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) - Page 2

post #51 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Rain Dog View Post
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.
To me the point of the film was the metaphore, not the plot, which was very, very thin and holed. Speilberg found a reason to remake War of the World by taking the original film's Red Scare and Atomic Bomb metaphores and replacing them with 9/11 metaphores. I had zero interest in another War of the Worlds film until I realized it was just as post-modern as Kill Bill. In this sense I'd compare War of the Worlds most to Raiders of the Lost Ark. But unlike Kill Bill, and like Raiders, War of the Worlds is also made to work on a blockbuster level, and the weak plotting shows there. If you aren't totally into the idea of a 'new' 50s Red Scare flick disguised as a summer action flick then there's no reason to love the film beyond its impressive visuals.

I don't see the metaphore and the plot as mutually exclusive, by the way.
post #52 of 63
Thread Starter 
I never had a problem with Cruise taking out the Tripod. It's not so much action hero mode, as it's him realizing that if they're going to take him, he's going to sacrifice himself by pulling the pins off the grenades and blowing it up from the inside. He just happened to be saved by the soldier as well as the others in the metal basket after he pulled the pins and let the grenades get sucked in.
post #53 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe Powers View Post
To me the point of the film was the metaphore, not the plot, which was very, very thin and holed. Speilberg found a reason to remake War of the World by taking the original film's Red Scare and Atomic Bomb metaphores and replacing them with 9/11 metaphores. I had zero interest in another War of the Worlds film until I realized it was just as post-modern as Kill Bill. In this sense I'd compare War of the Worlds most to Raiders of the Lost Ark. But unlike Kill Bill, and like Raiders, War of the Worlds is also made to work on a blockbuster level, and the weak plotting shows there. If you aren't totally into the idea of a 'new' 50s Red Scare flick disguised as a summer action flick then there's no reason to love the film beyond its impressive visuals.

I don't see the metaphore and the plot as mutually exclusive, by the way.
No probs and I totally see where you're coming from there Gabe, but it was precisely the 9-11 allegorising and the story being placed in a very modern real-world disaster context that made the first half so utterly chilling and brilliantly terrifying for me.

It felt to me like this was something that could be happening now and felt utterly real (the scene of the mob turning on the car is quite simply one of the scariest scenes Ive seen in a film precisely because it reflects my cynically mysanthropic view of humanity in times of crisis so perfectly). This is what makes the first hour so utterly unparallelled for me and why my turning point from love to hate occurs at the precise moment that it feels like that reality is forgone in favour of metaphor, symbolism and out and out unbelievable plot developments.

Again, Im not saying my view is the only way to see it, just saying why the film did a complete 180 for me personally at that moment - the fact that this was then followed by Tim Robbins channelling an actor in a 50's Italian B-Movie, Cruise turning into the-man-who-brought-down-a-tripod-single-handedly and finally capped off with the reappearance of the son at the films conclusion made the second half as crushingly disappointing as the first half was incredible.
post #54 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe Powers View Post
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?
I just Assumed that the tri-pods were made when the lighting hit, and the whole buried part was just 'primitive' humans trying to explain what they were seeing.
post #55 of 63
Can't think of a portrayal of an alien invasion in the movies I liked more.
post #56 of 63
In the cinema, with the sound system going full-bore, the initial tripod appearance scene nearly gave me a heart attack - not out of fright, because I knew full well what was going to happen... but it was just so... visceral. I was really buying into it, and when the tripod sounded it's horn for the first time, I grinned like a maniac, thinking, "Oh, man - perfect.". Another little moment that I love that I never hear mentioned is when Ray is sitting under his kitchen table in shock, and his daughter touches his shoulder. The flinch is just great.

The highway scene is also great. I didn't even cotton on to the fact that it was a single take. It's just a good, frantic scene - even with the bullshit psychology trick. I feel Cruise really sells Ray's nearness to just cracking up at that point. The car/crowd scene later on is one of the more upsetting film sequences I can recall, and nary a tripod or alien in sight. That guy clawing his way through the windshield is just so... zombie.

Tim Robbins? Well, at least we know what we're getting into with him from the first shot. I start chuckling now when I see him holding up the lantern to his face... "Hi, I'm not crazy!". I would have been fine with not seeing the aliens until the end.

Maybe the basement sequence feels longer than it is because the final act seems rushed.

The grenade? It bothers me just a little, I suppose. Perhaps if the soldier could have done the actual deed, with Ray being the one who pulls him back down. Ray would still get to be a bit of a hero (and it'd be a sort of a callback to when he lets Robbie go), and the end result would be the same. When I see this sequence now, I mostly think of Spielberg talking about how unpleasant it was to shoot.

I think I could stomach the ending better if the family had been just slightly more roughed up. Personally, I'd have been in bunker mode at that point, not cardigan mode.
post #57 of 63
One of things I liked most about this was the fact that we never see the invasion from anyone else's perspective. Not the president or the Army etc which is such a cliché in these types of movies. They always have to come up with an explanation when not knowing is so much more chilling.

I think that really helps to sell the unsettling atmosphere, Cruise hasn't got a clue whats going on at first and neither do we
post #58 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rusty Oysterburger View Post
One of things I liked most about this was the fact that we never see the invasion from anyone else's perspective. Not the president or the Army etc which is such a cliché in these types of movies. They always have to come up with an explanation when not knowing is so much more chilling.
In a way, it was Cloverfield before Cloverfield.

My favorite shot is still the masses numbly walking along the road, stopping at the railroad crossing, and watching the burning train go by. No explanation, no commentary, just this awful image which allows your mind to conjure up its own horrible way it happened.
post #59 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by EL Wack View Post
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.
Speaking from experience, when you grow up in a divorced parent environment and your dad seems more interested in cars than he is in, say, remembering your birthday, you tend to be pretty passive aggressive with him. If anything I thought the kids were spot-on.
post #60 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
Speaking from experience, when you grow up in a divorced parent environment and your dad seems more interested in cars than he is in, say, remembering your birthday, you tend to be pretty passive aggressive with him. If anything I thought the kids were spot-on.
I understand that, and I think my frustration comes more from my dislike of passive aggressive behavior like that in general than any real complaint about the characters within the story. It's just a personality trait that I dislike and I'm projecting that dislike on to the characters. I appreciate that it's a very genuine behavior for the kids to have and it doesn't hinder my enjoyment of the movie at all, it just bothers me on the same level it would if someone were acting like that towards me.
post #61 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
In a way, it was Cloverfield before Cloverfield.

My favorite shot is still the masses numbly walking along the road, stopping at the railroad crossing, and watching the burning train go by. No explanation, no commentary, just this awful image which allows your mind to conjure up its own horrible way it happened.
I actually couldn't enjoy Cloverfield fully because I kept comparing it to War of the Worlds. And the best part of the train scene is that no body screams, and when the train is done passing, they just numbly start crossing the tracks.
post #62 of 63
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Dickson View Post
My favorite shot is still the masses numbly walking along the road, stopping at the railroad crossing, and watching the burning train go by. No explanation, no commentary, just this awful image which allows your mind to conjure up its own horrible way it happened.
I had completely forgotten about this shot. Definitely one that sends your mind reeling.
post #63 of 63
I just rewatched this because of the MOD article and I finally get the Justin Chatwin hate. He does indeed suck in this. Maybe it isn't fair that he's up against Dakota Fanning and her amazing acting super powers. Then again, she's kinda carrying the movie. Cruise is pretty good here though.

The script is a bit too clunky. But given how this was probably shot before the script could've been given another pass, and Spielberg directed the shit out of this, I'm willing to forgive some of its flaws. I particularly love how most of the movie is in medium shot.

This would go really well with The Mist as a double feature. The movies are remarkably similar thematically and in tone. The Mist is the better script to be sure and has the better acting ensemble. But both share that ground level view of an otherworldly invasion and both get creepy as fuck. Some of the ballsiest filmmaking from either of the directors.

The Mist has the better gut punch ending to be sure, but when Cruise's Ray realizes he's not done with Chatwin's Robbie, it's a close call.
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)