War of the Worlds

I am really excited about this movie and I know a lot of others who are too. The oficial website looks pretty cool. The other day I found this other website which is pretty weird and creepy. Right now there is only a graphic in alien language or something. Whatever it is, it looks awesome. If anyone has any info on this website, please share. PLEASE! :.(

This is the website: - EXTERNAL LINK -

(They're Already Here :o)

Has anyone gone to the site that I mentioned? Please!!!! :.(

Yes.

Tim

That is not the response I was hoping for. :@

But thank you for actually responding Tim. :)

jack jack,

The site you reference is just a graphic! No links, video, audio, or anything else that might be interesting. No offense, but if you want people to respond, or to comment on something like a website, there needs to be a little more involved than just a simple text graphic. ;)



- Josh

Josh,

That's why I simply responded with "yes". :D

Tim ;)

Interesting, weren't we just talking about how Ebert loves blockbusters?

Out of the 35 current reviews out on RT, he's one of the 3 that didn't like it!

I completely agree. I mean, the character of the whiny teenager added nothing to the story, especially since the core relationship of the movie centered around Cruise and Fanning. His departure didn't bring much of an emotional impact to the film, but his return tarnished it. Also, considering the massive explosion and little time that he had to escape, it just raises more questions. Other than that, the film was a real nail-biter, with Fanning's wide-eyed gaze pulling you into the movie. After his so called "experiments" (i.e. The Terminal, Catch Me If You Can), Speilberg has returned to his roots as a master of action, suspense, and freakin' awesome effects:D

SPOILERS
_____________________








Fair enough :). But agree with me on this, the kid should of stayed dead! This isn't Disney Steven, a happy ending isn't always necessary!

Not for me, I think the second half was the better end of the movie. The story finally slowed down enough to get into the characters and that basement scene with Tim Robbins was one of the best parts of the movie. I felt the first half was too much in overdrive and set a foundation of too many questions needing to be answered. However, once you surrender to the chaos you find yourself forced into the family's dilemma. It's like you go through this sense of frustration in the first half but then find yourself just dealing with it by the second half.

Really enjoyed it. Much like Jurassic Park, I don't think this movie will be as enjoyable at home.

The movie doesn't really have a story, it's more so an experience. We're pretty much experiencing everything Ray does from beginning to end. The tension and suspense created in the first 100 minutes were really impressive. But the final 20 minutes fell flat. The ending seemed really abrupt and tagged on. At first I was kind of disappointment at the lack of an explanation of things, but thats not what this movie was about. Much like Signs it's more so about the personal experience a single family goes through in such an event. Only in WotW, we're right in the thick of it as opposing to seeing how everything plays out on the countryside.

i'm still not sure about this movie.
i was all excited about it, and then began to see cruise doing the interviews and press tour and got a bit turned off by him.
the previews look good to me...i think spielberg's work in general has been good to date, so if i don't make it to the movie i will definitely see it at some point in the future. who knows..i may be talked into going with my family this weekend since i will be home for the holiday!

What I found interesting about the first half of the movie was that it wasn't played as a heroic quest at all. There wasn't even any thought of striking back, just escape and survival. Ray is lazy, incompetent and freezes up when faced with a crisis. In the latter half, the movie moved right back to generic territory and just became another adolescent male fantasy about taking control, beating the bad guys, Ray is a hero, etc. Spielberg made half an interesting movie but then chickened out and went back to the crowd pleasing garbage.

I didn't find the mentioned scene to be as accomplished as the LOTR scene, or particularly that great (I didn't really care for the strange look of the cells when compared to the cold mechanical design of the rest of the ship) but I loved the reaction of Dakota Fanning that really made you think: ya, that was wierd. I think the biggest problem with that scene was the odd green and purple colours that pervaded it. I also want more destruction becuase the film is called "WAR of the worlds", not "Skirmishes portrayed using strobe lights against Tom Cruise's face" and the scenes in which there was destruction weren't too cool anyways.

Possible Spoilers
And Tim, I like both versions of ray guns, but really enjoyed the scene where Tom looks into a mirror and sees he's covered in ash from the remains of human beings, I found that kinda disturbing. I think a better version may of entailed some actual blood and guts or something, I mean they have blood plants and blood rain, why not blood explosions? Right? That would of made sense too! Cause then the blood could fly through the air and into the ship's receptacles for easy drinking! (Ok, I'm sorta joking...but I'm really not to sure if that might work, Steven would probably have found some way [stifles a laugh and a snort])

Onijay,

I meant I liked Tim Burtons' laser beam as a visual effect more than Spielbergs' evap. laser. I just thought being zapped down to a skeleton looks far more cool. Call me sick, but, oh well. I really wasn't concerned about the explaination of how the weapon works, because in sci-fi, I genreally never have a problem with suspending belief over weapon types. Even Spielbergs' laser idea would take a hell of a lot of explaining, I just didn't think it looked all that interesting.

Tim

Onijay,

Funny that the scene (I won't spoil it here) you mention and ask "Why couldn't the rest of the film have been like that?" was the exact scene that I thought was the worst moment in the film and the point at which the movie went rapidly downhill (actually, it started to fall apart with the whole Tim Robbins scene).

There are about 8 thousand other movies you can watch if you just want to spend 2 hours watching things blow up, aren't there? Why do you want yet another one?

I didn't think War of the Worlds was all that hot but it had me interested through the first half. As usual, Spielberg screws up royally in the end. Has any well-known director ever ended his films so badly on such a consistent basis?

I found this film to be disappointing. Almost like a waste of $140 million. I mean where was the sense of epic grandeur that Steven manages to impart on almost every film he makes? I kept waiting to be wowed, and always felt like I was missing something. I think the perfect example is when the thunderstorm first appears and its blocked from our view at first by the highway so we are missing the action. To me the entire film felt like the best parts were hiding, wanting to come out but just not given the chance. I liked the meticulousness with which Steven showed the fear the family experienced, and I liked how rather than juggling several characters he keeps to one, but that also hurt the film. Rather than experiencing the WAR of the WORLDS we are experiencing (and to put it bluntly: merely watching) the struggle of a family. The chaos of the first half was hardly enough to satisfy me, and the tension of the second act was handled far better with curious raptors in a certain kitchen. The acting was incredible, as were the special effects, but there just wasn't enough to me. Where was the massive action scene that left you awed? SPOILERS AHEAD When Tom cruise blows up the tripod and accomplishes what the entire human race had been unable to do and the harvester crashes to the ground and Dakota stares with wonder at the feat her father accomplished it harkens back to the jubilation you felt when Legolas killed the Oliphant in LOTR 3. Now why couldn't the rest of the film been like that? Not once during this film did I feel like I had emparted on a grand journey with this family that by the time they finally reach the home in Boston and both Tom and Dakota are near exhuastion and collapse do I look back and feel the same exhuastion over the amazing situations they had gone through. Put simply I don't feel they went through enough. I would have liked a 2 1/2 hour movie where the world is actually destroyed around them. Rather I felt the film glossed over the destruction, often using strobes on a person's face to indicate an explosion, over the destruction of an entire city just over the hill. I don't want to simply watch a tripod stamp over a town, I want to be in the thick of it, like Tom is at the very beginning, running through the town while all around him people are turned to dust (an incredible and extemely logical choice, after all, how would you explain people merely turning to bones? Wouldn't the bones disintegrate too?). I wanted more. I basically don't feel there was enough substance to this film, especially seeing what Steven could have really done with it with those amazing effects and giant budget. I basically could not find much to enjoy about this film. It felt like Signs and ID4 mixed together, with not enough of action, and missing too much character. So where are we left? And what are we left with? I leave my comments in the way that the film leaves the viewer: without everything answered, and not mentioning enough, and still wanting more (ok, maybe I'm being a little pretentious in saying people want more of my opinion, but I couldn't think of anything else to write okay?!:@)

Considering the aliens' lasers disintegrated people while leaving their clothes intact, I think it's very clear what the goal of the invasion was:

The aliens want our pants!

I haven't seen the film version, but I could bet that it isn't as effective at scaring the crap outta people as it was with Orson Welles' radio broadcast. The Times They Have A-Changed.

SPOILERS, YADA YADA, SPOILERS!!!

Well, that all depends, my friend. If you go into this film, place your brain at the door and simply accept the fact that Spielberg is just doing his own version of the 1951 classic, then yes, it is a great accomplishment in the “space invaders” genre. However, for someone like myself, I can’t help but to over-analyze the fine details or accept the stretched reality Steven created.

For example, the alien’s crafts have been buried underground for centuries, or possibly millions of years, but in all this time of oil drilling, excavating, water wells and a whole slew of scientists that do underground research, not one alien craft had ever been found. Seems like a pretty big stretch in the believability category, if you ask me. Not to mention, in Spielberg’s world, an EMP blast can take out anything that uses AC or DC electrical current; however, camcorders miraculously survive. Had Steven watched shows like “Myth Busters” he would have learned that it is the components that feed off the camcorders battery that get fried in an EMP blast; therefore, the camcorder is just as dead as anything else that uses power.

Of course, as in all alien invasion films of mass destruction, there is never any rhyme or reason for a species of vast technical intelligence to provide any motive to their chaos. Especially in this film, what was the whole point of the attack and why did they wait so freaking long to do it? And why kill? Why not enslave or make use of the human prey? To me, it’s just too many things that don’t add up and if Spielberg already took the liberty to twist a few things form the original story, then why not throw a few more details about our attackers? Come to think of it, these are pretty much the same questions I had about “Independence Day”, but I will admit I liked Spielberg’s take on it much better. ID was far too cheesy in comparison to WotW. Steven delivers good characterizations and a far darker tale with a good share of thrills and suspense.

The boy running towards the hill of mass fire, we’ve already covered; so let’s not open that chestnut for now.

Of course, there is that sappy Disney ending in the last three minutes (tied into the boy staying alive). The aliens dying of bacteria, I had no problem with because that’s what happened in the 1951 classic and that’s what I loved about it. It is believable and very passable in my opinion, and for that matter, look what aids is doing to humans. What I didn’t care for was that the mother and her family just happened to be in their cozy little home in Boston. I mean, are you freaking kidding me! It looked like the whole town was evacuated with the exception of them. Not only that, it appeared that their neighborhood was barely touched; gee, how Hollywood is that! I would have expected the mother and her new husband to be long dead from the start, and then to find them still alive in an untouched house in Boston, I just couldn’t believe Spielberg ended it that way. The guy should know by now that audiences don’t want sappy, they want it to be believable!

On the bright side, the film does work as summer, popcorn entertainment. I thought the ride was enjoyable enough but I was just disappointed that Steven didn’t deliver something more thought provoking as he successfully did with “Minority Report” or “A.I.”. Oh, well, even Spielberg can’t hit a homerun every time, and honestly, I don’t have a problem accepting that. As I said, the film does work on the merits of entertainment, but it made me leave the theatre feeling as if the glass was only half full.

Tim.

War Of the Worlds (SOILERS-SPOILERS-SPOILERS)
My thoughts on the highly anticipated movie directed by Steven Spielberg.

Basic Information
----------------------
Remake of the 1953 “The War of The Worlds”, which was directed by Byron Haskin and was based on the “War of the Worlds” novel by H.G. Wells.

Plot Outline:

The screen writer of the 2005 version (Josh Friedman) said in an interview that instead of revolving around three or four different groups of people and their stories while under the same catastrophic event (like most disaster movies) he chose to show the whole movie from the eyes of a single group and tangle a bit with the group’s Subplot.
The main character is a divorced neglecting father that didn’t spend enough time with his two children. A teenager son and a very young daughter .Both children don’t trust their father and begin their quest for survival after the disastrous events with almost no trust to each other. During the invasion, this group bonds and creates a more “family” look around it. The invasion ends and they are all a better family.

Character Work:

The main character, the father, resembles the “father” character we saw in “the day after tomorrow” and his effort to be there for his son, with the only difference that tom cruise’s character is emptier . Unstable writing resolved into shifting behavior of the male lead, who was changing from determined and dynamic to neurotic and completely anti-social. I felt that he simply couldn’t drive the whole movie to the end.
The son character was, in my opinion, unnecessary. His “rebellious youth” style was really annoying, and all that he ever did was to get things harder for everyone.

Direction

Specially at the beginning, Spielberg uses linear follow shots. The camera very regularly passes behind vehicles, buildings and other objects while following two or more characters that walk and talk from the side. Then you have Multi-angle-single cam shots. A camera follows a car.. rotates, ends up at the passenger’s window, you hear dialog and then the same thing all over again so you can get to the drivers window. A very nice technique which builds tension. Spielberg’s scenes capture the sheer size of the destruction that we are looking at. He focuses on the human factor and the way that countless lives got lost. There are scenes that I can only describe as “apocalyptic”. His colors get warmer as the movie progresses following the events of the script. For example when the movie begins its blue tones are more visible, when it ends red is the color that prevails.

Pacing/Plot
The movie gets right into the subject matter. With no more than 20-30 minutes of introductory scenes and dialog, all hell brakes loose. The movie progresses quite fast and doesn’t let the mind focus on something long enough. Except from a certain scene involving a mad man with a shotgun in a basement. The movie until there was doing 100mph, when we reach the basement scene, we come down to 10mph. Extremely slow. But it pays off, because you get to see the first infantry aliens. After that, the movie concludes very fast.
The story says that the aliens came down to earth, millions of years ago and buried their tripod-tanks (which I found pretty cool) so they can use them to capture us millions of years later. They used a type of lightning to send alien drivers in those tripod-tanks and began the attacks. As you can understand, we are talking about a very intelligent race of aliens. Actually they were so intelligent that they got annihilated by bacteria like flu. Yes dear reader, an alien race light years ahead of us, with the technology to destroy a planet in no more than 5 days was destroyed by the bacteria found on and in every human being that was used by them to fertilize a special root-plant that they were growing to convert our planet into their conditions. So we conclude to HOLE NO.1: When they came down here to burry those tripod-tanks, didn’t they found bacteria? I’m pretty sure they existed back then. HOLE NO.2: Even though intelligent, those creatures looked very primitive. Three legs, no clothes, no ability to talk (your average Discovery channel geek would say: they use Telepathy right about here) and with a behavior like a lost kitten, could not use its supreme cerebral power to fight bacteria. I Find it very stupid. A Perfect example of how a movie can get caught-up in its own web.

Sound

A Very rich and vivid sound environment with lots of trembling bass to accompany it. War of the worlds has great sound. I Especially enjoyed the sound that was used for the laser canons on the “tripod-tanks”. A three note ascending sound that was very distinctive.

Music

The Soundtrack is full of fast paced music. Its also full of the flamboyant use of brass that only john Williams can create. Nothing special in the O.S.T. worthy of mentioning.

Conclusion
Spielberg directed what was on paper, he did well, don’t blame him
Shoot the Writer who convinced Spielberg to shoot it.

P.S.
The Syntax sux I know.

I agree, the boy should have stayed dead and it would have given the film a greater impact in the end. Then again, I found it odd that the family in Boston were still in their cozy little home. With all the devistation that was happening, I would have persumed them dead or evacuated from the main city. Oh, well, as you can see, this film does leave many questions to be answered.

*Contains spoilers!!*

















I was comepletely in awe of the effects in this film. But like "Depression" said it feels a bit like one of those rides at Universal Studios or Disney Land at times. I also was left with a feeling that the ending was kinda "fast 'n quick". Also I was hoping that Spielberg had maybe changed the ending a bit so that it just wasn't a bug thing.
Also I wondered why the aliens had waited all that time to take over the earth instead of taking back when they burried the machines? Also why did they even burrie those things back then? With that kind of technology a million ears ago, shurely they would have evolved since then and have no need to use hidden machines instead of just coming down in ships and destroying everything?

SPOILERS :o









I thought the movie was completely awesome, but I also agree that the kid should have died. It was more about the relationship between Ray and Rachel, so why bring him back. Anyways, it was still an awesome movie with awesome effects. Who didn't enjoy watching all those people get zapped with that beam and blowing up. :o

I didn't! I really did not think the laser beam was all that effective and was one of the worst effects throughout the film. People blowing up into some kind of ash or powder just doesn't seem as frightening as, say, watching them melt to their skeletal core.

Kinda weird, last night we had this pretty intense thunderstorm around 3 am ish. Of course I had to go out on our back deck and watch after seeing this movie.

SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS


I really liked this film. I didn't know what to expect from it really. Since "Spielberg" said he didn't want to make this movie until he could tell the story differently than anyone else has to date. I didn't expect this movie to be disturbing in places, or as scary, or as intense as it came out. This was a vastly different role than we've seen Tom Cruise in. His character is unconfident, uncaring, and uncertain of himself in the beginning, but then redeems himself by rising to the occasion as "our hero". "Dakota Fanning" is such an amazing actor for her age! She gave a great performance here. I don't think I've ever seen an actor her age or even around her age that could accurately portray a child going out of their mind. She definitely pulls this off in "War Of The Worlds". I didn't see much to complain about in the film. I see a lot of people posting that they liked the first half over the second, or vice versa. I really liked it all the way through.


Did anyone else notice a "slight" similarity to "Empire Strikes Back" when 'Cruise' was in the 'giant purple people holder'? Remember, 'Luke' crashes his snow speeder, zip lines up to the belly of the giant "walker", and throws in a grenade? Maybe this is reaching, but the fact that both Lucas and Spielberg are good friends, and having Cruise throw in a grenade to take down a larger than life "walker" type machine, was just too similar to me. ;)


- Josh

I really don't think Ray changed all that much. At least not anymore than the rest of us would do in that situtation. To me, those human survival instincts were just as apparent in the second half as they were the first. In the end, Ray is still probably a lazy, selfish deadbeat. Just because a blew up one of the alien craft or killed Robbins was all based on survival and not some heroic act as expected with the hero type. I mean, think about it. If it was Bruce Willis, the dude would have been figuring out how fight back instead of hiding or accidently picking up a pack of gernades and getting lucky. Anyway, I just don't feel there was some major transformation to super hero in the second half. His character was still overwhelemed with fear and simply acted on human instinct in order to survive.

Anyone else disappointed in the waste of Miranda Otto? I think she's a very beautiful and talented actress but was reduced to a filler mom role.

It is a crowd pleaser, but, then, it's a movie. Sci-fi movies, esp., are meant to entertain, and this is Spielberg's best work in years. As for Cruise becoming a "hero" in the end, well, the heroics cover only a few minutes of climax, and it's hardly a major transformation in him, simply a survival instinct, as Tim says.

Contrary to Tim's negative appraisal of the death ray, however, I found it one of the most chilling parts of the movie: a ray that disintegrates a person from the inside out, leavinig only the person's clothes blown to shreds and the body vaporized. Cruise comes home after his first encounter with the aliens and finds himself covered in "dust." What is only implied is that it's the pulverized dust of human flesh. That's creepy.

John

NO NO NO!!! Damn you death ray lovers!!! :D

Tim ;)

Death to the death rays!

John

Was it just my theater or did this movie really have a broad aspect ratio? When I was looking at the screen it barely looked widescreen at my theater.

Marvin Martian - "You've made me very, very angry! Very angry indead! I shall have to destroy you with my Pewdeom 3 Space Modualtor and turn you into a useful but harmless slave!"

Tim :D

People please! Listen to yourselves! My God they are but death rays! Surely we can come to an agreement... I mean... can't we all just... get along?

Response: "NO! DAMN YOU ONIJAY! DAMN YOU TO THE FIERY AND ABYSMAL PITS OF THE SEVENTH CIRCLE OF HELL YOU DEATH RAY LOVER/HATER! I shall vaporize you to your bones and then grind your bones to dust to imitate both death rays since you love both so much! WHAT SAY YOU TO THAT? HUH!?"

I had a lot of sugar this morning...

It was 1.85:1 wich, for some reason, Spielberg uses for most (all?) his films. If it has something to do with special fx, video release or whatever I do not no, but it certainly takes something away from the cinema experience.

Onijay,

A few words... DECAF, SPLENDA, and maybe a little PROZAC! ;) :D



Tim,

Are you watching the Cartoon network while you're drunk? :D :D


- Josh

does anyone know when we expect the dvd, I've already heard rumors about November 29, but I don't know if that is what Paramount is planning for, or if the plan to release it on a different date (hopefully before Xmas)

i think they mean there are technical flaws with the way it was shot. I'm still pissed that it was filmed at 1.85:1 (which most people would think of as a not a problem at all, but I found it annoying and actually, quite stupid to do a big visual effects filled action film at such a low ratio), If I were Mr. Spielberg I would have shot WotW at a ratio of 2.40:1- which I believe is the widest ratio still in use today.

About the Website's review of the movie:

"The film is occasionally marred with technical flaws"

Can the reviewer or any other member of the staff/forum define the line above?

Technical flaws on the way it was Shot?
Technical Flaws on the script? (emp etc etc)
Someone?

Hopefully he is going for a global release for the DVD as done before.

i dont think it was for the ratio, which, by the way, is the Spielberg Standart.

It means flaws to the eyes of the viewer. In my case, I felt there were flaws when it came to science and physics. Many of the effects were created to dazel the audience, but had many of them been down to reality, they simply would have never happened in the real world. Even the driving the mini-van down a freeway of stalled vehicles I found to be a technical flaw, because in reality, it simply would never happen. And for all of you who live in the big cities, you know exactly what I mean. Unless you have a 4-wheel drive, there is no way in hell you're driving anywhere on a loaded freeway.

I liked the way all the stopped cars were perfectly spaced on the freeways and roads so that Cruise could easily navigate through them.

Spielberg has shot most of his films in the last decade or two at 1.85:1. That way the films can either be cropped (matted) top and/or bottom for a wider viewing or cropped (matted) at the sides for pan-and-scan viewing, and either way not a lot will be lost.

John

I have to say there where some great shots in this as well. Like the long scene were they are driving away on the freeway and the girl is screaming. That was nicely done with how the camera moved around the car ect.