*** Official WAR OF THE WORLDS Discussion Thread

Reviews up at AICN and of course they flipped for it.

Just came from seeing it tonight. Thought it was alright but nothing special. Definetly wasn't a fun film or adventure film and that kid in the movie crying throughout annoyed me. The effects were brilliant, though the ending was a bit abrupt. Oh well your milage may vary.

I wasn't sure they would. They've disliked the past couple of "sci-fi" Spielberg movies.

Rave review up at MSNBC.com.

(Positive) reviews by Hollywood Reporter, Variety and Newsday.

Rotten Tomatoes
Good reviews across the board.
I don't like Cruise's behavior lately, but I'll still see the movie.

from Ebert.

~Edwin

I like Ebert a lot and often agree with him, but this is one of those bizarre reviews where he seems hung up on minutiae. In this case, it's the "impracticality of tripods." Although I haven't seen the movie yet, I think he might've missed the big picture here...

I agree with what most of Ebert said after watching the film. Guess I'm in the minority

Every other week we have a thread discussion about another one of Ebert's questionable reviews. IMO in the last year he has gone from unreliable to reliably opposite of what everyone else thinks. I have gone from not using him to almost going with exactly the opposite of what he says.

I just listened to a very articulate talk online between Geoffrey Kleinman and Scott Weinberg, both of dvdtalk.com. They seem rather disappointed (or at least ambivalent).

http://www.dvdtalkradio.com/player.html

http://www.dvdtalkradio.com/DVDTalkR...fTheWorlds.mp3

From OUR Scott Weinberg's review at Rotten Tomatoes:

4.5 out of 5 stars.

I think he liked War Of The Worlds quite a bit!

Didn't look like you did after his 4-star review of Batman Begins.

~Edwin

The annoying thing about Ebert's reviews are, as mentioned, when he focuses on little things (like the Tripods) or when he compares a movie like WAR OF THE WORLDS unfavorably to a movie like THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW.

According to what I read on another forum the rationale behind Ebert's review can be found on his Jurassic Park review:


(emphasis added)

and I couldn't agree more.

The thing is, we don't live in an "E.T." sorta world anymore, and Spielberg knows this. I have to give it to the man that he isn't living on past glories by simply retreading silly little aliens that go "OW!" Now, I just hope Tom can keep his moouth shut until after I go watch this movie!

Meanwhile, the Los Angeles Times's Kenneth Turan raved over the film in this morning's edition.

Hey, watch it!

5 hours to go.

Well, I don't think it deserves raves or jeers. I thought it was a good film, not a great one. It's quite well made, and doesn't pander...much. The effects were exceptional and creepy.

Dirty Weinberg seems to have a good handle on it,
Chuck

This is a review of sorts, but several spoilers that it's hard to place it in the Review Thread.


Good movie, not great, but quite good.

It's really great to see some nice matches to the original concepts of the tripods and the aliens themselves. I wouldn't have been disappointed to see them reimagined, but when you see one start walking and the shield itself, I got pretty jazzed. The 'Death Ray' was also very well realized and made for a very well done and disturbing scene when Cruise realizes what he's covered in.

The personal story of the family was also nicely done, with Cruise realizing he barely knows his kids through the events of the torturous attack. When I had seen the first preview, I had assumed that Cruise would play a scientist, but it was pretty refreshing to deviate from the 50's movie in that way and not retread ground that is well understood by current popular culture.

Some parts of the movie were not so good. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Minor nitpicks in the movie that don't amount to anything Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) and a few heavy handed 'terrorist' and 'occupation' comments (not that I disagree, just they were very blunt) didn't distract from some fantastic sequences of mayhem and some good dramatic moments. I'll also say that Dakota Fanning continues to impress me. She's just marvelous in reaction without treading over to 'creepily adult child' territory.


I'd give it three out of four.

Spoilers, but I won't black them out...they aren't that serious.

I've heard a few beefs with the buried weapons of the aliens. It's quite possibly that they were buried VERY deep...far deeper than we dig. Hence the multiple lightning strikes.

I DO agree with Alex's first spoiler box, though. Pick one or the other...not both, not at the end.

At first, I had issues with the downfall of the aliens, but now it makes thematic sense, as I ponder it.

Take care,
Chuck

Minor spoilers


I've been running the lighting, earth cracking, and tripod emerging sequence in my head and realize I have no idea what Steven was going for with it. The tearing of the buildings and rotating of a very small section of street makes me think the tripod was really close to the surface. Almost like it was intermeshed with the plumbing and sewer under the surface. But then the ground collapses and it emerges. When I saw the second trailer of the ground collapsing, I was thinking that somehow the lightning had set off a bomb under the ground and the tripod was teleporting into the vacant space. But they spent so much time with dialogue saying they were buried under the ground that it can't be what they were going for, that and the time between the lightning and the sinking were very far apart.

What was going on there exactly?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,161000,00.html

Just saw this on Drudge. The movie has been out half a day and they are complaining about there not being sell outs yet. What the hell is wrong with studios expecting crazy numbers immediately! FWIW I saw War at 9 am in a medium sized theater that was about 90% full. I was surprised.

Oh and that idiotic article associates the current Batman film with the 60s TV show. lame lame lame.

I don't believe the production budget was $182 million either. I'd heard closer to $120 million.

From my comments in the review thread:

Steven Spielberg in top form.

War Of The Worlds is a rarity in the "disaster" genre. It's 100% serious without the fluff of other similar films.

It's a simple tale of a father protecting his children set against a backdrop of the end of the world.

This truly is a spectacular film. Full of action, terror, suspense and horrifying images. Definitely NOT for young children.

Tom Cruise is perfect here. Playing an everyman unlike any character I have seen him play, he gives just the right performance.

Dakota Fanning I am convinced will win an Oscar some day soon. She is amazing conveying such a wide variety of emotions with ease.

The visual effects are amazing as you have heard, but they are not overly spectacular for the sake of looking cool. They are spectacular because they look so tremendously real.

Don't go into this film expecting anything like ID4 or The Day After. This is hardcore serious sci-fi!

One of Spielberg's best.


Some additional comments. I found the ending to be faithful to the novel and even the Pal version. I found it neither abrupt or corny.

As for the Tripods, I agree with Chuck that they were buried DEEP, maybe miles down. As for the rotating out of the street, I believe that's a nod to earlier versions where the top of the alien machines unscrewed like a top.

That first destruction scene was awesome, terrifyingly similar to what we saw on 9-11. I was stunned.

Spielberg is a master like no other and he can craft action and suspense scenes better than any other director I know.

More later. :b

As for attendance at my theater, I went to an 11:45 Am show playing in the largest auditorium that can hold over 500 people and there were about 30 people in attendance.

I realise this isn't an Ebert's Review of WOTW thread but, as others mentioned, his main criticism is just plain odd:

.....are you kidding me? It's Sci-Fi, man, time travel is likely impossible as is "Light Speed" - "transporters" etc. etc. etc. yet you can suspend disbelief long enough for films that contain loads of these impossibilities but you dislike this film primarily because of tripods?

He hasn't been the same since his stroke, I'm sorry but that's how I feel. Flame away.