War of the Worlds (2005) Reviews?
12-04-05, 02:00 AM
#76
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 401
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
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.
12-04-05, 02:20 AM
#77
DVD Talk Reviewer
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Blu-ray.com
Posts: 10,380
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 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....
Ciao,
Pro-b
Last edited by pro-bassoonist; 12-04-05 at 02:24 AM.
12-04-05, 10:09 AM
#78
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by eXcentris
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.
We should learn from the mistakes of the past, not repeat them.
12-04-05, 10:12 AM
#79
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by ItsGreekToMe
I'm reminded of Chevy Chase's quip to Roger Ebert -- "We'll all be looking foreward to your next film."
Last edited by Josh Z; 12-04-05 at 10:16 AM.
12-04-05, 01:39 PM
#80
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Second Star on the right, and straight on til' morning...
Posts: 14,808
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
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.
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.
12-04-05, 07:55 PM
#82
Member
Join Date: May 2003
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Fok
this was a real let down to the original.............way to go hollywood
12-04-05, 08:55 PM
#83
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
12-05-05, 08:59 AM
#85
Banned
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
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.
12-05-05, 09:15 AM
#86
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
12-05-05, 09:27 AM
#87
Moderator
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.
12-05-05, 09:54 AM
#88
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Jupiter and Beyond the Infinite
Posts: 1,952
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by dhmac
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.
Last edited by Talkin2Phil; 12-05-05 at 09:57 AM.
12-05-05, 10:03 AM
#89
Moderator
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.
12-05-05, 11:54 AM
#90
DVD Talk Hero
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Last edited by eXcentris; 12-05-05 at 06:34 PM.
12-05-05, 06:14 PM
#91
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by Filmmaker
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.
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.
12-05-05, 06:18 PM
#92
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by dhmac
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.
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.
12-05-05, 09:07 PM
#93
DVD Talk Hero
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.
12-06-05, 02:03 PM
#95
Banned
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Right now, my location is DVDTalk, but then again, you should already know that, shouldn't you?
Posts: 6,364
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Originally Posted by Josh Z
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.
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.
12-07-05, 07:10 PM
#96
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Originally Posted by Josh Z
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.
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.
12-08-05, 07:01 AM
#97
DVD Talk Legend
Originally Posted by dhmac
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.)
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?
Last edited by Josh Z; 12-08-05 at 07:14 AM.
12-08-05, 05:10 PM
#98
DVD Talk Legend
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Second Star on the right, and straight on til' morning...
Posts: 14,808
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
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.
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.
12-10-05, 07:29 AM
#99
Cool New Member
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Mike Knapp; 12-10-05 at 07:39 AM.
12-10-05, 11:41 AM
#100
DVD Talk Gold Edition
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Washington DC
Posts: 2,247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.