Whoa...

Just came home from this and I'm really amazed.

Spielberg does it once again!

This is one exhilarating movie...definitely a MUST see on the big screen as so much will be lost viewing at home on DVD.

It is incredible to think of the great films he has crafted for the movie loving public over the years......Jaws, Raiders of the Lost Ark, ET, Jurassic Park, Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan..Schindler's List. [I even liked The Terminal but didn't like Close Encounters too much though... ]

Go see it!

I really like it too.

I will go on wednesday. The Terminal is one of his fewest films I didn't like, together with 1941.
Besides that, he is one of my all time favorite filmmakers!
You can feel the passion in his movies

This also marks ILM's return to "realistic" visual effects. They only had a little over 9 months to finish all of their shots! Truly a rushed production but I think it came out well. It won't get any awards for picture or direction, but I could definitely see it being a contender for visual effects and sound design. I loved the sounds in this movie. : )

Yep, the visuals for this film are brilliant. The FX are realistic and the scenes of destruction are extremely well done. I loved the look of the tripods and the sound.

However, the film has very little on an emotional level - which means the scenes of destruction become tedious. We get almost 2 hours of destruction followed by a brief, ridiculous, horribly sentimental and embarassingly bad scene of Cruise and his family. A real shame.

Not in the same league as the other 'blockbuster' of the moment - Christopher Nolan's superb 'Batman Begins'.

Not in the same league as the other 'blockbuster' of the moment - Christopher Nolan's superb 'Batman Begins'.

Totally agree there.


I enjoyed "War of the Worlds" but it really fell apart at the end I thought. But one thing that amazed me more than anything was the absolutely unreal sound design.

If you end up seeing it again or to those who didn't see it yet...pay close attention to the initial lightning scene where tom cruise is in his house with his daughter. There really aren't a whole lot of visual effects in that scene, and certainly most of us here could do every one of the effects in that scene with after effects and some time (not the rest of the film of course...that is more CGI than film)...but the sound is what really blows you away in that scene...the intervals of near silence with dogs barking...a piece of tin hits the roof...all little subtle sounds that give you that eerie "silence" feeling even though it isn't really silent at all. Truly an amazing scene.

Totally agree there.
I enjoyed "War of the Worlds" but it really fell apart at the end I thought. But one thing that amazed me more than anything was the absolutely unreal sound design.

Agreed. Absolutely. I, myself, enjoyed the sounds of alien machinery.

Can't say much more so as not to spoil, but man...I teach visual effects and though this movie had plenty, but I found myself more enthralled in the sound then the visuals! : )

As for Batman Begins, agreed again, amazing movie. A second is in the works and depending on it's success a third is planned. I think we'll see Joker show up in the sequel.

I was initially surprised to hear he might be a villain again (wonder who would play him?) but it's not surprising considering the Burton/Schumacher movies are being 'discarded' and these new movies are trying to be as close to the comics as possible...

i liked it as a piece of entertainment. it's got touches from spielberg's previous films, close encouter, et, ai, minority report, jurassic park and so forth. but the man is really starting to repeat himself. he's just a guy running out of tricks and resorting to gimmicks (like the shot with the minivan). hell, he's always been about gimmicks. even the emotional gimmicks squeezed from the family throughout the film and especially towards the end.

i liked the aspect of the film that doesn't seek to explain. if you've seen THX and you've seen the documentary on the bonus disc, it's all about how foreign films presume you know a lot of the world in which the film is taking place. that you infer what is going on in the story of the film instead of flat out telling you all of the plot points. it literally is "showing" rather than telling like the next blockbuster, The Island, will be. i think lots of American audiences will get lost along the way but foreign fans will love it because i think this one was made with them in mind.

i thought the character development was going to better, there just wasn't enough of relationship building between the father and two children. by the end of the film, it's like we saw how ray and his family survived... OK, but is ray going to be a better father? nope. will the kids have better attitude toward their dad? nope. so none of the characters actually changed by the end of the film! i thought it was going to be bigger than that.

although i liked Morgan Freeman's narration straight from the book, it did not fit coherently with the film. the book is very literate and takes a lot of first person accounts of the alien invasion. to lift those literary qualities from the novel but then not maintain it for the entire film and then just throw it back at the end shows lazy and slopiness. that's just unforgivable.

imho, orson welle's radio play is SOoooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOO much better. as bad as the 50s version of WoW, even THAT movie is better than this one cause you had characters that developed and you cared about, by not by much still. orson's version is just a cut above =).

oh, yeah about the human crispy puffs. that's definitely somewhat of a throwback to the 50s version yesh, but i think it's staying pretty true to that book's thing about aliens wanting our water through the ray. that and the blood of humans and alien colonization.

I was enthralled until the end, and then my suspension of disbelief just got shot. The end was so... final.

For a movie that had so much desperation and dispair, the sudden jolt of "it's all good" ripped me out of the world the movie established, and plunked me firmly in a "that wasn't plausible" mindset.

-Steve

i liked it as a piece of entertainment. it's got touches from spielberg's previous films, close encouter, et, ai, minority report, jurassic park and so forth. but the man is really starting to repeat himself. he's just a guy running out of tricks and resorting to gimmicks (like the shot with the minivan). hell, he's always been about gimmicks. even the emotional gimmicks squeezed from the family throughout the film and especially towards the end.

i liked the aspect of the film that doesn't seek to explain. if you've seen THX and you've seen the documentary on the bonus disc, it's all about how foreign films presume you know a lot of the world in which the film is taking place. that you infer what is going on in the story of the film instead of flat out telling you all of the plot points. it literally is "showing" rather than telling like the next blockbuster, The Island, will be. i think lots of American audiences will get lost along the way but foreign fans will love it because i think this one was made with them in mind.

i thought the character development was going to better, there just wasn't enough of relationship building between the father and two children. by the end of the film, it's like we saw how ray and his family survived... OK, but is ray going to be a better father? nope. will the kids have better attitude toward their dad? nope. so none of the characters actually changed by the end of the film! i thought it was going to be bigger than that.

although i liked Morgan Freeman's narration straight from the book, it did not fit coherently with the film. the book is very literate and takes a lot of first person accounts of the alien invasion. to lift those literary qualities from the novel but then not maintain it for the entire film and then just throw it back at the end shows lazy and slopiness. that's just unforgivable.

imho, orson welle's radio play is SOoooooooooooooooooooOOOOOOOOOO much better. as bad as the 50s version of WoW, even THAT movie is better than this one cause you had characters that developed and you cared about, by not by much still. orson's version is just a cut above =).

oh, yeah about the human crispy puffs. that's definitely somewhat of a throwback to the 50s version yesh, but i think it's staying pretty true to that book's thing about aliens wanting our water through the ray. that and the blood of humans and alien colonization.

I'm not trying to make any excuses for Spielberg, but I know that this was a visual effects-driven movie from the beginning. Starting with Spielberg utilizing digital technology and also using 3D previz for the whole show, I knew the plot would suffer. It was a "visual effects driven" movie from the start.

I guess in the interest of keeping the movie going, and getting the characters to be where they needed to be, they had to concentrate on moving the plot along from action sequence to action sequence and hence, character development suffered.

I kind of have the feeling that if they HAD spent more time on character development, people would have complained that, "They spent too much time talking about their family and less on the action." or "All of the cool special effect shots were in the trailer."

I guess it just comes down to: if you know you're a summer blockbuster, give the popcorn munching hoardes what they want: action and a visual extravaganza.

If it were a longer movie I'm sure we could have gotten better character development.

I was enthralled until the end, and then my suspension of disbelief just got shot. The end was so... final.

For a movie that had so much desperation and dispair, the sudden jolt of "it's all good" ripped me out of the world the movie established, and plunked me firmly in a "that wasn't plausible" mindset.

-Steve

Steve,

Agreed. It was a bit sudden. At least Cruise was as stunned as we were. Just goes to show you that other things were happening and the whole world didn't revolve around him. Nice to see him in an "everyman" sort of role...

ummm.... spiderman and the late batman begins? i think they had longer periods of character development than action. time it.

...
I guess it just comes down to: if you know you're a summer blockbuster, give the popcorn munching hoardes what they want: action and a visual extravaganza.

If it were a longer movie I'm sure we could have gotten better character development.

also, one more thing i thought of. as much as spielberg was trying to get us to feel what it was like to be refugees and so forth (echoes of 9/11, war imagery, etc.) i think that it is useless without context. it's mindless entertainment without a larger story to encompass it in. in saving private ryan, the disillusionment of the battle in the first 20min was awesome because it was in a greater context of a great war... but it didn't end there. i liked how that feeling of loss and directionless path that permeated the rest of saving private ryan all the way until the end, the story nailed it with the words, "earn it.". i think that's the problem with war of the worlds. there is no "EARN IT." moments. and it doesn't have to be exactly like the earn it moments but spielberg has to re-earn my trust in him to entertain. while i felt like i had a fun ride at the latest theme park in disneyworld or land or universal or whatever, but as a student of film story and someone who is entertained intellectually and sometimes emotionally i felt that spielberg didn't achieve those ends in this film. i felt that he robbed me of some time because i do expect him to achieve a schindler's list or saving private ryan or even a ET or color purple every now and then.

by the end of WoW, no single character changed. they just experienced. as for the visual fx, etc. it was alright, nothing to write home about. even though it's entertaining, it felt empty. maybe the people who stay @home rent instead of going to cinema are beginning to feel the same way, that's why they stay@home =).

I'm pretty jaded, so it's not easy to sweep me into a film. But this one achieved visceral intensity. The last movie that riveted me like this was "The Dear Hunter." Funny, they have similar scenes..hapless victims in a container waiting to be selected for yanking upstairs for a horrible fate.

Tom Cruise gave an excellent performance, I thought--strong enough to separate him from his recent goofy real life persona.

Having the monsters rise from the ground, destroying even the security of terra firma, was a shrewd innovation on that level while also providing the context for more special effects destruction.

On the weaker side, two scenes where humans got some payback went squarely against the grain of the H G Wells theme. The second instance, where the military is finally able to take down a tripod, I perceived as an obligatory homage to our troops.

Finally, while I can forgive the sudden resolution (faithful to the book, after all) the son should have been left dead. Everything on the hill he went over was vaporized. Having him show up in Boston in tattered clothes for the reunion was a joke. That choice ensured that I carried no sense of awe with me out of the theater.

Overall I enjoyed te movie, but was not moved by it. Spielberg does such a great job of keeping you in the moment of the action... I was really on the edge of my seat. I agree with Yi, though, that none of the characters changed (the same thing I told the person I saw it with as we were walking out), and with Fred that the son returning was just wrong. Funny, and the troops taking down the pod... it was dying anyway. And I agree with most here that the movie didn't end so much as it just stopped, and I was not satisfied with that. The plot had too many holes to go in to really... (the aliens have the technology to do all of that... but they can't find the panting man behind the couch?)

In terms of filmmaking, I had a few notes.

1. The opening Helocopter shot was really nice. It went from wide of the whole shipyard to almost a close-up of Tom. It seemed like it must have been an FX shot, but I think it was all in-camera.

2. While they were driving down the highway they did an extremely long, seemingly unedited shot that was crazy. It started wide on the car, came in close to Tom driving, panned around to the side, then behind and inside the car to show the daughter freaking out, and then to the other side and back around to the front. It was extremely smooth, and kept the intensity the whole time. It was worth the admission to watch that shot.

3. They had a lot of nice camera moves. A great crane shot of when he comes out of his wife's house, a lot of great dolly shots through difficult situations. The camera did not sit still for very long, and it really worked.

Anyway, visually I thought it was amazing. The FX shots were right on. And IMDB said they didn't start shooting until 7 months before release. Wow.

Having [the son] show up in Boston in tattered clothes for the reunion was a joke. That choice ensured that I carried no sense of awe with me out of the theater.

Yes, that was ridiculous beyond belief - it totally undermines everything that had come before. I just don't understand why Spielberg did it. Tom Cruise walking down the street carrying the girl was BAD but having the son (and ALL the whole rest of the family for that matter) appear smiling in that doorway at the end was excrutiatingly lame. It kills the film stone dead!

i thought the character development was going to better, there just wasn't enough of relationship building between the father and two children. by the end of the film, it's like we saw how ray and his family survived... OK, but is ray going to be a better father? nope. will the kids have better attitude toward their dad? nope. so none of the characters actually changed by the end of the film! i thought it was going to be bigger than that.


What makes you say that? It seems obvious by the second half of the film - when he gives up his son to save his daughter - that he's gone through a profound change and has at last understood what it means to be a father.

SPOILER ALERT!

Speaking of character arc, or rather, lack of it, I'm surprised no one has mentioned the totally unnecessary murder committed by Ray. Supposedly to protect his daughter, he kills Tim Robbins character because he is making too much noise. Hello, tie him up and gag him. Or, more extreme, knock him out with the shovel. Cold blooded murder was totally unjustified (and dramatically stupid). (Besides, judging by all the commotion in the basement when the aliens are prowling around, they are all stone deaf anyhow!)
So his character does have a bit of an arc, but it's a negative arc. He goes from being a lousy father to being a lousy father and a murderer. His kids would be better off if he'd been crispy-puffed by the aliens.

Dan,

Yeah, that was certainly one of the things that muddied the emotional arc quite a bit. Is that how they were trying to show that he was a changed man - now a caring father?

Ah yes, War of the Worlds. We've been talking about this at work.

Firstly, I was pretty disappointed right at the get-go when Tom played the young cocky guy - again. "Hey forget you boss, I'm a free spirited party guy! And besides, my vintage mustang is waiting for me to race around the neighborhood." Ugh.

(spoiler warning)
And then when the first Pod pops up and the guy has the camcorder running, that was pretty bad (come on, EVERY other electronic device was hosed).

And after the initial destruction the movie basically turns into an ABC afterschool special about an emotionally immature dad and his disfunctional kids.

Oh, and anyone that's ever spent any time with or has kids knows fully well that when Tom and his daughter are spotted by the alien eye-probe in the basement, the little girl would have latched onto dad for dear life. No way she would have run away. Frightened kids stick with their parents no matter what. I was really shocked by that scene, since Spielberg has kids. Terrible.

And to top it all off, the son appearing at the end was just too much. Hey, Humvees and Tanks get destoyed but the kid is alright. Perhaps teenagers really are invulnerable.

Yech, I saw Batman twice over the weekend to help me forget this film.

Philip Williams
www.philipwilliams.com

Dan, could you please warn if you put a spoiler in your text?
I missed it, and now I'm sorry...

Best regards,

**Definite Spoilers in my message** (though why you'd read these without seeing the movie first I have no idea)

I loved the movie and thought the visual impact was incredible. I believe it makes you take another look at war in general. It's very sobering to say the least.

That being said, while I agree with what some of you are saying, I think it's fair to not forget when watching movies we are all supposed to have a suspension of disbelief. What I mean is, sure, the guy had a movie camera going, but the van also started. Why? If I remember correctly, an EMP disables all active electronic devices. So it's conceivable that that the guy had his camera off and then turned it on after the EMP, just as the van wasn't working until after it had been fixed which occurred after the EMP.

As for the character arc... I wouldn't really expect someone to evolve in 48-72 hours, but I do think he changed. Do we really know he killed Tim Robbins' character? It is implied, but maybe he only knocked him unconscious. I think it's interesting most people just asssume he killed him (I did not), but perhaps the incident where Ray's son was pulled from the van earlier drove him to that point to where he would kill someone to protect his child. Kill him or gag him, the guy was obviously a little off his rocker and was a liability.

I was also a little disappointed by the ending, mostly about Ray's son surviving, but maybe it's meant more metaphorically than anything else (anything being possible, finding hope in the most hopeless of situations). You can even go one step further and say he thought he was protecting his son by keeping an eye on him and as it turns out, the son was able to protect himself. I'll bet he didn't have to get pulled out of one of the machines in the nick of time.

Mathieu,
Regarding spoiler warnings, many of the prior posts had given away major plot points without warning so it seemed clear that spoilers in this thread were a given.
Geoff,
A real EMP can damage or disable electrical and electronic devices whether they are on or off. In the movie, even cars that are parked are disabled--no one has a running vehicle. Which would mean that the new starter and solenoid sitting on the mechanic's shelf would have been fried too, as well as the car's computer, lights, voltage regulator, etc. And of course the other guy's camcorder.
But to get around those inconsistencies, filmmakers would have to be *creative* and...well, enough said.

And also, Geoff,
(OK "Spoiler Alert On:)
Yes, he KILLED the Tim Robbins character. It makes no sense that he would cover his daughter's eyes and have her sing to herself if he was only going to knock the guy out! After all she's already seen? That would be nothing.

A real EMP can damage or disable electrical and electronic devices whether they are on or off. In the movie, even cars that are parked are disabled--no one has a running vehicle. Which would mean that the new starter and solenoid sitting on the mechanic's shelf would have been fried too, as well as the car's computer, lights, voltage regulator, etc. And of course the other guy's camcorder.

Aww come on...doesn't every mechanic keep his extra solenoids in a faraday cage?

Among other inconsistancies...why does the mobile camera gun that the aliens send into Tim Robbins basement hear sound (it turns around when it hears something drop)...yet isn't advanced enough for infrared sensors?

Dan, you are right that it is indeed my own fault, it's stupid to read this if you haven't seen the movie, but I had the feeling your spoiler was very sudden and a big one to. The others I felt them coming and I read over them and so on, but yours was so: and didn't you think it was...(then the spoiler)

But I don't want to attack you or anything. Just wanted to make sure other people's expectations or anything aren't ruined by it also, although it indeed is still AT LEAST 50 procent the fault of the one who goes reading these boards without viewing the film first.

BTW: I say ruined, but rest assure that I will enjoy it probably as a Spielberg movie, anyhow, so ;-)

Mathieu,
I do feel bad about that, but after I wrote my first post and before I actually posted it, I reviewed the earlier ones again to see if spoiler alerts were being included. They weren't, so I figured I was safe. But with hindsight, I should have just incuded one anyhow! I definitely will from now on. Sorry about that.
I'm going to try to go edit that one and put an alert in for future readers.

I didn't say he didn't kill him, I said we don't know if he did or not. We don't know because we didn't see or hear anything that would suggest death, unless you count him telling his daughter all of those things and the door closing. Hell, **sopranos season 5 spoiler** people think Adrianna's still alive and we heard a gunshot! I know they didn't show that either, but at least there's a sound that confirms what we believe.

As for the EMP, what do I know? What I repeated was on Broken Arrow, so obviously that was wrong too (they shut off the hummer as the missle goes by so it can start back up).

having to choose the lesser of two evils doesn't mean you are a father. it's just a moral dilemna similar to the homeowner who is hiding Jews and Nazis are knocking at the door wanting to search the house in wartime Germany.

that scene is no evidence of character change. can you cite another scene where there is pure evidence that Ray has changed (for the better) as a character from the beginning of the film?

What makes you say that? It seems obvious by the second half of the film - when he gives up his son to save his daughter - that he's gone through a profound change and has at last understood what it means to be a father.

re: EMP&Camcorder. can anyone link some source to confirm that an EMP wave wipes out ALL electronic devices on or off rendering it useless?

A "real EMP" is an event caused by a high altitude nuclear explosion, not a missle whizzing by or a lightning strike. EMP events due the latter are fiction.

But assuming we had an EMP in play, it would cause damage by making electrons within devices flow with enough energy to make susceptible conductive paths burn out like light bulb filaments subjected to overvoltage. This process would not require that the device be turned on.

What kinds of things would be susceptible? Certainly anything containing semiconductor devices. It's fairly well known that we can zap those devices with static discharges from our fingers that we can't even feel. Camcorders would thus be among the first things to go.

Electrical energy dissipated as heat is the one and only failure mode to look for. This is increasingly unlikely as we consider devices with beefier conductive paths. A starter motor would certainly survive a real EMP. And if it didn't, remember the failure would be due to excessive heat. I didn't see and smoke or flames from the supposedly disabled vehicles in the movie.

If it ain't smokin' it should still be strokin'

Fred is dead on with the EMP. A solenoid wouldn't fry any more than a toaster would. Some of the modern cars would lose their juice along with the camcoders, but the Mustang should have been fine.

XXspoilersXX

I think on the Dad their intent was certainly to show growth, but they didn't do very well. I'm with Yi - just because he has to make a life/death decision about his kids that doesn't mean that he has changed as a person...

The only thing they really put in there that showed growth was that he tried to sing his daughter to sleep. He was horrible at it, which was the point, but he really did try, and I think that does show a different character. For me, it wasn't quite enough.

Here is my input, short and sweet:

(out of ten)

Plot: 1 - Utterly stupid. After the movie was over, I was sitting in disbelief as to how they could pass that off as and ending/movie

Graphics/Effects: 9 - Really good overall filming and stuff, I was impressed by it.

Yeah and that is my 2 cents. Oh yeah, one other thing. When they were in the minivan driving throught the huge crowd of people at night, did anyone else think that looked a whole lot like the scene from Dawn of the Dead? I thought they looked almost the same, it was kinda like a deja vu.

A "real EMP" is an event caused by a high altitude nuclear explosion, not a missle whizzing by or a lightning strike. EMP events due the latter are fiction.


Slight technical correction here...there are now missles that generate an EMP like effect that are subnuclear conventional missles...but everything you said about EMP's in general is correct...and EMP's primary effects are on more sensitive things like computers and other semiconductor devices. But nonetheless newer cars with computers would fry their internal electronics (and that wouldn't generate too much smoke...no more than frying an IC chip --something I have alot of experiencing doing). Older model cars would survive, and definately solenoids would not be affected by any EMP unless it was on the magnitude of something that would actually be harmful to humans.

I don't want to start a whole EMP debate, but let's just clear up the EMP thing.

EMP stands for electromagnetic pulse. EMPs were around long before nuclear weapons. Lots of things generate EMPs. Nuclear explosions just generate really powerful ones. That's why "EMP" has become associated with nuclear devices.

Pressing the button of a doorbell generates an EMP, just a very tiny one. So the idea of an advanced alien race having a weapon that generates a destructive EMP without a nuclear explosion is plausible, certainly in the context of a science fiction movie.
But even if we accept that, the idea of an EMP frying a starter but not damaging a camcorder goes against even science-fiction physics.

But hey, it's a MOVIE!

Saw the movie yesterdag night, my opinion:

SPOILERS

Very good, really. I thought the dramatic sequences were very good, like the one in the basement where Tom Cruise is in tears and realises he even doesn't know a song for his daughter.
I thought the murder on Tim Robbins was very approperiate to the story.
Acting was very good, special fx too, suspense too, all things that can be expected from a Spielberg movie.
I hadn't much problems with the abdrupt ending, but I thought it would have been better story-wise if the son really had died. More realistic.

And about the wholes in the plots: like Dan said, it's a movie, and I enjoyed it.
Many people thought the movie needed more action and less drama. Some even didn't like it that Tom Cruise wasn't a hero who fought back against the aliens, really I read that on boards.
I think that was one of the stronges points of the movie: the main character is as helpless as all the rest.

END OF SPOILERS

The hero has a more muted arc. His arc was 1) Ensuring that his family survived 2) Going from being a bystander to an actor 3) Redeeming himself as a father 4) Witnessing the end of the crisis.

I'm glad that he didn't do anything outrageous like hop into a tank or jet. Even using the grenades was probably too much. He was basically in the shoes of the vast majority of people.

I saw a couple nights ago. I thought it was pretty good.

I liked the feeling of terror that came from focusing entirely on Cruise and his estranged family. I've seen enough of the ID4 battle-o-rama and seeing another take on the invasion story was good. Cruise is actually a good actor in the right project with the right director, it seems, and Dakota Fanning, the Hollywood child in danger du jour, was very good. I wanted to pick her up and protect her as soon as I dodged the killing machines.

It felt really good from the moment the people started running in panic when the tripods started vapourizing people. I thought the scene with Cruise and the survivalist could have been trimmed, though when Cruise actually makes his decision on what to do with him it was done very nicely and had plenty of weight.

I love the feeling of scale when we see the awesome tripods stalking through the city, raining death down on the puny humans. Especially when they attack the ferry. Again that comes from focusing on the people on the ground. Again, I've seen enough of the "gravity of the situation from the White House" type scenes from the various global disaster / invasion films. It's refreshing to see the view from the ground.

Nice shout outs to the George Pal version.

Just saw it last night and I'll make my critique.

Plot----about a ½ to 1, how can you let a plot go that undeveloped?

Visual Effects---8 to 9, Hey, it’s Steven Spielberg

Acting---Enough to sustain the plot, after all there was none. Anyone of thousands of people could have played any of the roles.

Interesting quote form IMDB---“According to an interview with Miranda Otto, she originally turned down the part offered by Spielberg as she was newly pregnant. However, Spielberg wanted her to play the part and changed the script to incorporate her pregnancy into the role.”

My question---WHY?!?! She did nothing in the movie. He must have wanted to give her a big paycheck is guess!

Don’t misunderstand me, I am a huge special effects fan. But, I think that the ability to do fantastic special effects has caused those who use them to neglect the rest of the movie. Just think what this movie could have been with a fully and artistically developed plot and characters.

Yes, the EMP, or whatever, how unrealistic. It only takes out starter Solenoids! Even if----all of the manual transmission cars could have been push started. He has a full V8 Ford engine, about 550 lbs, in his kitchen, which if I recall was upstairs from the ground floor.

I have a suggestion for a new film crew position---reality advisor! You know, like they have advisors in police shows! How hard would that job be? The problem being that those who are making the movies now, are so separated from everyday reality, that they are unable to see these simple errors.

One last thing as far as bad plot lines, where would you be taking your daughter during the ferry scene:

A. Scattering out into the country side to hide where the enemy is not.

B. Boarding a big ferry with hundreds of other people making lots of noise and commotion, going to no where different and on the biggest target in the area, with tri-pods heading right for it?

As Homer would say---DUH!

Yes, I did enjoy the movie to a certain degree, and it is a Spielberg movie, therefore all will go to see it. But, how much better could it have been?
It is not a matter of paying for the ticket, but it's the let down from anticipating a great Spielberg movie, and then seeing this.

Mike

One last thing as far as bad plot lines, where would you be taking your daughter during the ferry scene:

A. Scattering out into the country side to hide where the enemy is not.

B. Boarding a big ferry with hundreds of other people making lots of noise and commotion, going to no where different and on the biggest target in the area, with tri-pods heading right for it?

As Homer would say---DUH!


As I recall, Cruise and his family got onto the ferry only before the tripods showed up. After that they were swept along. As for scattering out into the countryside, they did that after the ferry and were stuck and isolated in a farmhouse that was visited more than a couple times by the tripods. So either you are hunted individually or you are with a crowd of large targets.

I think a lot of what you say is probably common sense to someone who has seen a lot of movies and science fiction. Kind of like how we all groan at horror films where the sexy teenagers take refuge in scary buildings. It's interesting to think how trained we are by movies. Is it common sense or 'movie common sense'?

If it happened in real life, would we still try to congregate where other people are fleeing or take off on our own? I suspect most people would still seek refuge with their own kind in the hope that the 'government' had an answer. I think Cruise is thinking the latter.

And he still has to get across the river to reunite his family, remember. Maybe he could find another way across like a boat or something. Maybe he is still panic stricken. Remember, he thought he was fleeing in a direction most people wouldn't be but it only turned out that hundreds of other people were thinking the same thing.

As I recall, Cruise and his family got onto the ferry only before the tripods showed up. After that they were swept along. As for scattering out into the countryside, they did that after the ferry and were stuck and isolated in a farmhouse that was visited more than a couple times by the tripods. So either you are hunted individually or you are with a crowd of large targets.

The tripods came before the ferry left. The only reason they were hunted individually, is that it was Tom Cruise.

[/QUOTE] If it happened in real life, would we still try to congregate where other people are fleeing or take off on our own? I suspect most people would still seek refuge with their own kind in the hope that the 'government' had an answer. I think Cruise is thinking the latter. [/QUOTE]

I don't think that we would be heading for our local national guard headquarters. If you are affraid of a nuclear attack, would you head for New York, NY, or Boise, Idaho.

[/QUOTE] And he still has to get across the river to reunite his family, remember. Maybe he could find another way across like a boat or something. Maybe he is still panic stricken. Remember, he thought he was fleeing in a direction most people wouldn't be but it only turned out that hundreds of other people were thinking the same thing. [/QUOTE]

Reuniting the family is only feasible after the enemy is defeated. Before that not even a consideration.

But, I'm glad you are taking the time to develop the plot for us. I just wish Mr. Spielberg would have done it on screen. Still think that it left much to be desired. Just my humble opinion, but if Spielberg would have worked on the plot a little more, the posts here would be much different. He may make big money, but this is not a classic movie.

Best of luck Keith,


Mike

I don't think that we would be heading for our local national guard headquarters. If you are affraid of a nuclear attack, would you head for New York, NY, or Boise, Idaho.

Information is still sketchy, though and always is in times of crisis. No TV, no radio. In the George Pal version everyone thinks the nuclear option will work agains the Martians. In this version, they haven't resorted to it. People may assume that there is still safety with the government. Remember the scene where Cruise has to fight with his son to get away. Cruise knows that the army failed somewhere else but everyone else ran to 'watch the show' when they are near a battle. Someone who has been through a war would run in the other direction but these people don't know any better.

Reuniting the family is only feasible after the enemy is defeated. Before that not even a consideration.

Cruise doesn't know the movements of the martians! He doesn't know if he is leading his family towards the invasion or away from it. In the absence of that information, he just has the direction to unite his family. He has the driving concern to make sure that his family is together and safe. Feasible or not, when you are a family man you want to take care of your own, even if the world is ending. In fact, if the world is ending, you probably want to die with your family, not scattered somewhere trying to eke out a few extra hours.

But, I'm glad you are taking the time to develop the plot for us.

Developing the plot for you is not my concern. I just didn't find that much to complain about - nor do things always have to be spelled out. In wartime things are chaotic and stupid. People act irrationally in the moment, especially when there are driving emotions. How many people who have seen a tsunami now will run towards one to snap pictures? But earlier this year, many people stood and gawked when they should have been running as fast as they could in the opposite direction.

Speilberg only has so much to do with how his movies turn out, really, lets not forget that in speilberg's movies the editor plays a major role in how his movies turn out, how much character development there is how much action, how the scenes layout, speilberg himself admitted this in the documentary "the cutting edge"...

as for plot i have to say i see no other way it could go, tom is an idiot, and obviously his kids are more mature and smarter then he is, this was made clear very early in the movie, and he has to lead his kids to safety when all he knows about is his narrow world 'cars', like many of my friends that survied 911, a tragedy changes you but in no way gives you more intellect, so basically the movie follows this moron and his kids to his ex wife, his safe haven, the person with all the answers...not much more to it, its simple and allows the movie the move...

maybe the real problem was casting tom cruise, who many people just can't fathom as an idiot who can't even take care of his own kids after he saved the day in so many his movies...personally i would have cut Dakota Fanning, who clearly over acted in every scene and is just overall annoying, robbins is robbins, i would expct him to act that way in real life, he was great distraction from the aliens...

my favorite all time speilberg movie was jaws, i'm a huge fan and just came back from the 30 year anniversary fest at marthas vinyard, it was not much of fest, but speilberg's jaws changed the movie industry, war of the worlds did not, but it was a great interpretation of doom, i think hg wells would be proud of his effort...

This was a good place to cast ordinary or uknown actors, to related to us ordinary or unknown folks. We already know the story as it's a remake, but we needed a story within the story, and it failed to deliver. I was waiting for Tom to finally say "enough is enough" and pick up a bazooka, or by chance, happen to meet a secret society of folks whom knew this was coming, and were a little more prepared, and needed a front man to lead them. Maybe even a finding a dying scientist, cut off from his team, whom had a secret weapon, or knowledge about how to overcome the Tripods shields, and even the odds. Tom being the one man whom could be entrusted to deliver. I should have waited for the DVD.

One other thing. In addition to the engine block in the upstairs kitchen, and the EMS pulse issue. I'm finding it very hard that the aliens, advanced as they are, would not have anticipated the possiblity of disease in the environment. The fact these creatures were walking around in their birthday suits, without so much as a respirator, etc. is simply repeating the same mistake made in the original movie. We are a more educated audience. We no longer marvel at the concept of "aliens". It not just the FX alone that should be convincing. The very ending was akin to a boring 50's high-school instructional film. At least there was some film jitter evident, and I had to restrain myself from bursting out into laughter that my wife wouldn't understand.

Don’t misunderstand me, I am a huge special effects fan. But, I think that the ability to do fantastic special effects has caused those who use them to neglect the rest of the movie. Just think what this movie could have been with a fully and artistically developed plot and characters.

No more so than has ever been true of any other type of film, be it a western or a musical. There have been, and always will be, directors who focus on the tools and tricks of the trade which they find interesting at the expense of other story components (though I state out front that that is not a problem with War of the Worlds - it has some slow moments, but what problems it does have don't come from spending too much time with the effects). Visual effects didn't create that problem and it doesn't solely perpetuate it. If we didn't have CG or motion control or stop motion, we'd have something else that people would claim the director spent all his time on instead of the story.

While there are undoubtedly director's who spend a lot of time on that sort of thing (like Mikcheal Bay and his 70 gagillion camera set ups - though his films also turn out they way they do because he likes that sort of thing, it's his sensiblity, and even if he had no money and one camera the character work and story would be pretty much the same), for the most part problems of character and story in films doesn't come from a director's preoccupation with something else (though it's easy to think that from watching a film, but what we see on screen doesn't really tell the story of what it took to put it on screen - a movie, even a bad movie, with a lot of effects does not de facto mean more thought was put into effects than story or whatnot, there's lots of reasons for that sort of thing, such as a director's personal sensibility, interferance from outside controlling parties, and sometimes things just don't work on screen like you thought they would - it's like the old Greek ideas about atoms and elements and matter without any actual knowledge of how the physical laws of nature really work, they guessed and most of their guesses sound good at the time based on what they observed, or thought they observed, but upon hindsight with a fuller knowledge of what is actually going on inside of elements and atoms, sound patently ridiculous), they are part of the ephemeral art of filmmaking. While in the middle of a creative project, it's really impossible to know what the final outcome is going to be. You have an idea of it of course, but you don't really know what it's going to be like until it's done, and by then it's too late to change it. A lot of it is guesswork and inspiration. You can spend all the time in the world on the character's and their story and dialogue and everything, and still have the movie turn out to be complete crap. Such is the nature of creating art.

one more thing about war of the worlds. i may have said it already but i found the zapping of the humans cheesy. i laughed so loud when they were doing it, i was the only one in the cinema =). people l00ked @me strange, but i know the concept behind it from the book (the aliens require water to survive, hence the beam microwaves the water in our body until it explodes, that's why the clothe is left). the point is, just as pal's verison was cheesy, i thought this verison was just as cheesy but people didn't catch that =). it's like when the mechanic is zapped in the rear view mirror. pretty funny schtick.

josh,
you mean like M Night's later films with supposed dialogues+char. development? heheheh just kidding. that's another thread altogether (for the record i loved The Village tremendously & think it's his most mature film).

as for the craft of filmmaking, what about david fincher? what about him? i think if he has total control, the final outcome of the film is pretty close to what he envisioned (except for alien3, which was so bad an experience that he never want to do anything with it ever again). look at the man's track record after a3:

# Benjamin Button (2006) (announced)
# Zodiac (2006) (pre-production)
# Panic Room (2002)
# Fight Club (1999)
# The Game (1997)
# Se7en (1995)

even the critically panned panic room was awesome and breathtaking in story/acting/scope. every single film he has done so far has been classics (despite what naysayers warn). without even seeing a film of zodiac and bb in the years to come, i already know that it'll be just as entertaining. track record is almost everything (note *almost*).

if that is true and we apply that to steven spielberg, you'll see that he hasn't strayed far. as good as his film catalogue is, he hasn't really changed all that much except that he has more $ to make film and in a position of great power. i think that power corrupts him and makes him reveal himself as someone who relies on tricks of the trade (from tricks of non-revelation of the truck driver in duel to the camera angle on the minivan) but as it happens lacks plot/story. look through all his films, there isn't one that has really strong and overwhelming story/plot, even his schindler&private ryan. this is a one trick (camera-based) man that has survived all this time by making smart business deals but hasn't grown artistically in terms of telling stories that have staying power. in another 100 years, 500 years will we remember spielberg? who knows? i certainly dunno. if i were to make a case for it, it'd be for his technical qualities like the first 20min of SPR or making us feel pity in Schlinder... but for staying power of story, he definitely can't match someone like Kurosawa. now there's someone that can consistently deliver humane stories.

we are already forgetting D.W. Griffith, who relied on technical tricks, of the years past. they say film is forever... but if the negative is never found (like so many veritable classics of film past) then how is that forever? =). i'm not saying Lord of the Rings or Star Wars will ever be lost... but Citizen Kane was almost lost =).

there, i said it, film isn't forever =).

Personally, I can't believe we are still talking about this film. I made a comment because I was so disapointed in it. But, now it has taken on a life of its own. Please let it die! It was a great special effects film and nothing more!

Another film has already taken over at the box office, and WOTWs will never regain the lead. Everyone seems to be a Spielberg fan and trying to make excuses for him! Don't do it, let the film stand or fall on its own three legs! Be intelectually honest here, the film as presented to the movie audiance-------sucked!

Maybe if we stick together, the next one will be better!!!!!!!!!!!! Great special effects, next time put them in a real movie!!!!!!!

Mike

His next one is about Mossad's response to Black September's 1972 Munich Olympic massacre. It will star Eric Bana and Geoffrey Rush. Hopefully there will be a bit more to think about in that one - it's due for release in December.

i ain't no fan =).

Another film has already taken over at the box office, and WOTWs will never regain the lead. Everyone seems to be a Spielberg fan and trying to make excuses for him! Don't do it, let the film stand or fall on its own three legs! Be intelectually honest here, the film as presented to the movie audiance-------sucked!
Mike

Yes, I am a Spielberg fan. But I also know he can make a clunker too--look at the sequel to Jurassic Park: The Lost World. That film was total crap---Spielberg on auto-pilot.

"Always" was a mess. The last 2 Indiana Jones films were weak compared to the original[but I still liked the "experience"]

I went into "War of the Worlds" without a whole lot of expectations and I really enjoyed the ride. I guess how one approaches a film before seeing it affects whether or not one picks it apart or just enjoy it for what it is.

It's kind of like something I learned in psychology about hearing "bad things" about someone before hand...you are already disposed to hating it--a quick Google search brought this up.

http://college.hmco.com/psychology/bernstein/psychology/6e/students/chapter_outlines/ch17.html

Quote:

"First Impressions
Schemas allow us to quickly categorize a person we have just met. The first impression is formed quickly and is difficult to change.
impressions. However, negative information is given more weight than positive information.
Lasting Impressions. First impressions are difficult to change because they shape interpretations of new information. People tend to remember their initial general impressions better than later corrections.
Self-Fulfilling Prophecies. An initial impression can create a self-fulfilling prophecy. People behave in ways that elicit behaviors consistent with their first impression of the person."

So I guess I'm already predisposed to liking the film! :-)


That doesn't really explain the film "Twister" by Jan Debont that I saw years back.

When I saw it in the theaters--I got caught up in it and forgave a lot of the irritating annoying aspects of it. Subsequently when I watched again on DVD, I said to myself..."What the hell was I thinking?" This film is stupid!

It will interesting how this film holds up when I view WOTW on DVD.

you mean like M Night's later films with supposed dialogues+char. development? heheheh just kidding. that's another thread altogether (for the record i loved The Village tremendously & think it's his most mature film).

as for the craft of filmmaking, what about david fincher? what about him? i think if he has total control, the final outcome of the film is pretty close to what he envisioned (except for alien3, which was so bad an experience that he never want to do anything with it ever again). look at the man's track record after a3:


I think Shyamalan and Fincher are excellent examples of what I'm talking about.

I quite like Shyamalan, especially Unbreakable and Signs, but he can very easily fall into self-parody, with the slow breathy delivery he forces on his actors and extended, extended backstory monologues (and there are better ways to do character development than backstory - everything that a character does on screen is characterization and character development. People talk of no character development in War of the Worlds - no, there's no backstory to the characters, but they're developing forwards all the time), and he outclevered himself quite a bit with The Village.

And Fincher seemed to spend most of Panic Room reusing visual tricks from Fight Club, but with less effect, although I also didn't particularly care for the story behind Panic Room. Fincher has a good story sense, but he too can easily become wrapped up in the visuals of a film. For me, Fincher has made only one classic and that's Fight Club. Seven is entertaining to watch and well made, but the story falls apart in the second half. The Game was fun, but that's all. They weren't masterpieces, except for Fight Club, which is primarily because he had a very good story to work from, but he also told it in an exceptional manner (which is the Directors job).

Of course, if you really like The Village and Panic Room, you're not going to see those flaws.

As far as Spielberg goes - he's a very good storyteller in that, he knows how to tell a story well. It's not tricks, it's just part of the craft, and he's an excellent craftsman. What he's not always great at is creating a story. But he can make a great movie (Raiders of the Lost Ark - which is the only film of his I consider great; I like Jaws, but I've never really been part of the Jaws fan club) when he has a good story given to him, because he's very good at telling stories. Sometimes he picks good ones, sometimes he doesn't.

Track record is nothing. Sometimes a good director will make a horrid mess. I love Tim Burton films - I'm seeing Chocolate Factory today - but you couldn't pay me to watch Planet of the Apes again. Sometimes a bad director will make a very good movie. Sometimes a director who seems like he's one type of director, actually has another director living underneath. Based on the films he'd made before, no one would believe that Peter Jackson had Lord of the Rings in him, and yet he did. Now he will have a hard time getting away from that and back to what he did before.