Soul Stream Posted July 4, 2005 Report Posted July 4, 2005 Just saw "War Of The Worlds" tonight. Run, don't walk, to your local theatre. GREAT flick. Blew me away. The first half hour or so is some of the most spine-tingling scary stuff I've ever seen at a theatre. Quote
Soulstation1 Posted July 4, 2005 Report Posted July 4, 2005 tom cruise is getting weird on us imo Quote
Big Al Posted July 4, 2005 Report Posted July 4, 2005 So far, I've heard one very good review (from a nine-year-old) and one very bad review (my sister). I can't stand Tom Cruise, though, so it would take a lot for me to go see this one. Quote
Soul Stream Posted July 4, 2005 Author Report Posted July 4, 2005 I like Tom Cruise as an actor. Thought he did a great job in this movie. I don't let the media frenzy concerning his personal life affect what movie I'm going to watch. Quote
Alexander Posted July 4, 2005 Report Posted July 4, 2005 I just wish Spielburg had set it in 19th century England, like in the book. I don't care about watching New Jersey get trashed... Quote
sal Posted July 4, 2005 Report Posted July 4, 2005 Just saw "War Of The Worlds" tonight. Run, don't walk, to your local theatre. GREAT flick. Blew me away. The first half hour or so is some of the most spine-tingling scary stuff I've ever seen at a theatre. ← Agree completely. This was a great movie. Quote
wolff Posted July 4, 2005 Report Posted July 4, 2005 Just saw "War Of The Worlds" tonight. Run, don't walk, to your local theatre. GREAT flick. Blew me away. The first half hour or so is some of the most spine-tingling scary stuff I've ever seen at a theatre. ← Agree completely. This was a great movie. ← Yep!! Quote
Soul Stream Posted July 4, 2005 Author Report Posted July 4, 2005 Great to hear some other good reviews from people that actually saw the movie. Anyway, part of the reason I enjoyed the film is Cruise's charactor's relationship with his children. He's not pictured as a very lovable guy throughout most of the picture. Thought it was nice not to have the super-lovable dad saving his kids as you'd expect from a blockbuster such as this. Also, the special effects were awesome to my eye. That combined with great acting and a unbelievable story....wow. And this in the context that I absolutely hate 90% of the movies I see. Quote
medjuck Posted July 4, 2005 Report Posted July 4, 2005 Yeah I really liked it too. But I have to say a lot of people I know thought it was terrible. Quote
Soul Stream Posted July 5, 2005 Author Report Posted July 5, 2005 I can actually see how many would absolutely hate this. I don't think this is much of a fence sitter movie. Either you buy into it and love it...or don't, and hate it I'd guess. Quote
Alexander Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 Well, I can't speak for others, but I can tell you that I'm resistant to the movie because I'm a fan of Wells' original novel. There are a lot of things that I can tell won't work in a 21st century setting. For example, the Tripods. It would be very easy for a 21st century army to take out a Tripod: Just blast away at its third leg! In the 19th century, heavy artillary wasn't as sophisticated, and the Martain's heat-ray was sufficiant to keep the British cannons out of range. Today you could go in with a couple of F-15s and knock the clumsy thing down. This sort of thing would bother me. How do you think a fan of the novel would react to the film as you saw it? Quote
Guy Berger Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 Well, I can't speak for others, but I can tell you that I'm resistant to the movie because I'm a fan of Wells' original novel. There are a lot of things that I can tell won't work in a 21st century setting. For example, the Tripods. It would be very easy for a 21st century army to take out a Tripod: Just blast away at its third leg! In the 19th century, heavy artillary wasn't as sophisticated, and the Martain's heat-ray was sufficiant to keep the British cannons out of range. Today you could go in with a couple of F-15s and knock the clumsy thing down. This sort of thing would bother me. Yeah, but the Martians have had a whole century to come up with tripods that can fire anti-aircraft missiles. Guy Quote
sal Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 (edited) Aside from the fine acting, unbelievable visual effects and sound, and the high doses of suspense, what I really liked about this movie is that it didn't give into any chiches. It could have easily had corny one liners. There were characters in the beginning that could have made sporadic appearences throughout to provide comic relief. I could get into more, but I might ruin some of the plotline for those who haven't seen it. But lets just say that it was a very straight-forward film with very little dialogue, lots of great camera work, and almost nothing in the bullshit department. This film could have sunk at any given moment, but it didn't. I really respect that. Edited July 5, 2005 by sal Quote
AllenLowe Posted July 5, 2005 Report Posted July 5, 2005 (edited) too many inconsistencies and too much ill-logic - right at the beginning Cruise stands around and watches the city destroyed around him while his kids are alone in the house - no parent would stand and watch - every one would head for the house and the kids - at the end - when the aliens get sick and die - why are the shields non-functional? They are not susceptible to illness, even a sick alien can push a button to activiate - and, how the hell did the son get to Boston, and why is a major city area like the ones his in-laws are in untouched? Also, when they intially get to his ex-wife's house - 1)why is the door open and the lights on? And 2) why do they need to eat the food they brought with them and why, having refused that food, do his kids remain hungry? Woulddn't the house be well stocked? Spielberg is a great filmmaker but this script, while not as bad as Sgt Ryan, shows that brawn still comes before brains in his movies - Edited July 5, 2005 by AllenLowe Quote
Free For All Posted July 6, 2005 Report Posted July 6, 2005 (edited) Okay, I saw it today, and I must say it totally kicked ass. Your mileage may vary however. I did notice many of the continuity problems, like "they're in his ex's house, why don't they just eat food that's already there" etc. The older person in me notices lapses in common sense like that, but the kid in me tends to get absorbed in the "Spielberg-ness" of it all. Thank god for that, because that's the same kid that provides the imagination to improvise and write music. The "kid" is not rooted in reality, but that's a good thing IMHO. A sense of "fantasy" and 'whimsy" are not particularly useful in dealing with day-to-day reality, but are essential to the creative process IHMO. And I have no "Cruise aversion", so that wasn't an issue. Yes, the aliens were kind of alternatively smart/stupid. That didn't ruin it for me though. The visuals and sounds were total Spielberg and IMHO more than made up for lapses in continuity. I sympathize with those who were disappointed- while this was a very good film (I'd give it a strong "A" but not an "A+") it wasn't a "Spielberg reinvents the genre" movie like some of his others. And yes, the ending was rushed and not wholly satisfying. I must say, however, that I really enjoyed the film. BTW, did anyone notice the "grandparents" in the last scene were Gene Barry and (I believe) his female co-star from the original WOTW film? I guess this was announced on some of the "spoiler" sites, but I didn't realize until I read it during the end credits. I thought it was funny they gave the grandparents such a long screen shot (when they had no lines in the film), but when I figured out who they were I understood. Cool. Edited to correct stupid spelling mistakes. Edited July 6, 2005 by Free For All Quote
AllenLowe Posted July 6, 2005 Report Posted July 6, 2005 Gene Barry from Burke's Law? I missed that. I did enjoy the film - it just gets spoiled by the fact that in films like this I feel that the script writers are taking lazy short cuts, as though the audience is too dumb to realize - but than, scripts are usually written by committee, so probabably the writers (and Spielberg) were too dumb to notice - as for Cruise, I think he's become a very good actor - Quote
AllenLowe Posted July 6, 2005 Report Posted July 6, 2005 Spielberg's filmmaking in movies like this (and Sgt Ryan) reminds me of the comments a piano player friend made about a saxophonist years ago - the pianist described the saxophonist by saying"he swings but he has no brains," meaning he had few good musical ideas - well, Spielberg is a genius film maker but he does not have the intellect to match, IMHO - Quote
RDK Posted July 6, 2005 Report Posted July 6, 2005 Terrific film. (And Alex, surprisingly faithful to at least the spirit of the book; a very fine adaptation.) Spielberg's directorial chops are all over this one; he excells at this kind of stuff. The "illogic" and "inconsistencies" didn't bother me a bit, though the final scene was a bit too sappy for my tastes. The ending, of course, is weak - a deus ex machina if there ever was one - but one must blame H.G. for that. Overall, I found this a very realistic and quite terrifying depiction of what it could be actually like... Quote
Guy Berger Posted July 13, 2005 Report Posted July 13, 2005 (edited) I don't remember the book that well -- read it in high school, I think. But it stayed pretty faithful to the book. (Though how did the aliens arrive on earth in the book -- was it similar to the movie?) Anyway, for some reason I didn't find the movie itself engaging. Not sure why (maybe because I knew how it would end?). HOWEVER, they definitely managed to convey the complete and unrelenting terror/horror of the situation. There weren't any bullshit heroics (with the possible example of the cage scene), just people doing what they need to survive. I dug that. The cabin scene was excellent, though it looked like Ripley would have done better than Tom Cruise's character. I agree about the ending being a little over the top -- that's when they did dip into the Independence Day bag (with the soldiers doing their thing), and it wasn't that necessary. They should have stuck more faithfully to Wells's ending. The one thing that bugged me in terms of consistency was that some electrical devices worked and others didn't. How the hell did people have functioning digital cameras and camcorders at the crash site? Guy Edited July 13, 2005 by Guy Quote
sidewinder Posted July 13, 2005 Report Posted July 13, 2005 Saw the fim the other day and must admit that I enjoyed it. The special effects were pretty good. Have to admit though that some of the details let down the plausibility (like all 3 of them surviving being tipped out of the ferry into the sea then managing to scramble to the island. Highly unlikely). There again I guess you have to park logic and accuracy to one side right throughout this film. Was that the Verezanno Narrows bridge that was featured during the early part of the movie near Tom Cruise's townhouse? Quote
Soul Stream Posted July 13, 2005 Author Report Posted July 13, 2005 Bottom line on this film to me...EERIE. I dug it and plan to see it a 2nd time. I haven't seen a movie twice since...I can't even remember. 10 years at least. Quote
sidewinder Posted July 13, 2005 Report Posted July 13, 2005 For sure you could spend one viewing just admiring the special effects - forget about the plot. Quote
Jad Posted July 13, 2005 Report Posted July 13, 2005 (edited) Thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even with the convenient plot devices. Totally bought into it, way more than I thought I would have. The only big gripe I have was the cage scene. I felt the movie was dipping too much into "action heroics" here and was totally unnecessary. And it would have been cool NOT to have seen the aliens in the basement. Save 'em for the end. Yeah, when I finally make a movie, I'll know exactly how to do it. Edited July 13, 2005 by Jad Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.