War of the Worlds (2005) (1 Viewer)

[John Doran]

see, i would have hated that ending. partly because i think there'd be no way to do it without being ham-handed, and partly because i think it's utterly beside the point, which is made eloquently and comprehensively when ferrier hugs his son.

ah, well - sua cuique voluptas.

 

[Robert Anthony]

but he ran into a fireball. As a parent, letting your kid go can, sometimes, mean your kid screws up and kills himself. It's dishonest to have that kid miraculously step out of an untouched house on an untouched block after running into a giant fireball and escaping it untouched to hug his father. Besides which, Spielberg has already SET UP the movie to play as if Robbie is dead. It deals with his death. That death is WHAT PROGRESSES Ray's character the little it's actually moved forward. You take that away and Ray's character has achieved almost EVERYTHING he's achieved not because he learned anything, but because it was almost on accident.

if Killing the kid didn't fit into the story they wouldn't have written and directed it to utterly convince the audience the kid was dead and allowed the characters and the audience to deal with that. As it is, the sense of loss this movie seems to demand is completely undercut by reversing the only REAL loss that matters to anyone in the movie.

Robbie's survival, along with the perfunctory ending, neuters the movie.

 

[Cory S.]

Muren was going to do something for Episode III but War of the Worlds came up. Plus, he had decided that he'd done enough for Star Wars...which is his right. In fact, Muren only did just a little bit on Episode II, eventhough his name is in the credits for that...he really didn't do much for that film. Knoll was the main sup for those two films. Muren's contribution was laying the groundwork for the Prequels with Episode I.

Muren is the Godfather of Visual Effects and here he is again showing the world how it's done. Not to take anything for Knoll and the other sups for Episode III because their work in that film is near flawless. Muren's team just knocked it out of the Milky Way with War of the Worlds.

But, you really can't compared the two films. Look at the work Knoll and his team had to do for Episode III(2,100 plus shots!) and look at what Muren had to do for Worlds(450 plus shots). I give Knoll and his team a little more edge just because of the sheer number of shots they did for Episode III and the quality level only barely dropped maybe 4 or 5 times.

Still, if I had to vote today, I'd still give it to War of the Worlds over Episode III.

 

[John Doran]

well, i obviously disagree.

keep in mind that i'm not arguing that you should like the ending - i'm just pointing out that it's neither thoughtless nor inconsistent.

 

[Chris Harvey]

I'm not gonna claim any sort of realism or impossibility to the situation, but from a dramatic standpoint, it's a weaker scenario than the other choices.

It's not just Robbie surviving, it's that the entire family unit (including the grandparents) have not only survived, it looks like they weren't even bothered by the whole experience. It's weak dramatically because everything that has been shown to date is that people were affected BRUTALLY -- lives lost, homes destroyed. Spielberg and Koepp made the creative decision to use Ray and his family as stand-ins for all of us, for the rest of humanity. Through Ray's eyes, we're experiencing the horror of what humanity is going through. It's a copout, then, to suddenly (and without prior setup) say "see, it's all okay, everybody's fine in the end".

Furthermore, Spielberg and Koepp are quite specifically trying to portray the invasion and extermination as a sort of Global Holocaust... having Ray's family completely intact, without wounds or damaged property, is kind of like watching Adrian Brody struggle for survival in THE PIANIST, only to be happily reunited with his entire family in the end -- in their original home, no less.

Having Ray walk up to his inlaws' un-destroyed home and greeted by a group of happy and perfectedly groomed people (at worst, they have expressions of mild relief) is completely incongruous with everything we've seen before -- and also with what we see immediately afterwards.

This sort of ending was stupid when DAY AFTER TOMORROW did it and it's just as stupid when Spielberg does it (in fact, because I think he's a far better director and storyteller than Roland Emmerich, it's even more disappointing).

 

[Simon Massey]

But the implication was clearly that he was dead. And then to be offscreen for the remaining hour only to show up at the end just rings false. The least Spielberg should have done is set up the possibility that the son might have died. As you say, the aliens could have captured him. Why not show one of the tripods grabbing him and then the remaining scenes in the film gradually set up the possibility that he may be alive. Instead, we get him running over the hill followed by huge explosion. In fact when I first saw the film, I thought Spielberg was basically making the explosion huge to emphasise the fact that there was no way the son had survived.

 

[ThomasC]

Is it explained how all the other tripods are taken down, or is it just assumed that people figured out ways to take them out?

 

[Joe Karlosi]

:star: :star: :star: :star: out of :star: :star: :star: :star:

I just saw it, and it was so excellent that I am speechless. And believe me, this is not something I say quite often regarding modern remakes.

How do I sum it up quickly? One of the most intense and riveting science fiction/alien takeover movies I have ever seen. The use of CGI was extraordinary and completely realistic. I thought young Dakota Fanning was superb, and that this featured the best performance I've ever seen out of Tom Cruise. I loved the struggles between father and son, and how this catastrophy affected their situation.

The ending was what I kind of expected, but it worked very well all the same as a fitting conclusion to what we'd just witnessed. I am starting to realize what people are saying about Spielberg not having the guts to go "all the way through" with something (in this case, the fate of Cruise's son) and I was praying at the end that he would not come out of that home in Boston. I wrestled with whether or not to deduct a half star for this, but when you consider what happened with Tim Robbins, this compensated for it a bit. And I left the theater feeling so pumped up, which is something I rarely ever do anymore (and Spielberg's JAWS had been one of those times).
All in all, I CANNOT complain.

Larger than life, completely captivating -- this is a film that should NOT be seen on anything other than the big theater screens. It's one of the very best remakes I've ever seen.

This movie helped me gain faith in modern remakes, and I can't wait for KING KONG now -- in fact, the trailer was shown before WOTW and I was in awe. Much more powerful than on NBC.

 

[Quentin]

I'll grant you that as a possibility. We're on purely hypothetical ground here, but I can see that happening.

Still, I think NO explanation (when, regardless of your valid point, an explanation is NOT necessary to the story) beats a lame one. Something that big, no more than 100 yards under ground? We would know it was there. Period.

 

[Quentin]

Here is the main core of this terrible ending. Yes, people miraculously defy death every day...but, movies have a limit they are allowed to reach before you lose your audience. Cruise and Dakota defy death...how many times in this film? A dozen? More? You go with it because it fits with the flow and tone of the story, and it is the main conceit of the film - we are watching the story of a survivor. But, when you come to an untouched home with Grandma and Grandpa smiling, and the ONE main character who SHOULD have died is there - also smiling (AND there BEFORE Cruise? Amazing kid )...well, you've lost most of your audience because you've gone TOO FAR.

 

[Quentin]

Thanks for the description of the ending, Chris.

That locks it...worst ending for Spielberg EVER!

But, that just shows how good the rest of the film is, because I still like it overall.

 

[Holadem]

Well, Joe "ALL remakes suck donkey balls RHAAAAAAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!" Karlosi, there is hope for you yet .

I was pretty dissapointed the amazing King Kong trailer didn't show at my theater. Oh well, my third theatrical viewing of the equally amazing Narnia almost made up for it.

--
H

 

[Chris Harvey]

Well, at least it's brief, instead of some interminable AI-ish extravaganza.

 

[JoshB]

In regards to the film's Sound design, one of the crew was Randy Thom, whom I'm sure many are familiar with.........

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0858378/

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0858378/awards

 

[todd stone]

no one mentioned Morgan freeman with the voiceover


also, what exactly killed the aliens? I am lost...

 

[Gene S]

The bacteria/virus of our world. We had 6 million years to build up an immunity. The aliens were doomed from the start.
I knew the ending was going to confuse people. While exiting the theater I heard people saying the birds killed the aliens. :frowning:

 

[Stephen_L]

Really enjoyed the movie, though I was a bit disappointed with the sentimental ending. Would have preferred no Robbie and meeting Mom in a refugee center. One item that did not bother me much was the infamous camcorder. It's a cool shot so some allowance can be made. It's clear that the EMP had a limited effective range; perhaps the camera operator arrived by functioning auto (Ray's was not the only one) or bicycle from a location beyond the range of the EMP.

 

[Patrick Sun]

Yeah, the bird poop did in the aliens!

 

[Seth Paxton]

This shows why SS should NOT have added the rocket to a ship scene. Without this he could have conveyed that viruses killed the aliens with narrative and visuals.

That's not to say that he doesn't show that the alien looks sick at the end, nor that Freeman didn't state that fact, but let's be honest, the script (terribly) reads out all this info about where the aliens came from, how they got there, etc, via characters knowing WAY more than they should, but at the end all you get is "what's going on, I'm confused".

It would have been MUCH MUCH better to just have the ships crashing on their own and to have them find MANY sick aliens as they died. He could have the same geniuses that figured out that the ships had been buried "for millions of years" realize that they were dying of illness of some type.


By using the birds to point out that the shields are down he confused audiences, and by insisting that humans be pro-active in the end rather than just surviving a natural disaster beyond their scope to fight against, he totally confuses the end narrative.



Also, put me down as a person that doesn't mind that the kid lived, but HATED that their block was the only one untouched in the city (check the pullback far shot), had ZERO blood or red vines on it apparently, and that the other family not only didn't deal with the horrors that everyone else did but that they didn't even LEAVE HOME!!!

I mean wouldn't the mom try to make it to her kids just as much as he would try to make it to her? Would it have been so bad to just have the home/street beat up like his street was and have them bloody and having been through hell?


And to be honest, it would have been very powerful to have the son still dead, and wouldn't have made the ending less happy. After all there were 2 metaphors going on, 1) he learns to let his son go, and that doesn't always mean he comes back, that's the power of letting go in the first place, and 2) he learned to be a responsible parent and to save their daughter. That 2nd part is more than enough for a "thank you" from Otto, managing to keep at least one of their kids alive.


It's like watching The Pianist and finding out at the end that the rest of Brody's family was just fine and living at their old home which was apparently untouched. It's not that we need THEM to suffer, but that we need them (and Brody, and Cruise in WotW) to endure THE SAME THING that everyone else is.

Death was random and widespread. Having them make it perfectly while other families were losing 50% of more of their members undermines all the horrors that everyone else is going through. As he goes along seeing all this destruction we are seeing it too, and to have him in the end get everything back seems to send the message that horrible disasters can somehow be "avoided" or "ridden out" till everything is okay again.

If indeed SS is being metaphorical for the halocaust then this seems rather cheap to me, saying that some Jews could just "hang in there" and then go back to normal. Obviously the point is that events like that leave PERMANENT scars on everyone they touch.

Sure they all have mental scars, blah, blah, blah, but this is a film narrative dealing with images and ideas of the film's time frame, not "what will tomorrow be like". The scenes you end on are your final messages.

 

[John Doran]

fair enough, but you haven't lost me; just because there's one 100 square-yard area that hasn't been razed to the ground, it's unrealistic? c'mon. that's just ridiculous; even if enough tripods had emerged for there to be one tripod per square mile, there would still have been pockets of relative calm in certain neighbourhoods; it's simply not reasonable to believe that every stretch of road in the country would have been annihilated by an alien war-machine.

and what does that mean, anyway: should have died? he didn't die, and neither did he die in wells' original text, despite the overwhelming odds against him. what're you getting at?