Rate Spielberg's War of the Worlds
- Thread starter Krug
- Start date
orbitalfreak
Explorer
Really amazing movie. I gave it a 10/10.
I was really impressed by the movie. The visuals are amazing, but the movie doesn't stay "focused" on the SFX as something to rely on. There are several times where they could have gone for the money-shot and showcasing the tripods, but decided to stay centered on the people in the movie. There were of course some major SFX shots, but that wasn't what the movie was emphasizing.
The acting was phenomenal. Dakota Fanning may seem to be the "next child superstar," but she definitely deserves the title. She has some hilarious lines, and they are delivered flawlessly. Tom Cruise was amazing, as was the actor playing his son Robbie. All of the scenes, the interaction, showed a lot of chemistry amongst them; they behaved like a real (though dysfunctional) family.
I was shaking almost throughout the entire movie. It was horrible, the imagery, the action, seeing these things happen (given a suspension of disbelief and pretending this was "real"). I nearly vomited at the first use of the
, which was very well done.
I had doubts about the ability to bring War of the Worlds from page to screen, but I was at least hoping to get a decently enjoyable movie without too much dumb stuff. I instead got a spectacular piece of work that I could watch several times over.
One of the best parts, though, was the previews of "King Kong." It looks like a near-perfect recreation and duplication of the original movie, just told using better effects. Peter Jackson, it seems, had done another amazing job. I'll rate it a 10/10 already.
I was really impressed by the movie. The visuals are amazing, but the movie doesn't stay "focused" on the SFX as something to rely on. There are several times where they could have gone for the money-shot and showcasing the tripods, but decided to stay centered on the people in the movie. There were of course some major SFX shots, but that wasn't what the movie was emphasizing.
The acting was phenomenal. Dakota Fanning may seem to be the "next child superstar," but she definitely deserves the title. She has some hilarious lines, and they are delivered flawlessly. Tom Cruise was amazing, as was the actor playing his son Robbie. All of the scenes, the interaction, showed a lot of chemistry amongst them; they behaved like a real (though dysfunctional) family.
I was shaking almost throughout the entire movie. It was horrible, the imagery, the action, seeing these things happen (given a suspension of disbelief and pretending this was "real"). I nearly vomited at the first use of the
heat ray
I had doubts about the ability to bring War of the Worlds from page to screen, but I was at least hoping to get a decently enjoyable movie without too much dumb stuff. I instead got a spectacular piece of work that I could watch several times over.
One of the best parts, though, was the previews of "King Kong." It looks like a near-perfect recreation and duplication of the original movie, just told using better effects. Peter Jackson, it seems, had done another amazing job. I'll rate it a 10/10 already.
frankthedm
First Post
GlassJaw said:
People thought Signs was good? It was not horrid, that was the village, but hardly good.
Real Families ARE dysfunctional.
As said before, I am going to see the flick because the preview gave me the feeling of what it would had looked like had the creature from The Dunwich Horror multiplied to clear off the earth. If the flick is watered down with human drama, i may walk out.
Last edited:
ShinHakkaider
Adventurer
I just saw this today and I have to say that of the movies that I've seen so far this summer (ROTS, Batman Begins and Mr & Mrs. Smith) I enjoyed this one the MOST. The first Tripod attack was just INTENSE and it pretty much doesnt let up from there. It's the typical spielberg journey film but still geez was it HARSH, especially that first Tripod attack in the town.
My one complaint was the ending not the abruptness but the resolution (of the family stuff) those who have seen it might know what I'm talking about.
The one thing that totally horrified me, was the imagery of the red weed.
I've only seen those other films once, I'm going back to see this again on Friday...
My one complaint was the ending not the abruptness but the resolution (of the family stuff) those who have seen it might know what I'm talking about.
The one thing that totally horrified me, was the imagery of the red weed.
I've only seen those other films once, I'm going back to see this again on Friday...
frankthedm
First Post
Looks like i spoke too soon. There won't be much of the human drama that waters down far too much sci fi.
LESS DRAMA MORE TRAUMA!
EDIT :\
I was dead wrong. watered down crap about a family the should have been vaporized
LESS DRAMA MORE TRAUMA!
EDIT :\
I was dead wrong. watered down crap about a family the should have been vaporized
Last edited:
Desdichado
Hero
I'm beginning to suspect that we have nothing in common in our definition of what makes a good movie.frankthedm said:
frankthedm
First Post
Joshua Dyal said:
We have nothing in common in our definition of what makes a movie good to frankthedm.
GlassJaw
Hero
I don't think I have anything in common with him, period.
Let me say this - I actually think Signs is MUCH better than WotW.
This is really strange because aside from the tripods laying waste to the cities and everything else, I thought all of the alien stuff (including the aliens themselves) were extremely tame. The coolest part of the movie was the first ship coming out from underneath the street in the beginning. Batman was much scarier and intense than WotW.
Similar Threads
