War of the Worlds (2005) Reviews?

[mbw555]

Has anybody seen a DVD review for War of the Worlds (2005) ?

[dvdmovie1]

There will likely not be one, at least until after street date, as this is (unless I'm mistaken) a Dreamworks title.

[Zodiac_Speaking]

I'm skipping it regardless.

[Giles]

I'd rent it again to see the great SFX work... but the acting - eesh!

[Josh Z]

I'd rent it again to see the great SFX work... but the acting - eesh!

There was nothing particularly wrong with the acting. As much as Tom Cruise made a buffoon out of himself in the media this year, his performance in the film was solid. It's the writing that was the big problem, as usual per Steven "I'm Going to Make 3/4 of a Good Film and Then Totally Fuck It Up in the End" Spielberg.

[dcprules]

I'm really looking forward to watching this again on DVD. The DTS should be AMAZING!!!!! Hoping for a review soon...

[JM1]

Picked up and early release copy of the R1 limited edition yesterday (based in UK). Just a few impressions...

First off, the limited edition is a pretty decent looking package on the outside. The outer slipcase has a sort of silvery sheen to it, and the alien hand encircling the earth is raised to give a sort of 3D effect. When you remove the wrapping, you have one of those removable pieces of paper on the back with the back cover detail. Always find those somewhat redundant and very rarely keep them. The inner case is a gatefold type with excellent artwork mixed in with scenes from the film - all appropriately in red hues. Ni insert, for those who care about such things.

I watched the movie last night, and pleased to report the pic and sound are nothing less than first class. Yes - the DTS track rocks, and really jolts you out of your seat, especially during the opening sequences of destruction. Lots of use of surrounds, and lots of lovely bass. The varied colour palette is captured perfectly, and pic is sharp.

No commentary, but extras are plentiful and informing. There are a few short pieces on the inspiration provided by the original novel and movie, a feature on Wells himself, scoring the film, realising the Alien designs, galleries, production notes, and a short piece discussing the link between CET3K, ET and WOTW.

But the real meat is in the 4 production diaries, which total about 90 mins altogether. Focusing on the various stages of the films production it covers pretty much all the bases and tells you everything you need to know, almost. Lots of on set stuff, ILM and various effects work, involvement and interviews with all the principals etc. Interesting to see how much was shot on location using practical effects, and how that was married in with the CGI work. There is some insight into Speilbergs decisions to change certain story elements and make certain choices, though it would have been nice to hear more.

I wanted to see how the car ride sequence at the start was done, when Cruise and his kids are fleeing just after the bridge blows up behind them. Unfortunately this is not covered.The sequence goes on for a few minutes with the camera swinging in and around the moving car - I was curious to see if the actors were on a soundstage and the backgrounds were cgi, or if it was a real car ride with some cgi enhancement for the camera moves. Either way it's a superb shot.

I really enjoyed this on first viewing, and did so just as much last night. I know it has it's detractors, and people have major issues with the last third of the movie. But I like Speilbergs approach to the film, the realistic way in which the action is captured by the camera - often not full on in a big sci-fi effects movie kind of way, but from a distance, through windows, from moving cars, through trees or crowds etc. Pretty much as it would be in real life. It's an interesting approach, though I can see how those wanting a full-on ID4 type of movie may have been dissapointed with it.

Some also had issues with the device of centering the story on Cruise's determination to save his children, and telling it from the perspective of the little man on the ground. Yes, there are times when this got a little cloying, especially at the end, but most of the time I thought it worked very well, and in fact by using this approach it illustrated the disaster elements of the story over the sci-fi spectacular cliches, and showing the futility of human resistance, the depths to which man is prepared to descend and the hoplessness of fighting back.

Though there are spectacular sequences in the movie, I thought it was brave of Speilberg to hold back and not deliberately show major battles in glorious detail, particularly in the battle on the hillside. We don't really need to see it, the effects and the aftermath are far more disturbing.

As for the sequence with Tim Robbins character in the basement, yes it went on too long, and it was not nescessary to show the aliens in so much detail. But apart from that I thought it worked very well. We complain that modern action sci-fi movies are all effects and explosions, and here was a different approach that for me worked largely very well.

As for the ending which again a lot of people seemed to have an issue with (and I'm talking about the demise of the Aliens, not the reunion), I just don't see the problem. It actually makes perfect sense, and avoids having to have a cliched, last-ditch hero rescuing humanity type ending. And it's the ending which Wells wrote anyway. Curious that so many people always claim about story changes in remakes, but yet still complain about this ending.

Actually, Speilberg kept pretty much to the original story, despite the modern day updating. Elements such as the red weed, the harvesting, the villainous character (Robbins), the ship sequence, and the clever way in which much of the action takes place in rural areas, which echoed the original English setting of the story.

As for the nitpicking, like how the aliens remained undetected for so many years - come on, it's sci-fi, there could be any number of reasons why. The fact that this is not answered should not be viewed as a problem, I don't think it's the primary job of filmakers to answer and address every question, the main focus is to entertain. And we all know by now that all filmakers will always go for what creates the best effect and looks good, even if it does not always make sense. If you go with it, I find you enjoy the film much more. If you want to sit there and nitpick and go "Huh?" - fine, but I think you're just putting barriers up to your enjoyment.

[matome]

Wow, sounds good! :up: Can't wait to hear the DTS!

[TomOpus]

Thanks for the review... really looking forward to this.

[Filmmaker]

So you're confirming that there is, in fact, NO trailer for the film to be found anywhere, correct?

[JM1]

Yep...no trailer, no commentary, no insert.

Problem?

[Filmmaker]

A big one, but I'll still be happily buying it...

[JM1]

At least you have decided you will be buying it, and I don't think you'll be disappointed.

I just don't understand these people who don't actually pay any attention to what the disc does contain, and the fact that it's and excellent transfer - it's just that knee-jerk "no insert/commentary/trailers - no sale" attitide that gets me.

Commentary - well surprise surprise, it's a Speilberg movie, so no surprise there.

Insert - gatefold design of the limited edition packaging has no holder for an insert, so it's not like there is an empty holder like on other discs.

Trailers - I really cannot understand this - you have the darn movie in your hand, what do you want the trailers for, and how often are you going to watch them?

I just find it hard to fathom that some people will happily pass on an excellent disc just to make a point because one or all of the above are missing - and in the naive belief that their protest is somehow going to affect the sales figures.

[Filmmaker]

I understand your stance on "no [x]--no sale" and agree, it's usually a little over the top. Even I won't pass on a title if the trailer is left off (hell, these days I'd hardly be buying DVDs if that was the case), but IMO, they are the single most important extra a DVD can have, and no matter how many other extras are layered on, no disc will ever be really Special/Deluxe/Ultimate without one. As far as my reasons why, just do a search--I've opined with others like me on the issue ad infinitum before and I'm too tired to type out the old argument again...

[Artman]

Thanks for the early review, can't wait! And I agree with your opinions on the film 100%. It actually did contain many (updated) scenes from the novel, just with a diff twist to most of them.

If anyone has any info on the BB exclusive book - let us know. With that included I don't mind paying the higher price.

[Giles]

There was nothing particularly wrong with the acting.

you're kiddin' right? cause Dakota's performance made her seem manic. Very very inconsistant acting.

[Josh Z]

you're kiddin' right? cause Dakota's performance made her seem manic. Very very inconsistant acting.

She's an 11-year old kid on the run from evil space aliens who have just blown up the city she lives in, and you're complaining that she's too "manic"?

[Giles]

She's an 11-year old kid on the run from evil space aliens who have just blown up the city she lives in, and you're complaining that she's too "manic"?

one minute, she's all freakin' out, the next she's calm as a bug, "let me cry and scream now, oh wait, let me get sassy"- just shoot her, I've liked her roles before, but here, she is downright annoying.

Joseph Mazzello and Ariana Richards were far superior in 'Jurassic Park' than Dakota was in this film IMO.

[mzupeman2]

Good call Josh Z. I mean, think about it. Worldwide extermination by these seemingly unstoppable machines, that infiltrate every nook and cranny they can find to wipe everyone out. How would all of us feel?

[JM1]

one minute, she's all freakin' out, the next she's calm as a bug, "let me cry and scream now, oh wait, let me get sassy"- just shoot her, I've liked her roles before, but here, she is downright annoying.



Oh, so in real life disasters and emergencies you hit 'manic' and stay that way permanently, do you?

[roger_d]

Saw the DVD over the weekend. Good movie but the ending, what up with that After such a good build up and such a let down ending. Everyone was disappointed. Dakota's character did get on our nerves.

[LiquidSky]

Good FX and that is about it. Grade: */****.

Giles is correct. Fanning was annoying (both kids were). She gave a strong performance in "Man on Fire" but seemed more like a prop in this movie (which is the director/writer's fault...not Fannings).

[Scott A. Aruti]

Has anybody seen a DVD review for War of the Worlds (2005) ?

Fellas,

I'll have one up today for all of you.

[al_bundy]

I thought it was OK. It's one of Steven Spielberg's money movies. Something he does just for a paycheck. The movie is OK, but it's by his movie making formula where in the end everything is well and everyone lives happily ever after.

Doesn't compare to Schindler's List.

[Terrell]

I really enjoyed this film, but one aspect annoyed me. This film was filled with so many plotholes and inconsistencies that just made me roll my eyes.

[Seeker]

I cannot believe how BAD this film was.

And plot holes and inconsistencies that made you absolutely CRINGE.

And that ending? Did they take an ending from a different movie and plug it into this one? Geez!

[Josh Z]

And that ending? Did they take an ending from a different movie and plug it into this one? Geez!

They took the ending from the original War of the Worlds.

[TimoRitzen]

Just received the Region 1 version today. Liked the movie, but the ending clearly sucked big time.
Despite that, I`m happy to add this to my collection

[mike45]

Irritating characters throughout. I wish none of them would have made it. But, Spielberg likes happy endings.

[Ambassador]

They took the ending from the original War of the Worlds.

I suspect the earlier poster was referring to the sappy ending that follows the standard Wells ending. After all, remember that there were no children in Wells' novel at all.


Surprised to see DVD Savant take this film so seriously. For an alternate take, you might want to check out DVD Beaver's damning review.

[Seeker]

I'm talking about the 'happy ending' part for the irritating family.

Of COURSE the ending about bacteria is one everyone knows about.

But, geez - everyone is dying, the father murders the guy offering them shelter because he's noisy, blood and guts everywhere,

then they all survive - even the son, AND..............

the four in the apartment looked like they had been playing cribbage the whole time, were dressed to go out to dinner, and they had electricity.

"oh, dear, the grocer down the way said he couldn't get any pipe tobacco for your pipe right now dear..."

"darn it, and i love to smoke during cribbage. ah, well, maybe at the restaurant I can get a cigar with my wine."

"Tim, isn't that my exhusband down the way carrying my daughter? Wonder how his weekend was?"

"Interesting. Let's go look!"

[Josh Z]

I'm talking about the 'happy ending' part for the irritating family.

Ah, yes, I see. I didn't really care for much of the rest of the movie either, to be honest. Some great special effects and impressive action set-pieces marred by a bad script with plot holes larger than Mars itself.

[Ambassador]

"oh, dear, the grocer down the way said he couldn't get any pipe tobacco for your pipe right now dear..."

"darn it, and i love to smoke during cribbage. ah, well, maybe at the restaurant I can get a cigar with my wine."

"Tim, isn't that my exhusband down the way carrying my daughter? Wonder how his weekend was?"

"Interesting. Let's go look!"

Oddly enough, this partially describes my Thanksgiving last week.

At least, I did play cribbage....

[Seeker]

did aliens attack, too?

[DonnachaOne]

did aliens attack, too?
He was probably playing against them. He is an Ambassador, after all.

[SuprVgeta]

The only thing lamer than the actual ending is the fact that
Robbie somehow manages to survive, that was the last straw for me

[Shannon Nutt]

Am I one of the few who actually LIKED this film? It's a popcorn movie, for heaven's sake, and a fun one at that.

[Mr. Cinema]

LOVED this movie. And the dvd has the best audio of any released this year.

[Holysmoker]

I loved it, ending and all. Geez, it's not like they were the only survivors left on the planet. The story was just about one of the families that did survive and what they went through to do so.

[dhmac]

Am I one of the few who actually LIKED this film? It's a popcorn movie, for heaven's sake, and a fun one at that.

I like it a lot and think it was a good update of the source material. And Spielberg showed that he still knows how to overcome script weaknesses to make an exciting popcorn flick - it's like watching a virtuoso in action.

(P.S. And I absolutely detest Independence Day and Armageddon, both made by complete hacks, just to show where I'm coming from, movie-wise)

[dhmac]

I suspect the earlier poster was referring to the sappy ending that follows the standard Wells ending. After all, remember that there were no children in Wells' novel at all.


Yes, but in the H.G. Wells novel...

...the narrator thought his wife was dead, but then was surprised to find out she was alive and was reunited with her at the very end of the story. So I think the Spielberg version was just updating this man-and-his-wife scenario to its man-and-his-family variation on the original storyline.

[mike45]

In the movie Tom Cruise character is a crane operator unloading container ships. He lives in a dump. Dockside crane operators can earn up to $100,000 and more a year. Show me the money !!!

[quickfire]

I loved it, ending and all. Geez, it's not like they were the only survivors left on the planet. The story was just about one of the families that did survive and what they went through to do so.
I totally agree....I LOVED IT.....remember folks its an action movie....nothing more nothing less!

[eXcentris]

It's not the "popcorn" aspect people are having problems with, it's the bad script and mediocre acting supposed to carry the "serious" parts. You want us to accept the film as "a fun action movie" then don't give us something else and expect that there won't be criticism.

[TomOpus]

How can you watch a Spielberg movie and complain about a sappy ending? It's pretty much a given, I thought... and I love his movies.

[RyoHazuki]

I really loved the movie. I thought the acting was great, besides the son. Too bad it hit during Tom's media fever or it probably would have been better recieved. Having the wife and her family be at her house is not a plot hole.


I enjoyed Savants review of the film. I too saw a lot of the 9/11 subtext littered throughout the film. It would have been lame for Speilberg to make a 9/11 movie, so he made War of the Worlds. The only problem with Savants review is this line "Cruise doesn't take his shirt off once". Yeah, actually he does.

[Josh Z]

Having the wife and her family be at her house is not a plot hole.

You want to talk plot holes? Well, here you go:

The movie suffers the same basic logical flaw as Shymalan's "Signs". The super-advanced alien species capable of travelling millions of light years across the galaxy is undone by their own thudding stupidity when it comes to very basic things, such as the need to wear an environmental suit and air mask when walking around on an unfamiliar planet. A human astronaut wouldn't travel to Mars and try to walk around naked, would he? Of course not, yet in all of these alien invasion flicks that is exactly what the aliens *always* do here. I realize that the germ angle is taken from the original Wells novel and every previous adaptation, but it could have been easily adapted for modern times by simply saying that the humans used biological weapons to defeat the aliens, which they were unprepared for. That would have been appropriate. Instead, these aliens (which like most movie aliens don't wear any clothes or uniforms of any kind) just trot around on Earth breathing in our air and are undone by microbes that, if they had truly been planning this invasion for millennia, you'd think they might have known about.

Just exactly how deep were these war machines buried, that they were never uncovered during the building of a major metropolitan city with a deep underground subway system?

If the war machines were sent to Earth millennia ago, why didn't the aliens just take over then, when they wouldn't have had much resistance? Why wait?

How feasible is an invasion plan based around the usage of weapons that (to the aliens) are millennia out of date? Look at how much our technology has advanced in just 100 years, much less a thousand or a million. It's like the US military staging the invasion of Iraq using spears and arrows.

I realize that these are aliens and we're not meant to understand their thought processes, but this was all just a little too ridiculous.

What also really bothered me was the way that Spielberg focused exclusively on Cruise and family. I mean, sure, millions upon millions of people are being exterminated, but hey it's all right now that Tom has learned how to be a better father. That's what is really important, after all.

[Shannon Nutt]

In the movie Tom Cruise character is a crane operator unloading container ships. He lives in a dump. Dockside crane operators can earn up to $100,000 and more a year. Show me the money !!!

He was obviously putting it all into that Mustang. :)

[Fan#15]

It could've been one of the best movies of all time IF THE END WASN'T SO SHITTY. I mean Spielberg is a great director but he can't finish a movie with a bang. I know plenty of directors that can.

[Patman]

In the movie Tom Cruise character is a crane operator unloading container ships. He lives in a dump. Dockside crane operators can earn up to $100,000 and more a year. Show me the money !!!

Maybe the child support was taking a nice chunk of his income. Plus, he seemed to be adverse to working extra shifts.

[Filmmaker]

You want to talk plot holes? Well, here you go:

With all due respect, I think you're confusing plot holes with David Koepp/H.G. Wells respecting your intelligence enough for you to fill some of the blanks in as you see fit. A plot hole is, for example, establishing that a character is allergic to peanuts, then having him eat peanut butter without il effect later on. Your issues are just open-ended curiosities.

The movie suffers the same basic logical flaw as Shymalan's "Signs". The super-advanced alien species capable of travelling millions of light years across the galaxy is undone by their own thudding stupidity when it comes to very basic things, such as the need to wear an environmental suit and air mask when walking around on an unfamiliar planet. A human astronaut wouldn't travel to Mars and try to walk around naked, would he? Of course not, yet in all of these alien invasion flicks that is exactly what the aliens *always* do here. I realize that the germ angle is taken from the original Wells novel and every previous adaptation, but it could have been easily adapted for modern times by simply saying that the humans used biological weapons to defeat the aliens, which they were unprepared for. That would have been appropriate. Instead, these aliens (which like most movie aliens don't wear any clothes or uniforms of any kind) just trot around on Earth breathing in our air and are undone by microbes that, if they had truly been planning this invasion for millennia, you'd think they might have known about.

As has been mentioned umpteen times, this was inherent in the plot of the original novel, and the first filmed version. If you take issue with it, the ultimate blame lies with H.G. Wells, not Spielberg or Koepp. I simply cannot grasp why this issue has not prevented the novel from being considered an unparalleled sci-fi classic, and no one derided the plot device in the '50s film, but now, because Spielberg is attached to the story, everyone is in attack mode.

Just exactly how deep were these war machines buried, that they were never uncovered during the building of a major metropolitan city with a deep underground subway system?

How deep do you want them to be for the story to work for you? Even the deepest waterworks and subways of Man are barely a scratch in the surface of the globe.

If the war machines were sent to Earth millennia ago, why didn't the aliens just take over then, when they wouldn't have had much resistance? Why wait?

How feasible is an invasion plan based around the usage of weapons that (to the aliens) are millennia out of date? Look at how much our technology has advanced in just 100 years, much less a thousand or a million. It's like the US military staging the invasion of Iraq using spears and arrows.

I don't know, and I won't presume for you, but really, are you lambasting films that don't fill in every nook and cranny for you? That actually have a sense of nuance and mystery?

What also really bothered me was the way that Spielberg focused exclusively on Cruise and family. I mean, sure, millions upon millions of people are being exterminated, but hey it's all right now that Tom has learned how to be a better father. That's what is really important, after all.

Oh, I see--you wanted INDEPENDENCE DAY 2.

[Josh Z]

With all due respect, I think you're confusing plot holes with David Koepp/H.G. Wells respecting your intelligence enough for you to fill some of the blanks in as you see fit.

Respecting our intelligence?! Are you joking?! Not thinking through the logical implications of the plot they've written is not respecting anyone's intelligence. Quite the opposite, actually.

As has been mentioned umpteen times, this was inherent in the plot of the original novel, and the first filmed version. If you take issue with it, the ultimate blame lies with H.G. Wells, not Spielberg or Koepp. I simply cannot grasp why this issue has not prevented the novel from being considered an unparalleled sci-fi classic, and no one derided the plot device in the '50s film, but now, because Spielberg is attached to the story, everyone is in attack mode.

You know what, the ending might have worked if not for the scene in the basement where the aliens prance around naked, completely unprotected from the elements, to look at old photos. If they had just stayed in their war machines and been infected anyway (from all the humans they were grinding to pulp), it would have been fine. The addition of that scene, however, shows us that these aliens are just frickin' morons.

I don't know, and I won't presume for you, but really, are you lambasting films that don't fill in every nook and cranny for you? That actually have a sense of nuance and mystery?

Oh, I see--you wanted INDEPENDENCE DAY 2.

Where are you getting this stuff? For the record, I hated Independence Day for the same reasons I didn't like this one, because it was utterly mindless. What I wanted from War of the Worlds was a movie that wouldn't be totally idiotic, whose writers would put more than 5 minutes of thought into the story they'd written. Unfortunately, that isn't what we got.

[Filmmaker]

Where are you getting this stuff?

From you--if you hated the film because it concentrated on the microcosm of the attack, rather than the macrocosm, then it sounds like you just wanted a replay of INDEPENDENCE DAY.

None of this addresses why you're holding Koepp/Spielberg accountable for the perceived sins of H. G. Wells; frankly, it just sounds like anti-Spielberg sour grapes to me. None of your gripes stopped the original novel from being considered a sci-fi classic, nor the original film. I fail to see how or why they would do so now.

[Josh Z]

From you--if you hated the film because it concentrated on the microcosm of the attack, rather than the macrocosm, then it sounds like you just wanted a replay of INDEPENDENCE DAY.

None of this addresses why you're holding Koepp/Spielberg accountable for the perceived sins of H. G. Wells; frankly, it just sounds like anti-Spielberg sour grapes to me. None of your gripes stopped the original novel from being considered a sci-fi classic, nor the original film. I fail to see how or why they would do so now.

Perhaps if you'd bother to actually read all of what I've written, rather than just one sentence, it might be clearer to you. Koepp and Spielberg didn't just copy Wells' novel. They took one solitary element of the novel and placed it into a new context where it just doesn't work, and failed to justify it in any logical way.

This isn't anti-Spielberg sour grapes. I have great respect for Spielberg as a technician of amazing visuals. Unfortunately, he's a terribly sloppy storyteller who has been getting worse and worse with each new movie he's made over the past decade or so.

[Filmmaker]

Perhaps if you'd bother to actually read all of what I've written, rather than just one sentence, it might be clearer to you.

Trust me, I read it in full--I never pass up good comedy.

Koepp and Spielberg didn't just copy Wells' novel. They took one solitary element of the novel and placed it into a new context where it just doesn't work, and failed to justify it in any logical way.

Funny, other than the requisite dialogue changes necessary for modernizing the story, a location shift to better entice the "home" audience, a shift in family dynamics from the book's husband/wife to father/children and a slight spin on how the tripods initiate their invasion, I'd say the film was nearly a play-by-play remake of the novel--far from one that only retained "one solitary element" (which, by the way, in the banquet of your complaints, what "one solitary element" are you now prepared to focus your ire on?), and FAR closer to the original text than the 1953 film that receives only affection from the cineaste community.

This isn't anti-Spielberg sour grapes. I have great respect for Spielberg as a technician of amazing visuals. Unfortunately, he's a terribly sloppy storyteller who has been getting worse and worse with each new movie he's made over the past decade or so.

I still say it sounds like sour grapes because your complaints narrow down to either it wasn't close enough to the original text (in which case, you should be exalting Spielberg's version as, at least, a great improvement over the 1953 film) or it was too close (in which case, you should direct your ire to Wells, not Spielberg or Koepp). So far, I don't see any complaints you are making that are not better directed at a different source except, perhaps, some of your complaints about plot vaguaries which, again, I maintain is sad to see--it reads as Josh Z Needs Everything Spelled Out For Him In 6-Foot Tall Neon Letters, Hollywood.

[Adam Tyner]

This is getting a little nasty. Try to tone down the insults.

[dadaluholla]

I thought War of the Worlds (2005) was pretty entertaining except for the ending.

It's just a movie. Ehhh?

[al_bundy]

With all due respect, I think you're confusing plot holes with David Koepp/H.G. Wells respecting your intelligence enough for you to fill some of the blanks in as you see fit. A plot hole is, for example, establishing that a character is allergic to peanuts, then having him eat peanut butter without il effect later on. Your issues are just open-ended curiosities.



As has been mentioned umpteen times, this was inherent in the plot of the original novel, and the first filmed version. If you take issue with it, the ultimate blame lies with H.G. Wells, not Spielberg or Koepp. I simply cannot grasp why this issue has not prevented the novel from being considered an unparalleled sci-fi classic, and no one derided the plot device in the '50s film, but now, because Spielberg is attached to the story, everyone is in attack mode.



How deep do you want them to be for the story to work for you? Even the deepest waterworks and subways of Man are barely a scratch in the surface of the globe.



I don't know, and I won't presume for you, but really, are you lambasting films that don't fill in every nook and cranny for you? That actually have a sense of nuance and mystery?



Oh, I see--you wanted INDEPENDENCE DAY 2.


in the book didn't Wells have the aliens come via meteors or what looked like meteors? I didn't get the reason for sending the machines in millions of years before the aliens arrived.

And why does everyone always want to make a movie with stupid aliens that can't talk, don't wear clothes and don't seem to use their limbs to make things? Aren't the basic precursors to modern technology the ability to communicate and to manipulate objects with your limbs?

[mbs]

I didn't get the reason for sending the machines in millions of years before the aliens arrived.


My guess was that they did this on many planets as a type of "backup" plan. Perhaps they were worried about the end of their planet (star going supernova, perhaps) and could predict this 1 million years ago. Thus, they placed machines on many planets. In the end, they chose to attack Earth, maybe it seemed better suited than the others. Perhaps after the movie ends and their advances foiled on earth, they go attack another planet they had previously seeded.

Just my best guess for an explanation...

[TimeandTide]

And why does everyone always want to make a movie with stupid aliens that can't talk, don't wear clothes and don't seem to use their limbs to make things? Aren't the basic precursors to modern technology the ability to communicate and to manipulate objects with your limbs?

Everyone knows that aliens are so advanced on the evolutionary scale that they a.) communicate telepathically, b.) have developed Goretex-like hides and c.) enslave opposable-thumbed humans to make all of their stuff.

Regarding the film, which I saw for the first time this weekend, I felt the whole "daddy issues" bit was a weak attempt to inject some melodrama into what really was just a better shot and more graphic Independence Day. Was seriously let down by the abrupt ending but if Spielberg did indeed remain true to the source material, then no fault of his.

[Richard Malloy]

I have my issues with the film, particularly Tim Robbins' poor performance (uncharacteristic, but not without precedent) and the survival of the son (who's death would otherwise be one of the more poignant aspects). And I cannot buy Tom Cruise's middle-America cheesiness and shit-eating grin cast in the role of a blue collar Brooklyn guy. But I loved the way the extermination took place with ease and grim finality, the unceasing and unsparing destruction of everything in the paths of the tripods, the horrific images of people's insides being sucked out to (nourish?) the transformed ecosystem, and the easy brutality of humans in distress, turning on one another for the slightest perceived advantage. There were enough morbid, true elements to counterbalance the inevitable cheese, and Spielberg continues to get away with the most extreme PG-13 content.

I love the ending, always have loved the ending, even given the notion that a highly evolved alien race should probably understand such microbal dangers. It's an elegant critique of anthrocentrism, a perfect little twist that undermines the presumption that homo sapiens are somehow more significant than the rest of the fauna and flora of the planet, that we are the planet's sole masters and defenders. So, the humans despair that the war is essentially lost and all but line up for the inevitable slaughter, only to discover that the truly dominant and enduring species on this planet had been quietly waging a most effective if purely instinctive war against the intruders all along. Flashing back to the opening pullback shot, from the micro- to the macro-scopic, and the realization that our hubris was perhaps only exceeded by that of the aliens.

Not a great film, but a very good one I thought.

[al_bundy]

the whole terraforming thing was a nice add on

from what i remember HG Wells said the only thing they had was a death ray laser type thing and all they did was destroy with it. The whole thing of taking people and using them as some kind of terraform feeder material was kind of spooky.

[DVD King]

I tend to agree with Filmmaker -- for all the complaints about plot holes, one aspect that shouldn't be forgotten is that the story is told in first person. I don't understand how tom cruise is supposed to get in a conversation, or come across some alien plans that make it apparent as to how and why they left their tripods in the earth for millions of years. If aliens are attacking the planet, I think that some of the details can be left to speculation.

I thought it was a decent movie, not excellent. I did like what Savant had to say about it being more of a modest update of a genre-classic. I also don't agree with Gary Tooze's extreme view, Speilberg is too smart a filmmaker to make a straight-up, mindless exploitation film.

[Josh Z]

So far, I don't see any complaints you are making that are not better directed at a different source except, perhaps, some of your complaints about plot vaguaries which, again, I maintain is sad to see--it reads as Josh Z Needs Everything Spelled Out For Him In 6-Foot Tall Neon Letters, Hollywood.

I don't need everything spelled out for me, but if the Filmmakers are going to include illogical and patently ridiculous plot elements in their movie they need some sort of justification for them. This movie offered no justification, because Spielberg and Koepp can't be bothered to spend any time on little things like logic or plausibility when they could be zapping more people into dust and setting trains on fire. Who needs to waste time on a decent script when you can stage cool set-pieces like those?

Richard makes a good case for the elegance of Wells' ending, but the movie has no such elegance. The subtext of humanity's insignificance compared to micro-organisms is almost completely absent in the movie. The movie just inspires reactions of: "Ha ha, those aliens sure are dumbasses!!"

in the book didn't Wells have the aliens come via meteors or what looked like meteors? I didn't get the reason for sending the machines in millions of years before the aliens arrived.

The real reason for this is that Spielberg didn't want his movie compared to Independence Day or to hear the inevitable "Been there, done that" complaints if he staged a traditional aliens-descend-from-the-sky invasion. So instead he had the aliens come up from the ground, which is a novel and "cool" idea, even if it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

I tend to agree with Filmmaker -- for all the complaints about plot holes, one aspect that shouldn't be forgotten is that the story is told in first person. I don't understand how tom cruise is supposed to get in a conversation, or come across some alien plans that make it apparent as to how and why they left their tripods in the earth for millions of years.

You have to ask why Spielberg chose to stage the story as a microcosm. He could have chosen to develop an interesting storyline about why things were happening the way they did, but it's much easier instead to ignore all that stuff and tell the story from an "average joe" perspective instead, so that we can get all weepy when he and his cute-as-a-button precocious daughter are put in harms way. The child-in-danger plot conceit is lazy, and Spielberg relies on it way too much in his movies.

[DVD King]

If I get what you're implying, I don't think the details of the plot had anything to do with his decision for a first person account, that was probably what attracted him to the job to begin with. His films all tend to concentrate on a few center characters, or a family, rather than the going-ons around them. So at least that omits him from being lazy and not filling in the blanks.

I liked the microcosm aspect, if he would have expanded it could have started to resemble independence day. As overused as the family-in-danger plot is, there's no doubt it's effective. I thought it was one of the most suspenseful movies to come out of hollywood in awhile, of what i've cared to watch.

[Filmmaker]

I don't need everything spelled out for me, but if the Filmmakers are going to include illogical and patently ridiculous plot elements in their movie they need some sort of justification for them. This movie offered no justification, because Spielberg and Koepp can't be bothered to spend any time on little things like logic or plausibility when they could be zapping more people into dust and setting trains on fire. Who needs to waste time on a decent script when you can stage cool set-pieces like those?

As has already been noted, it would have taken the most extreme and unlikely contortions of plotting to have this first-person type of narrative fill in every little mystery of the nature of the invasion (did you know exactly what happened on 9/11 and how and why? Did the people at Ground Zero?). You can hem and haw all you want but the fact is, you're still asking for Spielberg to spoon feed you information that, were Tom Cruise's character and situation real, he would have NEVER discovered on his own. Just fess up to it, man.

Richard makes a good case for the elegance of Wells' ending, but the movie has no such elegance. The subtext of humanity's insignificance compared to micro-organisms is almost completely absent in the movie. The movie just inspires reactions of: "Ha ha, those aliens sure are dumbasses!!"

I'm now convinced you've never read the novel. The film incorporates the very TEXT that was in the novel--neither does a better or more complete job than the other for conveying "elegance" in its resolution.

The real reason for this is that Spielberg didn't want his movie compared to Independence Day or to hear the inevitable "Been there, done that" complaints if he staged a traditional aliens-descend-from-the-sky invasion. So instead he had the aliens come up from the ground, which is a novel and "cool" idea, even if it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.

mbs offered a pretty compelling explanation--are you too prideful to admit such? Would it have the unfortunate effect of supporting my argument that there is value in Spielberg leaving some mystery for the audience?

You have to ask why Spielberg chose to stage the story as a microcosm. He could have chosen to develop an interesting storyline about why things were happening the way they did, but it's much easier instead to ignore all that stuff and tell the story from an "average joe" perspective instead, so that we can get all weepy when he and his cute-as-a-button precocious daughter are put in harms way. The child-in-danger plot conceit is lazy, and Spielberg relies on it way too much in his movies.

And here lies more proof that you've never read the original novel. This is where my ire comes from--you continue to insist (with the solitary exception of the underground tripods, which I've defended above) on holding Spielberg accountable for "sins" committed by Well's original novel AND the 1953 film. If you don't like the film, fine, but lay blame where it truly lies--on the source material from the outset. And if you haven't read the book and haven't seen the '50s film (which seems to be the case in both respects), then I humbly request you respect Spielberg enough, since you're such a self-professed fan, to check those out before you hold him accountable for no greater crime then remaining as true as a modernized retelling can be to the original source material. If you continue to steadfastly refuse to do so, then I will continue to call a sour-grapes-on-Spielberg spade a sour-grapes-on-Spielberg spade.

[al_bundy]

I don't need everything spelled out for me, but if the Filmmakers are going to include illogical and patently ridiculous plot elements in their movie they need some sort of justification for them. This movie offered no justification, because Spielberg and Koepp can't be bothered to spend any time on little things like logic or plausibility when they could be zapping more people into dust and setting trains on fire. Who needs to waste time on a decent script when you can stage cool set-pieces like those?

Richard makes a good case for the elegance of Wells' ending, but the movie has no such elegance. The subtext of humanity's insignificance compared to micro-organisms is almost completely absent in the movie. The movie just inspires reactions of: "Ha ha, those aliens sure are dumbasses!!"



The real reason for this is that Spielberg didn't want his movie compared to Independence Day or to hear the inevitable "Been there, done that" complaints if he staged a traditional aliens-descend-from-the-sky invasion. So instead he had the aliens come up from the ground, which is a novel and "cool" idea, even if it doesn't make the slightest bit of sense.



You have to ask why Spielberg chose to stage the story as a microcosm. He could have chosen to develop an interesting storyline about why things were happening the way they did, but it's much easier instead to ignore all that stuff and tell the story from an "average joe" perspective instead, so that we can get all weepy when he and his cute-as-a-button precocious daughter are put in harms way. The child-in-danger plot conceit is lazy, and Spielberg relies on it way too much in his movies.


Spielberg is the kind of storyteller that likes to hone in on an individual story in the context of a larger event.

D-Day, he tells the story of a small unit searching for one person and the movie is more about the interactions of the unit members and their reactions in a stressful environment than how D-Day happened and what Rommell or some other general did. Everyone knows what happened, but he likes the individual story.

Schindler's List. Everyone knows about the holocaust, but he concentrated on a few people and how they survived it.

Band of Brothers. Everyone knows how the allies won the war in europe. He tells the story of a group of soldiers and their perspective. In The Battle of the Bulge he didn't show any tank battles, but instead how the soldiers lived in their little part of the battlefield holding off the germans.

War of the Worlds. Everyone knows the basic story and ID4 covered it from the top down already. Spielberg wanted to tell it from an individual's perspective which was pretty good in spite of my opinion of the film as a whole. In spite of what I think of some things being dumb like buried tripods, the movie didn't need to explain how or why the aliens attacked except for some rumors here and there that a normal person would pick up while fleeing from the aliens.

It's like when you watch the news or read the newspaper. The reporters always mention one or two people and what happened to them to make you think that this is happenening everywhere but to give the story a personal perspective.

[eXcentris]

Spielberg is the kind of storyteller that likes to hone in on an individual story in the context of a larger event.



I agree. The problem here is that the father/kids relationship is too thin to carry a whole film. Also, I don't particularly like Cruise but in this case he din't make or break the film. The two kids however were annoying. And that scene in the basement just seemed to me to have been thrown in there as a "oh geez we better see them interacting with someone, preferably a lunatic". That whole bit seemed out of place.

[Filmmaker]

But...it's...in...the...book.

[al_bundy]

I agree. The problem here is that the father/kids relationship is too thin to carry a whole film. Also, I don't particularly like Cruise but in this case he din't make or break the film. The two kids however were annoying. And that scene in the basement just seemed to me to have been thrown in there as a "oh geez we better see them interacting with someone, preferably a lunatic". That whole bit seemed out of place.

i thought the basement scene was dumb. The aliens have all this technology to travel the stars, but they can't detect people hiding out in a basement with simple sensors?

[maingon]

you're kiddin' right? cause Dakota's performance made her seem manic. Very very inconsistant acting.


I loved the movie and I thought the acting was terrific espeically from Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning, she really was fantastic, Dont know any young kids and can act as good as her

[eXcentris]

But...it's...in...the...book.


So...what...? I haven't read the book, I don't care bout the book, I'm not reading a book, I'm watching a movie. If Speilberg wanted to remain faithful to the book, it was his job to make the material works on screen. Dismissing every criticism of the film with "but it's in the book!" just doesn't cut it.

[chipmac]

I watched this again last night with my 15 year old son. He's read the book and has seen the 1953 version while I did neither. At the end he immediately knew who would show up and how it was ending. Since I've read a fair amount about the book and earlier movie and how they were slightly different from this version I asked him how he knew. His response was that it just made sense to end that way if they were following the original story line. So even if the characters are different it seemed to follow close enough for him to extrapolate the ending in this adaptation.

[ItsGreekToMe]

Oddly enough, this partially describes my Thanksgiving last week.

At least, I did play cribbage....

Wait a minute. HOLD IT! I've got to say ONE thing before this goes ANY further!






The horror in this film pales in comparison to the horror of PLAYING CRIBBAGE!


Seriously, I picked up the 2-disc set as a blind buy and watched on Thanksgiving with the family and I was not disapointed. A very entertaining film! I pretty much agreed with JM1's review.

[ItsGreekToMe]

It could've been one of the best movies of all time IF THE END WASN'T SO SHITTY. I mean Spielberg is a great director but he can't finish a movie with a bang. I know plenty of directors that can.

I can think of a certain shark that would disagree with that. :rimshot:

[ItsGreekToMe]

Where are you getting this stuff? For the record, I hated Independence Day for the same reasons I didn't like this one, because it was utterly mindless. What I wanted from War of the Worlds was a movie that wouldn't be totally idiotic, whose writers would put more than 5 minutes of thought into the story they'd written. Unfortunately, that isn't what we got.

I'm reminded of Chevy Chase's quip to Roger Ebert -- "We'll all be looking foreward to your next film."

[pro-bassoonist]

I have my issues with the film, particularly Tim Robbins' poor performance (uncharacteristic, but not without precedent) and the survival of the son (who's death would otherwise be one of the more poignant aspects). And I cannot buy Tom Cruise's middle-America cheesiness and shit-eating grin cast in the role of a blue collar Brooklyn guy....

Richard's partial summary above is exactly the reason why I thought that this was a horrible film!! Unlike some on this forum I have no problem with the way the story was structured...there is just so much that the director could have done with the story...and remain original. There is however A LOT which the director could have done with the acting...which basically goes back to the reason I think Spielberg always ends up making terribly flawed films even though they come up in splendid packages (great special effects, sound, etc). Furthermore, I see above films such as Schindler's List, Band of Brothers...etc, being mentioned...the reason War of the Worlds is such a terrible film is once again fueled by the fact that Spielberg consistently makes all these sloppy, utterly destructive, statements (Tim Robbins' character as Richard mentions above is absolutely terrible) where everything that the film tries to accomplish is being flushed out with poor, typical Hollywood-esque empty dialogs (remeber the stupid scene between Cruise and Robbins where just about everything had to be spelled out for the audience...)...which actually is the reason why I dislike Schindler's List so much...in a manner of minutes a serious film was made into yet another Hollywood "big statement"-picture. At least as far as I am concerned sometimes it is better to reveal less than chew everything for the viewer. That is my only gripe with War of the Worlds...everything else was rather decent.

Ciao,
Pro-b

[Josh Z]

So...what...? I haven't read the book, I don't care bout the book, I'm not reading a book, I'm watching a movie. If Speilberg wanted to remain faithful to the book, it was his job to make the material works on screen. Dismissing every criticism of the film with "but it's in the book!" just doesn't cut it.

Precisely. The book was written over 100 years ago and our understanding of the world and the universe has changed by exponential leaps and bounds in that time. While Spielberg was clearly aiming to create an homage to the book, he was not as concerned with remaining faithful to it as Filmmaker would have us believe. In many ways, the movie was significantly altered or updated. However, he retained certain plot points that DO NOT WORK in a modern context.

We should learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them.

[Josh Z]

I'm reminded of Chevy Chase's quip to Roger Ebert -- "We'll all be looking foreward to your next film."

"Yeah, why don't you do it? So there! Nyaaa!!" is the laziest form of infantile comeback. Artisitic criticism has served a legitimate and useful purpose for hundreds if not thousands of years.

[Seeker]

I keep hearing 'it was in the book' as a defense of this movie.

Sorry, the movie was bad in many many ways that had nothing to do with Well's plot.

Example:

The lightning strikes take out everything electrical - even his WATCH stops working. But within minutes, we're watching the tripod come out of the ground, and people are taking pictures with cell phones, and there is a definately working videocam. No one can tell me that was in the book, and it is a plothole a mile wide.

There are MANY examples of junk like this, and they have nothing to do with the book.

Take the ending - sure they survive, but again, their house is the only house that appears unaffected, as if the war of the worlds occurred around them, while they stayed nicely dressed, and as I said, appeared to have been having coffee and cakes and playing cribbage. Couldn't they AT LEAST have made it look like they'd also gone through at least a small piece of hell of the last couple of days? Again, their look and appearance has nothing to do with the book's insistence on their survival.

[Fok]

this was a real let down to the original.............way to go hollywood

[Sewso]

this was a real let down to the original.............way to go hollywood

I wish I'd have read some of the reviews of this before I ordered it, what an awful movie, really really Bad!

[al_bundy]

I keep hearing 'it was in the book' as a defense of this movie.

Sorry, the movie was bad in many many ways that had nothing to do with Well's plot.

Example:

The lightning strikes take out everything electrical - even his WATCH stops working. But within minutes, we're watching the tripod come out of the ground, and people are taking pictures with cell phones, and there is a definately working videocam. No one can tell me that was in the book, and it is a plothole a mile wide.

There are MANY examples of junk like this, and they have nothing to do with the book.

Take the ending - sure they survive, but again, their house is the only house that appears unaffected, as if the war of the worlds occurred around them, while they stayed nicely dressed, and as I said, appeared to have been having coffee and cakes and playing cribbage. Couldn't they AT LEAST have made it look like they'd also gone through at least a small piece of hell of the last couple of days? Again, their look and appearance has nothing to do with the book's insistence on their survival.


that was kind of funny

half of boston was destroyed by the few tripods there, but they were in their nice and clean neighborhood and seemed to be waiting around not doing anything. just waiting to die.

[dadaluholla]

I finally watched the dvd last night and i have to say I liked it slightly more than i did when I saw it at the theater in the summer.

[Filmmaker]

Okay, Josh Z and eXcentris, let's just change it up until the film bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original text. Hell, we'll even rename it THE SCIENTOLOGIST VS. THE SCIENCE-FICTION! Stray too far from the text and you have everyone venting that they pissed all over the original (like what you hear with 80% of the filmed novels coming out of Hollywood), not to mention you lose the whole point of doing a translation in the first place. You guys didn't like it, fine. You guys think the plot is faulty and problematic, I get that. All I ask is that you lay blame where it is truly due--with H.G. Wells. Since neither is willing to do that and, in your complaints, you don't even make passing reference to the original novel, or even the classic first film (which you'd probably love because it strayed so much farther from Wells's novel--oh, well up until that damnable ending they all share, that is), it becomes blatantly clear that your entire diatribe adds until to Spielberg hate. Until you show a meaningful desire to argue the perceived failings of WAR OF THE WORLDS from the perspective of flaws inherent in the story from the written novel on, I'll be done here. The only items that wouldn't qualify would the underground tripods, which I and others have expressed no issue with due to our ability to think and reason out the possibilites behind this creative choice ourselves, and the working camcorder after the EMP effect, which I agree is a valid complaint, but isn't remotely harmful enough to torpedo the film as a whole.

[dhmac]

I keep hearing 'it was in the book' as a defense of this movie.

Sorry, the movie was bad in many many ways that had nothing to do with Well's plot.

Example:

The lightning strikes take out everything electrical - even his WATCH stops working. But within minutes, we're watching the tripod come out of the ground, and people are taking pictures with cell phones, and there is a definately working videocam. No one can tell me that was in the book, and it is a plothole a mile wide.


Not if those devices weren't "on" when the lightning took out every electical device that was "on" at the time of the strike (including cars, which run some electical devices like clocks and alarms even when the car is parked with the engine off). Sorry, not a plothole.

[nemein]

half of boston was destroyed by the few tripods there, but they were in their nice and clean neighborhood and seemed to be waiting around not doing anything. just waiting to die.

Overall I thought the movie was pretty good, but I agree the ending was a bit much. Given it's Spielberg though I expected nothing less ;)

[Talkin2Phil]

Not if those devices weren't "on" when the lightning took out every electical device that was "on" at the time of the strike (including cars, which run some electical devices like clocks and alarms even when the car is parked with the engine off). Sorry, not a plothole.

A replacement starter from the auto shop worked. then, wouldn't there be hundreds of cars that were parked and off during the lightning attack that then would be have functional starters post attack? but no we have one working van in all of Northern Jersy.

[nemein]

A replacement starter from the auto shop worked. then, wouldn't there be hundreds of cars that were parked and off during the lightning attack that then would be have functional starters post attack? but no we have one working van in all of Northern Jersy.

I thought several items were swapped out in the car before it started working. The mechanic tried a couple of things, said it still wasn't working, Tom suggested something and then it worked. I don't think it was any single thing. Overall though it was a device to advance the plot, most movies/TV shows use them, just some do it better than others ;)

[eXcentris]

Okay, Josh Z and eXcentris, let's just change it up until the film bears no resemblance whatsoever to the original text. Hell, we'll even rename it THE SCIENTOLOGIST VS. THE SCIENCE-FICTION! Stray too far from the text and you have everyone venting that they pissed all over the original (like what you hear with 80% of the filmed novels coming out of Hollywood), not to mention you lose the whole point of doing a translation in the first place. You guys didn't like it, fine. You guys think the plot is faulty and problematic, I get that. All I ask is that you lay blame where it is truly due--with H.G. Wells. Since neither is willing to do that and, in your complaints, you don't even make passing reference to the original novel, or even the classic first film (which you'd probably love because it strayed so much farther from Wells's novel--oh, well up until that damnable ending they all share, that is), it becomes blatantly clear that your entire diatribe adds until to Spielberg hate. Until you show a meaningful desire to argue the perceived failings of WAR OF THE WORLDS from the perspective of flaws inherent in the story from the written novel on, I'll be done here. The only items that wouldn't qualify would the underground tripods, which I and others have expressed no issue with due to our ability to think and reason out the possibilites behind this creative choice ourselves, and the working camcorder after the EMP effect, which I agree is a valid complaint, but isn't remotely harmful enough to torpedo the film as a whole.

Diatribe? You're the one who keeps repeating the same "but it's in the book!" rant over and over again and refuse to address any criticism people make. Are you being obtuse on purpose? For the last time, let me summarize:

1. How close or how far a film strays from a book is irrelevant to evaluating the film itself. If people want to whine that the film strayed too far from the book it's their problem. Your contention that one cannot criticize War of the World without referring to the book is ridiculous. I'm watching a film, not reading a book.

2. Book and film are two different medium. What works in one might not necessarily work in the other. That's what writing a "screen adaptation" is for you see. I mean surely there was a script involved and Spielberg didn't just shoot straight from the book so he could blame Wells if something didn't work now did he?

3. My contention is that the family dynamics as portrayed in the film are too cliched and weak to support the whole film. And yes, I blame Spielberg for that and not Wells and the damn book. It's his job to make the material work, however good or bad it was originally, even if it means straying from the original story.

4. I don't hate Spielberg at all and rather like his films. This was just a poor effort on his part. Hey it happens, even to Spielberg. And for the record, I don't have a problem with the "scientific inconsistencies" in the film. I think nitpicking on those in a sci-fi flick is a bit silly.

[Josh Z]

You guys think the plot is faulty and problematic, I get that. All I ask is that you lay blame where it is truly due--with H.G. Wells.

This argument is tiring. You have not understood a single word that I've said in this thread, and are just being willfully obtuse. I give up. I don't care enough to continue.

I have no problem with you liking the movie, but your argument that a plothole is not a plothole if someone else wrote it first doesn't hold water.

[Josh Z]

Not if those devices weren't "on" when the lightning took out every electical device that was "on" at the time of the strike (including cars, which run some electical devices like clocks and alarms even when the car is parked with the engine off). Sorry, not a plothole.

That's a myth. An EMP would take out any electrical devices whether they were turned on or off at the time, especially if there are 500 EMP strikes in a row in the same area like we see in the movie.

Even if we did work with that assumption, the movie isn't at all consistent in applying that rule. Certain electrical devices work and others don't at the convenience of the plot, not with any sort of logical reasoning. The reason the camcorder was still working was because Spielberg thought it was a "cool" shot and wanted to get it whether it made any sense or not. Much like pretty much everything else in the movie.

[eXcentris]

And since I just learned that the whole family dynamics aspect of the film comes entirely from Spielberg and David Koep and has nothing to do with the book (where the hero only got cut off from his wife and there were no kids at all), the "but it's all in the book" argument is ever more moot (if such a thing is possible) as far as my criticism of the film is concerned. The film is mediocre and it's Spielberg's fault.

[ItsGreekToMe]

Fanboys......... -rolleyes- -screwy- :lol:

[Filmmaker]

This argument is tiring. You have not understood a single word that I've said in this thread, and are just being willfully obtuse. I give up. I don't care enough to continue.

I have no problem with you liking the movie, but your argument that a plothole is not a plothole if someone else wrote it first doesn't hold water.

Obviously, especially when taking the final sentence into account, that "accusation knife" of lack-of-understanding and willingly/unwittingly being obtuse cuts both ways but at least we agree on our weariness of one another... :rolleyes:

[dhmac]

That's a myth. An EMP would take out any electrical devices whether they were turned on or off at the time, especially if there are 500 EMP strikes in a row in the same area like we see in the movie.

Even if we did work with that assumption, the movie isn't at all consistent in applying that rule. Certain electrical devices work and others don't at the convenience of the plot, not with any sort of logical reasoning. The reason the camcorder was still working was because Spielberg thought it was a "cool" shot and wanted to get it whether it made any sense or not. Much like pretty much everything else in the movie.

I'm just stating the internal logic of the movie. Any electrical items that were on during the "alien lightning strike" got fried, any electrical items that were off still worked. (And just call it "alien lightning" and simply think of it as something different than an EMP if that helps.)

[Josh Z]

I'm just stating the internal logic of the movie. Any electrical items that were on during the "alien lightning strike" got fried, any electrical items that were off still worked. (And just call it "alien lightning" and simply think of it as something different than an EMP if that helps.)

Again, the movie does not have a consistent internal logic. There are plenty of other electrical devices that were turned off that got fried, such as every single car except the minivan that Cruise needed. Oh wait, he replaced the solenoid. I guess Tom Cruise is the only mechanical genius in the entire Northeast of the US who could possibly come up with the idea of replacing a solenoid? No one else, anywhere else they travelled, managed to do the same thing.

Are you telling me that the news crew's equipment worked because they turned it off during the lightning strikes and alien invasion? Yeah right!

Things work or don't work at the convenience of the plot, because they are needed to work or not work in a particular scene. That's not internal logic.

And it's been a while since I've seen the movie, but aren't the lightning strikes specifically identified as EMPs by someone in the movie? By the news crew, wasn't it?

[Seeker]

I have to agree with Josh Z.... what worked or didn't work in the movie, or who died or didn't die in the movie, or who was scared or wasn't scared in the movie, etc. etc. etc... all was at the convenience of the (badly written) script - pieces that had NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the book.

The few "well, it worked because" statements are really just 'let's figure out a way to justify the script' - when you get to that point - you know you're in trouble.

[Mike Knapp]

Hi everyone, long time no post.

I liked this film, from the opening sequence when it looked like a film rather than a video to the sappy end where everyone survives.

Id like to address several complaints using my own logic, nothing more, so my observations may either enlighten you or irritate you, but I have nothing to back them up. :)

The aliens needed to come out of the death machines to drink. That's what they did in the basement. Watch carefully, they drank our water. Even if they hadn't come out just then, they would need to come out sooner or later, yes? We didn't go to the moon and stay inside the lander...we went outside.

Chances are if the creatures had taken a drink from a stream or a lake they might have been OK. Im sure they analyzed the air and water supply on their previous visit here and found nothing wrong with it, they just didn't count on us adding all the chemicals and pollutants to our air and water. I mean, what intelligent life form would poison their air and water? :)

They fed on humans or used blood to grow food. So attacking us billions of years ago would have been a wasted effort. Not enough people here to get a culture started.

Tom Cruise actually was reigned in by Spielberg so as not to give us a "Top Gun" performance. I actually think he did fairly well in this film.

Any of you have kids? The little girl acted exactly like a 7 year old girl would act in that situation. And so did the teenage boy. If you don't have kids, you should reserve your comments on how these two were portrayed...they were spot on. Both of them had been through a divorce which was obviously not amicable, plus they were being dropped off at a place they obviously did not want to be to stay with a parent that had shown little interest in them their entire life.

Cruise probably made good money, but as we could plainly see he wasn't interested in anything but himself. He either drank it away or pissed it into his car hobby. he did seem to have a nice bed, :) My bet is the place became a heap after the divorce. He was a selfish, narcissistic individual. It was not a surprise to see his living conditions. Spotless garage. nothing in it but the car, but junk all over the house.

Some of the stuff was a little over the top. The plane crash that somehow missed the room they were in left me rolling my eyes, and the ending was a bit contrived. For instance, the son was already there so even if the family had not turned on the news or radio for several days and were just sitting by the fire smoking a pipe and knitting, the son surely would have told them of the horror taking place. They would not have been so calm. But, I just overlooked that one.

Anyway, it was a good popcorn flick. Science fiction contains a key word....fiction. Don't try to attach reality to it and you will enjoy it much more. :)

Mike

[Lara Means]

War of the Worlds was more than just a popcorn flick. It actually a flat-out well made movie from beginning to end. I understand that everyone has different opinions, but judging from earlier posts in this thread it seems you people wanted Independence Day 2 starring anyone other than Tom Cruise' It's a shame nobody gives Cruise a fair shake these days just because he went insane on Oprah. The all the performances were good, especially Cruise's. The visuals and music were wonderful. I saw this movie on opening weekend in theaters and i felt it was an intense 2 hours. I loved this film.

[Josh Z]

The aliens needed to come out of the death machines to drink. That's what they did in the basement. Watch carefully, they drank our water. Even if they hadn't come out just then, they would need to come out sooner or later, yes? We didn't go to the moon and stay inside the lander...we went outside.

I can say with some degree of certainty that no human being was ever stupid enough to attempt to go out onto the surface of the moon stark naked.

[Mike Knapp]

I believe that is correct. ;)

But these aliens had obviously visited here before (perhaps even before man had developed) and could move about freely, breathe the air and drink the water.

And...I'd bet money that if the moon had an atmosphere and temperature that we (as human beings) could tolerate, we would have worn shorts and a T-shirt out of the LEM instead of environmental suits.

The aliens knew they could tolerate our atmosphere. They just didn't count on that one variable....

One thing that did trouble me was the film screaming along at breakneck speed and then suddenly BAM, it ends. I found that a bit odd.

Mike

[dhmac]

Again, the movie does not have a consistent internal logic. There are plenty of other electrical devices that were turned off that got fried, such as every single car except the minivan that Cruise needed. Oh wait, he replaced the solenoid. I guess Tom Cruise is the only mechanical genius in the entire Northeast of the US who could possibly come up with the idea of replacing a solenoid? No one else, anywhere else they travelled, managed to do the same thing.

The electrical systems in cars are usually on even when the car is parked, running clocks and alarm systems all the time. And it's anything that's drawing a current at the time of the lightning strikes that gets fried.

And there were more and more working cars seen as the movie went on, so more people were apparently figuring out how to fix the vehicles (remember all the military Humvees, and all of the cars on the ferry? Those all worked.)


Are you telling me that the news crew's equipment worked because they turned it off during the lightning strikes and alien invasion? Yeah right!

It's easy to assume the lightning strike has a limited range, and the news crew wasn't in the area at the time of the strike.

And it's been a while since I've seen the movie, but aren't the lightning strikes specifically identified as EMPs by someone in the movie? By the news crew, wasn't it?

I don't remember if that happens or not. Either way, the "internal logic" argument works in the film and the effects of the lightning strikes are consistent with that.

[dhmac]

I think the DVD Savant's review is the best I've seen on this movie:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/s1834war.html

He has read the original book, listenened to the 1938 radio broadcast, and seen the 1953 movie, as well as other '50s-era Sci-Fi movies and truly "gets" what Spielberg was doing with this movie.

One reason I like the new War of the Worlds and don't like Independence Day is WotW really is like an update of those fun, '50s Sci-Fi films that focused on spectacle with only a handful of characters to carry the story forward. Independence Day, on the other hand, was more like '70s-era disaster movies. Once the early spectacle of destruction ends (the only part I liked), it shifted into a tedious melodrama with a lot of badly-written characters I didn't give a damn about. Then it ended with a conclusion that was as lame as possible (an Apple computer virus?) - having bacteria defeat the aliens is a million times better than that!

Sorry, but give me a movie that's a true throwback to '50s-era Sci-Fi spectacle over '70-era disaster movie melodrama anyday!

[Seeker]

I didn't like either movie (ID, WOTW) - NEITHER had a good script, IMHO (and again, I'm talking about script, not the wonderful HG Wells PLOT)