War of the Worlds

[Pulpmariachi]

I'm probably one of the last people you want to go to when asking about a Steven Spielberg film, because I'll always tell you they are always good. Or great. Or awesome. Or spectacular. I think there might be one other director who I'll make myself like their films. One.

I mean, Jurassic Park made me choose two career paths: 1. a palentologist, and 2. a filmmaker. So you can blame that movie for everything. But seriously, spielberg has changed my life with most of his films, and even his weaker ones I'll make myself like if I have to.

Whenever I walk into a Spielberg theater I think, "Okay, I'm just going to immerse myself in this world you're presenting and even if the largest plothole ever exists, I'll believe it."

And it hasn't failed. I've never had to make myself like a Spielberg movie, either. I always have. He obviously is very much in control of his material. Self-proclaiming directors like Lars von Trier don't have shit on him. Wes Anderson doesn't have shit on Spielberg. Tarantino should quiver in his presence. The only other filmmaker almost on par with Spielberg in Scorsese. Seriously, Spielberg was named the greatest filmmaker by a British magazine. Hitchcock and Kubrick are excellant as well, but. . . . I don't know, basically I have a bias towards Spielbergian films. I always will. I have had one since 1993 and it hasn't gone away, even when I've gone through my different phases and whatnot.

So, on to War of the Worlds.

I loved it. And it is, by far, the best film of 2005. Batman Begins, Star Wars, Cinderella Man, and all those other films have nothing on this.

First of all, Spielberg gives us believable characters. He is going to make you like these guys, because, if you don't, you won't care what happens to them. And that's what tension is all about. Second, he gives us a story. Actually, it's H. G. Wells's classic masterpiece story, though vamped up a bit. The ending and events are all realitively the same, but just in a different time period. Finally, when characters and story are out of the way, Spielberg knocks us out with the visuals.

It's a running movie. Tom Cruise and his kids run away from the alien creatures. And just like Spielberg made it seem like they could be our friends, he turns around and shows us how they can rape us as well.

The tension. Man, some of those scenes are incredibly intense, I can't even describe (though one of them mimicks Jurassic Park, but that's all good). I couldn't take my eyes off the screen, I was engulfed in what was going on.

Then, I squirmed in a few places. Like the red mist scene.

Brilliant film.

And we get performances out of everyone that is actually worthwhile. Cruise proves he can act and isn't always just a pretty face (think the Mission: Impossible films). I'm not a big fan of Dakota Fanning, but she was excellant (still, not on Osment standards).

Again, the story gives us plenty of moments of intensity. And great, and loud visuals. Kaminski's cinematography always makes you think that the entire thing is surreal, but very real, like the worst adrenaline rush ever.

The ending was kind of a bit off, but it can be forgiven by the brilliant scenarios that proceed it.

Anyways, I still think this is the best movie of 2005 by far. See it now.

***1/2 /****

[Termination]

Glad to hear you liked the film Pulp. I still get chills watching the trailer. (Still saved on my computer ) Unfortunately I'm gonna wait for the home video release. I rarely do theaters because they suck balls.

[Phoenix]

I saw it - classic Spielburg stuff. I actually LOVE Dakota Fanning (if you've ever seen the mini series Taken, which was produced by Spielburg, you can easily become a fan) and because of her I definitely enjoyed the film more. Tom Cruise was his normal good-acting self and the special effects are Lucas Arts good. I'd say if you have high expectation they will be met! Like Smitty said in his review, this film is non-stop action once the aliens start attacking.

I'm a fan of the original film - and it's obvious Spielburg is too. He re-does a lot of the classic scenes and I enjoyed seeing them immensely.

Beware of spoilers though! This is a film that can easily be ruined for someone even if you know the HG Wells story and/or have seen the original. I'm glad I saw it right away because I know my co-workers would have blabbed off many little scenes.

Another one worthy of seeing on the big screen - but I understand why you avoid the theaters Term. That's why I always go Saturday morning.

[Termination]

Good to hear there is another fan of Dakota Fanning. I bought that mini-series on dvd, just because she was in it, not because of Spielberg. I've been a huge fan of hers ever sinse I saw I Am Sam. She is the real deal.

Ooo.. post 666 look out!

[Pulpmariachi]

Spielberg does know how to choose his kis actors, doesn't he?

Case in point:

Henry Thomas (ET)
Christian Bale (Empire of the Sun)
Haley Joel Osment (AI)
Joseph Mazello/Arianna Richards (Jurassic Park)
Dakota Fanning/the boy teenager (War of the Worlds)

I know he worked with Spencer Treat Clark in Minority Report, but all his scenes got cut out.

I do like Fanning, too.

[DrLenera]

Seeing this on Tuesday,saw the original again today On DVD.,it's pretty good really. I wish they could have removed the wires from the Martian machines {that would be easy to do nowadays}nad the religious element doesn't agree with me,but overall it holds up pretty well I think. The scene in the house is really tense and scary. I think there's a similar scene in the remake.

Will report back on Wednesday,can you contain your excitement?

[Heineken Skywalker]

drlenera said:

Seeing this on Tuesday...
Will report back on Wednesday,can you contain your excitement?

We'll try. ;D
In the meantime, I saw it last night and really liked it, but I get the feeling that it's one of those movies that some people are just going to nitpick to death instead of just "going with it". I've already seen some of that at some other forums.
Anyway, the acting is very good. No one's winning any Oscars here, but it's not that kind of movie. Cruise, Robbins & Fanning all give good performances.
The effects are top-notch. From the electrical storms, to the alien Tripods, to the aliens themselves, to the death and destruction they leave in their wake, the visuals are all amazing.
There are some great scenes of suspense & tension which I won't get into so as to not spoil it for it anybody.
I thought the ending was a little too neatly wrapped up in order to give us a "happy ending", but that's just a quibble, it didn't make me hate the movie.
Spielberg proves once again that he's "da man". Yeah, it's a summer popcorn "alien invasion" movie, but this ain't no "INDEPENDENCE DAY", which was all flash without an ounce of substance. This is more like "SIGNS" meets "CLOSE ENCOUNTERS", only with really pissed off aliens and lots of destruction.
8/10

[DrLenera]

I loved it! I think it's the best film Spielberg's done in ages. Wasn't overlong either-his last three films all ended about 15 mins after they probably should. Fantastic tension,in fact the intensity of what is basically a summer popcorn movie was astonishing. Things such as the mob attacking Cruise and his kids and one of the attackers smashing the car front window and his hands getting all covered in blood. You don't expect to see things like that in a supposedly family film like this! And the climax in the 'baskets',truly thrilling and intense.

Thought the focus on Tom and his kids really worked,I can sometimes do without Spielberg's constant interest in kids and family but that's just me. Loved the look of the tripods,the Martians themselves didn't look great,but movie aliens rarely impress me these days,don't know why. There was just enough of the book and the 50s film in this I thought. The red weed was perhaps a bit underused but still worked great. I agree that the ending was too neatly wrapped and sudden,but it was like that in the book!

I liked the slight elements of earlier films like Close Encounters and Jurassic Park,even some shots look almost the same. It's as if the director is partially revisiting his earlier hits but now with the edgyness of the man who could now make stuff like Saving Private Ryan and Minority Report.

I had great expectations with both Sin City and Batman Beyond and was disappointed. Not War of the Worlds. A terrific thrill ride,the best of it's kind I've seen at the cinema in ages.

[Quorthon]

If everyone here sends me $2 a piece, I'll be able to go see it...

Ahhh!! I'm so damn poor!!

[42ndstreetfreak]

*SPOILERS*




"War of the Worlds" - Hmmm...The tripods were great, the atmosphere was great, the FX were impressive, it was nice to see the tripods realised at last and the red weed. All very good.

BUT....1hour 40 minutes! You get comedies longer than that, let alone films about the World being invaded by Aliens! Much too rushed.
Just as the red weed appeared it was dead for example!

The army scenes were alos dull, with yet more pitch black scenes of guns firing at noting. The shiled idea was a wastes, as it a llowed for no fight back moments. The war ship "Thunder Child" in the original story, fighting to gain time for the steamer to escape was a wonderful moment. Nothing here at all though

And where were all the epic scale visuals of destruction?
You had 3 (count 'em!) 3 shots of destroyed cities.
One on a tiny TV monitor, one as a far away shot and one at the end.

Where were all the epic scale scenes of destoyed cities with tripods standing over them and striding through the ruins? Where was the full horror of the aftermath?

Where were the long, long shots of the red weed draped countryside with tripods striding over the land?
Instead we had ONE long shot of the weed, in almost pitch blackness.
When Cruise came out of Robbin's house it looked like he was on a big set! It was all so localised and cramped looking.

The black smoke atmosphere makes for a great written description but not a good movie visual when it is so rampant.
When Cruise walked out there was no sky, no horizon, no open space...it was just black. It looked like a bloody great plane hanger set, not a devastated, changed World.

One of the strengths of the story is the aftermath, as things settle down after the initial attacks. As the weed chokes the land...as the people catchers pursue people over hills...we needed to SEE these sights in daylight. To really see how the world had changed and the scale of that change.

And where were the characters? Robbins was obviously the stand-in for the Artillary man in the original story. But his throwaway, crazy speech about the World man would build in these mythical tunnels, the cities they would build and live in right under the Alien's noses and how they would build an army to fight back...Great stuff, and totally wasted in the film as a few mumbled lines.

Going by the famous 'Musical Version' one character that really stood out (again, part of the extended aftermath, in the movie so rushed over) was the Priest who was certain that the Aliens were Devils, sent from hell in the final judgement. A great idea, a powerful set-up. And another interesting event that the lead character (Cruise) would come across. the film (Robbin's aside) was ALL running and hiding from tripods with nothing actually HAPPENING!

And as far as I remember, the silly idea that the Alien's had arrived on Earth millions of years ago and simply buried tens of thousands of HUGE machines in the ground (none of which, despite all our excavations, tunneling, mining and deep core drilling have never found!!!) was a change unique to the film.
And it did not add up.
Please! Someone tell me WHY the stupid Aliens arrived on this planet they wanted, when there was no men in their way, or buildings taking up space, and spent christ knows how long building and burying these huge machines ONLY TO FUCK OFF AGAIN!
And then wait all this time to go BACK, and go through a shit load of fuss to take control of a planet...THEY ALREADY HAD CONTROL OVER ANYWAY MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO WHEN THEY BURIED THE MACHINES!
Talk about going around in circles and making work for yourself!

And seeing as the first life to ever form on this World would have been countless germs and viruses..How come they did not drop down dead while spending all that time burying those damn tripods!

Great moments and ideas...but sadly too full of holes, too rushed and too localised in it's visuals to fully show the destruction.

[Bartwald]

Agree with most of what 42nd said but seem to be liking the movie a little bit more: it was a nice surprise to get such a dark piece from Spielberg, but why did he have to end it this way? WHY?!!

Still: 7,5/10

[spacer]

admin said:

Agree with most of what 42nd said but seem to be liking the movie a little bit more: it was a nice surprise to get such a dark piece from Spielberg, but why did he have to end it this way? WHY?!!

Still: 7,5/10

Ditto

[spacer]

Please! Someone tell me WHY the stupid Aliens arrived on this planet they wanted, when there was no men in their way, or buildings taking up space, and spent christ knows how long building and burying these huge machines ONLY TO FUCK OFF AGAIN!
And then wait all this time to go BACK, and go through a shit load of fuss to take control of a planet...THEY ALREADY HAD CONTROL OVER ANYWAY MILLIONS OF YEARS AGO WHEN THEY BURIED THE MACHINES!
Talk about going around in circles and making work for yourself!

And seeing as the first life to ever form on this World would have been countless germs and viruses..How come they did not drop down dead while spending all that time burying those damn tripods!

Sloppy Hollywood job as always.
They all treat us too often as morons without a trace of brain cells.
I add the scene when the army in conducting an attack and then retreat in a very weird and funny manner (a line of vehicles on fire going back in an almost perfect line. Was it ballet or what.
What struck me in the flick that it was so close to masterpiece being so good an adaptation of Wells but the crucial things lacked the final cut and some scenes and ideas which you mentioned end especially so pathetic ending spoiled the broth.
Anyway I enjoyed it.

[Fenril]

Enjoyed it; does not compare to the original 1953 version (yeah, yeah, it's not a remake even through some scenes are reproduced frame by frame. Whatever). Neither compares to the novel.

...That is all strictly my opinion, of course.

As for the super-lame ending... from the moment I saw it was directed by Spielberg I knew this was going to happen.

Let me say that, unlike Pulpmariachi, I'm NOT a Spielberg fan. I think he has a lot of talent, but his moviest tend to have the worst endings in story, plus (with several exceptions) his vision is a bit too childish for my tastes. The Dean Koontz of filmmaking.

I think he's a wonder as a producer. Specifically Gremlins, as it's capped off with the kind of brooding ending he can never seem to pull off in his own movies...

[Pulpmariachi]

Actually, I think the best verison of War of the Worlds is Orson Welles's. And no other version or practically anything had that same impact.

The book is excellant too.