War Of The Worlds, a review (of sorts), and some rambling...*SPOILERS* by chrisisall

OTHER SCIENCE FICTION SERIES

War Of The Worlds, a review (of sorts), and some rambling...*SPOILERS*

POSTED BY: CHRISISALL
UPDATED: Saturday, January 7, 2006 03:58
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 2941
PAGE 1 of 1

Saturday, November 26, 2005 5:36 AM

Mr. Speilberg, what happened to you?
I used to see a Steven Speilberg movie to have fun. Now, it seems, I see a Speilberg movie to get somewhat unsettled as I mentally play connect the thin plot dots to it's inevitable Hollywood cheesefest ending.
Whether it's trying to rip tears outta us with the cruel treatment of the kid in AI, or watching Tom Cruise chase his eyeballs in Minority Report, or seeing Tom walk into a room to silently kill a man while his little girl sleeps nearby in WOTW, we know all will be upbeat in the end. I'm kinda tired of it. Don't give us gritty or disgusting if it's gonna be happy-happy bull

time by the end.
Tom Cruise is very good in it, and the FX are the usual excellence from ILM, but the flick feels hollow- reminds me of a childhood poem "Here I sit, broken hearted..." you know the rest

Like Jurassic Park, it is an experience, and on that level alone, is very much worth a look,*beat* however...
I went out and got the 1953 version to compare, and, well, there IS no comparison! George Pal's work holds up quite nicely, and it doesn't drag( Plus the DVD has the entire Mercury Theatre radio production on it!).

Comments?

Chrisisall watching the skies

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 26, 2005 6:28 AM

TALLGRRL

Um, where've you been?
Are you just now seeing this movie?
I've heard the Mercury Theatre broadcast, read the original story, seen the Gene Barry version and saw the Spielberg ADAPTATION.
(That's the key word: ADAPTATION.)
Me? I liked it. It was a good ride.
And Dakota Fanning acted her little ass off.
Not a big fan of Tom Cruise, but he was also good.
If you did indeed see the Barry version, you'll note that it's got a "positive" ending as well.
You used to go to Spielberg movies and expect to "have fun"?
I bet you were REALLY upset at "Shindler's List", eh?
So, let me guess: you don't read a synopsis of a film before you go skipping off to the multiplex?
It's War of the Worlds. NOT E.T.
And if you'd read or heard any of the interviews with Spielberg, you'd have known that this was NOT E.T. by any stretch of the imagination.
: /

"Take me, sir. Take me hard." -- Zoe

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 26, 2005 6:17 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Tallgrrl:

Me? I liked it. It was a good ride.
And Dakota Fanning acted her little ass off.
Not a big fan of Tom Cruise, but he was also good.
If you did indeed see the Barry version, you'll note that it's got a "positive" ending as well.

Tallgrrl, you're taking the wind out of my rant!!
The 'positive' ending I mean is having the son disappear so we get sad, then having him magically re-appear at the end so we get all happy.
It WAS a good ride, but with a little thought it could've been a great one, IMHO.

The Barry version was just more spectacular and creative. This one was just 'run-hide-run-hide-it's over'. And what's with Cruise turning into Luke Skywalker and taking down one of the Walkers-er, I mean Martian machines? And why come to Earth millions of years ago to plant ships? Are they back for mere Human target practice? They covered that better in Predator:)

Note: if I had never seen the Barry version, then sure, I would've liked it a lot more, but still, don't you see a 'cheese' ending to most of Speilberg's later films?

Chrisisall, demanding more than ever in this post-Serenity era (Steven should go to 'Joss school')

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 27, 2005 5:49 AM

CHRISISALL

Okay, I watched the movie again since my last post to confirm the awful truth- compared to the 1953 version, it blows. It's worse than Jurrasic Park 2, at least that movie had Jeff Goldblum in it. On a second viewing all the plot holes are magnified with spectacle taking the back seat.

When was the last time things started erupting loudly from the earth underneath your feet, and made buildings split in two, and you hung around within a stone's throw to watch it?

All right, I could make a long list, but I won't. Suffice it to say, as good a ride as it is once, it definitly doesn't stand up for a second time.

Chrisisall, a friend to Martians everywhere

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 27, 2005 3:21 PM

CHRISISALL

PLUS: 'harvesting' humans for their blood?
Isn't that a little reminisent of harvesting humans for their 'energy' *COUGH/Matrix rip*, excuse me.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 27, 2005 3:29 PM

STAKETHELURK

Quote:
PLUS: 'harvesting' humans for their blood?
Isn't that a little reminisent of harvesting humans for their 'energy' *COUGH/Matrix rip*, excuse me.

Haven't seen the film, but the blood-drinking goes straight back to H.G. Wells--roughly 100 years before The Matrix.

...But then again, Wells did have that time machine.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, November 27, 2005 3:39 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by StakeTheLurk:
the blood-drinking goes straight back to H.G. Wells--roughly 100 years before The Matrix.

...But then again, Wells did have that time machine.

I read Time Machine, but not WOTW. So it was in his novel first, huh? Matrix was inspired by him then. *COUGH/Wells rip*, excuse me.

Chrisisall of the Eloi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:32 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

The people in this movie were dumb as rocks; I was rooting for the aliens, personally. I wanted the little brat kid and his father to get ground up into alien compost.

But Dakota Fanning lives happily ever after. That, I insist upon. She’s just too adorable.

All in all, I never really liked War of the World’s. The whole story is an exercise in the dues ex machina. It would never have been as popular as it is, in fact may never have even been remember, had it not been for the controversy created by Orwell’s 1938 radio broadcast, suggesting that people really are that stupid.

Every time the conspiracy fruitcakes get on their soapbox, it reminds of this radio broadcast and how gullible people really can be. You tell people that there our national interests are at stake by terrorist who might explode a nuclear bomb on our doorstep or fly a plane into a building and people won’t give a shit until it happens. But if you introduce aliens or some secret government plot to shaft the little guy into the story and people will buy it like its milk before a snowstorm. God, maybe people really are that stupid.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:51 PM

HKCAVALIER

Hey there Chris,

I much prefer the post Schindler's Spielberg to the pre-Schindler's one. And I don't hold with this happy ending rap. I saw A.I., and that was in no way a happy ending. Creepy yes, disturbing yes, devastatingly downbeat even, but happy? For whom? The human race is gone, Chris. All that's left are these memory machines, reliving a past that doesn't even belong to them. And the whole thing with Blue Fairy and Mommy and living one day forever is just a Freudian nightmare. Best Kubrick movie he never made.

And WoTW was a horror movie. The entire human race was helpless against forces even we in the audience couldn't understand. Like Schindler's it's an examination of fate under the most extreme circumstances. I thought the burried ships and such were bafflingly improbable, but what do you expect from a truly alien mind? It was a movie about a holocaust. With Spielberg, you gotta lead with your heart. Those folks stood there and watched while the aliens came out of the ground because aliens were coming out of the ground! They knew that something utterly alien to their entire existence was right there under the ground, so they stood in baffled awe, like deer stuck in headlights.

As for the ending...Now, just for a moment imagine that the events of this movie actually happened. Who's story would you make a movie out of? Some poor schmuck who's entire family bites it? No, you'll make the movie about this one bizarrely lucky family that managed to survive intact. Again, late Spielberg's central theme is the mysterious workings of fate.

And from a narrative point of view, having the father and the son meet at the end is important. Their reunion isn't some schmaltzy freeze-frame, but a difficult encounter between two human beings who know each other better now than they ever would have without the invasion. That's a disturbing truth, that good things innevitably come from catastrophe; they can't not.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2005 2:48 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Okay, I watched the movie again since my last post to confirm the awful truth- compared to the 1953 version, it blows. It's worse than Jurrasic Park 2, at least that movie had Jeff Goldblum in it. On a second viewing all the plot holes are magnified with spectacle taking the back seat.

When was the last time things started erupting loudly from the earth underneath your feet, and made buildings split in two, and you hung around within a stone's throw to watch it?

All right, I could make a long list, but I won't. Suffice it to say, as good a ride as it is once, it definitly doesn't stand up for a second time.

Chrisisall, a friend to Martians everywhere

Surely Hell hath frozen over, for I agree with Chrisisall. ( About WOTW AND Jurassic Park 2! ) The list of things we're suppose to buy amongst all the plot holes in this 'adaptation' is bewildering.
The next time your only teenage son whines that he wants to wander over a hill, with no weapons, training or damn business of being there in the first place to watch heavy artillary do battle w/ invincible alien craft...you knock his ass out and carry him away!!! This was NOT the time for Jr. to be expanding his sphere of independence from weekend dad as some lame ass right of passage. Hell, I don't even have kids, and now I know why.

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2005 3:31 AM

CITIZEN

I don't particularly rate any of the War of the Worlds films. The fifties one was better than Speilbergs attempt, but I still found it pretty cheesy.

HG Wells original was fantastic, and loses nothing being set in Victorian England.

I think a film that was a direct adaptation of the Book (i.e. set in Victorian England) would be superb. Half the fear element of the original is the onset of killing machines to a culture incapable of handeling them, like the tank from world war one

HG Wells was a visionary, and his original in it's original format is better, more striking and hits harder than any of the later adaptations could ever hope for. Hell even the Jeff Wayne Musical version is better than any of the films.

There will never be a decent film adaptation though, since Hollywood only does period stuff if it means changing history, and they'd HAVE to set it in Washington, couldn't be set in London after all

.

Finn:
I can't help thinking you've missed the point. HG Wells wrote War of the Worlds in 1898. I heard of and read the book before i'd even heard of the radio broadcast. The book wouldn't of been popular or famous without the radio braodcast? Please, it had been around and been popular long before that broadcast.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2005 4:40 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I saw A.I., and that was in no way a happy ending. Creepy yes, disturbing yes, devastatingly downbeat even, but happy? For whom? The human race is gone, Chris. All that's left are these memory machines, reliving a past that doesn't even belong to them. And the whole thing with Blue Fairy and Mommy and living one day forever is just a Freudian nightmare. Best Kubrick movie he never made.

HK, I agree about A.I., I feel it's the exception. A great and disturbing flick.
And I could have handled WOTW's ending if Minority Report hadn't handed me a nonsense all's-well finale.
I can see the horror aspect you cite, but watch it a second time, I dare ya!

Chrisisall, a Tom fan even

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2005 4:48 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:

The next time your only teenage son whines that he wants to wander over a hill, with no weapons, training or damn business of being there in the first place to watch heavy artillary do battle w/ invincible alien craft...you knock his ass out and carry him away!!!

While I agree with your sentiments, realistically, that would have been problematic. His son was feisty; might have taken repeated blows to get him limp, and in the frenzy around, Tom might have accidentally hurt him severly, like, broken his neck. Plus the daughter was alone for too long already, and that further split his concentration. That was the good part of the movie, the sense of helplessness all around...
But knocking him out WAS the first thing that came to my mind, too!

Chrisisall, skating in Hell

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2005 4:56 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I think a film that was a direct adaptation of the Book (i.e. set in Victorian England) would be superb. Half the fear element of the original is the onset of killing machines to a culture incapable of handeling them, like the tank from world war one

Yep, do the book as written, that was what I'd hoped when I first heard Speilberg was doing it.
But as far as us being utterly incapible of handeling them, the 1953 version is still the best we've gotten.
(BTW, Wells got the idea for WOTW from seeing Invasion Of The Saucer People when he was travelling in his real time machine, I've heard it said)

Time After Time fan Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2005 5:05 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
since Hollywood only does period stuff if it means changing history, and they'd HAVE to set it in Washington, couldn't be set in London after all .

I agree. Although I think Jackson could do a Victorian War of the Worlds and make it a bigger blockbuster then Spielburg could hope for. Just look at what he did with King Kong. That movie looks amazing...too long for the theaters, but films like that need to be made. King Kong and Star Wars aren't the reason Hollywood isn't making money this year, after all great films are still great. Its so many crappy little movies that clog the system preventing potentially profitable 2nd String films like Serenity from making the money Hollywood needs.

I'm not knocking Serenity, I love that movie and will be getting it for mine own on December 20th, but its not and never would have been a blockbuster, it should have been a breakout hit, but how can you break out when your competing with 20 other crappy movies at the same time?

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2005 5:06 AM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
It would never have been as popular as it is, in fact may never have even been remember, had it not been for the controversy created by Orwell’s 1938 radio broadcast, suggesting that people really are that stupid.

Citizen's right, and the story's too compelling not to have been made into a movie someday, with, or without the Orson Wells (you were thinking 1984 writer, nes pas?) broadcast.
Aside: the first time Night Of The Living Dead was shown on broadcast TV in NY, the network got hundreds of phone calls asking if it was real (the TV announcer segments) prompting them to run a disclaimer across the bottom in subsequent broadcasts.

Yes, Virginia, there really are zombies out there.

Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2005 5:15 AM

CITIZEN

Serenity is a good movie, not just bias I think. If it had had Halle Berry as Inara and George Clooney as Mal then it would be big.

Remember, no one cares about stories, it's all about the stars...

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 15, 2005 11:09 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
I can't help thinking you've missed the point. HG Wells wrote War of the Worlds in 1898. I heard of and read the book before i'd even heard of the radio broadcast. The book wouldn't of been popular or famous without the radio braodcast? Please, it had been around and been popular long before that broadcast.

Well, it wouldn’t be the first time I’ve missed the point. I’ve never actually read the book, to be honest. I just assumed the stories I’ve seen were a fair representation of the book, which may not be a very good assumption. You could be right. I’ll read the book, but if it stinks I’m going to be pissed.

And also, I didn’t actually not like Spielberg’s War of the Worlds. It was a good movie, but it had a major flaw in it. I had a very hard time drumming up much sympathy for many of the characters. With the exception of the little girl, there just wasn’t much there to be concerned about. Cruise’s character and his dysfunctional relationship with his son not only failed to produce much sympathy but it was also annoying. What kind of narcissistic psychotic kid would leave his sister and father during this time to go watch the “fireworks?” I hated that kid. I was furious to see that little treacherous brat alive at the end of the story. Not only did it make no sense that he should live, but it undermined the devastation and rewarded bad behavior, and somehow I’m supposed to care about his kid? So what if Cruise’s character finally realizes his potential as a father? I couldn’t give a rat’s posterior. Aliens are destroying the world, for the love of god. Dakota Fanning’s character was good for two reasons: first, she did an excellent job with it, and second because she was helpless and terrified, which makes sense. Her character was written and acted in a way that created sympathy and was plausible for the character. I cared for her. The only times I had any emotional response to this movie at all involved her, and if there was any redeeming factor to Cruise’s character and his son was that it made the little girl’s situation even more desperate.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Citizen's right, and the story's too compelling not to have been made into a movie someday, with, or without the Orson Wells (you were thinking 1984 writer, nes pas?) broadcast.

Oui, tu dis la vérité, car j’ai dit “Orwell” je ne sais comment.

Something in my brain contracted Orson Wells and created Orwell. I don’t know why.

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Aside: the first time Night Of The Living Dead was shown on broadcast TV in NY, the network got hundreds of phone calls asking if it was real (the TV announcer segments) prompting them to run a disclaimer across the bottom in subsequent broadcasts.

People are dumb. We have to be told that our coffee is hot and that the dead don’t actually re-animate to consume human brains. Why this is true, escapes me.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:18 AM

J6NGO1977

I agree with what Finn said about not feeling any sympathy for any of the characters except the little girl. I understand that the ending was correct but the actual movie just felt rushed at the end. Spielberg could have lengthened the movie and created a tighter and more suspensful ending and f course left the son dead.

Ray Harryhausen started storyboarding a remake of War of the Worlds that was true to the book and set in Victorian England. However he wasn't able to get the backing. Now I think he would have done a much better job than Spielberg. The mighty Jason and the Argonauts is still a lesson in how an SFX adventure is suposed to be done.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:44 AM

ROCKETJOCK

The most lucicrous plot point in the film is the idea that the war machines could have been buried underfoot for a million years, and nobody on Earth would have noticed, when we've spent the last ten thousand years digging up the planet's surface, sometimes to a depth of miles. Surely if the invaders are that good at long-range planning they'd have noticed our planet has a microorganism-rich ecosphere by now...

And since they're already postulating that the machine's pilots are being teleported in, why not assume that the machines are too, and some limitation on their teleportation system requires the terminal end of the process be deep within solid matter? It's just as reasonable, given a completely unknown tech.

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, December 20, 2005 4:56 AM

ARCLIGHT

Indeed, Speilberg's movies have become so bad that I've begun to wonder if his earlier success' weren't just flukes or stuff he pirated from someone else. Either way whatever he once had, he ain't got no more.

arclight

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 7:08 PM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

I’m halfway through War of the Worlds and I’m finding it to be a very enticing read. Chris and Citizen are right; it is much better book then a movie. I would encourage anyone who didn’t like the movie to read the book. It’s nothing like the movie, and although much of the story was probably intended to be understood differently then a 21 century reader might see it, it’s easy to visualize it in terms of a 21 century setting.

In spite of its rather archaic analysis of Mars, it actually has a much more plausible scenario for the aliens to come to earth. One of the common criticisms for the movie was the implausibility of these tripods being buried in the ground, which clearly makes no sense. We are to assume that seismological surveys never discovered one and even more implausible, that cities and towns never encountered them whilst building foundations, transportation, water, sewer and other underground infrastructure, which often exceed many tens of feet to sometimes hundreds below the surface. Hell, even sewers built by the classical Romans and Greeks went 30 to 50 ft deep. I can’t fault Wells for not knowing science about Mars that had yet to be discovered, but the only excuse Spielberg and his writers have is stupidity.

-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, December 28, 2005 10:37 PM

REAVERINA1985RIVIERA

The science of the movie is pretty much crap too.
If an EMP went off abouve a city, it would fry every electronic device in the car, not just the starter that is already installed in the minivan. And you couldn't just swap it out for a new oneyou had in the nearby parts room, it would be fried too, because it's also in the EMP. Not to mention that that model minivan is elctronic fuel injected, all the injectors would be slag, and the engine management computer would probably have melted. The ignition coilpacks would've fused into solid lump of copper and plastic, too.

The only engine that would work after an EMP would be an antique mechanily injected diesl, and then you'd still have to crank it over by hand.

Plus, if that was MY '67 Shelby Mustang the son took joyriding, I'd break both his arms next time I saw him.

---------------------------------------------
The real-life box droppin', man-ape gone wrong thing, now without the pesky falling boxes

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 29, 2005 1:01 AM

CITIZEN

Finn:
Glad we could point you in the direction of such a great peice of fiction.

The movies idea that machines had been buried for millions of years is ridiculous. I mean the martians didn't notice the microbes when they were burying the things?

Why didn't they just take over the Earth when they landed the walkers? Why wait until after we've invented the nuclear weapon.

Why use such outdated weaponry anyway. A million years has seen us move from flint spears to assualt rifles, and again our friend Mr Fatman.

What, the martians invented the death ray and said "right lads, we've reached the top! we're gonna have to stop!"

Maybe thats whats bothering them, oobee doo.

The book isn't so much about the alien menace, that's one of the great things, and why later interpretations are SOOO poor (IMHO) in comparision. The book came out in a time shortly before the first world war, it visualised a terrible mechanical war in europe, one where the individual soldier really was just cannon fodder.

It's describes the First World War, but with Aliens from Mars instead of the Bosch from Germany

.

You also don't get this ridiculous idea that the lead role has to be some invincible super hero, like Spielberg had to foist on us. I mean, the entire US and indeed world millitaries can't so much as scratch the paint work, but you give good ol' Tom a couple o' grandpa's best granades and he'll do the job, yessire.

Frankly if it was as simple as that to take one down some one would of figured it out and started strapping bomb belts to soldiers in civilian clothing. Rules of intestellar war be damned.

So anyway I think I should probably stop ranting now, bye.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
Remember, the ice caps aren't melting, the water is being liberated.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, December 29, 2005 9:20 AM

CHRISISALL

Citizen, you SO nailed my major problems with the movie!
Oh, and (not to get too technical or overly-detailed) the end sucked.