30-06-2005 01:53									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

spoiler(highlight to read): I'm really, really pissed they did the whole "OMFG TEHR GONNA XTERMINATE US!!!!" spiel. I had to explain to my family that the aliens (besides sucking our blood and using us a fertilizer) probably inteneded to enslave us, as from a extermination perspective, it would make more sense to park the spaceship in orbit and lob rocks at the urban centers. I'm glad they more or less stuck to the Original WotW plot, right down to the narrative at the begining and the common cold killing the aliens. Also, I got really, really tired of the "I'm a bad dad and my son is an angsty teenager" number. Dakota Fanning is going to be an acadamy award winner when she grows up. The Tripods were damned impressive.

Lonestar OUT!

	30-06-2005 04:05									#32
	Remove this text

I was damned impressed by those tripods.

There was a moment were they were all waiting at the ferry. And that tripod came over the horizon. Man I could relate to the way those people acted.

I thought the Horns the Tri-pods had kicked ass too. Well theres also


And the water seen was insane.


But answer me this?

spoiler(highlight to read): what the hell was the deal with the human blood the martians collected. I was utterly repulsed on how those scenes made it to a pg13 movie. The only conclusion i thought of yet was that they were trying to make earth more 'Red' or martian like? Even tho they were never admittly martians?

The battle scenes left somewhat to be desired, In regards to the hill thing. That was a dissapointment. But the movie kicked my ass for sure, overall.

	30-06-2005 08:24									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Pretty good movie - visually impressive, but I saw it on a small screen which didn't help. When I get out of New York I'll see it in a proper theater.

I would've enjoyed more scenes of tripods laying waste and less of Tom Cruise, Father. Knowing that that was Tom Cruise, you were always reassured whenever he was in a scene - you knew that nothing could happen to him.

I didn't like the explanation about the lightning storms: I thought they were the tripods draining our civilization of its power in order to power up the war machines.

They make great noises though. When this comes out on DVD, I'll have to hunt out the one scream he's used in all his movies, whenever applicable. In Duel, as the truck falls off the cliff, it makes a groaning noise. This noise has become a Speilberg signature and he uses it in any movie in which it can be used (Jurassic Park, SPR, this one (most likely.))

	30-06-2005 09:52									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

One thing that kind of kicked me in the ass tho.


There was no Thunder-child moments....


You know. When the BEST WEAPON man has to deploy is, indeed, deployed. And for a second. You regain some faith in humanity and its machines of wars in there ability to deal with the invaders....there was nothing of the sort in this movie.

In ID it was the A-bomb. In 1953 it was an A-bomb
In the Original it was the Ship.

But again. A must see movie.

	01-07-2005 23:06									#35
	Get a bigger avatar today!

I'm ambivalent about the movie. It was ok, but somewhat boring imo. The sound and the special effects were great, but that was expected. Some great scenes: the rise of the tripods, the train... I would like to have seen a larger scale battle between the aliens and the humans. And Tom Cruise's kids were extremely irritating, the little girl especially. I wished she just shut the **** up. I was glad when the teenager left. I'm not sure I like the story, either. I'm even more ambivalent about the ending. I'd give it a 7/10. Its definitely not a must see movie. Go see it if there's nothing else.

	03-07-2005 11:39									#36
	Support Apolyton

This is the official War of the Worlds review thread, so I'll post what I have to say here. Here's an interesting interpretation of the book I found on Wikipedia:

quote: The book has been viewed as an indictment of European colonial actions in Africa, Asia, Australasia, and the Americas. Justification of the conquest of non-European peoples was usually along the lines of might-makes-right; i.e., the Europeans had vastly superior technology and so must be naturally superior people and so are perfectly justified in taking the lands for themselves. This argument gets flipped on its head with the arrival of comparatively technologically superior Martians who, according to the colonizers' own arguments, must therefore have every right to subjugate Europeans.

I wonder if it was Wells intention?

I've been doing some thinking, I changed my opinion about the movie. Now I would give it a 8/10. I still think the kids were a major pain in the ass. The first part of the movie is great, then it slows down too much IMO.

About the ending:

spoiler(highlight to read): When I was watching the movie, I was expecting Tom Cruise, or somebody else, to poison the Alien's bloodstreams or roots, whatever they were. I guess I was expecting that the hero would save the day like in any other Blockbuster. But no, Tom didn't save us from the evil Aliens. That's probably why almost every viewer has an incredulous "say what?" reaction at the end of the movie. Now I think the ending was decent. At least, its a lot better than Independance day's ending.

	03-07-2005 13:17									#37
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by nostromo This is the official War of the Worlds review thread, so I'll post what I have to say here. Here's an interesting interpretation of the book I found on Wikipedia: quote: The book has been viewed as an indictment of European colonial actions in Africa, Asia, Australasia, and the Americas. Justification of the conquest of non-European peoples was usually along the lines of might-makes-right; i.e., the Europeans had vastly superior technology and so must be naturally superior people and so are perfectly justified in taking the lands for themselves. This argument gets flipped on its head with the arrival of comparatively technologically superior Martians who, according to the colonizers' own arguments, must therefore have every right to subjugate Europeans. I wonder if it was Wells intention?

In the first chapter of the book it says as much:

"And before we judge them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only on animals, such as the vanished bison and the dodo, but upon its own inferior races. The Tasmanians, in spite of their human likeness, were entirely swept out of existence in a war of extermination waged by European immigrants, in the space of fifty years. Are we such apostles of mercy as to complain if the Martians warred in the same spirit?"

	03-07-2005 15:23									#38
	Suffering from ads?

Saw it yesterday. Didn't really like it. I think I can say why without spoilers.

Special effects were cool, no doubt about it. But I realized about halfway through that I didn't give a rats ass whether the protagonists lived or died, or whether or not the aliens conquered earth. I actually was more emotionally engaged by Independence Day, a film I consider to be an utter piece of crap. Maybe I'm an alien, but still: special effects don't make up for an uninvolving narrative.

This also confirmed two thoughts I've had about Spielberg for a long time:

1) He's really a sadistic misanthrope. Aside from his protagonists, he actually hates people, and delights in their suffering. This runs through all of his films.

2) He's never learned that not showing something -- and letting the audience imagine it -- is better than showing it. Jaws remains his best film because he couldn't get the mechanical shark to work, and had to imply the shark's presence. Since then, though, he's always had the budget he wanted, and has shown everything he could. This served him well exactly once: in the opening of Saving Private Ryan. But more often its managed to either destroy the sense of wonder he was trying to build up (e.g., showing us the inside of the spaceship in the recut Close Encounters) or just fall so far short of what he was trying to achieve as to be laughable (e.g., the "wrath of God" in Raiders).

Finally, a small thing: this film had one of the dopiest bits of product placement I've ever seen. At one point we get a close-up of Tom Cruise's watch; it's narratively motivated, but it's also big enough and lasts long enough to allow us to see the brand (i.e., it's definitely product placement): Omega. Anyone here ever met a working class joe, just scraping by, who wears a $1,200+ watch to manual-labor job? Spielberg couldn't whore out to Timex? Sheesh.

	03-07-2005 15:39									#39
	Increase Your PM Length

Actually, one other point, this one for spoiler tags: Spielberg doesn't have the courage to follow his own movies to where they're obviously leading.

spoiler(highlight to read): I'm thinking here about the ending, which sucked in two huge ways: 1) The son never should have showed up in Boston. But in Spielberg's world, the movie isn't over until everybody (or everybody with a name, anyway), lives happily ever after. This tendency to redeem everyone, always, is at its most ridiculous in The Color Purple, in the scene where Sug reconciles with her father -- the exact opposite of what happens in the book, and something that effectively undermines the whole theme of the novel. But Robby living here comes in a close second. It's especially ridiculous because... 2) Spielberg's actually stolen the ending, visually, from one of the most famous endings in all of American cinema: the ending of The Searchers, a film that is a touchstone for Spielberg's whole generation of filmmakers (especially Scorsese). But John Ford understood the awesome emotional power of having Ethan save Debbie but still remain outside the family circle, literally being shut out in one of cinema's most famous shots (lovingly cribbed by Coppola for the last shot of The Godfather, because Coppola understood The Searchers). Here, Spielberg sets us up for The Searchers, only to undercut the whole thing by having Robby show up, hug him, and call him Dad. It's not just bad filmmaking, it's a betrayal of the American film canon.

	03-07-2005 17:16									#40
	Remove this text

It was alright. Special effects were great, but the story needed an update and the ending was bad.

spoiler(highlight to read): Having the aliens die because of Earth diseases was a bad choice, even if it is how War of the Worlds has always ended. I was looking forward to finding out how they were going to kill the tripods, only to be disappointed that they were defeated the same damn way they always were. And am I supposed to believe that a highly intelligent alien race that had been studying Earth and preparing an attack for countless years didn't do any research into how Earth's microorganisms might affect them? Also, Robbie needed to die. It was totally lame when he showed up at the end.

	03-07-2005 17:22									#41
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

spoiler(highlight to read): On a side note, the Species 3 trailer that preceded War of the Worlds here in Japan had pretty much every kind of nudity you could hope for in it. Awesome.

	03-07-2005 17:47									#42
	Got spare money?

quote: spoiler(highlight to read): I'm thinking here about the ending, which sucked in two huge ways: 1) The son never should have showed up in Boston. But in Spielberg's world, the movie isn't over until everybody (or everybody with a name, anyway), lives happily ever after. This tendency to redeem everyone, always, is at its most ridiculous in The Color Purple, in the scene where Sug reconciles with her father -- the exact opposite of what happens in the book, and something that effectively undermines the whole theme of the novel. But Robby living here comes in a close second. It's especially ridiculous because...

spoiler(highlight to read): That was my initial reaction, then i thought about it some more. I think it was good that Robby survived. Throughout the whole movie he was the only one with any heroism in him. Tom Cruise was just about running and hiding, and if that meant killing people along the way, so be it. As long as he and his kids were safe, then who cares. Robby though saw the issue as bigger, recognized his dad really had no idea what he was doing, and wanted to do whatever he could to help. He was the hero, NOT Tom Cruise. When they were on the hill at the battle he wanted to off and help. Help humanity. If he just died immediately it would send the message of "don't stick your neck out, just take care of yourself, don't be a hero", which I thought would have been terrible. In a way his character kinda referenced the firefighters on September 11. Their goal may have been just as helpless, ultimately, as fighting back against those tripods, but they are still heros because they put themselves at risk for the good of others. Like Robby. His surviving is a vindication at the end. So yea, Robby I wanted to follow his story, not Tom Cruise's. Cruise was an annoying character.

	03-07-2005 17:48									#43
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Also, my full review: http://www.oneandfour.org/archives/...f_the_worl.html

	03-07-2005 17:49									#44
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Screw spoiler tags. Its in the title of the thread.

The title of the thread says "spoilers in boxes"...

	03-07-2005 19:06									#45
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

oops

	03-07-2005 23:50									#46
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Robby

	04-07-2005 02:03									#47
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

I saw it for the second time and it is one of the few that has gotten better with repeated viewings.

For starters, let's not forget that the entire invasion is seen from Tom Cruise's perspective - only once in the movie do we get a glimpse of worldwide devastation (anybody recognize the city being destroyed?) This is why we don't see:

1. Nuclear explosions. Floppy.
2. Announcements of the aliens intentions. The assumption was that it was a war for extermination. Lonestar.
3.

spoiler(highlight to read): Tom saving us from the evil Aliens.

nostromo.

quote: posted by Pai Mei: I'd give it a 7/10. Its definitely not a must see movie. Go see it if there's nothing else.

I emphatically, strongly disagree.

quote: posted by Rufus T. Firefly: Anyone here ever met a working class joe, just scraping by, who wears a $1,200+ watch to manual-labor job? Spielberg couldn't whore out to Timex? Sheesh.

Actually, due to job demands coupled with archaic and non-competitive union agreements, the type of crane operator that Cruise plays makes over 6-figures a year. Cite: some Discovery/TLC/History channel show my wife and I watched just last night. Really! So the expensive watch isn't out of the question.

quote: spoiler(highlight to read): Spielberg's actually stolen the ending, visually, from one of the most famous endings in all of American cinema: the ending of The Searchers

Sorry, but Cruise wasn't out there alone long enough to really consider the ending to be a re-creation of The Searchers ending. The little girl runs to mom, then it cuts to Tom, then the parents, back to mom, and then back to Tom (from the perspective of inside the doorframe) when 1/4 of the frame is blocked by the kids silhouette. He runs up to Tom, they look at each other for the first time man-to-man, hug, and head back into the house. The shot might have been reminiscent (and probably intended to be so), but the ending itself was completely different.

It seems you wanted a Searchers-esque ending and was very disappointed when your expectations weren't met. C'est la vie.

spoiler(highlight to read): I do agree with Drake that the film would've been better had Robbie died. Actually, have Dakota die (say, in the alien), Tom return to his wife empty-handed, and then have Robbie showing up as he did: that would've been a stunner! Better yet, he was rescued by the same lady that tried to rescue Dakota. That would've been heartbreaking. And, imho, make for a much better movie. Not that this one isn't awesome, but... shit. While I disagree with your reasoning, Rufus, I do think the ending could've been better, darker, bleaker. The world is saved, but his world is shattered. You're right on that point.

	04-07-2005 02:24									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

spoiler(highlight to read): I thought it a bit odd that the town houses where the wife's family lived where almost completely unscathed and that the family were still there I also forgive the symbolism of independence that Boston is* because when the army finally took out a tripod with the bazookas the crowd weren't cheering "USA! USA!". *it was just a bit cheesy from a non-American POV to see the statue with the root suffering dutch elm disease or whatever it was

	04-07-2005 02:32									#49
	Got spare money?

A couple of more notes:

1. The cinematography (sp?) is excellent, especially in its use of mirrored images. A number of scenes/shots occur in reflective environments, the best imho being the reflections in the mirrors showing the carnage happening behind the van. Even the camcorder shot was nicely done.

2. The scene, as they are racing down the highway - how long is that one shot?

I was watching it today and quite a ways into the scene, I realized that I haven't seen a cut in ages. I started paying attention and noticed that the camera seemed to be like a super-powered insect, moving around the car, focusing on each character as they spoke/acted. A couple of times it even left the car, swung around to the other side, and then entered the van, re-joining the action.

I might be mistaken: there could be a cut or three that I missed. But I don't think so. And if that shot qualifies as a tracking shot, it has to go down as one of the greatest of all time. No if, ands, or buts.

3. Spielberg has certainly done a 180 on the idea of munificient alien space-hippies who like disco, hasn't he?

	04-07-2005 02:35									#50
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Since I've been reading the book, I changed my mind. Yes, even Pai Mei can change his mind. But I still think its flawed.

About the ending:

spoiler(highlight to read): Given Wells' purpose, the ending is adequate overall. Wells couldn't have the Humans defeat the Aliens. It would have defeated his purpose. War of the world is basically a put-yourself-in-their-shoes book. Wells was a citizen of the mighty British Empire and he asked his fellow countrymen to put themselves in the shoes of the "savages" they colonized, of the species they exterminated. Wells compares Humanities situation to the dodo's, who were exterminated by men. He writes : "Some respectable dodo in the in the Mauritius might have lorded it in his nest, and discussed the arrival of that shipful of pitiless sailors in want of food. "We will peck them to death tomorrow, my dear." It was hopeless. So there were two options, IMO: either we luck out or we get exterminated or enslaved. Diseases slowed down the colonization of Africa. Imagine what would have happened without the helping hand of these germs.

	04-07-2005 02:37									#51
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by nostromo Since I've been reading the book, I changed my mind. Yes, even Pei Mei can change his mind.

But not, apparently, spell his name correctly.

Pai Mei.

	04-07-2005 02:42									#52
	Increase the size of your Attachments

That's it, I'm not teaching you anything, not even how to pick your nose with chopsticks.

Last edited by nostromo on 04-07-2005 at 02:47

	04-07-2005 04:32									#53
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Barinthus quote: The film starts heavy-handedly. Divorced from his wife Mary Ann (Miranda Otto), Ray -- as the script makes clear again and again -- is an inept, indifferent father. When his children reluctantly appear for a rare visitation to his messy bachelor pad in working-class New Jersey, we're repeatedly shown that they don't particularly like him, and he has no idea of how to relate to them. But things pick up considerably when a gigantic and strange....

Can someone PLEASE think of something different for good... it's always the same ****.

	04-07-2005 04:45									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by JohnT quote: spoiler(highlight to read): Spielberg's actually stolen the ending, visually, from one of the most famous endings in all of American cinema: the ending of The Searchers Sorry, but Cruise wasn't out there alone long enough to really consider the ending to be a re-creation of The Searchers ending. The little girl runs to mom, then it cuts to Tom, then the parents, back to mom, and then back to Tom (from the perspective of inside the doorframe) when 1/4 of the frame is blocked by the kids silhouette. He runs up to Tom, they look at each other for the first time man-to-man, hug, and head back into the house. The shot might have been reminiscent (and probably intended to be so), but the ending itself was completely different. It seems you wanted a Searchers-esque ending and was very disappointed when your expectations weren't met. C'est la vie.

Actually, far from looking for The Seachers -- a film I haven't seen in ages -- it just kind of snuck up on me and I thought, "Hey, it's The Searchers!" the same way I thought "Hey, it's Citizen Kane!" the first time I saw the final warehouse shot in Raiders. But here's the thing:

spoiler(highlight to read): The last scene really does feel like The Searchers right up until the moment Robby appears. Forget the famous last shot of the door closing on Ethan and look at the whole scene again: a man approaches a house to which is not entirely welcome, carrying the young girl he's rescued; the family rushes in awe to the porch; the woman who's still in love with him looks on with a mixture of love and regret; the girl he's saved rushes to her real family without a second thought for him; the family stays on the porch and he stays in the middle distance, showing a gulf that won't be bridged not only between him and them but between heroism and domestic life -- it The Searchers all over! My initial reaction, btw, was not negative but positive -- "Hey Steve, nice reference, nice connection, way to go." Then Robby shows up and the whole point of the reference is completely undermined if not negated, because Spielberg lacks the guts to mix triumph and pathos the way Ford did. But I swear I wasn't looking for it; it's there -- no surprise, given Spielberg's film-school credentials and love of movies -- and he fubarred it.

	04-07-2005 09:30									#55
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Seems like no one has grasped the concept Speilberg was getting at with this movie.

I think I should help you slow evolving ones by giving you a hint: You never leave Tom Cruise.

	04-07-2005 09:34									#56
	Got spare money?

spoiler(highlight to read): Two glitches: The EMP pulse knocked out all electronic devices. How was that camcorder working? And how did the reporter get a film of the aliens entering the ground? These glitches didn't bother me at all. Hell, I didn't even notice them. I had to read about them. I was too busy running from the tripod with the characters. The ending and the battle scene at the hill were definitely substandard though. The Ending: The mother's house looks untouched by the invasion. She and the family are clean and unruffled. They look worried, but completely untouched. They should have been crawling out of the rubble or something similar. Why didn't the aliens touch Boston? What was the matter? Did they use MapQuest and get lost?! It just didn't fit. Hill Battle: How did the boy escape that wall of fire? I thought the whole reason that Spielberg let that annoying boy run off to see what the army was doing, was to allow the audience to see the batlle too. That really bugged me that we didn't get to see any of the fighting. It would have fit the plot perfectly with its emphasis on only showing what the characters personally witnessed. And this would have been the perfect opportunity to put in the Thunder-Child scene. Maybe that scene ended up on the cutting room floor. Other than those two things, which nearly ruined the movie for me, but not quite, I thought this was a truely intense and literally awesome adaptation.

	04-07-2005 09:35									#57
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Sn00py Seems like no one has grasped the concept Speilberg was getting at with this movie. I think I should help you slow evolving ones by giving you a hint: You never leave Tom Cruise.

You leave Tom Cruise during the pivotal Ogilvy scene.

	04-07-2005 09:37									#58
	Support Apolyton

Moses, Spielberg probably ran out of money

	04-07-2005 09:48									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I thought Spielberg had money flowing out of his sink taps.

I guess, and I am only guessing here, he was contracted to do a two hour movie and that's what he delivered.

	04-07-2005 10:09									#60
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by MosesPresley I thought Spielberg had money flowing out of his sink taps. I guess, and I am only guessing here, he was contracted to do a two hour movie and that's what he delivered.

Spielberg dictates the terms of his contract; he doesn't have them dictated to him.

Moreover, two hours is not the run-time barrier it once was, especially for big movies; Batman Begins, for example, was ~140 minutes, as were ROTS and Cinderella Man. So Spielberg definitely had time to show the battle. But

spoiler(highlight to read): I think showing Robby surviving that battle would strain credulity to its breaking point. And since he needs Robby to survive for his ridiculously happy ending, its better not to show it and hope people are so swept away with emotion at the end that they don't stop to think.