Artman

I only watched the first few episodes and forgot about it after that...but I thought it was pretty cool, of course that's from a ten yr old's perspective. I look forward to renting the DVD (when it comes out) and having a good laugh.

Mopower

I'll tell you in about 2 days when the torrent is finished.

B5Erik

Well, I finally got to see it, and I thought it was really good. It was almost exactly what I was hoping for - with the exception of the "new agey" stuff (Ferrier's daughter folding her arms to find her "happy place" or whatever - lame). I also wanted to punch Ray's son in the mouth every time he copped an attitude. (Uh, you are about to DIE if you don't do what your dad says you moron!) Other than that stuff I was very pleased with the movie.

The feeling of chaos and confusion helped me identify with Ray's feeling of helplessness and how desperate he was to save his kids. The effects were simply amazing, and Spielberg really outdid himself in creating an amazing visual movie.

As much as I love the original I might actually lean towards this version - the beauty is that the movies really complement each other. The original gives a wider view that includes military strategy and worldwide events, where this version covers the perspective of someone who has no idea about what is going on, and who is just trying to survive the invasion.

My dad liked it a lot, too - and he's an old time science fiction buff. (He even took my brother and me to see the '53 version of WOTW on the big screen in 1980 - on a double bill with When Worlds Collide no less!)

I would have to say that this is my favorite movie of the year so far (just barely edging out Batman).

Josh H

Caught this today. Really enjoyed it. Liked the focus on the invasion from one man/families perspective. Incredible tension through out. Special effects were great and were extremely well integrated into the film.

I'd probably rank it behind Batman as my fave of the year so far.

das Monkey

Just got back from this and thought it was above average. Cruise was excellent in the lead, and the special effects were as good as expected. However -- and I know this sounds absolutely crazy considering the level of action -- I was relatively bored about halfway through. After a while, it was just one long action sequence, and I got kind of tired of it all. Also, the ending seemed rushed and a bit forced. Spielberg's recent films all fall just a little short for me, so I wasn't surprised that I felt it lacking, but it was still pretty good and mostly entertaining for a mindlessly escapist summer thrillride.

das

Jon2

This is interesting in it's implications if Speilberg did this, and it's true that Cruise signed for sequels. Suggestions that what happens to Ray (from the time he and his daughter wake up in the basement until the ending in Boston) is a dream may be on to something.

whotony

who suggested that?

this wasnt a dream.
just because of a tiny homage to another movie dont read that to be this movie was a dream

the book wasnt a dream, the first movie wasnt a dream.

the aliens died in stories in unusual fashion, which was the point of the story.
the irony of the tiny little creatures that took down this advanced race of creatures.

making it a dream would be useless and would serve no purpose to the narrative.

Original Desmond

Very exciting movie, Dakota did get painful at times , Cruise was decent enough and yes the ending was a tad of a letdown but people are forgetting one thing

This movie is based on a book written before the year 1900! HG Wells didn't have access to the same technology that we have nowadays so of course over one century on, some things are going to seem a bit silly and outdated. Hell if HG were alive today , i'm sure he would have rewritten his book to make the aliens much more intelligent and able to handle our technology much better.

I liked the fact that the film just followed Cruise's journey. We didn't need to see the President of the US etc or see the Japanese and europeans fighting the tripods.

The son i thought was the weak link, just wanted to bitchslap his arse !

Mopower

1898 actually.

digiboy

I think the reason the dream idea comes up is because the other movie, Invaders from Mars
(Spoiler to Invaders from Mars follows),
is essentially a dream sequence. The boy wakes up at the end, realizes it was all a dream... but then he goes to his window and looks out at the back yard and sees the start of his dream again... actually happening. Real dated Twilight Zone type twist that would have been better left off IMO.

It's too long of a jump to assume this means there's a dream sequence going on in WOTW. It's just a nod to another classic Sci Fi film and Speilberg likes to do that sort of thing (I thought his nod to Japanese "Godzillla" type movies in Lost World, JP2 was a hoot).

Ruling out the dream sequence doesn't rule out a sequel either. The H. G. Wells story is a closed one, there is no story beyond that. I'd be very surprized if Speilberg or Cruise had any interest in making a follow up. That said, any movie that is a massive blockbuster and money maker catches the Hollywood corporate eye....and the less imaginative "safe" bet is for somebody to make a sequel, they've done it before.

Jon2

1) Another poster, but it may have been in the other WOTW thread. I wasn't going to go thru 18 pages of posts just to quote it. Sorry.

2) Speilberg's homages are subtle. Most people aren't even aware of them, and when he does them, they "fit" the movie. Think about this. Why would Speilberg, when he already had homages in the film, put in another about a film where the Martian invaders win? In literary terms, this could be "foreshadowing."

3) I know (having read the novel when I was a teenager) that the story isn't a dream, and I never mentioned the first movie was a dream. Nor has any other poster that I'm aware of, but I might have missed one.

4) Since I read the novel, I'm well aware how the aliens died. I'll agree that it was somewhat ironic, but it was not the point of the story. Wells wrote an allegory about the British Empire.

5) I think you missed the point of my post. It was speculation that, in light of stories about Cruise signing to do sequels, Speilberg's homage to IFM may be an indication that the ending (not the entire movie) may be a dream (as speculated by other posters). It could be a setup for a sequel, but still allow the first movie to stand on it's own if box office doesn't mandate a sequel.

However, I'm just having some fun and speculating. I'm not saying I believe this is what Speilberg and Cruise have in mind.

Personally, considering the state of world affairs, current U.S. politics, and their expressed political views, I think Speilberg and Cruise made WOTW for pretty much the same reasons that Wells wrote it.

It's a warning.

Goat3001

I finally got a chance to see this the other day. It was intense, good visuals. A solid summer flick. I'm happy the ending didn't stray too far from the book because the book is so damn good.

MoviePage

Saw it. Sucked. Good effects. Fine with the ending.

dmpre99

liked the movie a lot. I didnt see why so many people hated the ending.

dom56

Finally got to watch this yesterday matinee. I thought it was pretty good, way better than the last Tom and Steve's flick Minority Report which I did'nt liked at all. Great sound!!! No doubt be contender for best sound effect come Oscar time. While I don't really care about Tom Cruise, I thought he did a pretty good job as the father trying to protect his family. Dakota Fanning was fine in this pic and was'nt annoying as some has said. Nice to see Miranda Otto again playing as Tom's ex-wife but her role was a really short one I wish that she was on the screen a lot more. The ending was okay but could have been better. Overall I give this film an 8 out 10.

Mine favorite scene in the movie.


P.S. the King Kong trailer rock!!! I can't wait for December.

Giantrobo

Last night Adam Corolla on LOVELINE bitched up a storm about how the Cars not working thing was fucked up.

He brought up the fact that any vehicle with a manual transmission could've been started by just slipping it into 2nd and rolling it even if the starters were killed by the EMP.

This may have been brought up already in this thread but Adam was funnier about it so his version stuck in my mind.

devilshalo

I prefer the original movie over this.

REL77

Does someone have the text of the monologoue of the end of the movie? If so, can you paste it and put it in spoiler please...

Thanks

riley_dude

I do too. The new one was good but nowhere near as good as Spielbergs classics like ET or Close Encounters or Jaws. The effects are great but there isnt a great story there. I felt as if it were missing something.

pdinosaur

the point is, humanity was immune to Earth's diseases. the martians were not. this is entirely valid. even as europeans and native americans began to intermingle, they carried their own diseases which the other had never encountered before. overtime, we developed the immunities or cures to these diseases which is why mr. freeman makes the claim that no human dies in vain.

it's not that the martians haven't experienced bacteria, it's that they haven't encountered OUR bacteria.

as to others, i'll agree it lacks the sort of catacylsmic punch we'd like of our endings, but in keeping with H.G. Wells' tradition, it's actually a pretty interesting and plausible conclusion.

I generally consider the time machine to handle time travel most appropriately. back to the future occasionally tries to deal with it, but it is really a clever way of presenting the 'necessity is the mother of invention'. the time machine cannot be used to undo the reason it was created.

to take away the martian vulnerability to our diseases would be to undermine one of wells' most important contributions to literature.

Fok

this was bit of a let down, the original was way better

Coral

Didn't think it was very good... probably sits on the pass/fail border.

Spielberg continues to be extremely safe.
The movie was predictable at every single turn, and was filled with so many cliches and cheap ways at getting a reaction out of the viewers.

Dakota Fanning's constant screaming was extremely annoying, and the father/son-daughter relationship was too "on the nose" that it felt like the point was getting hammered home (a Spielberg specialty).

The ending was cringe-worthy as well.

Really, the only aspect of the movie that was worthy of much was the special effects.

Fielding Mellish

Finally caught it yesterday. Didn't like it very much at all.

The 9/11 riffs really bothered me. I thought they were ham-handed at best, and at worst, in terrible taste.

And the "average family caught up in extraordinary circumstances" vibe that Spielberg tried so hard to maintain came crashing to the ground... once Cruise showed that hand full of

Pure Bruckheimer hack-level hokum. If you're trying so hard to paint Holocaust/WTC parallels, please try to maintain some dignity, Stevie.

Spielberg's worst effort ever, IMO. (And yes, I do remember 1941!)

Derrich

I watched ID4 a couple of days ago and it hit me that ID4 and WotW chronicle the exact same events. ID4 shows the invasion on a large scale, while WotW shows how it looked to the average guy. That said, I liked ID4 better.

digiboy

Spoilers ahead folks:

I'm the one who originally posted that in WOTW I thought Speilberg gave a nod breifly to "Invaders From Mars" Another Sci Fi Classic from the same year as the original WOTW film.

I never said that because Invaders from Mars winds up being a dream that I felt this "nod" might imply that there was a dream sequence in this version of WOTW. I do not make that assumption, there is no reason to IMO. Someone else's post drew that conclusion.

Had an opportunity to go see WOTW a second time yesterday so I paid particular attention to the section where the hill with the wood post fence appears. I checked my DVD of Invaders from Mars when I got home and there's no question in my mind that Speilberg references that movie. The fence is that same simple wood post fence and it has the same dip where it angles down into the ground. The way it is placed in that scene can't just be a coincidence.

When you see this scene, if you are familiar with "Invaders from Mars" (the 1953 original), I think you will agree.

I don't feel there is any implication of a dream at all. It is simply a nod to another great sci-fi film from 1953 with a theme of alien invasion.

Does it "fit?"
Well actually it does since it is the scene in WOTW where little Rachel (Dakota Fanning) is taken by the Tripod. The hill with the fence in IFM is where people are taken by the Martians.

What's Speilberg's point?...well it's just a nod, a reference. It's Speilberg showing he's a Sci Fi movie buff (there's a shocker) and just giving a wink to anyone who knows that movie to say "hey, that's another good one about alien invasion from that time. I saw that one too!"

I really don't think there's any more to it than that.