Rate Spielberg's War of the Worlds

[ddvmor]

The visuals were great. Tom as usual was pretty good. It was a refreshing change to have a protagonist who wasn't heroic at all - only interested in his own and his family's survival.

I disagree with some of the comments above about the lack of explanation of things like the weed. I knew everything I needed to know and inferred the rest. I realise there are people out there who need this stuff rammed down their throat, but most of the time it's unneccessary and wastes valuable screen-time.

Overall, I was disappointed though. Visuals aside, I don't think there's enough meat on it to stand up to repeated viewing.

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.

What was wrong with her performance? She's a damn sight better than most other actors her age. I think she has a great career ahead of her.

 

[KenM]

My thought on the fight with the national guard troops: They were just buying time to get the civilian refugees out of the area. They knew they were screwed, but they had to protect the other people.

 

[Mark Chance]

She's a damn sight better than most other actors her age.

Certainly better than Tom Cruise, who spent most of the movie leaking glycerin tears and mumbling "Ohmygod" in between shots of his mouth hanging open.

 

[KenM]

Certainly better than Tom Cruise, who spent most of the movie leaking glycerin tears and mumbling "Ohmygod" in between shoht of his mouth hanging open.

But he does that in every movie he is in. its expected.

 

[Mark Chance]

But he does that in every movie he is in. its expected.

And therein is the major problem with WotW: Nothing more was expected. Mediocre script, overinflated leading man who gets out-performed by an 11-year-old, lots of gollygee! effects as an all-too-common way of trying to distract the audience from how unimpressive the film actually is.

Forget story. Forget talent. But look at our shiny toys!

And folks in Hollywood want to whine about lousy ticket sales.

It all started with George Lucas and Star Wars: the overshadowing of effects at the expense of a well-written story. Bread and circuses. It's just bread and circuses.

 

[Quasqueton]

For example, the idea that the Martians managed to hide hundreds of huge warships underneath major cities is silly.

The huge warships were hidden everywhere. Even in the farm country.

Um, who's out?

No, Who's on first.

My thought on the fight with the national guard troops: They were just buying time to get the civilian refugees out of the area. They knew they were screwed, but they had to protect the other people.

The "commander" of the NG troops actually said this.

Overall, I was entertained. There were moments where it stumbled for me. And given more time to think on the plot, I see more problems. But geez. Some of y'all are just full of piss and vinegar. It's like some of you refuse to be pleasantly entertained. You *have* to complain, about anything and everything. I'd hate to DM for many of you.

I never read the book, but I did see the original (1953) movie, and it was interesting to see many of the exact same scenes.

So, what was the "red weed"?

Quasqueton

P.S. If I were Ray, in this movie, I'd have been telling everyone I met, "I killed one!"

 

[Arnwyn]

Another "firmly mediocre" movie for me - I gave it a 6.

Pretty much all of my issues have been addressed in other posts (Strithe's post, especially).

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

One of the worst movies of the year (and I venture to the cinema pretty much every week) - certainly the most disappointing given the hype. I gave it a 2.

Some have already pointed out the stupidity of so much of what happened so I won't retread that, other than to say it destroyed any verisimilitude. But beyond that, the film was just plain boring, mundane and at times bordered on the tedious. The acting may well have been perfectly acceptable, but they were all acting idiots.

People who voted giving it a 9 or 10 are genuinely scaring me.

 

[Andre]

Some of y'all are just full of piss and vinegar. It's like some of you refuse to be pleasantly entertained. You *have* to complain, about anything and everything. I'd hate to DM for many of you.

Quas, you've made some good points, but criticizing others isn't necessary. With respect (and I mean that) let's keep the discussion focused on the movie and not on the audience.

 

[Chain Lightning]

SPOILERS BELOW OF COURSE - - -

Again, Signs did a lot better job with a 21st century of this plot. It actually ended the same way. I walked out of signs though with the feeling of triumph over humans surviving as opposed to War of the Worlds, which I walked out of confused and bewildered.

Have to disagree with you there. I actually think Sign's "water" ending is worse than World's "micro-scopic bacteria" ending. If we had to compare which aliens were dumber, it would be the ones that went to a planet where a lethal liquid is practically EVERYWHERE. About 70% of the Earth's surface. Inhabitants have easy access to it (faucets, bottle water, they drink it constantly), it falls out of the sky periodically, etc, etc....

Out of the two mistakes these aliens make, overlooking microscopic bacteria is at least more plausible in my mind.

Speilberg actually made a mistake by putting too much emphasis on the aliens making us notice the inconsistencies more. More than likely, it was the great special effects that were emphasised over substance that led to this. Completely opposite of signs.

Please, let's remember that the director isn't responsible for all that goes on in a movie. This movie was adapted to screenplay by Josh Friedman and David Koepp.

Also, I think WotW would've been stupid if it went the Signs route and showed less aliens to show more human drama. Why make another movie like Signs? Signs did it already.

The water emerging tripods come up just when the ferry takes off, despite the fact that the other pods came right after the lightening strikes.

Okay, I recognize the many holes in this movie too, but this one you're pointing out is a bit reaching. Didn't it occur to you that the Tripods in the river crossing scene have been out of the ground for a while now already? And that it was a moving group of Tripods that have come upon the ferry area?

It seems that everyone was always really close to the action, as opposed to getting far away from it. It just didn't seem like normal peoples actions.

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.

What Droogie said.

Anyways, I agree with the complaints of

1. The son appearing at the end alive.

2. The silly invasion plan of the aliens - bury our machines ages before and then come back later.

3. The improbability of an alien species this advance overlooking the microscopic bacteria.


These are the major flaws of the movie to me. Everything else was done well enough. I mean, yeah ... I have some personal beefs (like with the design of the aliens themselves - didnt' like it), but that's just nit picking. The above 3 are the flaws that lowered the rating for me and kept the movie from scoring higher. I gave it a 7 out of 10. A bit generous of a score, but hey....it was fun to watch.