I think they pretty much set up Tom's character as being a guy who's really into cars and who also works on them by showing the type of car he drove and having an engine in his living room....

Don't get me wrong, Giantrobo. I got that about his character. I just found it odd that he was the only Mr. Fix-It in the film. But as Mopower and jaeufraser indicated to me, though we only see him mention how to fix the cars, others clearly knew what had to be done as well. So my little nitpick has become nothing at all.

good one .. have not noticed of even thought about that ... now thinking, I guess the alien's tech in this film is a very mixed bag ... will surely have developed very different from ours ... hey, at times they look like they run on steam engines .. and their probe looks like a TV i had as a kid ...

it did not bother me at all .. but interesting nit pick

Maybe the aliens are cold blooded and don't give off body heat so they never developed the need for it?

Well, if they never invented something as basic as the wheel, it should be no surprise that they don't have all the technology we do. It just so happens that what they do have is way better than what we have.

Saw this just a bit ago. It was the right mix of sci-fi action and suspense. Wasn't the best movie I've seen this year, but it was pretty good.

Actually, Tom Cruise is right around 40 years old so the character can look that good for his age. He did mention his son didn't have a drivers licsence so he is 15 or younger. So using 40 and 15, the son was born when Ray was 25.

Loved this movie. It was epic in scope and it felt like you were in the middle of the chaos and it was frightening. Great summer film.

Well the Army trucks and cars on the Ferry were not in the EMP zone so they worked fine.

The people that did have cars near the Ferry probably left hours ago, taking their cars with them. All the people at the ferry had just gotten there so they probably walked there. For the cars that were still there, with the amount of people in the streets, the cars counldn't have moved without running people over so they were probably abandoned. Maybe that is what the cars on the ferry were. Some got the cars on and then the captain said no more. Any not on, were just left.

well, the army has mechanics at immediate disposal .. their cars were running .. ships have tech's on board, they fixed that ... heck, even the reporter van was up and running ... what we mainly saw were people stranded on the interstate, no shop around.

Cruise was clearly depicted as a car nut and yelled the right suggestion at the right time ... this way he knew which van to steal.

IMHO

why would the people with working cars hang around? those guys are gone!!! probably on the ferry "m.s. sitting duck"

Saw it today and greatly enjoyed it, except for the last couple moments. Extemely sappy, which killed the movie for me in a way. Still a good summer flick though. I would recommend if you can overlook the hollywood ending.

Sometimes an average film can be elevated to something special by a great ending (“Spoorloos” aka “The Vanishing, “The Sixth Sense”) while at other times…things go the other way………..

I found the to be an insult to even the most basic of human intelligence, and it completely torpedoed what otherwise would have been a passable yet disposable and somewhat stale movie going experience.

While I don’t think it really brought anything new to the table, I did truly enjoy the first half…quite a bit actually.
The film drops a notch when I thought it was a good move in that it introduced a different element and a different sort of pacing and suspense to the film, and there was some nice material in there but it went on a little too long. Things really began to sink following that with the scene. I thought it was more silly than anything else. And then the film goes straight to the bottom when all of a sudden it just
I hated the entire segment and as someone who has been watching a fair bit of Asian cinema lately, I really, really, really, loathed, detested, despised, and abhorred the ….I really didn’t like it. I see from reading this thread that a number of other audiences were more positive in their final approval for this film, but in the small audience I saw it with there was an audible disgust with the that carried over to a general displeased grumble while leaving the theater; it seemed to have left a sour – and dissatisfied - taste in the mouths of not only me but others in this particular audience.
Could have done without as the narrator too, would have preferred an unknown. I thought Cruise, Fanning, and the rest of the cast were fine but as far as the movie goes, “War of the Worlds” is a disappointment in the stable of the “world’s greatest director”.

Though I’ve been more open lately to considering giving it another shot, I am decidedly not a fan of Spielberg’s “A.I.” and found sitting through it to be one of the most torturous in-theater experiences I’ve ever subjected myself to, but I do credit him in that he did appear in that movie to be at least reaching for greatness. Not so in “War of the Worlds” which was just cookie-cutter filmmaking (using slightly freezer-burned generic cookie dough at that!). I’ll take both the original version and “ID4” any day.

NOTE: I’ve scaled back on my trips to the theater lately, but I did enjoy watching the first half of the film play out on the big screen with a good sound system. No doubts in my mind that seeing it in the theater was a big factor in my enjoying the first half (maybe for more than it was probably worth). Not sure how it will play for in-home audiences when it hits DVD (which I don’t seeing myself picking up any time soon).

flixtime, I agree with many of your criticisms of the film.



However, I disagree with your assessment that this is "cooking cutter" filmmaking. It's anything but.

Everyone keeps complaining about the end of the movie. How was it any worse than the last 80% of the flick?

Did anyone cry at any part of the film?

I'm pissed that the just because by the time he goes to fight in the battle I wanted the little jerk to die. How was he going to fight anyway? I didn't get the whole deal with him wanting to fight. Seemed like just an excuse to get him to seperate from the rest of the family and to get that scene with Cruise having to decide which one to save.

Also I don't get why all the complaints about the Tim Robbins part. The only part I didn't like about that was

Yes. When it was over. Because i had spent $10 on it.

BTW...I turned on the radio this morning and the DJ's were absolutely ripping it apart. I think they disliked it more than I did. Was nice to know I wasn't alone.

The theater I went to was pretty full. No one clapped at the end, but I believe it was the first time I heard a collective "UUGGHHH".

Oh and speaking of radio djs, one of the local talk radio guys was in the theater when I went. I'm hoping to catch his show this afternoon to see if he mentions it. He looked ticked when he was leaving. hahaha.

They had to show them drinking the water to set up the ending.

If they started in NJ, then it would take some time to get to other places, including Boston. And if they originally planted the ships hundreds of years ago, Boston didn't exist, so it wouldn't have been an obvious place to plant them.

Anyone know why War of the Worlds is presented in 16:9 aspect ratio? I felt like I was watching a big wide screen TV and felt a bit jipped at the theater. This is the first motion picture I can remember in a while with such a low aspect ratio, and this is supposed to be one of the biggest.

Well, I have to say, I REALLY liked War of the Worlds. I loved the
scope. The fact that it you only saw what happened to the family. No presidents, scientists and not a lot of miltary. You didn't have to see what happened to LA, London or Japan. I liked the fact the aliens had no motive other then to kill and you never found out what they were all about. The aliens never sent out a press release telling everyone what they were going to do. Sorry, I know people are frustrated because they aren't getting the answers they derserve. I LOVED thatthey avoided the big cliche, blowing up historical or famous monuments or buildings.

I thought Cruise was great. Especially the scene where he's making sandwiches for everyone. Also liked the baseball scene. A lot of people have been complaining about plot. The fact that there isn't one. I quite enjoyed it actually. I think in disaster flicks many times a plot or unnecessary family/emotional scenes are forced. Now that I think about it, I don't think 'The Day After Tomorrow' had much of a plot other then to survive.

I just liked the look and feel of it. I liked that much of the action was implied and off-screen. Janusz Kaminski is becoming one of my favorite cinematographers. Every shot was dynamite and demanded attention.

It's weird though, it feel like a Spielberg film and then it didn't. Spielberg usually will have some cheesy family theme. I didn't get that here. The black girl in 'The Lost World' almost ruined that movie (I know I'm crazy but I liked that movie.) At least he didn't have Dakota Fanning doing backflips and karate kicking an alien. I love that you don't really have a "hero". You didn't see Cruise blowing stuff up or taking over a unlikely situation.

Anyways, loved the film. Really want to see it again.

Saxon

Discussion of the aspect ratio can be found in this thread:

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=428962

And Boston wasn't untouched. They showed a sign that said Boston overgrown with dead vines. And then smoke coming from the city. THere were destroyed buildings as Cruise walked thru it and when the Army destroyed the tripod. It was just the neighborhood where his ex-wife was that seemed untouched.