-
If you would like to get your account Verified, read this thread -
The TMF is sponsored by Clips4sale - By supporting them, you're supporting us. -
>>> If you cannot get into your account email me at [email protected] <<<
Don't forget to include your username
War of the Worlds
- Thread starter nessonite1
- Start date
I saw the movie the other night and ended up with mixed feelings(Though my girlfriend loved it) I really got into the first 75% of the movie.The martian (alien)war machines were awesome and the acting was topnotch.But latter on the aliens were interduced and they seemed too frail compared to the ones in the novels description or the 1953 version. They were also a bit too much like the aliens in Independence Day.A few scenes involved an alien periscope probe ,in which the probe seemed comically inept at locating the main charactors. (SPOILER COMING UP.....) The first part of the movie was good enough to make me overlook these,but in the very end one of the charactors I enjoyed getting wiped out, turned out to be alright.Spielburg went soft at the very end.
Yet_One_More_Idiot
2nd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2004
- Messages
- 2,456
- Points
- 38
Well, I just bought the DVD today at work, I'll post my opinion once I've watched it. CFN.
Low_Roads
4th Level Black Feather
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2004
- Messages
- 8,972
- Points
- 48
I made my way to the theater for "War of the Worlds" this morning. Here's my assessment to figure into the mix:
As mentioned earlier, I would have preferred the original British Empire Age setting of the novel. But that isn't what was offered, so I'll let that consideration affect my attitude as little as possible. And I'll try mightily not to spoil any surprises (interesting plot points, etc.), though some detail may inadvertently sneak through. Be warned.
The film opens with voiceover narration, adapted from Wells' text and made nonsensical by the updating: "No one would have believed in the first years of the 21st century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's... ". I'm probably paraphrasing this, but the key consideration is the time period. At the end of the 1800s, I suspect few folk seriously contemplated extraterrestrial involvement. A hundred-plus years (the UFO craze; SETI; countless ET entertainments, Spielberg's amongst them, etc.) have altered this notion. Alien contact is now pretty much a given.
The story unwinds in a way reminiscent of "Signs" or "Night of the Living Dead": widespread disaster is represented by the nightmare experience of an isolated few, with global details gleaned from news or personal reports. It's not a bad approach, but nothing new. Spielberg is plowing no fresh ground. I found M. Night Shyamalan's take on this almost identical material far more creative and engrossing.
Spectacle is very well handled (I'd expect nothing less from a Spielberg film). There are the requisite number of "big" summer blockbuster moments, and they come off flawlessly. Action is dynamic and harrowing (nice sense of immediacy), and vistas are impressively colorful. I like the look of the war machines. They are indeed Wells' tripods, and the FX department has labored heroically to insure they make sense: the three-legged "walk" has been carefully worked out. We more often see the aftermath of Martian rampage than open warfare, and these quiet details are eerily haunting. Cinematography is fine, though frequently given to Spielbergian excess. One amazing scene (a single uninterrupted take several minutes long) details Cruise's auto escape after the initial attack. The camera tracks in and out of the car window, focusing on intimate conversation then expanding to an arial view of the clogged highway. While fascinating to watch, it's also just Steven showing off. I found such moments distracting.
Pacing is a bit of a problem, as the action involves dashing from one place to another, then hiding out for long periods of time. Spielberg maintains tension with a rather cheap device, one he's used before: keep a child (little Dakota Fanning, this time) in as much personal peril and emotional upset as possible. I don't care for this. Terrifying youngsters is too easy a technique, and rather cruel. Of course emotions are engaged... how could they not be? But in doing so, he sets the bar low. Try to achieve the same level of emotional investment without the kids: that would be a challenge.
The film is indeed intense and (possibly) upsetting. I wouldn't recommend it for children (though there were a few in the audience, and none of them felt compelled to leave). There's much property destruction and personal danger... one scene involving a mass of floating corpses (viewed at a distance; no gross details, bloating, dismemberment, that sort of thing); mostly, attacked victim's go up in a puff of smoke, then rain down as dusty litter. A horrific vampire feeding scene is staged behind a stalled car, obscuring the nasty details.
In the end, the pacing stalls out altogether. There is no climactic moment, no ultimate face-off (usually I appreciate this sort of verisimilitude, but it doesn't work well here). And the whole notion of the resolution is made ridiculous by unnecessary changes to the premise: suffice it to say that the movie's attacking alien force should already have encountered the climactic agency. It's a flaw not present (well prepared for, in fact) in Wells' novel.
I liked this film marginally better than I thought I would (compromised expectations aside). I am glad I saw it once. I don't plan to see it again any time soon, though.
As mentioned earlier, I would have preferred the original British Empire Age setting of the novel. But that isn't what was offered, so I'll let that consideration affect my attitude as little as possible. And I'll try mightily not to spoil any surprises (interesting plot points, etc.), though some detail may inadvertently sneak through. Be warned.
The film opens with voiceover narration, adapted from Wells' text and made nonsensical by the updating: "No one would have believed in the first years of the 21st century that this world was being watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's... ". I'm probably paraphrasing this, but the key consideration is the time period. At the end of the 1800s, I suspect few folk seriously contemplated extraterrestrial involvement. A hundred-plus years (the UFO craze; SETI; countless ET entertainments, Spielberg's amongst them, etc.) have altered this notion. Alien contact is now pretty much a given.
The story unwinds in a way reminiscent of "Signs" or "Night of the Living Dead": widespread disaster is represented by the nightmare experience of an isolated few, with global details gleaned from news or personal reports. It's not a bad approach, but nothing new. Spielberg is plowing no fresh ground. I found M. Night Shyamalan's take on this almost identical material far more creative and engrossing.
Spectacle is very well handled (I'd expect nothing less from a Spielberg film). There are the requisite number of "big" summer blockbuster moments, and they come off flawlessly. Action is dynamic and harrowing (nice sense of immediacy), and vistas are impressively colorful. I like the look of the war machines. They are indeed Wells' tripods, and the FX department has labored heroically to insure they make sense: the three-legged "walk" has been carefully worked out. We more often see the aftermath of Martian rampage than open warfare, and these quiet details are eerily haunting. Cinematography is fine, though frequently given to Spielbergian excess. One amazing scene (a single uninterrupted take several minutes long) details Cruise's auto escape after the initial attack. The camera tracks in and out of the car window, focusing on intimate conversation then expanding to an arial view of the clogged highway. While fascinating to watch, it's also just Steven showing off. I found such moments distracting.
Pacing is a bit of a problem, as the action involves dashing from one place to another, then hiding out for long periods of time. Spielberg maintains tension with a rather cheap device, one he's used before: keep a child (little Dakota Fanning, this time) in as much personal peril and emotional upset as possible. I don't care for this. Terrifying youngsters is too easy a technique, and rather cruel. Of course emotions are engaged... how could they not be? But in doing so, he sets the bar low. Try to achieve the same level of emotional investment without the kids: that would be a challenge.
The film is indeed intense and (possibly) upsetting. I wouldn't recommend it for children (though there were a few in the audience, and none of them felt compelled to leave). There's much property destruction and personal danger... one scene involving a mass of floating corpses (viewed at a distance; no gross details, bloating, dismemberment, that sort of thing); mostly, attacked victim's go up in a puff of smoke, then rain down as dusty litter. A horrific vampire feeding scene is staged behind a stalled car, obscuring the nasty details.
In the end, the pacing stalls out altogether. There is no climactic moment, no ultimate face-off (usually I appreciate this sort of verisimilitude, but it doesn't work well here). And the whole notion of the resolution is made ridiculous by unnecessary changes to the premise: suffice it to say that the movie's attacking alien force should already have encountered the climactic agency. It's a flaw not present (well prepared for, in fact) in Wells' novel.
I liked this film marginally better than I thought I would (compromised expectations aside). I am glad I saw it once. I don't plan to see it again any time soon, though.
Last edited:
Yet_One_More_Idiot
2nd Level Orange Feather
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2004
- Messages
- 2,456
- Points
- 38
Overall, I thought it was a good modern adaptation of the original novel. As already pointed out, the opening narrative is pointless - who in this day and age over 5 years old HASN'T contemplated the existence of ETs?
Then there are the characters; our 3 main leads are...Dakota Fanning as the little girl, there to keep the audience emotionally involved in the story. Now I know she's a really good actress, having seen her in other films and in the series Taken. Here though, she is severely underused, and comes off as a total brat, screaming continuously during the initial escape, even though her screams are the very reason that they nearly come off the road several times over; and repeatedly screaming in her dad's ear "I want my mummy!" doesn't help the situation any, as there are far more important things to worry about. The boy and the father are carbon copies of each other - both are self-centered and rude, imho. Overall, I didn't find myself empathising with any of them at all.
Where was the climax? I mean seriously, where was it? I know the novel is kind of anticlimactic to an extent, but even that was missing here, almost entirely skipped over.
The effects and the plot (up until about the last five minutes) are well done. In all, I think this is actually mildly closer to the novel than the 50's film was, but not by much.
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
During the film, they explain that the Martians - correction, aliens, Mars is never mentioned - have been planning this attack for millions of years. Why would they wait until their is sentient life capable of mounting resistance (albeit still rather pathetic by their standards) before commencing - wouldn't it have been easier to walk in and stomp out humans some 5,000 years earlier? And wouldn't the fact that all the tripods were already here mean that they'd already encountered the deadly agent in the first place?
Then there are the characters; our 3 main leads are...Dakota Fanning as the little girl, there to keep the audience emotionally involved in the story. Now I know she's a really good actress, having seen her in other films and in the series Taken. Here though, she is severely underused, and comes off as a total brat, screaming continuously during the initial escape, even though her screams are the very reason that they nearly come off the road several times over; and repeatedly screaming in her dad's ear "I want my mummy!" doesn't help the situation any, as there are far more important things to worry about. The boy and the father are carbon copies of each other - both are self-centered and rude, imho. Overall, I didn't find myself empathising with any of them at all.
Where was the climax? I mean seriously, where was it? I know the novel is kind of anticlimactic to an extent, but even that was missing here, almost entirely skipped over.
The effects and the plot (up until about the last five minutes) are well done. In all, I think this is actually mildly closer to the novel than the 50's film was, but not by much.
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
SPOILER ALERT
During the film, they explain that the Martians - correction, aliens, Mars is never mentioned - have been planning this attack for millions of years. Why would they wait until their is sentient life capable of mounting resistance (albeit still rather pathetic by their standards) before commencing - wouldn't it have been easier to walk in and stomp out humans some 5,000 years earlier? And wouldn't the fact that all the tripods were already here mean that they'd already encountered the deadly agent in the first place?
Triple T said:
Spielberg's "War Of The World" is pure absolute crap,for it reeks of a terrible "Independence Day" rip-off with 9/11 aleegories sprinkled over it(with the aliens looking like the cousins of ID4's aliens),and Tom Cruise is too unconvincing as a Dad. The films stinks: period.
As for Tom's religion,maybe somebody should make a sci-fi movie about that,for that would be way more interesting than what Spielberg splashed all over the big screen here.
