Eyes pop, skin explodes, everybody dead! WAR OF THE WORLDS movie

[Art]

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.

[paulvonscott]

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.

[Thursday]

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.

[Quirkafleeg]

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...

[paulvonscott]

Them's the hurdles I've had to leap, Gary!

[The Amstor Computer]

-- a) the loathsome Scientologist in it

...and, if you believe the gossip about Katie Holmes "missing days", he's a loathsome, brain-washing Scientologist...

[Quirkafleeg]

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)

[Bico]

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)

[Steamboy]

All positive review over here in OZ so far, talk of OSCARS already!!! supposed to be bull shit scary too.

CU Krestel

[Dudley]

If they've kept the proper ending, I'm going to go and see it.

[Wils]

Hang on. What are you doing back? Deported already? ;)

[Art]

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.

[Byron Virgo]

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?

[Art]

Anybody with reasonable expectations.

[Richmond Clements]

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...