War Of The Worlds
- Thread starter Elvis
- Start date
Tim Miller
Well-known member
Under the circumstances that were happening in the film, that seemed like something that would happen. They had the only running car around that anyone had seen. As your verse says, many of the people thought of only themselves (especially the guy with the gun), so they would do anything to get that car.
Tim Miller
Well-known member
Post before was about Coltrain's comment about ripping into the car windshield.
I didn't hear anyone else. My two friends were like 24 and 29...and when they said they didn't get it, I thought they were joking.
dvpixl said:
I didn't hear anyone else. My two friends were like 24 and 29...and when they said they didn't get it, I thought they were joking.
Tim Miller
Well-known member
Coltrain said:
Wow, were we watching the same movie? I realize there were a lot of similarites between 9/11 and the movie...but cars worked. People act in crazy ways when there life is in danger.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Coltrain has gracefully shown up to give us his opinion on the high art in Cinema. After your done telling us how people acted during 9/11 and giving us the finer details of Mob Mentality why don't you share with us your thoughts on the film; I can take a bad review but spare us the one liner 'This sucked..." bullshit Coltrain.
Your cred has already run out; at least humor us and give us some feedback on why you feel this way. (I'm especially interested in your espertise on 9/11 and the mentality of a mob)
Your cred has already run out; at least humor us and give us some feedback on why you feel this way. (I'm especially interested in your espertise on 9/11 and the mentality of a mob)
Drew599
Veteran
Is it so hard to believe that people are really just a bunch of dumb animals. You get them together in a herd and introduce so type of life threatening danger and there you go. People would be bitting that window open.
I saw the film a couple weeks ago and thought the VFX were kickass. But the story seemed like it ended way too fast. I was far from hating it.
John, I love your quote from "Constantine". That line gives me chills.
Also on another tip, 9/11 and an alien invasion are so far apart from each other its just plain retarted to try and make a comparison. One is a terrorist attack on one city (really two buildings) and the other is the complete anailation of the human race. I was using the invasion in the movie as my referance.
I saw the film a couple weeks ago and thought the VFX were kickass. But the story seemed like it ended way too fast. I was far from hating it.
John, I love your quote from "Constantine". That line gives me chills.
Also on another tip, 9/11 and an alien invasion are so far apart from each other its just plain retarted to try and make a comparison. One is a terrorist attack on one city (really two buildings) and the other is the complete anailation of the human race. I was using the invasion in the movie as my referance.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
What are you looking for when seeing a movie? To be transcended? Can't you just sit back and be entertained? Haven't you ever seen broadway? Do you even know what it is like to be entertained? Have you ver sat back and listened to a live band and just felt entertained?
Can you not even relate to a man's challenge to protect his family at all costs? Can you relate to having to kill a man to protect your family? This film is based on one on what is widely considered one of the more visioinary literary works of the century by one of our greatest authors and Spielberg succeeded in telling it like never before.
What is so 'amazingly unrealistic' about it? What? I can remember like it was yesterday the Rodney King riots; people people pulled from their cars and pummeled by mobs of people; remember the trucker Reginald Denny (sp?) driving down the road and being caught inthe mobs? Rememeber him being pulled from his car and being beat to near death? And that was over a jury verdict. What ahppens when the end of the world is near?
How can you like Batman Begins but not this? You need to get out of Wichita and experience life a little more. You're living in a vacuum with those statements.
Can you not even relate to a man's challenge to protect his family at all costs? Can you relate to having to kill a man to protect your family? This film is based on one on what is widely considered one of the more visioinary literary works of the century by one of our greatest authors and Spielberg succeeded in telling it like never before.
What is so 'amazingly unrealistic' about it? What? I can remember like it was yesterday the Rodney King riots; people people pulled from their cars and pummeled by mobs of people; remember the trucker Reginald Denny (sp?) driving down the road and being caught inthe mobs? Rememeber him being pulled from his car and being beat to near death? And that was over a jury verdict. What ahppens when the end of the world is near?
How can you like Batman Begins but not this? You need to get out of Wichita and experience life a little more. You're living in a vacuum with those statements.
thartley
Veteran
Coltrain said:
Well, duh...it had aliens. But it is a classic story brought to modern cinema as only Spielberg could have done it. I didnt go to see it for a trip into reality. I went to see it to be thrilled and entertained. And I was. But hey, we all have our own preferences in what we would like to spend an hour or two doing.
To each his own.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Well put. (A Voice of Reason)
fixitinpost
Well-known member
Well, I haven't yet seen the movie, but after reading this thread, I really want to. When I saw the trailer, I wasn't too sure. Visually, it was impressive, but you got no real hint of how the story was going to be told. To me, it was one of those trailers that really didn't tell you wether the movie would be good or not. I had almost no opinion untill I started reading reviews. Now I really want to see it. I'll probably write up a review when I see it.
Heh. The last 3 pages of this thread = flamebait +5
Heh. The last 3 pages of this thread = flamebait +5
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Coltrain always flames us; but at least it makes for spirited debates. I welcome Coltrain; it makes an otherwise ordinary evening of throwing darts and drinking pints into gab central.
I give it 4.25 out of 5.
The Cons:
The ending was just a little flat, and bringing the kid out of nowhere like that just didn't ring true to the tone of the story, at all. There is no doubt in my mind that he got annihilated when that huge napalm fireball thing went off, and then three huge tripods emerged. That he got back to Boston -before- Cruise is sort of insane. And I know it seems like a piddling point, but because of its location in the movie, it was just sort of unnerving. I would've preferred the Mom to hug the daughter, and then start screaming "Where's Robbie?! Where's Robbie?!" and then the screen cut to black: WAR OF THE WORLDS.
Okay, maybe not, but it would've been different.
That said, I dug the minivan shot too, but then as soon as I realized that I thought "holy crap this is cool" I remember someone saying to me "if you're ever watching a movie and thinking 'holy crap this is a cool shot' then maybe the shot might not be helping the movie all that much." I think a -better- CAR/VFX shot was in Mr. and Mrs. Smith when they corner-pinned that footage of Brad Pitt saying "We need to talk!" just before the car gets launched off the ramp. It was so good and so convincing, and so well placed that we all really thought Pitt was in the back of the car. This other shot was just a little perk for the aspiring filmmakers.
A minor bit of faulty movie logic: The EMP blast hits, knocking out all electronics for blocks and miles and miles and miles and miles. Then that one guy has a camcorder.
-----
This next comment isn't a critique of the movie, but just something that I noticed. Is there something inherently non-gritty in Spielberg's work, or is it just because we -know- it's Spielberg, that things that would otherwise be disturbing and unnerving we just take to be funny? You know, how like when your funny friend says something disturbing, but you laugh because you're just conditioned to him being funny?
There were at LEAST two dozen things in that movie that were supposed to be creepy, disturbing, or downright scary, that people giggled/tittered/laughed at. And yes, I know that when you're scared that people typically resort to a little bit of nervous laughter, but there is a difference between nervous laughter, and I'm watching a comedy. Like... Spielberg has some pretty trademark moves that he uses to make a point, visually.
Do you remember in CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, when DiCaprio first used one of those toy planes to make a fake check? You had a scene with him, with the plane in the bath tub, loosening the decal, to affix to the check. Then the next scene is him cashing the check. Then the next scene is a bathtub FILLED with toy planes. Laughter, because we know the psychology behind it.
He used a variation of the move when Fanning goes to use the bathroom by the stream, and then one body floats by. We see her face, she is terrified. Then hundreds of bodies float by. The audience ERUPTED in laughter. A little girl is screaming because hundreds of corpses are floating past her. The audience can't -stop- laughing.
Why? Is it the collective memory of that kind of joke? [Incident] [response] [incident exponential] is that just inherently funny? or is it inherently funny w/ Spielberg? Or is it just the way it is shot? Should it have been darker? Should the bodies have been more mangled? Closer to her? What?
I'll watch the movie again (and I'll download it, which might rankle people, but seeing as how I'll catch the movie twice in theaters, and buy the DVD, I don't really think I'm hurting them, at all. They're getting my money) and try to keep a better list of these not so funny moments, but I remember SEVERAL times being stunned that the audience was laughing (myself included) given what was going on on screen.
(another example), earlier in the film, Cruise returns home, stunned because he's just seen the death of hundreds of people and is wearing their ashes. Dakota touches him on the shoulder, he jumps, because he's shell shocked. (the way a rape victim would be when a male touches her) again, laughter. This one was a little bit funnier, but not -funny-, you know?
I think the thing that this movie had going for it was the structure of the script. The execution was good not great. The traditional hollywood paradigm says that midway through your movie (right after the climax of act 2) you get your first glimmer of hope, after the worst part of the movie. They sort of stretched this out, and didn't give us our light at the end of the tunnel until quite literally the -very end-, so right where we're at the point where we're conditioned for something good to happe.
My guess is, that in a -more- traditional movie, in that second basement, they would've discovered that the aliens are afraid of mirrors, and then Cruise and Robbins would have run around collecting mirrors and built a mirror-tank-car or something awful like that and saved the day), but that reprieve never came. Even when they destroyed that one Tripod because we all thought "That's cool. They can't do that to all of them though." But anyway, this slightly novel structuring gave the movie had a very strong "Holy s@#t, this is -never- gonna get better" vibe which made it a lot more visceral, for me.
Oh. And I think the sound effects (Not the score, sadly) helped this movie, more than is being addressed in this forum. The lightning strikes, pre-airplane, etc etc, all added to the vibe.
my 2cents.
The Cons:
The ending was just a little flat, and bringing the kid out of nowhere like that just didn't ring true to the tone of the story, at all. There is no doubt in my mind that he got annihilated when that huge napalm fireball thing went off, and then three huge tripods emerged. That he got back to Boston -before- Cruise is sort of insane. And I know it seems like a piddling point, but because of its location in the movie, it was just sort of unnerving. I would've preferred the Mom to hug the daughter, and then start screaming "Where's Robbie?! Where's Robbie?!" and then the screen cut to black: WAR OF THE WORLDS.
Okay, maybe not, but it would've been different.
That said, I dug the minivan shot too, but then as soon as I realized that I thought "holy crap this is cool" I remember someone saying to me "if you're ever watching a movie and thinking 'holy crap this is a cool shot' then maybe the shot might not be helping the movie all that much." I think a -better- CAR/VFX shot was in Mr. and Mrs. Smith when they corner-pinned that footage of Brad Pitt saying "We need to talk!" just before the car gets launched off the ramp. It was so good and so convincing, and so well placed that we all really thought Pitt was in the back of the car. This other shot was just a little perk for the aspiring filmmakers.
A minor bit of faulty movie logic: The EMP blast hits, knocking out all electronics for blocks and miles and miles and miles and miles. Then that one guy has a camcorder.
-----
This next comment isn't a critique of the movie, but just something that I noticed. Is there something inherently non-gritty in Spielberg's work, or is it just because we -know- it's Spielberg, that things that would otherwise be disturbing and unnerving we just take to be funny? You know, how like when your funny friend says something disturbing, but you laugh because you're just conditioned to him being funny?
There were at LEAST two dozen things in that movie that were supposed to be creepy, disturbing, or downright scary, that people giggled/tittered/laughed at. And yes, I know that when you're scared that people typically resort to a little bit of nervous laughter, but there is a difference between nervous laughter, and I'm watching a comedy. Like... Spielberg has some pretty trademark moves that he uses to make a point, visually.
Do you remember in CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, when DiCaprio first used one of those toy planes to make a fake check? You had a scene with him, with the plane in the bath tub, loosening the decal, to affix to the check. Then the next scene is him cashing the check. Then the next scene is a bathtub FILLED with toy planes. Laughter, because we know the psychology behind it.
He used a variation of the move when Fanning goes to use the bathroom by the stream, and then one body floats by. We see her face, she is terrified. Then hundreds of bodies float by. The audience ERUPTED in laughter. A little girl is screaming because hundreds of corpses are floating past her. The audience can't -stop- laughing.
Why? Is it the collective memory of that kind of joke? [Incident] [response] [incident exponential] is that just inherently funny? or is it inherently funny w/ Spielberg? Or is it just the way it is shot? Should it have been darker? Should the bodies have been more mangled? Closer to her? What?
I'll watch the movie again (and I'll download it, which might rankle people, but seeing as how I'll catch the movie twice in theaters, and buy the DVD, I don't really think I'm hurting them, at all. They're getting my money) and try to keep a better list of these not so funny moments, but I remember SEVERAL times being stunned that the audience was laughing (myself included) given what was going on on screen.
(another example), earlier in the film, Cruise returns home, stunned because he's just seen the death of hundreds of people and is wearing their ashes. Dakota touches him on the shoulder, he jumps, because he's shell shocked. (the way a rape victim would be when a male touches her) again, laughter. This one was a little bit funnier, but not -funny-, you know?
I think the thing that this movie had going for it was the structure of the script. The execution was good not great. The traditional hollywood paradigm says that midway through your movie (right after the climax of act 2) you get your first glimmer of hope, after the worst part of the movie. They sort of stretched this out, and didn't give us our light at the end of the tunnel until quite literally the -very end-, so right where we're at the point where we're conditioned for something good to happe.
My guess is, that in a -more- traditional movie, in that second basement, they would've discovered that the aliens are afraid of mirrors, and then Cruise and Robbins would have run around collecting mirrors and built a mirror-tank-car or something awful like that and saved the day), but that reprieve never came. Even when they destroyed that one Tripod because we all thought "That's cool. They can't do that to all of them though." But anyway, this slightly novel structuring gave the movie had a very strong "Holy s@#t, this is -never- gonna get better" vibe which made it a lot more visceral, for me.
Oh. And I think the sound effects (Not the score, sadly) helped this movie, more than is being addressed in this forum. The lightning strikes, pre-airplane, etc etc, all added to the vibe.
my 2cents.
It just dawned on me that this is the only Alien movie I can think of where the protagonist and the antagonist never -truly- faced off. Tom Cruise never looked at an Alien. I think that's where it lost me. I know that would've made it more traditional, but ...
Other 'alien' movies that popped into my head: The Abyss, Aliens, Alien, ID4, Predator, Jurassic Park, Signs.
Other 'alien' movies that popped into my head: The Abyss, Aliens, Alien, ID4, Predator, Jurassic Park, Signs.
D.O.C.
Carbonite Member
During 9/11, I think the people who were running from falling buildings felt a lot like they would if they were running from aliens, that is why I brought it up.
One important point though, when the people were mobbing the van they were in no immediate danger, so there was no reason to rip open a windshield.
One important point though, when the people were mobbing the van they were in no immediate danger, so there was no reason to rip open a windshield.