Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official WAR OF THE WORLDS Review Thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

*** Official WAR OF THE WORLDS Review Thread - Page 2

post #31 of 47
I find myself in two camps on this one:

1) The first part of the movie that led to the actual 'invasion' was well done and extremely powerful. Those who think these teenagers are annoying either don't have any in their family or are in denial about their own teen years.

2) Somehow I found many of the 'tricks' used to scare us a bit manipulative and derivative (ironically many where derivative of Steven's own legacy of similar fare). I expect a bit of this (especially since Spielberg was a student of Hitchcock's techniques) but I didn't expect to see so much ET/CEOTK tricks to make up the bulk of the material. I know it is targeted at teens rather than adults (many of whom have never seen Jaws, not to mention the extraterrestial legacy of this director) but I thought this was one trick too many. Maybe I'm a bit jaded from the interminably long Star Wars series and the numerous cheesy and superior F/X over the last 30 years but I was expecting a bit more originality. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I just found the tripods a bit ungainly and the overly long sequence in the basement with the mechanical 'eye' reminicent of the Abyss (which was done with quite a bit more subtlety by Cameron).
I guess many of Spielberg's desciples and contemporaries have overtaken him in the effects department (especially Cameron).

Non-the-less, this is the summer and the target audience and IQ drops substantially over the Oscar-oriented serious stuff later in the year. Everything being equal it was ultimately quite entertaining and the performances were between average to quite good (especially Cruise, who spanned stereotypical neglectful parent to overy concerned and overly protective -- not an altogether unrealistic arc given the circumstances). The kids lacked some depth but overall the girl was well acted as well. An overall B effort and strictly popcorn fare. The overall rating was brought up considerably by the incredible sound design and imagery. A solid effort but as others have noted a bit rushed in the execution since Spielberg is already focused on his next project to be released this year (VENGEANCE -- focused on the Munich Massacre from the '72 Olympics).

Joel
post #32 of 47
The movie dragged me in right at the beginning-the initial encounter was amazing.Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning were terrific throughout and Tim Robbins gave another fantastic performance.Throw in all the excellent special effects and thrills ,director Spielberg has done it again.He entertained me for 2 hours.Isn't that the whole point?
post #33 of 47
This film will not appeal to the hard of thinking. Anyone wanting a re-run of Independence Day is going to be disappointed, although the loud bangs and special effects may be sufficiently stimulating to the brain stem for it to be a not totally wasted experience.

This is a great film, and I should stress that generally I am underwhelmed by Spielberg (even to the extent of falling asleep during Jurassic Park).

For those beefing about the ending and how dumb it was, I'd say that they've utterly missed the point of the film. The ending in Well's book was the equivalent of e.g. The Crying Game or The Usual Suspects in its day. However, Wells was making a serious point. If your knowledge of Well's writings is restriced to his science fiction, then you may be unaware that he also wrote a large number of social concerns books and novels. His science fiction carries on these themes by other means, and WOTW is as much about the fragility of social structure and taking things for granted as it is about invading aliens. Spielberg has twisted this theme into a modern-day concern about relationships and helping others. The central character is selfish:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
We see him at the start refuse to do an extra shift at work - we suspect not because he had the kids to look after but because he wanted to annoy his boss. Later, it's his son who helps passengers onto the ferry, not him. It is only when he finally does a selfless act by trying to destroy the tripod by attempting to commit suicide using the grenades that redemption comes and others help him. And the reward is that the machine is destroyed and he and his daughter escape.


Through the film he does not learn to communicate better with his kids, but rather to stop being self, self, self. The ending is not an argument that rich folks will get to keep their nice houses whilst the poor suffer:

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Look what happened to ex-wife and new husband's house.


Instead, the ending of the film points to a simple message -

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
he has now reached a stage of emotional awareness of his kids that should have been there all along - he is now at a point where he can begin. The contented safe household in front of him is the goal he can now realistically aim for. In more than one sense, it is the small simple things of life that matter.


Of course this is not all the film is about, but it is a key theme, in the same way that E.T. was about a child's response to his parents' divorce.

I would also say that some folks must have very delicate kids. My 9 and 11-year olds loved it. They said it was scary in parts, but as my daughter said 'that's part of the fun'.
post #34 of 47
I liked it but was disappointed. I thought it was gonna be a spectacle like Independence Day but with the seriousness of signs.Instead it was basically a signs remake.

It seemed like the whole invasion was in the New York Area. I wanted a more global feeling to it. I didn't like the 9\11 imagery either(ie.people walking over the bridge, Tom Cruise with ash over him or walls with pictures of missing people)I also didn't like Ray's children.

But the film has a nice pace, genuine thrills and scares.

I think I read many months ago this was supposed to have the largest budget of all time,(It doesn't), So i was expecting something very epic, thus the disappointment.

overall 7/10
post #35 of 47
I saw the movie last night. I give it a C+. I was expecting it to be the remake or at least close to the book. The begining was good and the housing sequence with Tim Robbins was scarey scene. But I wanted to see a knock down drag out fight between the U.S and the aliens with Russians, France British and Chinese along for the ride. I was a child when I read the book but wasnt the main character a reporter. Since the book was written in the 1800's I expected the technogoly to be primative back then, and the first movie was in the mid 20th century. Some of the scene were from the first movie and some were from Et and Jurrasic Park. My girlfriend liked it but I thought the first movie was better. The special effects were good. As for Tom Cruise, He did a pretty good job as a parent but I really dont like many of his movies except Top Gun, Collactoral, Risky Business and Mission Impossible II. This is the second movie I saw this year Star Wars being the first. I cant wait to see Batman and after that Fantastic Four.(Yeah I am a marvel head) BY the way didnt those Aliens look like the aliens in another movie that involed a pilot and a computer geek that saved the world
post #36 of 47
Let me say right off the bat that this incarnation of War of the World has one of the most inappropriate and embarrassingly awful endings I've ever seen. Lest you think my problem is with the story itself, think again; the concept is one of the great masterstrokes of science fiction, one whose novelty far exceeds the drawback of the plot holes that result. I loved Signs, I loved the original Wells story. The embarrassment of the ending is unique to this particular telling.
And yet I find myself forced to recommend the film even considering, because everything up to that point represents disaster filmmaking at its finest and most horrifyingly real. I've never seen an alien invasion but if I'd had I'm certain it would almost exactly like this. The tripods are an aesthetic decision, a nod back to the source material. But the view from the ground nails human nature more accurately and more comprehensively than any film I can remember. There is a moment early on where Rachel gives her father parenting advice. It raises the irritating precocious child red flag and is notable for being the only time I doubted the believability of a character's actions in the entire movie.
And thank God, because the film peaks with its human moments. I winced at moments of humanity's worst, Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
like when men murder innocents without hesitation such is their desperation for a leg up in the game of survival. I was inspired by moments of humanity's best, as when the son risks helping a couple people onto a ferry after he has already made it to safety. I've seen masterpieces with one view or the other, but by placing them in sharp relief within the same movie, Spielberg allows the reality to finally cut through the editorializing. The matter-of-fact presentation is the opposite of what we expect from him, and gives the money shots real power. When we see bodies floating down the Hudson, for instance, he allows the image itself to do the talking — its lack of fanfare caught me off-guard and shook me to my core. Likewise, there is a sequence where Rachel sings herself a lullaby while her father does what must be done behind her that is a formalistic masterstroke, presented in the most realistic of ways. I have seen other sequences in other movies that operate off the same principle. None achieves what this does here, surely one of the best of Spielberg's career.
Both War of the Worlds and Mars Attacks! feature tripods firing heat rays that vaporize people. The fact that the former never once reminded me of the latter throughout its entirety speaks to the staggering level of verisimilitude achieved here. They operate as opposite ends of the same spectrum, with the decision to shoot the majority of exteriors on-location grounding the proceedings with an inherent reality that the other apocalypse movies can't even approach.
The aliens here are also a revelation. The sheer practicality of their methods is staggering; in horror movies you expect people to die, but I was blind-sided with how the aliens made use of them afterwards. Likewise, little touches like grabbing a canned food in their search of home and passing around a discovered photograph to be looked at by each in turn instantly sold them to me as intelligent beings in a way the grandeur of their technological monstrosities never could. More than another other alien invasion on film before it, this one gets the scale and the stakes exactly right. For once the heroes don't escape abduction, allowing us into the heart of the invader's world. The details of their insidious operation are finally shown up close and personal, never slipping from the human scale that makes it all so effective.
People say the characters were bland, but I think that's absolutely not true. They were everyman, certainly — a necessity of creating an audience surrogate — but they are also complex, flawed, and surprising. Only the son strikes a one-note tone, the filmmakers' apparent need to poke fun at patriotic idealists overriding their efforts at creating a compelling, three-dimensional character. But Rachel and Ray are flawed so that they can triumph in overcoming them; even Tim Robbins's gun-nut is a character whose mania is a logical result of who he was and what has happened to him. The scenes between Cruise and Otto at the beginning are also dead-on; the way she reacts to him shows exactly how they could have gotten together to begin with; they way he conducts himself shows exactly why she didn't stay with him. Fanning too is at the top of her game; there is one shot that particularly wowed me later on in the film when Rachel is resting on top of a sleeping Ray on a couch in the basement of the farm house, and the bass rumbles across the soundstage. The close up catches Dakota's eyes searching for the source of the sound; what attention to detail!
So it is that an ending which very nearly undoes everything the movie has worked so hard for previously cannot entirely rob this film of its power. Snip off that final scene and move right into the closing narration, and this film would have surpassed Batman Begins as the best film of the year. Even as it stands, there's far too much greatness here to be ignored.

/

(Admin note - review gives away far too much, spoiler tags added)
post #37 of 47
Not bad but not GREAT. I did enjoy the film but it was missing SOMETHING, I am not sure what but it was definitely lacking something for me.

I'll give it a 6.5-7/10

Greg
post #38 of 47
I really enjoyed it and give it a 9/10. Very well done. As with any film it does have it's problems but none bothered me so much so that it took away from the enjoyment. Cruise did a great job as did Dakota Fanning.
post #39 of 47
I'm one of the underwhelmed with this film, not just for the sake of being an opposing voice. I expected some great things after reading the reviews here and completely missed out on why people were so high on this film. I really wanted to like it, also, but found I just didn't emotionally get anything from it.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Nothing seemed to move me, whether it was the "developing" relationship between Tom Cruise and his children or his zeal to get them to Boston.
I suppose you can say this movie just wasn't for me, but I really did want to like it.

The computer effects were very well done, but I didn't buy into the characters or the acting, save for Dakota Fanning, who played the precocious child part very well. The new husband of the ex-wife appeared very smarmy in a yuppyish way, also, even without really speaking. You could kind of get the sense he wasn't liked by Tom Cruise for whatever reason, even without any example other than being the Stepfather of his kids. I did get a creepy sense from Tim Robbins, but I get that from him anyway...

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I was neither relieved they got to Boston safely, not upset at the deaths in the film,
so I guess emotionally the movie really failed to move me.

4/10

Nick
post #40 of 47
I loved this film. Sure there were flaws, the last 5 minutes will probably never be watched again.

I am familiar with the book, the radio broadcast and the 1953 movie version. I feel as though Spielberg has produced a good film in the spirit of the previous telling. I am not an easy scare but this movie made me more uncomfortable than any other recent movie I have seen.

Independence Day was fun, it was a movie about heroes and global in scale. WOTW is a more personal story, like signs, another movie I enjoyed.

I loved the limited view, You only saw what the characters saw and it worked brilliantly. There were enough hints regarding just how wide spread the incident was.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
flashes of news reports regarding electrical storms in Europe, The news crew showing Ray the tape of an attack with multiple tripods, the rumor of people in Japan destroying a handful of tripods.
As we learned in Jaws, Alien, Signs sometimes “not seeing” is more terrifying than “seeing”.

As to the 9/11 imagery, I see no problem with it. That is what massive destruction looks like. Sure Ray was covered with “white” dust; sure the kid’s first reaction is terrorists. What color of dust would you have liked? The family lived in and around NY. IMHO thinking of terrorism before alien attack is quite natural. The walls plastered with pictures of missing loved ones that is how people will react to the situation.

The complaints about the son. He helps strangers get onto the boat; he wants to fight the aliens, not out of patriotism but because of his nature. The son shows a complete opposite but just as valid a side of humanity as the carjacking mob. Plus what is wrong with wanting to fight because of patriotism? Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I think his surviving the attack weakens his position in the film.


I am getting a real chuckle out of posts that state “I am a fan of science fiction” and then go on to complain Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
about the aliens being killed by earth bacteria. This is not a lame or just give up ending. Billions have died due to lack of immunity. Nearly 10 million of my people were wiped off the face the Earth due to smallpox, chickenpox, mumps, measles, and the common flue. Sure the aliens should have protected themselves but with great technological advancement comes great carelessness and a sense of invincibility
This is sci fi at its best.

This was the story told and seen by the “everyman” not the super hero. There was no Will Smith or Jeff Goldblum to “save humanity” Yea the ending was syrupy. I would have preferred Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Ray and his daughter finding Boston completely destroyed and littered with downed pods and dead aliens. Possibly find the mother but with everyone surviving it lessened the impact greatly.


Sure it could have been better but it was a good ride with a bad last 5 minutes.
post #41 of 47
Sure would have loved seeing different types of alien machines. The gathering machine would have been awesome to watch. Also, in the original book, didn't the aliens set up something that was changing our air into theirs? Too bad Speilberg didn't use the black smoke either.

Still a good movie, but felt rushed. Lots of potential not fully utilized.

- Colton
post #42 of 47
WAR OF THE WORLDS

out of (8/10)

The best thing WAR OF THE WORLDS has going for it is the direction of Steven Spielberg. Unfortunately, filmmaking polish can only cover so much for script deficiencies in the last fifth of the film.

WAR OF THE WORLDS certainly creates tension, and it's certainly very well directed, acted, scored, and edited. But what is the raison d'etre for this movie's existence? Big alien movies have been made before (artfully by Spielberg himself in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, spectacularly in INDEPENDENCE DAY) and small, family-focused alien movies have been made too (SIGNS). Sure, WAR OF THE WORLDS is a remake, but what does Spielberg have to say here that: a) hasn't been said before by another filmmaker, and; b) hasn't been said by Spielberg himself in other films (MINORITY REPORT, A.I.)?

Fortunately for Spielberg, the pure spectacle makes this a worthwhile experience in the theater. The effects are great, though I think ROTS still is the front-runner for the Oscar. The score, when utilized, is perfect, and the performances are top notch too (particularly from Dakota Fanning).

But the underlying material isn't all that compelling, and I believe a lot of the comparisons to 9/11 are a bit overblown, etc. It's good, but not great, filmmaking.

I'd put this one pretty far below the other summer tentpoles I've seen (SITH and BATMAN). While WOTW boasts filmmaking just as good as those two, they have the benefit of better scripts, more compelling characters, and more fluid narrative.
post #43 of 47
As a science fiction-horror film, Steven Spielberg’s War Of The Worlds works. However, as a family drama, it is very light, uneven and without depth. I’d recommend it for its good acting and special effects but other than that, it lacks dramatic intensity for a more emotional experience.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
How come the word “aliens” was never uttered, or did I just miss it? In their intent to make this look like a serious fare, was Spielberg & company afraid to have that word uttered in the film to make it sound cheesy? Very weird but that’s how normal people would refer to these creatures. If it was uttered, disregard this comment.


½ (out of four)

~Edwin
post #44 of 47
I liked it. Even though it was transported to current times, it was close enough to the source material to keep me happy. I think the tripods were well-realized, and the initial appearance of their rays was very effective. The vignette with Ogilvy was a fairly successful compaction of two vignettes from the original novel. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The camera probe was okay, but I think I would have liked it better if the aliens had used some kind of tactile feedback to explore the cellar. Also, I was just dying to see one of the tripodless aliens get shotgunned in the face. It would have shown that they were vulnerable outside of their machines.


I missed the things other WOTW fans missed, such as the black and white smoke and the brief triumph of Thunder Child, but things do get lost when translating a novel to a two-hour movie. I certainly had no problem with Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the aliens dying of our microbes, since that is the way the original story was written. I will say that Wells probably sold it a little stronger, since his Martians had troubles adapting to our world from the beginning. Gravitational differences were the reason they needed their tripods and other machines, for instance. But, I was fine with it, and the imagery of the dead tripods was very effective. Two things I wish were different about it: the aliens' ullaling should have been constant and nerve-wracking at the end, and we should have been shown the birds pecking an exposed alien. Maybe I'm sick on that last point, though.

I know some don't like the happy ending of Robbie being alive. I can go along with that--maybe Ray shouldn't have come through the experience basically unscathed--but it didn't really bother me too much. That's the movies.

One last thing: we had birds in the air, so why didn't we drop a few daisy cutters on those suckers? I guarantee their shields wouldn't have helped them then.
post #45 of 47
Saw it today......I thought that it was a good film with great moments. The first half of the film was absolutely terrifying to watch. Unfortunately, I must agree that the problem with the film is the ending...

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
I cannot buy into the fact that Ray's son earlier in the film runs into a battlefield that becomes a blazing inferno full of those tripod machines and at the end turns up safe and sound. With all that destruction and death occuring around them throughout the film, it would be more plausible that not all the main characters would survive in the end.


A darker ending would have been more appropriate and would also leave a much stronger impact on the viewer. Instead, the film ends with a whimper.

I'll give this a respectable 7.5 out of 10 . It could have been so much more though.
post #46 of 47
Finally checked this out a couple of nights ago and was half impressed and half disappointed.

I was IMPRESSED, big time, by the visuals, that's high-tech, state-of-the-art destruction there boys and girls, just...WOW!

The tri-pods Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
laid waste to entire blocks as easily as a kid at the beach kicking over another kid's sand castle!


My problem, like many others, came with the ending, and i'm not even talking about Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Cruise' son making it and the happy ending stuff
, that did bother me to a degree, but i'm actually referring to the whole idea that Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
the alien forces are brought down by water.


Now, I realize this is how it happened in the original film and in the book, bt that still doesn't make it okay IMO. They come all this way, we have our asses handed to us in spectacular fashion, they've thought this thing out to the letter, Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
and then they just...keel over.


A let down, again, IMO.

The performances were nice, but the whole bit with Tim Robbins seemed odd to me, he was wasted in that bit part IMO.

Anyway, it's early and I don't have the energy to keep typing, so i'll leave it here. Good, but not great Speilberg.
post #47 of 47
This is the Review thread. If you want to comment on or respond to something said here, please use the Discussion thread.

M.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movies (Theatrical)
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Entertainment › Movies (Theatrical) › *** Official WAR OF THE WORLDS Review Thread