CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › WAR OF THE WORLDS Discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WAR OF THE WORLDS Discussion - Page 10

post #451 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Whitehead
THE ALIENS ARE DEFEATED BY A CONVENIENT COMBINATION OF WATER, ASTHMA MEDICINE AND A BASEBALL BAT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth Chocula
I heard the aliens are killed by a very old, very corny song, and then Tom Jones appears...........

Actually I think they find out that the aliens use the latest Mac OS, and upload a virus into their mothership.


Is that it? Have we covered them all?
post #452 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jubei
Actually I think they find out that the aliens use the latest Mac OS, and upload a virus into their mothership.


Is that it? Have we covered them all?
Actually, the aliens are so touched by the love between Ed Harris and Lindsey Brigman that they decide to cancel the order to drown the planet.
post #453 of 1057
Actually, they're just Tom Cruise's dad.
post #454 of 1057
Nice interview with Dennis Muren there Devin. From the little snippets that came from that it sounds possible that WOTW is going to be pretty different from the usual sci-fi disaster movies we've seen before.

I think the idea of keeping it in one city & not showing the global picture is a great move. That was what I liked best about Signs, all the central characters knew was what they saw on TV or heard on the radio.

Again, nice one Devin. Looking forward to more coverage.
post #455 of 1057
Good interview Devin, but dammit I should have heeded the spoiler warning.

How was the press junket? Have you been saved by Xenu?
post #456 of 1057
Devin, what would you give WOTW on a 1-10 scale?

How does it compare to Spielberg's other sci-fi/fantasy blockbusters, like Close Encounters, E.T., Jurassic Park, A.I., and Minority Report?
post #457 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndianSummerSky
Devin, what would you give WOTW on a 1-10 scale?

How does it compare to Spielberg's other sci-fi/fantasy blockbusters, like Close Encounters, E.T., Jurassic Park, A.I., and Minority Report?
Devin will tell us that when he posts he review which he is holding until the film opens.
post #458 of 1057
I knew Devin was holding his review. I just thought maybe he'd give us a brief preview of his thoughts on the film, which he has done before.
post #459 of 1057
My local theaters website has this listed as two hours long. I figured it would be at least two and a half or three hours.
post #460 of 1057
It's Two Hours...that has been out for about two weeks.
I am not worried. Spielberg has the power to makes his films two and half or three hours if he so chooses, so I think that he feels that Two Hours is the right running time., and did have a studio looking overhis shoulder. Longer does not necessary mean better.
post #461 of 1057
Thread Starter 
Two hours seems perfectly fine, maybe because I just watched Jaws and found it so well paced but 2 hours of alien chaos seems perfect.

Picked up the book for only $4 [!], good stuff.
post #462 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darth_Chocula
Two hours seems perfectly fine, maybe because I just watched Jaws and found it so well paced but 2 hours of alien chaos seems perfect.
I watched Jaws again last weekend & looking at the time counter on the DVD player I was amazed how quickly the major events happen. I was 9 when I saw it upon release & it seemed to take a lot longer. Shorter attention span as a kid I expect although I loved the movie right away.

Which brings me to WOTW. I was slightly surprised & a little disappointed to hear it's a 2 hour movie, but as DC says I'm sure it'll be spot on thanks to Spielberg. I think the reason I hoped it was longer is that if it's as good as I expect I could watch it for hours !!!
post #463 of 1057
So how close is this movie supposed to be to the book. I was going through some old things and found my brother's copy of the book. I know they're in completely different settings/time periods, but are the overall story and characters the same, or are they just using the same situation? Either way its not like I have any idea what either movie or the book are about besides the very vague Martians invade.
post #464 of 1057
Hey guys whast the music in the trailer? Its in a whle bunch of shit and I wasnt to say its JNHoward. Can anyone give me a composer and title please...
post #465 of 1057
That would be the Score to the 1996 film, Dragonheart by Randy Edelman. my wee heart loved that film so much.
post #466 of 1057
Three hours? Please. I can't believe people actually want a 3 hour movie. If you can't get it done in well under 3 hours, take it to tv dammit!
post #467 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by HypnoToad
So how close is this movie supposed to be to the book. I was going through some old things and found my brother's copy of the book. I know they're in completely different settings/time periods, but are the overall story and characters the same, or are they just using the same situation? Either way its not like I have any idea what either movie or the book are about besides the very vague Martians invade.

I suggest you read the book AND see the George Pal movie before seeing this. The book is a quick read and the movie is a blast. If you enjoy good science fiction, you won't regret it.

Spielberg used some elements from the book but pretty much updated everything to reflect our modern understanding of science and the universe. In other words, it would be obvious that they didn't come from Mars as we know Mars is uninhabited. In addition, the aliens method of travel is much more sophisticapted than in the book. Some characters, or elements of characters from the original book are represented, as is the red weed, tripods, and a few other things. I know that this subject was discussed in detail earlier in the thread if you want more specifics.
post #468 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Dragon
I can't believe people actually want a 3 hour movie.

Jesus wept.

That said, yeah, WOTW should work fine in 2 hours.
post #469 of 1057
www.aintitcool.com

harry says best film of the year....well until the next blockbuster comes out
post #470 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Dragon
Three hours? Please. I can't believe people actually want a 3 hour movie. If you can't get it done in well under 3 hours, take it to tv dammit!
Without making any judgements about the length of Speilbergs WOTW, I have a few films for you;

Lawrence of Arabia
Godfather 2
Doctor Zhivago,
Ben-Hur
Schindler's List
Reds
1900
Gone With the Wind
Seven Samaurai
Titanic

All of which have well over Three Hours Running time.
And I could add to the list if I wanted to.
And although people might disagree about one or two of the films, I find it hard to believe that anybody of any taste would say they all suck.
I am not saying the WOTW should have a three hour running time. I am saying that saying No Film should run over Three Hours is pretty dumb.
post #471 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by S-Mart
www.aintitcool.com

harry says best film of the year....well until the next blockbuster comes out
I notice that Harry's "best film of the year" changes about once every three weeks..or less.
But I guess that the infamous Harry's feud with Speilberg is now over.... until Speilberg decides to make a "non Geek" film again.
If Harry was less of a pushover I would take him a little more seriosly.
I am still wierded out by Harry's "Land of the Dead" review. Just read it to see what I mean.

I probably will not get a chance to see it until Friday or Saturday...sadly. If you work full time, are married, and have other obligations that is what happens.
It will be intersting to see what the non geek critics have to say.
post #472 of 1057
Not sure if you could call this a non geek review:

http://www.defamer.com/hollywood/mov...iew-109587.php
post #473 of 1057
Slightly pissed off. Bought tickets for WOTW when I was at Land Of The Dead yesterday, asked the girl at the kiosk what time the first showing was on Wednesday, she tells me it's 10:00. "Great, I'll take 5 tickets for that" I replied. Given tickets & rushed in to see LOTD (start time was 10 minutes earlier than advertised online, so we were cutting it fine) without really looking at Wednesday's tickets.

When I finally do look at the tickets today I discover she gave me ones for the 4:00pm showing ! WTF??
Not only do I have to wait all day now but we could've saved money on the first showing, which helps when the whole family is going. God knows the popcorn & drinks costs a small fortune on top of the ticket price.

To top it all off I think it's gonna be on one of the smaller screens. Fuck, fuckity, fuck !!!!!!

:-(
post #474 of 1057
post #475 of 1057
Thanks Devin.

That should tide me over until I see it Wednesday at midnight.
post #476 of 1057
Devin's got me hyped. Any other CHUD guys seen this yet?
post #477 of 1057
I have to say, Devin, that that is a killer fuckin' review. I don't know if that's my anticipation for the movie and the joy of seeing positive reviews, but damn. Fuckin' great. Great writing.

Thanks man.
post #478 of 1057
Devin, I do have a question, regarding the scenes in the house.

You said you would've preferred them to be scary/suspenseful, but instead there were more thrilling. Does this mean you didn't like the scenes as a whole, or did you just not like the way they were portrayed? Did you at least enjoy them for what they were worth?
post #479 of 1057
i found out you reviewed by looking at rottentomatoes.com , your the first reviewer posted there, hope you wont get in trouble from paramount
post #480 of 1057
Absolutely amazing reveiw Devin, I was kinda afriad of this film at first, but have me convinced, oh and please answer SomeInsaniac's question I was wondering the same thing.
post #481 of 1057
That was a pretty darn well written review. This combined with a lot of other coverage of late has made me really interested in seeing this. Before I felt kind of blah about the whole thing despite working on the movie. In retrospect I think I was rather drained by the prospect of Sith/Batman/and Land of The Dead. But now I'm thinking I might sneak out opening day/night to see it. You never can have enough good movies out. I wish they would have had a cast and crew screening on the east coast, considering a lot of right coasters worked on the film.
post #482 of 1057
ONLY 9.2?! Devin, you snippity fuckweasel!
post #483 of 1057
I found the scenes in the basement with the aliens - there are two distinct sequences - to be a little dull. There is good stuff in the basement between Robbins and Cruise, though.
post #484 of 1057
Devin, your reviews just keep getting better and better, even when I disagree with them (though I doubt I'll be disagreeing with this one). You write about movies in a smart yet completely accessible way that's always informative and entertaining. Just outstanding stuff.
post #485 of 1057
Oh, and I also wanted to ask, will the happy ending you described add more fuel to the fire concerning Spielberg's tendencies to, well, end things happily?
post #486 of 1057
Big time.
post #487 of 1057
Devin, if this movie does very well, do you think it might give leverage to the John Christopher's Tripods trilogy getting off the ground?
post #488 of 1057
Okay, there's a happy ending (not a big deal since all versions of this story have a happy ending, right?) But is Spielberg being manipulative? (half kidding.)
post #489 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by OhioJones
In other words, it would be obvious that they didn't come from Mars as we know Mars is uninhabited.
Or do we?

OR...DO...WE......................?



Also, I'm not against the idea of 3 hour movies, the ones dudlab listed are, mostly, deserving of the running time.

I just don't see the point of a 3 hour WOTW movie. We know Lord of All Film is a master of these types of things, no reason he shouldn't be able to razzledazzle in under 3.
post #490 of 1057
Devin, did the ending, which you describe as "over the top happy" (and according to Howard Stern is terrible even though he enjoyed the film) go over negatively with the audience you saw it with? Do you think the film will suffer from bad WOM because of the sub-par ending (a la The Village) even though most of the movie is great? I sure hope this is not the case. Great review by the way.
post #491 of 1057
Was the ending at least like the book?
post #492 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomeInsaniac
Was the ending at least like the book?
Yes, and that's an ending that's never worked great (with the exception of the way Alan Moore twists it in LoEG 2), but it works better here than anywhere else. The fact that the main characters aren't the decision-makers attempting to defeat the menace makes the ultimate fate of the aliens a little less underwhelming.
post #493 of 1057
As far as I can tell, there isn't a spoiler thread for this, so I'm going to post in here until there is one.

I'm almost afraid to say this, because I feel like I'm going to be in a small minority, but I didn't much like it. It had a lot of good moments, especially early on, but there were a lot of things that just yanked me out of the film like you wouldn't believe.


SPOILERS BEGIN HERE - HIGHLIGHT TO READ


For instance, although I admire the decision to follow Tom Cruise's character with few looks at the bigger picture, it makes some of his stupider decisions incredibly frustrating. For example, arriving at his wife's house and not turning on a TV or radio, or, for that matter, making any attempt to find out what on earth is happening, instead preferring to run and hide in one hole after another. Or apparently killing Tim Robbins, which seemed wholly unnecessary, not to mention the stupid way he did it (walk slowly into the room Robbins is in and shut the door, while Robbins is wielding a shovel and maybe even a shotgun). Although usually I'm against criticizing things like this in a movie, when you're supposed to feel caught up in the catastrophe like the protagonist, his seeming inability to think at all about potentially life-saving decisions is maddening.

The same sort of disregard for logic shows up in the battle scene, when the half the refugees literally run full-sprint into the massive firefight between the aliens and the army.

Tim Robbins didn't necessarily make a lot of sense either. I understand his character was sort of on the brink to begin with, but why on earth would a determined survivalist type like him flip out after seeing somebody 'harvested' by the aliens? Especially since he apparently worked in ambulance beforehand and had presumably seen his fair share of blood and gore.

Or for that matter, what were the aliens doing with humans? Surely there was a more efficient way to fertilize the ENTIRE PLANET than to drain humans of their precious bodily, one by one, and spread them over the surrounding area?

And the ending. Apparently, while the rest of the world was getting massacred by bizarre alien tripods, Tom Cruise's wife and her family were having just a lovely weekend in Boston. What's more, his son, who disappeared over the hill literally seconds before a massive explosion destroyed half the US Army, not only survived but made it to Boston just fine.

Like I said, normally I'm willing to accept Movie Logic, but I have a limit.

Finally, a friend turned to me and asked me this after the movie, and it's a funny point if you think about it a little. How on earth did the aliens know where NYC was going to be a million (or even a few thousand) years ago?


NO MORE BIG SPOILERS

On the plus side, the design of the tripods was perfect, and they were suitably terrifying when coming over the hill towards the ferry and in the cities. The noise they made was great too, and the way they emitted smoke was nicely remniscent of the story's turn-of-the-century origins.

It was surprising dark at times. I agree the first heat ray scene was horrifying and pretty remniscent of 9/11. If I'm not mistaken, the beams were literally chopping people to bits, with arms and legs flying all around. And the crowd scene that Devin mentions in his review is remarkably pessimistic for Spielberg and unfortunately rings very true.

All-in-all, it's probably worth seeing, but I didn't find it very satisfying, and in many ways, it frustrated me immensely.
post #494 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by PodBayDoor
Yes, and that's an ending that's never worked great (with the exception of the way Alan Moore twists it in LoEG 2), but it works better here than anywhere else. The fact that the main characters aren't the decision-makers attempting to defeat the menace makes the ultimate fate of the aliens a little less underwhelming.
That's one thing that I did like a great deal. If you ignore the fact that the aliens would be so careless, with all that time to plan, it's a nicely ironic and interesting twist. I did find it a little odd that the film then claimed something along the lines of "every life has a purpose" after a such a senseless slaughter. It's like it tried to suddenly hijack the moral of Signs with a resolution that was the very antithesis of Signs.
post #495 of 1057
Oh yeah, one other thing. The floating body scene, though it could have been effective, was so manipulatively paced it elicited a laugh from probably about half the audience, myself including. There's just something funny about how, at first, one went by, then dozens.
post #496 of 1057
That's weird. I didn't think that was funny at all. I imagined that something had happened upriver like the ferry attack from later on. Some people would have fallen right into the river with the mass coming later and then a few stragglers. A bell curve, if you will.
post #497 of 1057
Excellent flick.
post #498 of 1057
I hope someone bashes Devin in the head with a hammer. Not because I dislike him, but because he's too damn smart. We need to retard him up a bit to make me feel smarter.

I really should have waited to see the flick before reading the review. Not that it ruins it or anything, I just like to go in as fresh as possible.

So yeah, you're gonna need to smash his skull in reeeeal good to make me smarter.
post #499 of 1057
Quote:
Originally Posted by LlamaRama
Oh yeah, one other thing. The floating body scene, though it could have been effective, was so manipulatively paced it elicited a laugh from probably about half the audience, myself including. There's just something funny about how, at first, one went by, then dozens.
Thats Spielberg for you. Always ready with a nice "string-puller" scene. See: Schindlers List, Saving Private Ryan.
post #500 of 1057
Very nice review, Devin.

You know, I don't always agree with you (then again, I can say the same thing about anyone else), but you support your views well and with an enthusiasm that radiates. It's obvious even when you're writing a negative review that your interest in the material is imperative.

It's strange, though. I just haven't been all that excited about this flick, even after reading a glowing review such as yours. I don't know if Tom Cruise's latest media circus performance and his tabloid shit has left even more of a damper on my expectations, and I know that it shouldn't, but his image just leaves me sour right now. Add to the fact that while Spielberg is my all-time fave director and no one does the summer blockbuster quite as well as him nor with the track record that he has, WOTW's premise isn't as rollicking as a Jurassic Park or any of the Indy films.

If it wasn't Spielberg, I don't think I'd care all that much.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › WAR OF THE WORLDS Discussion