CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › War Of The Worlds (2005)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

War Of The Worlds (2005)

post #1 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:11pm
Thread Starter 
Damn fine epic blockbuster that has pretty friggin' awesome special effects. It's made even more great by the fact that this flick was slapped together within 7 months.

Tom Cruise is really believable as an everyman who's a pretty big asshole, and the only problem I really have with the flick is one that probably everyone else had, the son "miraculously" appearing at the end, despite going into that battle and more than likely getting immolated.

Spielberg went really dark with this flick as only he could get away with making a mainstream PG-13 flick this dark and depressive, and he did a great job, but the kid surviving just seemed tacked on.
Reply
post #2 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rene (Mr.Eko) View Post
Spielberg went really dark with this flick as only he could get away with making a mainstream PG-13 flick this dark and depressive, and he did a great job, but the kid surviving just seemed tacked on.
Never really felt it was that dark and depressing. Now, Dark Knight, on the other hand. That took the PG-13 rating back to where it should be.
Reply
post #3 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crazy Jim View Post
Now, Dark Knight, on the other hand. That took the PG-13 rating back to where it should be.
What the fuck does this mean?
Reply
post #4 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:20pm
I still think the sound of the Tripods was inspired by the Jeff Wayne War of the Worlds rock opera.

I do love this movie, but then I grew up loving Wells, so I didn't really have a choice. The sound design is probably some of my favorite of the past fews years (admittedly, I am no expert).
Reply
post #5 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:22pm
I keep trying to tell people about how great War of the Worlds was, but they always throw the son surviving in my face. Can people really not enjoy a brilliant movie if it has a stupid final image?
Reply
post #6 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by James May View Post
I still think the sound of the Tripods was inspired by the Jeff Wayne War of the Worlds rock opera.

I do love this movie, but then I grew up loving Wells, so I didn't really have a choice. The sound design is probably some of my favorite of the past fews years (admittedly, I am no expert).
I actually thought that the tripods' 'battle horn' was the same sound the mother ship made in Close Encounters. I suppose I own both and could actually compare them.
Reply
post #7 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:25pm
It's got a couple of flaws (the son, the fake looking outdoor set, the rushed ending), but overall, it's a great sci fi flick. And it's relentless. Specially amazing the fact that Spielberg made this and Munich Back to Back and in really small amount of time.
Reply
post #8 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:29pm
Agreed. It is the relentlessness of the tripods that I always point out. It's feels oppressive in how little safety the characters find. The hillside shot after the ferry scene is awesome.
Reply
post #9 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:33pm
Thread Starter 
The flick is essentially one long extended chase sequence. It really is a great movie.
Reply
post #10 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe Powers View Post
I actually thought that the tripods' 'battle horn' was the same sound the mother ship made in Close Encounters. I suppose I own both and could actually compare them.
The sound itself is different, its more of the 'Ooolog' cadence that is similar.
Reply
post #11 of 63
8/11/08 at 4:39pm
The problems don't start with the son dying for me, they start with Tim Robbins. I know it's kind of a bizarre complaint to be making about a movie with Martians in it, but Robbins is working on a much more over the top level than the fairly grounded leads and as Eko just said the movie is essentially an extended chase and the sequence grinds the pace to a halt for what feels to me to be about ten minutes although it's probably less. I've read the book, I know the character is in there but in this particular adaptation it feels really off to me.

The first hour though is impeccable and even the tripod invasion of the house after they discover Robbins is damn good (reminds me heavily of the Velociraptors in the kitchen especially when they use a mirror image to trick the beast/alien) but as a whole I think the ending is poorly executed on a couple of fronts.
Reply
post #12 of 63
8/11/08 at 5:56pm
I really like this movie, and very few things detract from it. Ok, sure the surviving son bothered me the first time, but didn't we expect that from Spielberg by 2005? The biggest annoyance to me is that Sawx/Yanks invading my blockbuster.
Reply
post #13 of 63
8/11/08 at 6:32pm
The first hour or so really is great. The scene of a large crowd going crazy and ending with one guy being killed is one of my favorites in the movie. Yeah, the ending does suck including Cruise going into action hero mode by destroying a Tripod. On the other hand, I think it's stated that like a billion people died or something.
With this, Munich, A.I., and Minority Report has Spielberg permanently dispelled the criticism that his movies are too sentimental and cloying ?
Reply
post #14 of 63
8/11/08 at 6:40pm
Sometimes a film gets off to such an amazing start-clicks on all cylinders- that it's impossible for the ending to satisfy. This was one of those cases. (The fanboy bloodlust for the older son to die does show a lack of understanding of theme)
Reply
post #15 of 63
8/11/08 at 6:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The LD View Post
The hillside shot after the ferry scene is awesome.
I agree. That's the one image in the film that really sticks in my mind.
Reply
post #16 of 63
8/11/08 at 7:05pm
I agree with most of you here. This movie is pretty excellent for the first hour. The relentless terror and the evoked images of 9-11 are truly one of Spielbergs bleakest efforts. But for me the movie looses steam when they encounter Robbins as well. While as a sequence alone it is very well done it doesn´t work for me in the context of the movie as such.

But I wanted to point out some of the amazing camera work. I just love the shot on the highway to death where the camera is just circling in and out and around the care while the tripods attack. Though done more impressive in Children of Men it was here that I first encountered it and it blew me away.
Reply
post #17 of 63
8/11/08 at 7:06pm
The thing about War of the Worlds is that somehow the first hour or so really terrified me, like no movie has since I was a little kid. I still haven't quite figured out why, needless to say it was something very primal.

Edit to Add: The car scene was almost done when I realized they hadn't cut. Then I found out it was all a special effect, which at first was disappointing, but later I came to really appriciate how great of a special effect it was. Speilberg's best one take is still the spyder scene in Minority Report, which is arguably just as good as the long end take in Children of Men (which felt like the best Speilberg movie not made by Speilberg, Shyamalan should've taken notes).
Reply
post #18 of 63
8/11/08 at 7:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
What the fuck does this mean?
Since about 1994 or so, the PG and PG-13 ratings have been becoming more and more interchangable. What I meant was that Dark Knight seemed to be one of the few movies that I've seen in some time that felt like it got the most out of its PG-13 rating.
Reply
post #19 of 63
8/11/08 at 7:57pm
I don't even know where to begin, so I think I'll just stop before I try.
Reply
post #20 of 63
8/11/08 at 8:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
I don't even know where to begin, so I think I'll just stop before I try.
You don't agree that TDK pushed the limits of the PG-13? Really, I'm just curious that you seem about as riled up as you ever seem to get around here, and it's over MPAA ratings? Huh?
Reply
post #21 of 63
8/11/08 at 8:50pm
The weird thing about the ending, for me, is that it only becomes tacky after watching the film. During it, I was still so into the movie (Yes, even after the Tim Robbins scene. I don't think that part is bad at all, but I can see the complaints. I would think that many would find Cruise's murder in that scene to be redeeming, though. I think it's a good thematic payoff) that it didn't really register. To me, that's the sign of a great movie, which I think War of the Worlds is.

Also, I thought that WOTW was far more harrowing and disturbing than TDK. While the martian lasers don't take people apart in messes of gore, some of the people's faces before they get vaporised have been burned into my mind. I was surprised this didn't get an R from that one scene where the tripod was sucking that one guy up and spraying his gore over the countryside. (But really, it doesn't really matter at the end of the day...)
Reply
post #22 of 63
8/11/08 at 8:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Schwartz View Post
You don't agree that TDK pushed the limits of the PG-13? Really, I'm just curious that you seem about as riled up as you ever seem to get around here, and it's over MPAA ratings? Huh?
I don't think it did. There was hardly swearing, hardly sexuality, hardly any visible violence. But that's not the point. The idea that there's been nothing different between PG and PG-13 movies since 1994 makes no real sense. PG-13 has been pushing it for a while, while PG seems to have sort of dropped off the map. I'd say there's no real difference between G and PG. But that's not the point either. The point is the concept of a harder rating having any baring on quality. That makes no sense to me.
Reply
post #23 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:10pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
I don't think it did. There was hardly swearing, hardly sexuality, hardly any visible violence. But that's not the point. The idea that there's been nothing different between PG and PG-13 movies since 1994 makes no real sense. PG-13 has been pushing it for a while, while PG seems to have sort of dropped off the map. I'd say there's no real difference between G and PG. But that's not the point either. The point is the concept of a harder rating having any baring on quality. That makes no sense to me.
This argument would hold more water if you weren't praising LW4 at the drop of a hat.
Reply
post #24 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:12pm
What does that have to do with anything?
Reply
post #25 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:19pm
I'm kinda in the dark here, too. If extremity and ratings equaled quality, the X rated version of Caligula and porn would be our masterpieces.
Reply
post #26 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:21pm
Fight ! Fight!

I'm flicking the light switch on and off.
Reply
post #27 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:23pm
The use of 9-11 imagery is what makes it really disturbing. The scene where Cruise freaks out in the mirror when he first notices the dust is pretty ballsy considering it came only four years after. Everyone cites the one-shot van scene as the standout, but I think from the beginning of the first invasion until the end of the mirror scene is Spielberg's best work in it.
Reply
post #28 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
What does that have to do with anything?
Just pokin' fun at your recent gleeful championing of a shit film, and what I assumed was newly acquired & reactionary low brow taste.
Reply
post #29 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:29pm
I've always been a huge fan of the Lethal Weapon movies. Gibson and Glover have dynamite chemistry, and it carries every one of the films. Im not denying that Lethal Weapon 4 is the worst of the series, but it's still a lot of fun.
Reply
post #30 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
I don't think it did. There was hardly swearing, hardly sexuality, hardly any visible violence. But that's not the point. The idea that there's been nothing different between PG and PG-13 movies since 1994 makes no real sense. PG-13 has been pushing it for a while, while PG seems to have sort of dropped off the map. I'd say there's no real difference between G and PG. But that's not the point either. The point is the concept of a harder rating having any baring on quality. That makes no sense to me.
I'm not saying that it necessarily changes the quality of the product but I don't think the PG-13 rating has been pushing it. The Schumaker Batmans were PG films that somehow ended up with PG-13 ratings. I'd say there's much more violence and darker themes in Dark Knight than there was in the R-rated director's cut of Daredevil. Do I think a movie rating makes a better film? No, but when you make something like comic book films where the majority of them have a contractual obligation to deliver a PG-13, it is sometimes refreshing to see a film that doesn't feel watered down to deliver that rating.

I know we're going way off-topic here but I'm just explaining where I was going with this. Maybe Dark Knight was no more violent than any of these other PG-13 flicks out there but it seems like awhile since I've seen a film that opens with several people being gunned down on screen and has cops and others being murdered through out. Anyways, don't have the energy to write any further on this matter at this point.
Reply
post #31 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:35pm
So because The Dark Knight is "more PG-13" than War of the Worlds it's better than War of the Worlds?

Also... doesn't most of humanity get wiped out in the beginning of War of the Worlds? Isn't that pretty fucking dark?
Reply
post #32 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:39pm
No. What's dark is when a boat full of prison inmates who understand the sanctity of life above self-preservation.

Tom Cruise killing Tim Robbins' character to protect his family is darker than anything in The Dark Knight.
Reply
post #33 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parker View Post
So because The Dark Knight is "more PG-13" than War of the Worlds it's better than War of the Worlds?

Also...the doesn't most of humanity get wiped out in the beginning of War of the Worlds? Isn't that pretty fucking dark?
Never said it was better or worse. I can see where things may have gotten taken the wrong way though. My initial response was to the comment about only Speilberg being able to get away with making a mainstream PG-13 film like this. There have been summers worth of asteriod, volcano, and storm films that have shown hundreds and thousands of people being wiped out in explosions. MPAA doesn't tend to frown on that. I'll give you scenes like the riot with the gun and Cruise killing Robbins aren't generally the norm. Never said DK was better or worse than WOTW, only felt that it pushed the envelope further in regards to what is allowed in a PG-13 movie.
Reply
post #34 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:55pm
The MPAA ratings have indeed drastically shifted. I covered this in the B Action Movies thread and elsewhere in some detail. Fairly well if I may be so bold. SPEED RACER's PG was pretty old school considering that there's violence and torture with blood depicted.
Reply
post #35 of 63
8/11/08 at 9:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Ripoll View Post
Tom Cruise killing Tim Robbins' character to protect his family is darker than anything in The Dark Knight.
That's kind of what I was thinking, but I didn't want to get involved....
Reply
post #36 of 63
8/12/08 at 9:12am
The first half of this film is so utterly incredible, so deeply disturbing - in the best way - that it simply highlights how crushingly disappointing the second half is.

But jebus, that first hour is some of the best suspense anyone's ever created, let alone Spielberg.

...but from the moment Cruise lets his only son run off into a gigantic tank vs alien warship battle presumably to die, the film did a complete and total 180 for me personally.

I didn't even need the second half to be as good as the first, just one that didn't utterly and completely betray the brilliance of the first hour.

...I know plenty donlt agree with me on this - I argued this here until I was blue in the face when it was first released, but this was one of the most conflicting cinema experiences I've ever had.
Reply
post #37 of 63
8/12/08 at 9:47am
for some reason I have this on DVD. I didn't buy it... and yet it is in my collection. I think someone gave it to me?
Reply
post #38 of 63
8/12/08 at 10:55am
Whenever anyone mentions this flick it brings back one of my fondest memories: being an extra in the ferry scene. One of the greatest experiences of my life. If someone ever told me I'd be on the set of a Steven Spielberg flick, let alone a one about an alien invasion, I would've asked them what they were smokin'.

As for the movie itself, I think it's the tits. Definitely top shelf suspense for the first hour or so, and the silliness of Robbins's characters doesn't bother me. Neither does the son surviving, although I admit when I first saw it I pulled a "huh?"

Man, 2005 was a good year for the 'berg.
Reply
post #39 of 63
8/12/08 at 4:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
...but from the moment Cruise lets his only son run off into a gigantic tank vs alien warship battle presumably to die, the film did a complete and total 180 for me personally.
I thought that the son running off scene was one of the best in the film. Cruise trying to stop him and being unable to deal with his overpowering need for vengeance, and his generally psychotic curiosity is probably Speilberg's most literal and pointed political metaphore ever.
Reply
post #40 of 63
8/12/08 at 4:29pm
Plus the fact that the son is old enough to take care of himself, while the daughter is not. Cruise is forced to choose between saving someone who doesn't want to be saved and someone who needs him and makes the obvious -- albeit painful -- choice.
Reply
post #41 of 63
8/12/08 at 5:44pm
Yeah, Cruise is forced to choose between the son and the daughter, he didn't just let him go.
Reply
post #42 of 63
8/12/08 at 5:46pm
I just wish the damn kid didn't come back. Let it hang out there.

Agree with Richard's statement though.
Reply
post #43 of 63
8/12/08 at 8:09pm
Cruise bringing down a Tripod grates badly with me. It's too much of a contrast with his character the rest of the time, and with the powerless nature of humanity in the film in general. The film never really recovers from it.
I do like everything up until there, though.
Reply
post #44 of 63
8/12/08 at 8:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe Powers View Post
I keep trying to tell people about how great War of the Worlds was, but they always throw the son surviving in my face. Can people really not enjoy a brilliant movie if it has a stupid final image?
It absolutely ruined the film for me. Utterly. Up until that point, I thought it was an excellent and gripping chase film, well-made, with poignant imagery, interesting 9-11 overtones, and good acting. And all that was ripped away by an utterly unbelievable, unncessary, and saccharine reunion scene.

It's as though Spielberg set out to make a film that would get rid of his "Hollywood ending" reputation, then caved in at the end.
Reply
post #45 of 63
8/12/08 at 8:28pm
Him taking down the Tripod was a bit too much of a "hero moment". That bothered me along with how they set up the ending in regard to the aliens. The whole Tripods being buried since before humanity thing made this a big hole for me. So you're going to set up this big invasion on a planet's inhabitants eons before they evolve but you're not going to take into consideration environmental changes and possible airborne agents during your extended planning period. And in the course of history none of this ships will be exposed by our ever changing landscape? That just seemed too contrived when they could have just come from the sky like the creatures that piloted them.
Reply
post #46 of 63
8/12/08 at 8:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrdrow View Post
The whole Tripods being buried since before humanity thing made this a big hole for me. So you're going to set up this big invasion on a planet's inhabitants eons before they evolve but you're not going to take into consideration environmental changes and possible airborne agents during your extended planning period. And in the course of history none of this ships will be exposed by our ever changing landscape? That just seemed too contrived when they could have just come from the sky like the creatures that piloted them.
My friend and I made up a little backstory for the aliens on the way home from the movie. We decided that the tri-pods were set up by an advanced race, but that some idoit redneck members of that race found out about them and thought it'd be fun to destroy a planet.

We also made up a redneck idiot backstory for the Predators in AVP2. Every species, no matter how advanced, has to have some redneck idiots right?
Reply
post #47 of 63
8/12/08 at 9:00pm
I'm not a fan of this film. I liked the begining, but I have the same problem that others do with the ending (the son conveniently alive), Tim Robbins' performance, and Cruise taking down the tripod (out-of-tune with the film's tone, and really takes the menace out of the aliens). It starts falling apart for me when they get to the kids' grandparents house, and the script forces Cruise to become angry over not being able to feed his kids, even though they are sitting in a presumably well-stocked kitchen. Contrived situations like this just made me want to yell "Hey stupids!" at the characters too often. The movie really feels like it was slapped together in 7 months to me. That hurt it rather than helped it in my opinion.
Reply
post #48 of 63
8/12/08 at 9:05pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe Powers View Post
Every species, no matter how advanced, has to have some redneck idiots right?
It would explain why aliens are supposedly fascinated with the bungholes of earth's redneck idiots.
Reply
post #49 of 63
8/12/08 at 11:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe Powers View Post
I thought that the son running off scene was one of the best in the film. Cruise trying to stop him and being unable to deal with his overpowering need for vengeance, and his generally psychotic curiosity is probably Speilberg's most literal and pointed political metaphore ever.
Oh I can see the metaphor and what Spielbergs trying to do there on a symbolic level, but for me the symbolism undercut the reality of the plotting. If we'd been shown a caring loving father-Cruise up to that point maybe the resonance would have worked for me, but we don't, we see him as a pretty shitty father and that just fed into him being even shittier than I had felt up to that point for then letting his son go.

I also don't agree with the whole "he had to choose between his son and his daughter" argument personally either as, if that was my old man, he'd have knocked me out and slung me over his shoulder before he'd have made a choice like that.

I understand why some here like it and what it was attempting to achieve, it just really really didn't work for me personally and was the turning point of the film going from incredible to, frankly, shit for me.
Reply
post #50 of 63
8/13/08 at 1:14am
I just got done rewatching this for the first time in about a year, and I have to say I really liked it a lot more than before. I'd even say I loved it. I'd definitely place it in the upper echelon of Spielberg's movies.

I can't really say that Cruise taking down the tripod bothered me, and although when I first saw it, the son surviving did kind of irk me, I really didn't have a problem with it this time around. What I did have a problem with was how bratty the two kids were in the film. Just the way they treated Cruise like shit no matter what he did. That's not really a complaint against the quality, since that's pretty essential to the whole theme of the story, but it was just kind of aggravating.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › War Of The Worlds (2005)