War of the Worlds

[gaarasgirl90]

[COLOR=DarkRed]
[FONT=Fixedsys]What did you think of this summers biggest box office hit?(Extravagent) Would you give it five stars?(hell yeah) How do you think it compaired to the 1953 version, and should it, like the first version(supprisingly in a modern pov) win the Acedamy Award for Best Speicial Effects?(So far, I do think so)

If you can tell I REALLY loved this film, so don't bash it up just cause you're a T.C. hater, okay? Not that I don't blame you but please, let's behave like civilized movie critics. Tom Cruise is not worth putting a dent on such a fantastic film, THANK YOU SPEILBURG!!![/FONT][/COLOR]

[GreatBird]

I thought is was awesome tom cruise did a good job. The whole movie kept me on Edge. It was really exciting when the tripod first came out of the ground in New York. Although it left a thing unexplained. What happend to his son robby how the heck did he survive all that when he ran off to the army??? But what was funny is that when he said they re all at grandmas house......they actually were :P.

[Sandy]

I went to see this movie with my bf a couple weeks ago, and I must agree with GreatBird; I liked it very much, Dakota Fanning and Tom Cruise made excellent performances, but the story had a certain annoyingly unbelievable aspect in it, although it tried to be as realistic as possible.

I must say that it was one of the best sci-fi -movies I've ever seen. It proves that not all sci-fi has to be some sort of apocalyptic space opera. Concentrating on normal people in the middle of a worldwide crisis is undoubtedly very effective as it brings the average viewer really close to the movies. ;)

[Guest Sean]

[FONT=Arial]War of the Worlds was an amazing film, I didn't quite get the ending, and some plot holes were open during it, but Tom Cruise actually acted during it, and was pretty good. Heh.

[spoiler]The tripods destroying the buildings and turning people into ash had to be the best cinematics I've seen in a long, long time. I find it clever how they incorporated the aliens and how they got into the tripods, using the capsules and the 'lightning'.[/spoiler]

They accomplished a lot when they had completed War of the Worlds, but what I didn't get was [spoiler]how the alien died when it was released from the destroyed tripod when the others walked around freely in that basement.[/spoiler]

But again, I can say, this was an amazing film, and I'm most certainly going to buy the DVD whenever that comes out.[/FONT]

[Sandy]

Sean: [spoiler]The aliens could walk in the basement because the microbes affected them slowly, meaning they weren't sick yet. By the time Tom and Dakota (forgot their rolenames) reached Boston, the microbes had broken the aliens' immunity systems, so they began to die.

They couldn't live in our environment because of the different type of bacteria. It's pretty much same when you travel abroad; they have different microbes there, so you are very vulnerable to get some sort of disease. It doesn't happen instantly though, just like it took a while for the aliens to die.[/spoiler]

[Guest Sean]

[FONT=Arial]Ah, thank you Sage, I sort of got that during the film, but you explained it so much clearer. [spoiler]At the end it said that they had no immunity to the microbes but I didn't understand how they could walk in the basement. Thank you.[/spoiler]

I've only read the beginning of the book, and I heard that the book explains so much more, so I think I shall read the book the next chance I have.
[/FONT]

[Sandy]

But I also heard that the book speaks of Martians, which in modern days is a huge step away from the realism of the movie. ;) I think I'll content myself with seeing the movie, and not bother with the book (which I heard was written quite a long time ago?).

[Guest Sean]

[FONT=Arial]Indeed it was, a long time ago, over 60 years now I think. Well after seeing the movie I think reading the book would be good to see how the differences between the two are made, and how the aliens are portrayed in both features.

But, as you said Sage, I fear that the book will loose the sense of realism which was gained from watching the film.[/FONT]

[DeathBug]

Well, I'll dissent: I thought War of the Worlds sucked. And Tom Cruise was a big part of the suckage. His character was such an annoying wiss that I was hoping for the aliens to zap him mid-way through the movie.

There were so many plot-holes that my head hurt. To whit:

[spoiler]If the aliens actually buried their machines on Earth millenia ago, so deep that we never found them, wouldn't they have discovered their incompatability with terrestrial microbes then?

And, hey, if they had all this time to bury these things, why didn't they just take the planet then? (This is particularly irritating because they changed the invasion methods from the book; the changes made them worse! In the original book, the aliens arrive via meteorites, which are just compacted versions of their machines.)

How could Cruise kill the crazy guy in the basement when that guy was twice his size, had military training, and had a weapon?

How did Cruise's son survive the military attack, when the entire hillside he was on was set ablaze. And how could he get to Boston before them? And why hadn't he cleaned himself when he got there?

And, for that matter, why was Boston completely unharmed, when the aliens went after tiny nameless towns?[/spoiler]

I hate it when Hollywood ruins good books with crappy movies.

[gaarasgirl90]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]Well, I'll dissent: I thought War of the Worlds sucked. And Tom Cruise was a big part of the suckage. His character was such an annoying wiss that I was hoping for the aliens to zap him mid-way through the movie.

There were so many plot-holes that my head hurt. To whit:

[spoiler]If the aliens actually buried their machines on Earth millenia ago, so deep that we never found them, wouldn't they have discovered their incompatability with terrestrial microbes then?

And, hey, if they had all this time to bury these things, why didn't they just take the planet then? (This is particularly irritating because they changed the invasion methods from the book; the changes made them worse! In the original book, the aliens arrive via meteorites, which are just compacted versions of their machines.)

How could Cruise kill the crazy guy in the basement when that guy was twice his size, had military training, and had a weapon?

How did Cruise's son survive the military attack, when the entire hillside he was on was set ablaze. And how could he get to Boston before them? And why hadn't he cleaned himself when he got there?

And, for that matter, why was Boston completely unharmed, when the aliens went after tiny nameless towns?[/spoiler]

I hate it when Hollywood ruins good books with crappy movies.[/QUOTE]

[COLOR=DarkRed][FONT=Fixedsys]Well everyone has there own oppinions. But if they took out everything, where would the story be? Speilburg couldn't just re-do exactly what the 1953 version or the book had done, it would be like the remake of Psycho, everything would be the same and there would have been no point in remaking it except to add speicial effects. A director has to have their own touch on a remake otherwise it's nothing.

As for Tom Cruise being a wuss, so what? not every movie hero has to be Mr. Fantastic. They can reflect on ordinry people too. I'm sure the most normal people would be even more terrified then him in the movie. I thought it was great that the hero was a bit of a screw-up, it added to the story.

[spoiler]I did wonder why the aliens didn't take the planet when noone was here, but again, where would the story be?

Who cares where the son went on the hill top, there's many possibilities, he coulda been retreating with the military for all we know, maybe he hitched a ride for boston, I dunno.

How did he kill the dude? Well you saw he wasn't in his right mind after seeing the ships fertilizing the plants with human blood. I'm sure the now psychotic man wasn't thinking enough to defend himself properly and (Cruise) was also ready to do anything to protect his daughter. When you have that kind of devotion I bet you could find the will to kill someone easily.[/spoiler][/FONT][/COLOR]


[color=navy]Remember to use your Spoiler Tags when talking about specific events in the movie.
--Manic[/color]

[DeathBug]

[quote name='gaarasgirl90']Well everyone has there own oppinions. But if they took out everything, where would the story be? Speilburg couldn't just re-do exactly what the 1953 version or the book had done, it would be like the remake of Psycho, everything would be the same and there would have been no point in remaking it except to add speicial effects. A director has to have their own touch on a remake otherwise it's nothing. [/quote]

I'm not saying that they can't deviate from the subject material; I'm just asking that they not suck. This one did.

[QUOTE] As for Tom Cruise being a wuss, so what? not every movie hero has to be Mr. Fantastic. They can reflect on ordinry people too. I'm sure the most normal people would be even more terrified then him in the movie. I thought it was great that the hero was a bit of a screw-up, it added to the story.[/QUOTE]

There's a difference between being flawed and being annoying. Funny you should say "Mr. Fantastic"; he was a flawed character who was still likeable. So was the Human Torch. Tom Cruise's character was a whiney pisher I felt no attatchment to.

And, again, not all characters have to be likeable, but if your main character isn't likable, he dang well better be interesting. Cruise wasn't.

[spoiler][QUOTE][spoiler]I did wonder why the aliens didn't take the planet when noone was here, but again, where would the story be?[/spoiler][/QUOTE]

That plot-hole didn't exist at all in either the book or original movie. They changed it to make it "kewler", but it made no sense. if you're going to change a basic facet of the stoey, the change should still make sense. This didn't.

[QUOTE][spoiler]Who cares where the son went on the hill top, there's many possibilities, he coulda been retreating with the military for all we know, maybe he hitched a ride for boston, I dunno.[/spoiler][/QUOTE]

We were lead to believe that he'd died, and it was convincingly done. Fine. If you want him to be alive at the end, then you dang well better tell us how he survived. Failing to do so is lazy story- telling.

[QUOTE][spoiler]How did he kill the dude? Well you saw he wasn't in his right mind after seeing the ships fertilizing the plants with human blood. I'm sure the now psychotic man wasn't thinking enough to defend himself properly and (Cruise) was also ready to do anything to protect his daughter. When you have that kind of devotion I bet you could find the will to kill someone easily.[/spoiler][/QUOTE]

It's common knowledge that a person not in their right mind is harder to subdue or control than a rational person. If Cruise were deranged and the larger man rational, it'd make more sense than the other way around.

I'm not saying that it's not possible; I'm saying that, again, the film-makers were being lazy by not showing how it was done. If you're going to defy logic, the audience deserves an explanation of how it was done.[/spoiler]

Again, the film sacrificed substance for style, and it showed.

[Mitch]

Go watch [i]Minority Report[/i] instead. It kicks this movie's *** and is also a sci-fi movie. Funnily enough, Cruise and Spielburg did [i]Minority Report[/i] together too. The result is a lot better than this annoyingly average movie. It had its high points but was disappointing.

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=DeathBug]There were so many plot-holes that my head hurt. To whit:

[spoiler]If the aliens actually buried their machines on Earth millenia ago, so deep that we never found them, wouldn't they have discovered their incompatability with terrestrial microbes then?[/spoiler][/quote] Because they weren't harvesting back then.

[quote][spoiler]And, hey, if they had all this time to bury these things, why didn't they just take the planet then? (This is particularly irritating because they changed the invasion methods from the book; the changes made them worse! In the original book, the aliens arrive via meteorites, which are just compacted versions of their machines.)[/spoiler][/quote] Harvesting. They enjoy it (except when it kills them)

[quote][spoiler]How could Cruise kill the crazy guy in the basement when that guy was twice his size, had military training, and had a weapon?[/spoiler][/quote] I don't really see how this matters in the bigger scheme of the film...because it really seems like nitpicking to the nth degree, but I'll humor you (and loosely reference Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome at the same time).

Two men enter that side-room. One man leaves. [spoiler]One of them was going to die, and Ray sure as hell wasn't going to lose his daughter like he lost his son.[/spoiler]

And remember the particular philosophies presented in the film, and which characters symbolize/represent what. Ray is reluctant at first but rises to the challenge. He doesn't believe in full-on conflict, particularly when that full-on conflict is a suicide mission (holding Robbie back from joining the military, for example?).

Look at what Robbins' character was wanting to do. He was seriously recommending a suicide mission, to take action when it obviously was not a good idea. He was a liability. Thematically, he had to be destroyed.

And Ray doesn't exactly walk out of that side-room in prime condition, either, so the fight wasn't one-sided at all. I'm sure Tim Robbins put up one hell of a fight. We just don't see it actually happen because we're "seeing" things from the daughter's perspective, and again, thematically, that makes sense, because throughout the film, Ray is constantly trying to keep her from seeing any of the violence.

This sequence (shot, rather) is just another thematically-charged composition. It's a distance thing, isn't it? What Ray is going in there to do, shouldn't be a part of his daughter's life...so what do we get?

Her eyes covered, her ears covered, we're sitting with her, and we have a wider shot of the entire room she's sitting in, with the door to the side-room closed.

You didn't specifically have an issue with that, I know, but it's important to understand why things happened the way they did.

[u][b]EDIT[/b][/u]: Actually, reading over your recent post, you apparently did take issue with how the scene was put together, so my explanation wasn't unwarranted. See, the problem is, you're required to think about the film a little tiny bit to understand why shots are arranged a certain way, why we see things from that particular angle.

[quote][spoiler]How did Cruise's son survive the military attack, when the entire hillside he was on was set ablaze. And how could he get to Boston before them? And why hadn't he cleaned himself when he got there?

And, for that matter, why was Boston completely unharmed, when the aliens went after tiny nameless towns?[/spoiler]

I hate it when Hollywood ruins good books with crappy movies.[/QUOTE] Those are the only two "plot holes" I'm going to agree with you about, even though Boston going completely unharmed is a total overstatement, because Boston got hit the same way that other cities did (look at the higher angle shots in Boston; you'll see what I'm talking about). Unless buildings were getting cars thrown into them (or for that matter, highways, hehe), the buildings were going to stay relatively intact. You see it throughout the film.

Robbie, on the other hand...yeah. [spoiler]Shoulda been toast.[/spoiler]

[Sandy]

I totally agree with you that the plot had more holes than a strainer, but it doesn't make the movie any less impressive, and the characters were believable even if the story wasn't.

I think the movie didn't even try to make perfect sense (few sci-fi movies do), but concentrated more on the emotional side. It certainly touched my emotions, I didn't even bother to try to explain the plotholes to myself.

[Dagger]

I thought this movie was very, very impressive. I'm really glad I got the chance to see it (and I almost accidentally wandered into the Japanese-dubbed version, too--that probably would have left me with a rather different opinion!). The Spielberg/Cruise combination has struck gold again; I liked WotW almost as much as Minority Report (one of my all-time favorite movies), although for somewhat different reasons.

Acting-wise, Dakota Fanning and Mr. Cruise were fantastic. I also appreciated the fact that the visuals were arresting and deeply creepy without being impossible to stomach--I just loved the scene in which you see them realize that [spoiler]the red stuff being sprayed around is human blood.[/spoiler] The atmosphere was rather wonderful; granted, I am rather prone to being skitterish around any movie that involves scary-sounding music and inexplicable noises at night, but for me WotW struck a good balance in terms of how frightening it was. And obviously the most frightening parts of the film were those showing how [spoiler]people would react during such a crisis.[/spoiler] That gave it a level of realism which hit me right in the gut.

This is the movie that "Signs" should have been.

I have only two complaints about WotW, actually: the first being [spoiler]Robby[/spoiler] (for obvious reasons), and the second being... um, I forget. Yeah, I'll get back to y'all on this one. I knew exactly what I was about to type, and then I got distracted. I hate when that happens. :animeswea

~Dagger~

[Brasil]

[quote name='Dagger]And obviously the most frightening parts of the film were those showing how [spoiler]people would react during such a crisis.[/spoiler'] That gave it a level of realism which hit me right in the gut.~Dagger~[/quote]
The windshield shot...yeah. Final Remix and I saw the movie a few weeks ago, and we both thought the red there was just lighting. And then we realized what it was. I watched most of the film with either my arms hugging myself (haha), a hand up to my mouth, or just my jaw agape. Some of the stuff you see in that film...yeah.

In terms of cinematography, Spielberg's at the top of his game, for sure. No other film in his canon comes close to his technique in WotW.

Character-wise, E.T. still pulls at the heart-strings more, but for pure technique...WotW, hands-down.