I've just seen it. It's an impressive piece of work - I don't think anyone?s going to be disappointed.
The modern day?s setting is the only real change from the novels structure - the only real embellishment being Tom Cruise dragging his kids along. It's very much an ant?s eye view of events. If anything there?s less of a plot as we're mainly concerned with Cruise scurrying from place to place before... well, you know what happens at the end.
It's also incredibly serious in tone - the holocaust and 9/11 obviously being key reference points, rather than the cartoony mass destruction of Independence Day or Day After Tomorrow. And it does manage to be shocking and have genuine impact ? something I can?t really imagine it having in a quaint period setting. Those tripod things are utter terrors.
Quite surprised by that to be honest, you make it sound like a proper film, from the trailer it looked like Independance Day II.
I'm a bit cynical about Speilberg's movies generally, but I know he can make a good movie, so maybe I shouldn't be.
Anyway, tempted to go see it now.
The first few trailers I saw, months ago now, focused exclusively on the build-up to the invasion and were genuinely creepy, making the film look really good.
Then I saw a trailer featuring the 'splodo, big carnage, and generally looking like Independence Day II, like PVS said. Less inspiring, to say the least.
Still planning on seeing it, though. It'd be interesting to see how people who aren't familiar with the book see the ending; it could come across as a bit of a deus ex machina cop out.
Reading the advanced reviews makes me very much want to see it despite having a) the loathsome Scientologist in it and b) directed by someone who has not made a decent film in years...
Them's the hurdles I've had to leap, Gary!
-- a) the loathsome Scientologist in it
...and, if you believe the gossip about Katie Holmes "missing days", he's a loathsome, brain-washing Scientologist...
There's just been a spoilertastic review on GMTV... which despite so well dodgey direction on the clip they showed and a blatant steal of the Jaws theme. I still want to see it in the cinema (instead of waiting five minutes for the DVD)
Gyaaaah!
Must. Not. Read. Thread...
I'm taking my dad to see this - possibly not for the first showing, though. I have this tiny foible about wanting to be able to hear the film I've just paid a fiver to watch.
I won't read anything about this film so I can go see it and probably enjoy it more without preconceptions. My only worry is that the "no-one would have believed" monologue is a bit cheesy done in that stock gravelly American voice usually reserved for voice-over artists.
That's a minor quibble, though. I just hope the anti-clerical bent of Wells' novel survives to this version. I'd agree with Paul's comment that Spielberg can make a good movie, but I'd add the prefix "if it's thirty years ago and the film has a shark in it".
(and is it just me, or does Spielberg seem pissed that Independance Day stole the movie's thunder by nearly a decade? If you're going to slag off ID, it should be for the right reasons (that it's a poorly written, badly acted and very,very, VERY badly directed by-the-numbers excercise in moviemaking by focus group), not just because it got there before you did)
All positive review over here in OZ so far, talk of OSCARS already!!! supposed to be bull shit scary too.
CU Krestel
If they've kept the proper ending, I'm going to go and see it.
Hang on. What are you doing back? Deported already? ;)
Yeah, it's very definately a proper film, and not Independance Day II. At no point does the Eiffel tower get melted or the President give a rousing speech which turns the tide of teh battle.
It's still got a few, very minor, Spielbergian lapses, but for the most part it's excellent.
You know it was written into Spielberg and Cruise's contracts that Cruise took top billing on all the advertising and merchandising, which is why Spielberg's name is hardly visible on the posters. This is just another vanity project for Cruise, like Days of Thunder or John The White Samurai, or whatever that shitty film was called.
"I don't think anyone's going to be disappointed."
Do you know me at all, Art?
Anybody with reasonable expectations.
Byron, why not just pretend you're watching some low budget piece of Amicus or Hammer turd, starring third rate '60s soap actors and directed by some alcoholic hack.
You would love it then...
Which '60's soap stars would these be then Rac? Peter Cushing, who won the BAFTA for Best Actor and was part of Lawrence Olivier's group of theatre actors? Maybe Miles Malleson, who won innumerable awards as a playwrite and actor? Or perhaps you were talkiong about the Oscar nominated Burgess Meredith?
And which alcaholic hack are we talking about - Terrence Fisher, who influenced everyone from Scorsese to Spielberg? Val Guest who pioneered the 1950's verite style? Or Freddie Francis, who won Oscars for shooting Lawrence of Arabia and the remake of Cape Fear?
You see Art, you just need to know what buttons to press..!
You know it's perfectly possible to like both.
Of course, and I do!
Personally, I'm really looking forward to this movie.
Despite what i think of his beliefs, I quite like the Cruiser as an actor. And god help me, I'm a fan of Spielberg too, as well as a Hammer fan.
But poking Virgo with a stick is fun.
You can keep your piece of shite imperialist movie - it's more to do with the rubbish 1950's version that it is with Welles' book anyway.
And you can stick your Cruise too rac - I should have remembered your favourite film's Risky Business, you Last Samurai-watching bastard.
Seen it. A load of fucking mince from start to finish.
I know I slag things off purely for my own amusement on a regular basis on the board, and as such my opinion as to what constitutes a 'good' film is devalued currency as a consequence, but this piece of crap really does take the biscuit - it trots along as a sort of disaster movie type affair, aimlessly having the characters move from one 'jaws of doom' scenario to another, then ends with the voiceover from the George Pal movie, but delivered by someone who sounds like Morgan Freeman. Possibly it is Morgan Freeman. I don't know.
Plus, there's several moments with the little girl that smell suspiciously like pseudo-hippy claptrap to me, and there's a rumour doing the rounds about the pro-scientology bent of the script.
Just too much wrong with this film to go into, despite the fact it has good actors, good fx (even the cgi), decent pacing, and a script that obviously isn't written by a complete moron, but even so, it's pretty poor. I liked the bit where the Cruiser walks out into the terraformed farmyard, though - that's a good set. And the start is great - until you realise the entire movie just does a variation on the start of the film for about an hour and a half. And (apart from the three legs) the aliens are dead ringers for the aliens from Independance Day.
...pro-scientology bent of the script...
???
No interest in this film at all.
If a movie is going to be made from a book MAKE THE BLOODY BOOK.
I don't seem to remember the story taking place in modern day America nor do I remember Tom Bloody Cruse appearing the the book.
If it must be made CALL IT SOMETHING ELSE like Mars Attacks (no, wait that's been done) or Invaders From Mars (ahh, yes, that one's gone too), just don't call it War of the Worlds if it isn't War of the Worlds.
It really wouldn't succeed at what it does (and despite what Bear says I really do beleive it does succeed) if it was set in the 19th century.
As for Cruise, yes, he's recognisably Tom Cruise. For what it's worth he's considerably less annoying about it than he is in most movies.
Without going into the whole scientology thing - the bit with the splinter in Ray's house at the start, the bit with the little girl chanting the 'this is my space' mantra, and the bit where Ray has to let his son go his own way or lose both his kids are all helpful indicators of the wanky hippy nonsense that permeates the script.
Unforgiveably, it doesn't actually convey a convincing sense of the scale of the threat, either. All we see are a few tripods walking around some suburbs shooting panicking middle-class shmoes (although Spielberg tries to convince us they're working-class schmoes). We never get to see how the aliens would cope with a ghetto full of kids who've seen the Empire Strikes Back and know how you deal with a big stompy metal asshole using only a long bit of cable, but considering Spielberg is the guy who made Jurassic Park to show how bad-ass the Velociraptors were, then made a sequel where one got kickboxed to death by the token black kid of the cast, it's probably a blessing we don't see that.
There's no rule that says a War of the Worlds movie has to be some grand demolition derby, I suppose - I'm sure there's plenty that will be happy enough that we never get to see the army and the aliens go toe-to-toe. I'm just not one of them.
I think anyone who likes this new War of the Worlds film is exactly the same as someone who ploughs into a cue of people waiting for a bus...
Wow, such hostility. I plan to see it, an as a conisuier of both good books and good films and a complete understanding that books don't always translate to film all that well without signifigent changes I'm sure I'll like it. That is unless it sucks on it's own merrits.
Also, those complaining that this film is all about Tom going from one extreme danger to another.....isn't that exactly how the book goes?!
as a conisuier of both good books and good films and a complete understanding that books don't always translate to film all that well without signifigent changes I'm sure I'll like it. That is unless it sucks on it's own merrits.
Bwuhawhahahhahahahahahh!
You kidderr;
;)
Nice to meet you Adventurer!
I'm not saying the film's shit because it isn't a faithful adaptation of the Welles book (thought it is shit because of that), I'm saying it's shit because it's a film made through the reverse alchemy of combining Tom Cruise with Steven Spielberg: turning gold into base metals.
Just back from seeing it, and I'd largely agree with what Art has said. There *were* some problems with the script, the occasional duff moment, Dakota Fanning doesn't convince playing a child her own age, and Tom Cruise doesn't really have much of a range, but it was a surprisingly dark and strong movie.
I might post more later once I've had a chance to think about it a bit, but at the moment I'd definitely recommend it to anyone who is open to a reinterpretation of Wells' novel, or to a reasonably intelligent blockbuster.
I'm mostly with the Prof on this one. I actually thought the opening half hour was immensely impressive, the heat rays in particular were absolutely horrifying, then the next hour or so was relentless if repetitive (loved the 'Mars Attacks' train!), but the film basically collapses once the eldest kid goes 'over the top'.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
Suddenly you have a poor turn from Robbins (typecast as tunnel digging guy!), some utterly ho-hum aliens (the Slitheen were acutally more alien than these guys, hell Dakota Fanning was scarier - what's wrong with hiideous three-legged-squid-brains, oozing slime and pulsing proboscises and whatnot - giving them a face was a rotten idea), then you have Cruise (up to now pretty damn good) blowing up a tripod with a grenade for fucks sake (yet another Jaws rehash)...
Now all this I could just about live with, but on reaching journey's end, not only are ex-Wife, new Hubby, and the In-Laws miraculously unbscathed, but up pops Eldest Son, last seen walking into a fireball, and despite Cruise spending days in Robbins cellar, the son only just arrived himself.... the only significant loss is reversed. Bollocks, bollocks, bollocks.
Any sense of genuine pathos is gone - they were never in any real danger, a few suicide bombers could have taken the Tripods out even if the germs didn't, and their heatrays couldn't even char Cruise Junior. What a complete wimp-out.
The post-9-11 updating was well done ("Is it the Terrorists?"), Cruise was understated and believable, the set dressing was terrfic, the cinematography was accomplished and invetive, the Tripods were fabulous juggernauts of destruction, the sense of inescapable doom was well created, but that last half hour fucked things up so badly I still feel cheated.
The best and the worst of Spielberg in the same movie. >SIGH<
SPOILERS!!
Why, at the start of the film, are the aliens capable of shooting individual people inside buildings, yet can't see Tom and Tim hiding inside one at the end of the film?
Why, if the death-rays destroy vehicles, buildings and human flesh, do they leave clothes unscathed?
coughcoughSchindler'sListreferencecoughcough
If the aliens are millions of years ahead of us in terms of technology, how come they don't know what a bicycle is?
Don't they have thermal imaging or sonar or something? A long pipe with a camera on the end seems a somewhat inefficient way to look for humans - surely it would take forever?
Why did they need to 'harvest' each human individually? Surely some sort of mincing machine would be a better idea?
That bit with Tom entering the tripod's 'arse' - I can't have been the only one thinking what I was thinking, right?
Why wait millions of years to colonise Earth? Surely it stands to reason that it'll have changed a bit, necessitating terraforming? And how come no-one ever noticed hundred-ton killing machines under the earth? And how come the lighhtening had to strike the same place so many times? What was the ice around the impact point all about? Wasn't the lightening supposed to be a teleportation device of some sort? And why use individual death rays to seek out every human individually and exterminate them? Surely a bomb of some description..?
Why, yes, I am just back from the pub, and we DID discuss this film at length! How did you guess?
All that time in the pub, and you couldn't just come to the conclusion that it was shite?
I wonder how many people here decided that they would dislike this movie before going to see it.
I really enjoyed this movie: the first act was absolutely stunning, the attempt to escape the onslaught was unrelenting and the tension of the third act cellar masterfully handled.
My only criticism would be the final part of the third act, with Cruise's heroics with the grenade seeming slightly off, and the happy reunion rushed and neat.
What was interesting was his single-minded protection of his daughter, which stretched to murder, and of course provided the motivation (finally) to fight the martians.
Mind you, it's obvious that most posters here consider Spielberg and Cruise to be the lowest of the low, devoid of redeeming features.
To suggest that Spielberg hasn't made a good movie since Jaws belies my belief. Is it just me that holds Close Encounters Of The Third Kind, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, E.T. The Extra Terrestrial, Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan in incredibly high regard?
As for Tom Cruise, it's easy to slag him off for the likes of Top Gun and The Last Samurai, whilst conveniantly forgetting his frankly superb acting in such movies as Risky Business, Rain Man, Jerry Maguire, Magnolia and Vanilla Sky. His religious beliefs are neither here nor there.
Would a period version of this film, set in England, really be any better? I can't imagine why.
Now, to get in on Professor Bear's pub debate:
:: "Why, at the start of the film, are the aliens capable of shooting individual people inside buildings, yet can't see Tom and Tim hiding inside one at the end of the film?"
It could have been looking through windows.
:: "Why, if the death-rays destroy vehicles, buildings and human flesh, do they leave clothes unscathed?"
I assumed that the clothes were from collected humans. However, this is a good nit pick, as when Cruise is collected he remains clothed. Even the "sucked dry" gentleman outside Tim's cellar is clothed.
:: "If the aliens are millions of years ahead of us in terms of technology, how come they don't know what a bicycle is?"
They have 3 legs, and as you say, they're millions of years ahead of us: maybe they've forgotten basic tech.
:: "Don't they have thermal imaging or sonar or something? "
The machines are millions of years old, so maybe they don't.
:: "Why did they need to 'harvest' each human individually? Surely some sort of mincing machine would be a better idea?"
That's very efficient thinking. I'm glad you're not an alien invader.
:: "And how come no-one ever noticed hundred-ton killing machines under the earth?"
Good point.
:: "And how come the lighhtening had to strike the same place so many times?"
To open a hole big enough for the martian to port through.
:: "And why use individual death rays to seek out every human individually and exterminate them?"
Scare the shit out of them, thus causing panic and confusion, whilst still leaving enough alive to feed the weed, man.
I honestly loved it, particularly the way it doesn't really explain much. There are a lot of things that don't make sense but it seems like the whole aim has been to put you right there in Cruise's shoes, so you're only fed the information that he would have in the situation. I really haven't felt the same kind of excitement at a blockbuster type movie since I saw Jurassic Park as a kid. The only thing I wasn't keen on was actually that they didn't change the ending, as I did think they might have come up with something new and I think when it ended in the same way as the original it robbed the movie of a proper climax. Although I suppose people who aren't familiar with the original won't have that problem. Speilberg's a great director and Cruise, whatever his religion, is a great actor in my eyes.
--- a few suicide bombers could have taken the Tripods out even if the germs didn't---
Nah, if the germs hadn't fucked them up they never would have gotten through the shields.
Hey, with all this cathartic ranting, I'm surprised to note that I had completely forgotten my original pre-viewing complaint, the altered setting - this aspect actually didn't really matter, and at least it leaves the possibility open for an actual Victorian-set film version sometime in my lifetime.
Have to say that the "scientific" illogicalities/inconsistencies didn't bother me too much - the buried tripods, the lightning teleportation, the harvesting methods (and where did all the bodies in the river come from - apart from the "cool image" sourcebook) - the invasion clearly isn't supposed to make sense in this version (although it did in the book) or we'd have been treated to a higher-level perspective - it just isn't "that" type of SF film. The intention seemed to be to create an "end-user" version of an alien invasion, focussing on the incomprehensibility and chaos - a bit like the mildly under-rated "Signs" in that respect.
My problem with the film is the failure to deliver on even this ambition - the "soft" ending retrospectively erased all sense of real threat. Even 'Independence Day' (*spits*) had some genuine sacrifice (First Lady, Drunk Crop Duster Guy), hell even the Star Wars films managed to convey some sense of genuine danger, all through the irreversible loss of supporting characters (Biggs, Dack,Qui-Gon) .
If you're going to do hard-assed heat-ray-to-ash sequences, grislily familiar crashed aeroplanes and impotent militaries, you CAN'T undermine this by making the central character and his loved ones utterly impervious to harm - particulalry if you give us the impression that such harm has already occurred. I mean I liked Robbie's (?) death scene, I sympathised with his desire to "see" these momentous events even tho' it meant his, I felt for Cruise as he had to make a decision between his two kids in that beautifully lit ridge-top scene, and then I had that empathy thrown back in my face. Poppycock, I say!
"--- a few suicide bombers could have taken the Tripods out even if the germs didn't---
Nah, if the germs hadn't fucked them up they never would have gotten through the shields."
Ahem, I'm suggesting 'human bombs' that allow themselves to be harvested before blowing themselves up, as Cruise was prepared to do - can't say I fancy the aliens' chances in Saudi or Palestine. Of course this would only work briefly as a tactic. I'm sure a good shaking before harvesting would sort things out.
On a similar note, I quite liked Robbins' crypto-liberal rantings (although I didn't care for the character) about the impossibility of sucessful occupation...
I've been pondering the buried Tripods, and I'm guessing the time delay may derive from some kind of Von Neumann programme - seed likely worlds with nanotech travelling at relativistic velocities to build the terraforming machines in secret, report suitability back across the void, and then wait for the slower organics to catch up.
The "reason" for not terraforming the planet prior to the organics showing up seems to be tied up with sadistic curiosity. The aliens are clearly interested in observing humanity as they wipe them out, and in inflicting individual misery - again, not unlike 'Mars Attacks'. Not that any of this matters - a good film let down by an embarassingly wimpy ending.
Okay, the ending was too nice, in that retrospectively nobody died, but to say that means the movie had to element of threat to the central characters is frankly ridiculous, given that the core essence of the movie is the danger posed to them.
If you have a three course meal, and the first two courses are gorgeous but the pudding turns out to be a bit off, does that mean the first two courses weren't gorgeous?
"...had no element of threat..."
[This post sponsored by the Typo Police.]
No, but it does tend to spoil the rest of the meal - you're so busy thinking about how terribly ill that pudding made you that you can no longer appreciate the wonderful starter...
...and having now thought about it, I'm still only able to come up with one reason for the Buried Tripods/Lightning Teleportation replacing the original interplanetary capsules:
Having shifted the action to modern Earth, the writer simply wanted to avoid explaining how capsules could pass through the solar system and the atmosphere undetected.
I also don't remember Mars being mentioned as the home of the alien invaders - was this omitted as well?
The aliens no longer come from Mars as Spielberg decided we know to much about Mars to believe in the concept of invaders from Mars.
Not seen the film yet,but the debate on this thread is really wetting my appetite for it.
Yeah - moving it to a modern setting makes various things impossible: Mars has been (sort of) explored, so that's out. Large capsules could not only be tracked approaching earth, but if one landed in the middle of the common, the army would be there in seconds: there'd be none of the books "ooh, I wonder what it could be" naivety.
"Mars has been (sort of) explored, so that's out"
Hm. I think they could have got away with saying that the Martian civilisation did exist, but under the surface and hidden from our sight. Perhaps our exploration of Mars could even have been a "trigger" for their invasion?
"Large capsules could not only be tracked approaching earth"
Well, you could get around this with a bit of thought - anything from cloaking technology to hiding them within a shower of asteroids would be reasonably plausible, and at least as plausible as the lightning beaming the creatures into their buried machines.
IMO, the alien "sleeper cells" (*cough*) just aren't as effective as the full-on bombardment from outside in previous adaptations.
>Hm. I think they could have got away with saying that the Martian civilisation did exist, but under the surface and hidden from our sight. Perhaps our exploration of Mars could even have been a "trigger" for their invasion?
That's sort of what happens in Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles... the Martians are essentially invisible.
Yeah - I'll agree that my list of nitpicks (or those things that I decided to put to one side in order to maintain my willing suspension of disbelief) included:
[SPOILERS, if it's not too late]
The "turned out nice again" ending, which was unfortunately obvious given that we never actually saw his son killed. An option would have been to bring the son back in as some kind of "alien-fighting veteran", and doing the grenade thing instead of Tom: however, that's all a bit "Jurassic Park III", and nobody wants that.
The "buried machines" conceit. You're right, cloaking tech could explain away the unseen arrival, and given that we see it from the family POV, there's no requirement to explain how they got their unseen. I did think the EMP was a great idea: used on it's own it reduces the modern technology of our era to that of the era portrayed in the book (almost).
What you would lose, I think, with capsules landing, is the scene of a bemused public coming to investigate. The hole in the ground is something to be investigated, but a ruddy great metal bomb-a-like would have todays public moving away from and not to it (don't you think).
On a more positive note, I'm glad Spielberg took more from Welles radio adaptation, and the book, than from the previous movie version. What I'm getting at is the tripods: they're pretty much indistinguishable from the "League Of Extraordinary Gentlemen" versions.
Hang on, though: what's all this "OHHHMMMMM" all about, eh? Whatever happened to "OOOOOOOHH-LLAAAAAA"?
Well,at least it's upset the Daily Mail's moral guardians-so it must be doing something write.
How come there's video footage of the aliens "riding the lightning" if the lightning also produces a EMP pulse that knocks out anything electric?
And how come the first bloke to be zapped by the Heat Ray is using a video camera?
To be honest, I'd assumed the "they're already here" invasion of Spielberg's version was part of the post-9/11 updating process - no clearly visible external military threat, but a threat hidden in our midst for ages etc.
The point about a capsule landing excluding the rather pivotal "naive, bemused public" sequences is well made.
Mangamax - Spielberg should hire the members of this board as continuity-spotters. However, the alien-tech can pretty much do whatever it likes, because it's alien-tech. As for the video camera, this is a cheesy excuse, but there are various existant technologies that can be incorporated in electrical equipment to protect it from EMP.
Back to things I like: the essential randomness of the main character's survival. We can see that it's just as likely he could have died, and his survival is mainly down to luck (apart from the tricky third act scene with the grenade, which would have worked better if a third party had thought of it).
Then again, the story within the story is that the failed, emotionally-crippled father regains the respect of his immediate and extended family. For that to work at all, there had to be more than just luck on the table.
I did like the disaster movie cliche: when warnings of impending doom are shown on the television, they are always ignored by channel-surfing soon-to-be victims.
I'm not fussed what anyone else thinks- I really enjoyed it. I'm not ashamed to admit that it had me on the edge of my seat most of the time and I loved that I felt I'd been proven wrong about the kind of film I was expecting.
Spoliers ahead (not that anyone else seems to care!)
The first shot of Cruise shows him operating a crane and I instantly thought that there was going to be a really shit moment where he was going to be able to nick one of the Tripods because of this 'skill'. Instead of watching a film about how America (and Tom Cruise in particular) defeats the aliens, I watched a film about an attack that came from nowhere, that nobody understood (which added to the realism for me) and that didn't make a hero of the hero. He was just some waster who realised that he'd do anything to protect his kids.
The few nitpicks I can be bothered to hunt around for aren't even worth the effort. I thought it was great.
The original story itself is massively flawed (Aliens with tech centuries in advance of our own don't give a second thought to bugs in the air? How likely is that?), that doesn't mean it isn't enjoyable though.
As for Cruise and Speilberg bashers, I just don't get it. I think Steven Segal has starred in some of the wankiest films ever. I made this judgement on a bunch of trailers and one film that I actually managed to sit through. I don't need to keep watching to think that he's shit...
"I think Steven Segal has starred in some of the wankiest films ever. I made this judgement on a bunch of trailers and one film that I actually managed to sit through. I don't need to keep watching to think that he's shit..."
Yeah, but if someone prroduced a new Judge Dredd film starring Steven Seagal as our titular anti-hero, you'd end up watching it. Christ, it happened to me in '95.
I think people groan because someone they actively dislike ends up in a project that they quite like the idea of.
Here's hoping we never get a Judge Dredd spin off movie called Judge Giant directed by Michael Bay and starring Martin Lawrence.
Or George Lucas writing and directing any more Star Wars films.
Tiplodocus who still thinks Cruise is utterly, utterly magnificent in MAGNOLIA and that Speilberg has made lots of good films without Sharks
As a small aside to this thread:
Link: Oh dear...
'interesting' ebay seller there, Mangamax. Why not start another thread with it? ?2.20 for his soul and, er, himself as well (?) doesn't sound like he got a good deal. Can he sell both again to someone else, ad infinitum?
I went to see War of the Worlds yesterday, and I think I agree mostly with what Art had to say about it. There are certainly some interesting views being shared here.
I thought it was unremittingly bleak from beginning to end. I didn't really enjoy the first 20 minutes, and I turned to my partner to say "I can't tell if this is good or not". Then when the first fighting machine (called tripods in this version) started zapping people with its dessicating ray I got very upset (at this point I should like to point out that I am only a whisker away from getting prescription medication for my nerves, so I'm maybe a bit over-sensitive).
Not liking to see people suffer, I found it quite traumatic to watch and it reduced me to a gibbering wreck.
Anyway, I decided in the end it was a good film, albeit one with numerous flaws, all of which have been pointed out by other members of this forum.
I liked the girl, and I was utterly convinced by her performance, and I think she deserves an oscar nomination for her screaming. Yes, Tom Cruise and family wandered from one situation of deadly jeopardy to another and miraculously escaped every time, which was rather irksome. Considering how easily the aliens could wipe out their targets, it seemed that as long as you had star billing you could hang around indefinitely arguing with the kids or pondering your next course of action while all around you hundreds are fleeing for their lives.
I didn't happen to think the red weed set was good at all. Before the film, I saw the Charlie and the Chocolate Factory trailer, and I thought I was seeing the same set again. After the film I mentioned to m'partner that when Ray stepped outside the farmhouse I had the song in my head that goes "Willy Wonka, Willy Wonka..." and she said so did she.
I liked the bit where some refugees were discussing the world situation, ("I heard America got it worst, and Europe was unscathed") which seemed like a comment on the uninformed debate going on in America about the so-called war on terror.
However, I thought it was no less a pro-America propaganda movie than Independence Day, and, indeed, the updating was very effective to that end. It seemed to me the 9/11 allegory was hammered home very forcefully, what with the wall of missing persons appeals, the downed airplane, talk of "is it the terrorists?", "no it's from somewhere else", "you mean like Europe?" (Boooo! Europe: that's where the French live, and they hate us too...).
The final straw was at the end where the stricken fighting machine had to be taken down by bazooka fire when it was dying anyway. Why? Propaganda! No way could Americans be so helpless as to let nature do its dirty work for it, nothing less than a direct military intervention will do.
I eagerly await Bartlett's political analysis of what this all means.
Oh, and from the moment I saw the opening titles, I knew we'd see those paramecia again at the end. It was a dead giveaway to anyone who knows the story already. What I mean is, sure you know how it ends, but do you really want to see the end visual of the film in the first minute? They could have simply narrated the stuff about the things that swarm and multiply in a drop of water without actually showing them... but it's maybe asking to much of a multiplex audience to get them to visualise it for themselves? And the voice over was awful. Sub-Disney bleating, with not an ounce of menace.
Okay, I'm going on a bit now.
The thing with the bicycle? In H.G. Wells's original, the wheel was entirely unknown to the Martians. Martians using bombs? But H.G. Wells came up with the heat ray (also the black dust, but obviously Spielberg didn't think they needed that as well).
Loads more to say, but there's no reason anyone should be all that interested. I enjoyed the film, however harrowing I found it, I got my money's worth, and I'd give it a 4-star rating out of a possible 5.
There's no way I would have given it a 12A rating though, nor would I take kids younger than 13 to see it.
Havn't read all the thread, for fear of reading a few too many spoilers, but does it end in the Speilbergian trademarked sickening, vomit inspiring display of emotion?
In a word Yes.
Paul I can't tell you without spoilerising the movie!
(*cough* Norman Rockwell painting *cough*)
Interesting aside in the news that Speilberg was behind the video for the New York Olympic bid - the short clip they showed looked very slick
And his next project is based on the follow up to Berlin Olympic terrorism incident - basically Mossad agents tracking down and assassinating a load of Bader-Mienhoff members
Weren't 11 members of the Israeli Olympic team murdered during the 1972 Munich Olympics by Arab terrorists?
up to 5 minutes beofre the end - good (not great) film.
Last five minutes - TOTAL CRAP. Spielberg manages to screw up the whole intense, suspensful feeling the film had with that last shot of the boy.
I heard at lesat five people say 'what a load of crap!' as I left.
Well, that's put me off again! I haven't watched AI for the same reason.
A million times better than AI, PVS. This didn't leave me wanting to strangle the screen.
The horror bits are done oh so very well. My girlf was terrified and to be fair I was pretty scared. For the first time ever I found myself talking to a character onscreen. I was telling Tim Robbins 'don't' when he was thinking of axing the probe (although it didn't seem to do Cruise any harm).
In a wat Hollywood should be applauded for staying faithful to the story after all, they kept the most anti-climatic ending in the history of the film industry.
By no means perfect, but still very enjoyable.
Jeeeeeesus! I forgot all about the trailer for Willy Wonka! God knows how - that looks like the most appalling, soulless piece of crap I've ever laid eyes on. Charmless, to say the least, having the words "directed by Tim Burton" didn't help my perceptions any, either.
I liked the Red Weed set because of the red/green/blue colour scheme - one of the only moments in the film where it looked like we were looking at something genuinely alien.
Now I'm thinking of Willy Wonka, I actually don't think War of the Worlds was that bad in retrospect - although if I was in Tom Cruise's position when the little girl started screaming, I'd have slaped the teeth out of her head.
Just found Orson Welles' radio version on the second disc of my Citizen Kane DVD.
It's very effective, if slightly dull.
Only half way through lisetning to it, so don't know yet if it was true to the original ending.
There was a piece in yesterday's Guardian that claims this is the first anti-Bush movie...
...even though it's a load of bandy old cack?
And what about the recent tidal wave of anti-Bush/Republican/Neo-Con/Fox News films that have appeared over the last few years?
"There was a piece in yesterday's Guardian that claims this is the first anti-Bush movie..."
Can you give us any more to go on than that, Gary? My own reading of it was that it confirmed that Americans have every reason to be afraid ('they're already here'), and there was a strong undercurrent of 'if only there was some way we could fight back'. If there were anti-Bush overtones, I don't think they were particularly overt.
POSSIBLE
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
S
I liked this... The first decent Spielberg in quite some time, actually it felt like Spielberg from the 80s. Dakota Fanning was good, Robbins was good, and being an annoying little git really worked for Cruise here.
Spoilt by: the ending. As if that kid is still alive and made it home before them?! Who would care anyway? Oh, and the Morgan Freeman (?) voiceover didn't really work.
Finally seen it.
Nyyurggh... okay, I guess. All of this is going to sound rather begrudging I'm afraid.
No problems with the modern setting, or the story changes, I even quite liked some of the spin on the old story.
Tom Cruise isn't as bad as he could be. I can't help but feel someone else would have done the job a lot better, but he did play a character and not just movie star tom cruise all the time. I'm not a fan, so he actually rates a slight positive here.
I really liked what the movie was trying to do. Just show the experiences of this guy as he fled the aliens, rather than tell some convoluted story. I liked the attempt at realism (in some places more than others), and it's darkness in places. It's attempt to show how people behave in disasters was either brave or very cannily calculated, but I approve anyway.
I wasn't expecting to enjoy the film much, but I was expecting to goggle at the aliens and effects. Well, some of the tripod stuff worked, loved the legs, and the eyes. Plus the heat ray was interesting. Wasn't really that convinced by the, or the lightening. And the aliens themselves, were pants, the baby-faced grey gits.
Can anyone else explain why Cruise had to kill a man for mumbling, while he got his daughter to err... sing while he did it. I thought there was somethign quite perverted about this murder, and it made me feel sick.
The son should have just died, and we should have seen it. Or he should have buggered off in a way we could believe that he might have survived. It's just prime speilbergian cheese I'm afraid. I don't begrudge a bit of emotion at the end with the reunion, I expect it, even look forward to it. But speilberg always does it in such a way that suddenly feel I want to be the man who starts world war three and destroys all humanity. I thought this was over the top but still restrained by Speilbergs standards, so again... I should be grateful.
It was, overall, quite an average movie. It's a long way from awful, and a long way from great.
Really, my thought was that the son should have died, and yet, even with that, the ending could have been happy - he managed to save his daughter against all the odds.
I thought that the first part of the movie was great - up until the lad went over the hill with the army. After that things were a bit hit and miss - average sci-fi movie.
All the bits with Tripods in rocked.
All the other bits didn't.
Steve
Hey there tiddlypeeps,if any of u were impressed with speilbergs latest pile of fetid monkey bollocks,then get this.....r u ready? then here it comes......jeff wayne IS going to animate his definitive version of the war of the worlds,if any of u remember final fantasy spirits within,it's going to be done along the same lines,but in victorian england!!how's about that for thrill huh?
That does sound pretty thrill.
Anyone seen the period version yet?
"jeff wayne IS going to animate his definitive version of the war of the worlds,if any of u remember final fantasy spirits within,it's going to be done along the same lines,but in victorian england!!how's about that for thrill huh?"
Unfortunately, I do remember "Spirits Within" - hopefully the comparison is just shorthand for "realistic CG movie" and not an indication of the tone they're aiming for...
I watched the Final Fantasy movie when I was on holiday in Norwich. It was better than Cats and Dogs which I fell asleep to when watching it on the holiday in Great Yarmouth. The screen was really big too, but that, I guess, varied with location.
Before I reply to this properly people, it's WELLS for Grud's sake, not WELLES.
Sorry :o)
Ah, well ok, it's Welles if you're talking about the radio version I suppose.
I thought it started well and got progressively worse and more annoying. Didn't think it was anything more than another crap disaster movie really.
I really hated them for the "Do you think it's terrorists?" line. When there's a huge feckin very "alien-looking" thing just burrowed it's way out of the ground and started hovering about, that's about the dumbest question EVER! Also, nobody seems that suprised that this thing is quite obviously completely alien. And when you see the ground starting to crack open do you just take a couple of steps back? No, you'd run like hell in the opposite direction, not stand there like a twat waiting for it to split open more.
Not the worst film about Mars mind you, even though it wasn't anything to do with Mars. What's with that anyway?
And that transport thing, so they just glide through the ground and leave the ground slightly dented? Bollocks.
I agree with Mr Horse
"No sir, I didn't like it"