Rate Spielberg's War of the Worlds

[Droogie]

*spoilers* Gave it a 7. Thought it was really good, but I think the idea of having the war machines buried for thousands (millions?) of years was a crappy twist of the story.

If they really planted those machines before the time of humans like Tim Robbins' character suggested, why wait now to attack? Why not save the trouble and just take the planet the first time?

I didn't mind the family drama, but I guess I would have liked a bit more discussion about the aliens and whatnot. More science in this science-fiction story would have been nice.

I wish I could have seen the army actually taking these things on rather than hearing it take place over a hill.

In your first paragraph you mention the people acting like "normal people" and that is farther from the truth. AGain, many of my inconsistencies show this. MIlitary commanders not laying out the best course of action "getting those cars off for more people". All of the people watching and starying continuosly as the church falls apart and the tripod comes out the ground. That felt like I was watching some cheesy horror movie. Only people in cheesy horror movies do that.

Recent Time magazine article talked about mob mentality during a crisis situation. Most people, if not trained to respond appropriately, will freeze up like a deer in headlights. Many people died in the WTC because they stood around in confusion when the planes hit, rather than dash for the exits. When presented with an almost unreal, unfamilar situation, its shocking that people have a tendancy to stay put.

edit: added a small spoiler warning

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Saw it just yesterday. Gave it an 8 thought that's probably a bit too kind. As just about every review I've read says, I also thought the first half was visually outstanding but that the second half was a jarring change of pacing. But that's a problem that carries over from the original material, not because the books pacing it particularly jarring or slow, but because it simply doesn't translate well to the pacing requirements of a movie.

POSSIBLE LIGHT SPOILERS BELOW

(Assuming of course you're one of the few that doesn't actually know the story, such as it is.)
The character development at the outset seemed stilted to me and BADLY written. I mean BADLY. I think it would have worked MUCH better to simply have the main character seperated from his wife rather than estranged and with disaffected children from that marraige. For a Doomed-World disaster movie it does itself a severe disfavor by not maximizing the affection the viewer will have for the protagonists. Then it isolates Cruises character, Ferrier. from his kids at the outset as well, sacrificing lots of opportunities to build even more viewer identification with Dad protecting Kids-In-Danger.

If the characters had been more immediately presented as entirely worthy of emotional investment that wouldn't have been as much of a loss. Isolating Ferrier could have been played for some greater emotional appeal - Dad has to go get his kids out of the way of destruction - but because all the protagonists are somewhat distant from each other at the outset all we can really do is marvel at the destruction and vicariously fear the unemotional killing machines.

And of course at the start of the latter half we go from active devastation and panicked flight to about 20 or 30 minutes of subdued, whispered conversation or silence in hiding before we get a bit more action near the end.

Now it was of course intended that all the action should be presented from a largely first-person perspective. Ferrier is in every scene and we never see anything that he, himself doesn't see so any real heroics on his part are going to be difficult to work into the scheme of things. But then that's why it's probably not the best choice to adhere too closely to Wells' story.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

What a piece of drek. No logic, no internal consistency, typical Spielberg kid 'acting'. Tremendously disappointing. The action scenes were flat, the acting monotonous, and the ending perfunctory. I nearly nodded off during the scenes in the basement, and I *never* fall asleep at the movies. (Well, ok, once, but it was 'The Avengers'. I think sleep was merciful).

Some neat effects, especially the long shots of the tripods. But the complete lack of any sense of plausibility or continuity makes it a prime candidate for future editions of MST3K.

 

[Abraxas]

Just saw it - gave it an 8.
It followed the book well enough (which is a huge plus for me cause I like HG Wells), and was visually very entertaining.
Only a couple of the inconsistancies really jarred me - the biggest was the clear driving lane.
I thought it was infinitely better than Signs (of course I also think any one of the original TV episodes of Lost in Space are better than Signs).

 

[Beretta]

What a piece of drek. No logic, no internal consistency, typical Spielberg kid 'acting'. Tremendously disappointing. The action scenes were flat, the acting monotonous, and the ending perfunctory. I nearly nodded off during the scenes in the basement, and I *never* fall asleep at the movies. (Well, ok, once, but it was 'The Avengers'. I think sleep was merciful).

Some neat effects, especially the long shots of the tripods. But the complete lack of any sense of plausibility or continuity makes it a prime candidate for future editions of MST3K.

Ditto. Wasted 2 hours and I went in with zero expectations (well, only the expectation to be entertained which I was not).

Tom Cruise was good as were the special effetcs but the girl who played his daughter was not. I expected better having seen her in Man on Fire.

 

[Strithe]

Saw it Saturday. Gave it a 5.

Great special effects, and overall good acting, but the plot was just plain goofy in parts. (Spoilers below).


1. The buried war machines just came off as a lame way to add a "twist" to the movie. Something like a "freak" meteor shower coupled with the EMP storms would have been more believable & acutally closer to the book. I find it hard to believe the idea that thousands of massive war macheines would have been left undiscoverd on a planet with as much technoic activity and mining as ours.

2. The van still working after the EMP storm. I thought anything that wasn't specially shielded that was computer-controlled would be fried from an EMP burst. Farrier's old Mustang actually Should have still worked, since the older cars don't have very sophisticated electronics. Of course, I'm not an expert on it so maybe I'm wrong. Speaking of the van, I'll agree that the empty lane was awfully convenient, although the rest of the scene worked well enought that I didnt' pay that much attention to it.

3. While I can accept the fact that untrained mobs of hysterical civilians will tend to bunch up in packs even though it just makes it easier to be turned into Flambe, what was the deal with the soldiers? ATTENION MR. SPIELBURG (AND MR. LUCAS): Military tactics actually change when the weapons technology advances beyond swords and muzzle-loading muskets! Apparently the National Guard in WOTW hasn't changed their training since 1776 in spite of the existenace of machineguns, highly accurate artillery, and guided missiles. "Sir, the aliens are using highly evolved techonologies far in advance of our own." "All right, here's what well do: Bunch up into a tightly packed line formation (you know, to better couteract a bayonet charge), and advance slowly towards the enemy while firing. Forget trying to use the terrain to our advantage, real heroes don't use cover!"

4. I thought the last part of the basement scene was WAY to drawn out. If you were really afraid that the loony's shouting was going to result in your only surviving child being used as Miracle-Gro, I doubt you'd spend 10 minutes making a blindfold, having her sing, and quietly creeping up to Mr. Wierdo.

5. A lot of things left unexplained in the film that you wouldn't have gotten unless you'd read the book. Just looking at the film, you have no real idea what the red weed was, or that the Aliens drank human blood (I guess the kids in the theatre would have been upset by that, as opposed to the numerous immolations, or the blood-sucking & spewing scene earlier). On the other hand, one of the lamest things was explained in detail: How the pilots got into the buried Tripods. "See, they ride the lightning!" (Cue Metallica song).

6. If you want me to believe the son survives with only minor bumps & bruises, then don't show "Global thermoniculear annhiliation". That scene worked pretty well up until that point (In spite of the Civil War military tactics). Plus: how did the now pilotless Humvees manage an about-face & go uphill with their drivers vaporized? The son surviving could have been worked in much better (say he disappears over the hill, there's some sounds of fighting, and then the Tripod still comes over the hill after some less-apocolyptic explosions. In Boston, they run into the kid as a military convoy rolls by).

7. While I can understand why the main characters flee to Boston, why is everyone else going there? "Look the city's in flames and occupied by more of those killer alien machines! Let's go there and mill about!"

8. What exactly was the point of the last fight scene? Maybe I need to see it again but it looked like Farrier & the soldiers pointlessly confronted a dying Tripod. (It was something a D&D party might do: Hey, let's kill this one & get the Experience points before the module's over!). I guess it was one of these "Spielburg moments."

 

[Sarigar]

I gave it a 9 despite some of the obvious plot holes. My reason for a 9, I haven't had chills like that since Aliens, although I'm not comparing WotW's to Aliens, just the unnerving quality the movie eminated, and no, not because it was bad. The ray the tripods used, the characters being constantly on the run, the blood, and just the "feel" of the movie. Like I said, I agree with (most of) the inconsistancies, yet I was willing to overlook many of them as either just what the characters experienced (in regards to the aliens) or the pressure the characters were under (in regards to the humans).
Also, one thing I kept thinking about while reading some of the posts was that we see so often in movies that humans immediately take their helmets off in sci-fi when they realize that the air is 'earth-like' in mix and breathable. That's not to say that humans are portrayed as great intellects. Maybe the aliens have bureaucratic red tape and bio suits weren't "in the budget" of the Earth invasion. Right there we could have a whole other movie from the aliens perspective.
Did anyone else notice the similarities between the heads of the aliens and a certain navigator alien from Farscape?

 

[The_lurkeR]

Saw this at the drive-in Saturday night.

All I can say is I'm thankful it's two movies for the price of one, because this movie was awful!

I gave it a 4


... awful!!!




(for the curious, the second movie was Mr. and Mrs. Smith which was not bad, it was entertaining for what it was.)

 

[stevelabny]

WORSE THAN BATMAN.

For those who didn't read the Batman thread... i didnt like it and gave it a 4.
This was worse.

Star Wars, Batman, Wotw. three strikes and your're out.
Why are ticket sales down?
Just look at all these craptacular movies.

 

[John Crichton]

Star Wars, Batman, Wotw. three strikes and your're out.

Um, who's out?