise has always been good at playing jerks, and this time is no exception. With his man-child complex in full swing, Dakota Fanning's trademarked "adultness" is back at first, and then she spends the rest of the two hours screaming, crying, and SCREAMING EVEN MORE AT THE TOP OF HER LUNGS. Except when she has to take a ****. That's when she's all business. Cruise's off-key singing of "Little Deuce Coupe" also marks a good point to leave, as the flick pretty much dies right then and there.

Convenient: Morgan Freeman, performing his best James Earl Jones impersonation since Sum of All Fears, delivers an opening and ending monologue lifted from the book to make sense of whatthe****justhappened.



Dumb: 9/11!! It's one thing to learn how people and structures react during a crisis from 9/11, and it's another thing to just rip it off to make a "popcorn" flick. A downed 747 airplanes, but where are the bodies? Cruise is covered in ash from the LASERED people, but why weren't they set ABLAZE like in the original film? Clothing floats down like paper from the WTC in multiple scenes. "Have you seen me?" posters litter the streets, even as everyone is running for their very lives. There is even a moment where the screen goes to black while carnage surrounds us in full THX Surround, just like Michael Moore's F9/11 opening. Shameless.

Convenient: No one is blaming GRAND OLD WIZARD John Williams for his scattered score in any review, because it's such a forgettable failure.



SPOILERS END


Dumb.

Let it be known that the "it's fiction" and "stuff blew up real good like" cards are the weakest movie defenses known to modern man. The flick shocks & awes on the first viewing, and just falls apart when reflected on.

This isn't "nitpicking". Nitpicking is *****ing about continuity errors, obscure preferences, and nutjob antics that aren't even happening on the screen. One, or even a dozen instances of small logic being thrown out the window is fine, most of all in sci-fi. It's when logic isn't even bothered with from start to finish that the experience sours. Awhile ago, MJ Simpson wrote an infamous laundry list of "problems" with the latest Hitchhiker's Guide movie. He demanded the unrealistic. From War of the Worlds, I just wanted the remotely belieable.


I'm not one tell people that they should like it or hate it. However, that doesn't stop it from being dumb as a box of rocks.

VaderhitsJarjar
07-04-2005, 10:50 PM
what he said

JimJamBonds
07-04-2005, 11:41 PM
Jeez after all that now I know for sure I am not going to see this dung heap. I do think though that to put this film out in one year is kinda neat, its nice to not always have a 3 year wait.

2-1B
07-05-2005, 01:20 AM
Pretty good review there but the reference to Pat Tillman was very insulting.

jeddah
07-05-2005, 03:52 AM
Whilst I agree that the film was a wasted opportunity, I don't think I could be so @nal to invent so much pointless invective and anger as that quoted review above! Dear me! How can someone be so angry over a simple film? So many of those dumb and convenient assertions ignore the fact that films have an imperative to contain contrivances in order to push a story forward. Things like the foghorn blare are there for spectacle, not for any plot-crucial point (and FWIW, I am more reminded of Jango's sonic bombs than a T-Rex)

I wonder, how many people who are moaning about the bacteria end have actually read H G Wells' classic book?

I was disappointed with the restructuing of the Priest wrestling with Darwinism and Creationism, and his own Faith, into Tim Robbins' generically moulded 'survivalist' crazy. I was disappointed with the need for Morgan Freeman to have to explain why the aliens died. I am completely on the same page about the son though and did think on many occasions; so what, let him burn, let him buuuuurn :)

I am in no way apologising for a weak film, I came out from the cinema disappointed but accepting of the fact that I had just had some Sunday afternoon eye-candy.

jeddah

Exhaust Port
07-05-2005, 07:21 AM
As I said a long time ago, War of the Worlds has already been done. It was called Independence Day....

Actually it was called War of the Worlds the first time too. :) It's a classic!

stillakid
07-05-2005, 09:34 AM
Actually it was called War of the Worlds the first time too. :) It's a classic!

Right. I should have said "remake." :) I think that the first one worked very well in context for the time it was made in. Audiences were scared of the potential Communist invasion and this whole "space" thing was relatively new to them.

Fast forward to today and audiences are generally more scientifically savvy (though you wouldn't necessarily know it from that Creationist/Evolution poll recently done) and they are a lot more cynical. The films pushed out in the earlier days of cinema come off as simplistic and naive, sort of like the Star Wars Prequels. ;) MOST people aren't willing to let major contrivances go just for the sake of "pushing the story forward." As well they shouldn't, especially in a story that pretends to be a serious take on a topic. This is the same reason why the Clone Wars Animated Series works and works well while the live action Prequels fall flat. One expects a certain amount of "over the top"-ness in a cartoon and it is okay so long as it isn't completely ridiculous (ie, Jedi Force pushing entire planets out of harms way or something).

Exhaust Port
07-05-2005, 10:21 AM
That's why I think that WotW's would have been better if it had been set as it was originally written. The Victorian era had so little technology that even a flying machine would be unstoppable let alone an army of walking alien machines.

As you said Stilla, today's audiences are too scientifically smart. Moviemakers try to get too specific with their storyline but then are forced to skip some of details in order to wrap up the story or even just carry it. The audience is then quick to jump on the errors. For example in ID4 when Jeff Goldbloom syncs his Apple Laptop with the alien mothership. Anyone who's used a computer know how hard it can be to get an accessory specifically built for that hardware to work together and now they want us to believe that they made a home laptop control an alien spaceship?

There are few unknowns left on our planet and moviemakers seem to forget that. They can't bury a few hundred alien spaceships under the surface of the earth and not think that our modern technology somehow missed it.

I like movies like "Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow" where they never explain the technology and actually create a world were reality is obviously a bit skewed. Places and people are correct but everything else is somewhat a mystery as to its origin or ability. As a moviegoer I'm willing to suspend my beliefs as long as the moviemakers don't try to explain their beliefs.

2-1B
07-05-2005, 01:13 PM
Things like the foghorn blare are there for spectacle, not for any plot-crucial point (and FWIW, I am more reminded of Jango's sonic bombs than a T-Rex)

Yes ! I thought that too ! :)

Hellboy
07-05-2005, 05:44 PM
I was quite disappointed with this film as well. :dis:

If it had sustained the level of intensity it achieved once the aliens made their presence known it might have worked. Instead the movie focuses on these uninteresting and fairly unsympathetic characters that just plod along until the anticlimactic and cliched ending. :stupid:

The thing that bothered me the most though was the sub plot that involved Tim Robbins character. :confused: What was the point? It felt totally out of place and was a waste of precious movie minutes when you consider this film clocks in under the 2 hr. mark.

Aside from the handful of action scenes I found this film to be booooring. So I'd definitely have to disagree with those that felt it was action from beginning to end.

Caesar makes a good point about Land of the Dead being a far superior survival picture. Unfortunately it hasn't garnered the same level of interest, which is a shame because it really is a good movie.

General_Grievous
07-10-2005, 06:40 PM
Caesar makes a good point about Land of the Dead being a far superior survival picture. Unfortunately it hasn't garnered the same level of interest, which is a shame because it really is a good movie.

You know why zombie movies like this haven't garnered that much interest? Because the general public has endured so many bad zombie/horror flicks over the past few years (Resident Evil, Cursed, Boogeyman) that they've become fed up and pretty much abandoned them. Personally, I don't really care much for horror movies. They just don't scare me. There are a few gems (or at least I count them among my favorites) like Halloween, The Exorcist and Dracula (the Gary Oldman version).

Anyway, back to WOTW, I was thinking the other day that it would have been a little better if Stan Winston had created the aliens' design. He's done some great stuff in the past.

JEDIpartner
07-18-2005, 09:24 PM
My issues... this was a weak Spielberg film. I give it B-. Dakota Fanning was amazing. The appearance of Robbie at the end of the film made it so cheap. Why were the grandparents and the mom looking so great when the rest of the world had been destroyed? They look like they'd just gotten up fron the dinner table to see who was at the door. Why did the video camera work immediately after the electrical storm when it was determined that anything that was electronic or electrical and lying around was rendered inoperable?

The movie was a mess by Spielberg standards. His chosen ending with all that closure was a really horrible. Robbie's motivation to "have to see" what was going on really sucked at best.

I would have forgiven a lesser director but Spielberg gets a tougher judgment from me because I know he's capable of better.

stillakid
07-18-2005, 10:02 PM
I would have forgiven a lesser director but Spielberg gets a tougher judgment from me because I know he's capable of better.

SpielLucas, er um, Spielberg has already publicly said that if he were to make Close Encounters today, it would be a different film. He never would have had Roy make the choice to leave his family in search of the unknown. As virtuous as that alternative choice might be, it would have completely altered the point of that story and made it into the standard sap that permeates most of his crap now. Life isn't always pat and nice. Roy Neary had something extraordinary happen to him which, unfortunately, tore his family apart. But in the end, he came away with something important, something big, something unlike any experience anyone could ever wish for. However if Spielberg had his way with that story now, Roy would have denied himself such indulgences, turned off his curiosity, erased that sense of wonder from his mind, and returned to a family which required only a dumb and lobotomized husband to be at the dinner table.

So a younger and more idealistic Spielberg deserves any credit that might go to his name. But his new version, this Lucas-ized family friendly version, just needs to stop. Either that or continue his career by making safe Hallmark Hall of Fame movies. Where's the puke emoticon?

JimJamBonds
07-18-2005, 11:58 PM
Do you that have saw the movie think it would have been any different had Spielberg taken longer to make the film? I know it was give or take a year from filming to release...how long did they have in post pre-production? I saw something with Spielbergo this weekend that he said he went about this movie in a completly different way. In ET and Encounters he had aliens be friendly and he believes in peace. With WoW he of course had to go the other way with that thought process, could his going against what he believes in resulted in the end product?

JEDIpartner
07-19-2005, 03:07 PM
I don't really think the amount of time he had to work onthe film has an bearing on how the film turned out. It was nicely acted (and for me to say that about Tom Crude it must be true) and the pacing was good. There were just some bad choices made. I don't think time would have changed that one iota.

I'm hearing what you are saying Stilla. I heard Spielberg say the same thing. I know people change but... again, there were some really stupid things that slipped through to the final product.

bigbarada
07-21-2005, 08:22 PM
I saw the film twice and really enjoyed it, but I also read the book just days before the movie premiered so the plot wasn't nearly as obsure to me as it was to others.

The special effects were great and I'm really glad that Speilberg decided to stay faithful to the book and go with tripods instead of flying saucers (even though that decision alone seems to be Roger Ebert's reason for giving the movie a thumbs down :rolleyes: ).

However, I wish he had continued to stay faithful to the book when it came to designing the Martians. In the book they were disgusting lumbering octopus-like creatures who could barely move in Earth's high gravity. In Spielberg's version they are cute, nimble creatures who seem to float effortlessly across the screen.

I was glad that the "red weeds" were in the movie (although they looked more like vines) but unfortunately they were never explained. To clear it up for those who were confused by this, they were the Martians' initial attempt at terraforming.

One very bad storytelling decision IMO, was the Martians "riding the lightning" down to the ships that had been buried for "a million years." Caesar brought up a good point, they spent all of those resources burying the tripods and never bothered to see if the planet was habitable?

In the book, as in the 1950s film, the Martians came down in asteroids and spend several hours getting ready before beginning their killing spree.

Overall, though, knowing what I did about the plot beforehand, I really enjoyed the movie. I thought it was really well done.

I was also very happy that the post-modern, politically-correct version of Steven Spielberg saw fit to leave in the reference to God at the end of the film. In the book, H.G. Wells references God many times as being in control of everything even when humanities days seem numbered.

I give the movie a B+

Lowly Bantha Cleaner
07-25-2005, 11:12 AM
I saw the movie over the weekend at a drive-in theatre (Wedding Crashers was the first flick) and I liked it--despite the presence of the much despised Tom Cruise (he is a good actor, we will give him that).

The tripod aliens were an awesome presence with their blaring fog-horn noise announcing their arrival, disenigrating everything in their path. You do feel that sense of terror when Cruise and her daughter (wonderfully played by Dakota Fanning. How long before she turns to crack?) are hiding from the probes in the basement of Tim Robbins character's house. A lot of unanswered questions though, like how did his son go from what looks like imminent death to meeting his parents in Boston at the end. Also, the annihilation of the aliens was a little disappointing, as I am sure many were expecting a gimmick or a trick, but really they were doomed from the start. And the ending was a little abrupt too, but overall I was pleased with this movie.

kool-aid killer
07-30-2005, 10:55 PM
I wasnt very big on the son living either, plus i agree with LBC's description of the parents and mother looking like nothing had happened in their little corner of Boston. I think the ending, or at least how the aliens died, was clearly explained to the audience so ive got no complaints about that. I really thought the shot of the daughter watching the first body float by was revealing of what was going on all over, then to see so many more of them come on down was even more shocking. Despite a few things that bothered me about it, i really enjoyed the movie. I want to read the book now.