War Of The Worlds

Coltrain said:
In my mind, being 22, I can't imagine any perspective I have changing much. I don't claim to know it all, but I wonder how I would change in 20 years?
Click to expand...

(I need that damned smiley that is rolling all around laughing and pounding the floor.....)

How much time you got there, scooter? Unless you have some reason to believe you will not be around after age 23, I can tell you without even knowing you that you can and will change in ways you cant even dream about now. That path you see laying ahead of you that looks so clear to you now is really more like the fake cave opening that always had Wile E. Coyote smacked up against a rock wall.

But I've gone off topic..... the movie was what it was intended to be, however it appears it doesnt fit within the parameters of what you would call a great film. Das cool..... :beer:
 
Hey John, I agree with just about every single thing you've said about the film.

And Coltrain, don't let the fact that it's you versus everyone dissuade you, keep posting and voicing your opinions, makes for great discussion. I don't have any reason to believe you would from your past conduct, but I just wanted to say I enjoy what you bring to the discussion even if I disagree.

machardi said:
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.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more... What I really like about the film is how far things are pushed to the point of utter hopelessness, it really makes it work. I also found it a bit funny that the Japanese 'figured out a way to take down the tripods', then later when we see how, I just thought of kamikaze pilots and I wondered if that was the logic in having the Japanese figure it out. Don't remember if it was like that in the book.

machardi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Another great point.... When they hid behind the mirror, I was worried that we'd find out that 'mirrors' are the alien's weakness, and like you said, this would be the case in a more traditional film, I wonder if Spielberg even set it up like this on purpose to misdirect and defy the audiences expectations. Another instance where this occured was when Tom met the news anchor woman with the van or whatever, I was thinking 'in a conventional flick she would become the romantic interest', and I was relieved when she just abrubtly shut the door and drove off... that was great. It's almost like Spielberg and Koepp were saying 'Look, here's what ID4 would do, think we're gonna do that? NOPE, we're doing it better, watch this, think this is where we're going? Nope, wrong again, prepare to be annihilated.' lol.

What I find disappointing about the film is it really does defy the audience's expectations in alot of ways and take them on one of the most intense rides of any Spielberg film, but then at the end it cops out with Robbie's absurd return.

I think the heart of the story is, obviously, a father finding a way to truly bond with his kids... and the aliens are a catalyst and a secondary plot that drives this story, and at the end of Act 2, the aliens are winning, everyone will die, but a father finds a way to bond with his daughter finally... That really resolved the emotional heart of the films story, so after that the only question is if anyone will survive... and it really pushes that far, which I love.

machardi said:
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.
Click to expand...

Especially the first sequence when the aliens reveal themselves, the awesome sound design is what really makes it deliver... such a great choice.
 
Nice takes everyone. Good remarks on the sound design. When the Tripod first makes that 'mechanical scream' sound I was so pumped. It was perfect.

I'm curious as to why they brought Robbie back knowing it was a cop out? I thin kthe film already defied the PG-13 Rating with the bodies being blown to ashes, the Mob scene pointedly when they cap that dude driving and especially when Tom must take out Tim Robbins. I'm wondering who's call it was to say "Yeah; this is cool. Robbie came back."

Naw. They should have left him MIA
 
I have never seen such a bad film. Always visual effects. I nearly felt asleep, but the sound effects were too loud. And you know: "they must be terrorist, or the European people" hey, do they know where Europe is? It is a bit funny.
And the children are annoying.
And that girl! disgusting...
The story is also bad. it is like that July 4th film -unfortunately I don't know the English title.
 
What? Sound Effects too loud? Maybe it was the theatres speakers. "Is it the terrorists?". When the explosions start going off that's one of the first things I'm going to think of after 9/11. Children annoying? Fanning is a brilliant talent; mature beyond her years.

What girl is disgusting? I don't recall any 'love interests'?

The story is bad? Gotta blame HG Wells for that one kid.
 
The Europe line is SUPPOSED to be funny.

Complaining about the amount of visual effects... how else do you propose visually telling a story about aliens attacking the earth, keeping it a visceral experience? If you think you could do it better then Spielberg, then what are you doing sitting around on these forums.

Did you just call Dakota Fanning 'disgusting'?

If so, that is, possibly one of the dumbest things I've ever seen anyone say, ever.

The July 4th film is INDEPENDENCE DAY, which is not even comparable to WOW. If you think they are, I don't even know what to say, as the way we experience films is just too different to even have a frame of reference. The story of WOW came out a looong time ago and if anything ID4 ripped it off.
 
Another thing I didn't like about this film; (again, I don't really care, but thought I would mention it) the costumes were terrible. No real person dresses like any of the characters.

Thoughts?
 
I laugh whenever someone says that this was the worst film they've ever seen...as if thats not an overstatment of the year. I've seen way worst movies than this (not saying WOW was bad...I really liked it)

but dude...there it is in no way possible that war of the worlds was the worst movie you've ever seen. I'm pretty sure White Chicks was the worst movie you've ever seen :)
 
Bsmith said:
I laugh whenever someone says that this was the worst film they've ever seen...as if thats not an overstatment of the year. I've seen way worst movies than this (not saying WOW was bad...I really liked it)

but dude...there it is in no way possible that war of the worlds was the worst movie you've ever seen. I'm pretty sure White Chicks was the worst movie you've ever seen :)
Click to expand...

Yeah, if you've really 'never seen such a bad film', then you've probably only seen like 3 other movies. (This is an exaggeration)

And you might as well just quit watching films because it's going to get a hell of alot worse then WOW.
 
Coltrain said:
Another thing I didn't like about this film; (again, I don't really care, but thought I would mention it) the costumes were terrible. No real person dresses like any of the characters.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...


If it's involving Robbie's outfit, teenagers spend alot of time trying to look and be cool, so I disagree... what costumes specifically bothered you?

Cruise just dressed like a normal guy.

And Dakota was a little girl whose mother probably had fun making her look as cute as she possibly could.

Didn't find anything unrealistic about these...
 
Coltrain said:
Another thing I didn't like about this film; (again, I don't really care, but thought I would mention it) the costumes were terrible. No real person dresses like any of the characters.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

L O L

:laugh:

Yeah those jeans Tom had on were unbeliavably contrived weren't they?

How can you all Fanning disgusting? She's a little girl? It's disgusting to even look at her in these terms.

Worst movie ever? The world is full of em, huh.
 
Guys, give it up. :) Coltrain is obviously having fun with us here. Playing the dolt to get Hudson's bloodpressure up. Fess up, Coltrain! :)
 
Too many "layers" (on everyone, except Robbins, his was reasonable), that's all I've got to say.
 
Policar, really enjoyed your analysis. My personal weakness with screenwriting is structural (at the moment, but not for too long) so to read someone who has a clear facility with structural analysis is refreshing and educational, and always appreciated. Not to fellate your review any more than is appropriate, but again, thanks for it. I wish I could say more but it's so spot on that all I can say is "Yes. Exactly. Well said."

Looking forward to reading your screenplay (cough cough).

M.



Policar said:
Machardi, you make a good point. Robet McKee (great screenwriting teachery guy) writes that every plot (or subplot) has an "inciting incident" which not just leads to the climax and resolution, but promises it to the reader. You might link this to Joseph Cambell's "call to adventure" or whatever. Anyhow, I suppose my main problems are more with the script than with the direction, although I think the direction got far weaker as the script did, or at least Spielberg's weaknesses showed up much more clearly.

Anyhow, the movie had three real plots: the fight between aliens and humanity, Ray escaping to Boston, and Ray trying to get his family to care about him as he matures into a more capable parent in the face of danger. The inciting incident for the alien plot is the tripod coming out and killing a bunch of people, while the inciting incident for the other plot is the kids arriving at Ray's house. The main plot's inciting incident is when they leave in the car for Boston (yay Boston!!!). There's also Tim Robbin's subplot but that's kind of weird and not as important.

Anyhow, (spoiler warning) all the plots are going along nicely, things are getting complicated, and Ray loses his son. Wow! That's unexpected. I thought it was a great plot twist because you expected reconciliation but didn't get it. If the people getting evaporated didn't drive home the horrible situation these people are in, this definitely should have. It also makes Ray and his family seem less invincible than they did earlier in the movie, which was one of the main failures of the first act.

From then on, though, there are problems. The alien looking for them in the basement is one of them. It makes this incredibly strong, ultra-intelligent force seem...well...stupid. The eye thing reflects light, but it's tricked by a mirror. Huh? It knows what a shoe is. Why? It wastes 15 minutes looking through one building when there are thousands of others and millions of other people not to far away. What's up with that? Tim Robbins' character doesn't help. He's too one-dimensional, too convenient, and his motivation too arbitrary. Oh well.

But all of that would be forgivable if the ending payed off...but it doesn't. The inciting incident of the tripod killing people promises a showdown between the armies and the aliens. We get one, but the aliens lose because of a deus ex machina: germs on a planet that they're using to cultivate humans kill them. (This makes no sense, but it's an issue with the original book, too.) The showdown is totally anticlimactic and the aliens are no longer such a threat because Ray killed one, they are already weak, and because we know they're not that smart from the showdown in the basement. The Ray going to Boston plot promises Ray against an alien: either outrunning it or fighting it. We get this, but it's poorly executed. He happnes to find a grenade, and happens to be the one person who is able to survive. The family now feels invincible again, and this subplot is negated, since it's driven by the intense fear the movie (up until now) has generated, but ends up destroying. The family subplot ALMOST works. How much stronger would the movie be if Ray's son didn't make it and we were left to wonder if this is his failing, his son's failing, or a general inability for the two to be reconciled? But when he comes back arbitrarily at the ending, not only is this possiblity lost, the danger the family was in earlier in the movie is subverted for a happy ending, since this little kid apparently ran full force into the aliens to fight them, but ended up getting hundreds of miles away just fine--before Ray, action hero that he has become, is able to.

The third act is just very, very weak storytelling. The direction isn't bad, though. There are some beautiful, beautiful images, especially of Ray's daughter framed through broken glass and of the destruction the machines have caused. Still, the movie's last half really ruins the sense of chaos and fear built up in the first half. The invincible machines turn out to be stupid, then doomed to die because of microbes, then unable to kill a kid who runs at them, despite being able to vaporize anything in their path.

Basically, the first half of the movie creates an amazing atmosphere which is eventually dispelled by the second half. But the first half is so good, and there is so much that is good even beyond that, that I have to recommend the movie. But having the main plot and the two major sup-plots never add up is just too great a storytelling sin. I left the theater dissapointed.
Click to expand...
 
Macahrdi and Policar both have made a solid contribution to this thread; I too ma like "Yes, well said."

Thart? My BP is fine; I've dealt with Coltrain's kind before; predictable but still fun.
 
I've also read Story by McKee and Policar is right on in his analysis...

It's quite maddening actually, the few flaws of the film really keep it from being something truly amazing... still one of the best of the year though, and I just absolutely love parts of it.
 
Ok the people on IMDB seem a little well ... dumb. Plus IMDB owns what ever you post (the sneaky bastards) so I’m glad I found this!



First of all. This movie is absolutely fantastic in every aspect that a film can possibly endure. 9/10.



**And let’s not forget that everything that follows is just my opinion and only Spielberg can really give the true answer. Having said that what an audience member gets from a film can not be wrong or right, but there are opinions that have more credibility then others as long as valid examples are given**



There are a lot of excuses I have heard about why the movie was bad, these excuses are totally irrelevant to the purpose of the film (which I will get to) and I have no idea why people make them but here they are:



1.A lot of people use the excuses that because it’s a Spielberg film its no good (they are just jealous or something else *this statement has no real credit don’t take it to heart*)....

Well here is a little story: I just finished watching "Oceans 12" (which in my opinion was horrible and unmotivated/pointless) and I read STEVEN SPEIELBERG as the director and thought WTF that’s horrible and I’m seeing "war of the worlds tomorrow", its going to suck ass as much as "the day after tomorrow" did (I make this link because its destruction of the world) (which had great SFX just lame acting/story). Then I saw the movie and as Hudson said it completely totally annihilated my expectations on every level. ("Oceans 12" was directed by SODERBEG to my relief.) So there is no reason to boycott it because its a Spielberg film as I was going in thinking it was going to be horrible created by the confusion with Speilberg/Soderbeg. DON’T BOYCOTT THIS MOVIE BECAUSE OF SPEILBERG, HE DOES AN AMAZING JOB.



2. The next excuse is Tom Cruise (abused by the media) – Tom Cruise is a great actor, so what if he is marrying someone many years younger, first of all it’s not our business, I’m sure the scum of society get up to far worse things. Either the men are just jealous they don’t get Katie Holmes or the women are jealous because they don’t get Tom Cruise. (*again don’t anyone that that to heart it has no real credit to it either*) DON’T BOYCOTT THIS MOVIE BECAUSE OF THE CRAP THE MEDIA PUT OUT ABOUT TOM CRUISE. HE DOES AN AMAZING JOB. THEY JUST NEED SOMETHING TO LIVE OFF, WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU SAW AN ARTICLE IN THE MEDIA SAYING THE MEDIA IS CORRUPT AND FULL OF LIES (THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST TRUE ARTICLE YOU HAVE EVER READ).



And if you really don’t like Spielberg or Cruise – sucked in you’re missing out on something huge with a great message.



3. Next one is: Why were the tripods there for millions of years and the aliens didn’t do anything about it, why didn’t they attack earlier? – The aliens were growing a plant they use to survive, the human blood seemed the be the fertiliser, millions of years ago there would no have been enough people to grow the plant on. Hence why they waited millions of years until there was enough people.



4. The handycam works – As a great filmmaker Spielberg obviously put this here on purpose, He’s not an amateur. Sure everything stopped working except for the handycam, and a lot of people seem to overlook the purpose of the handycam working (there probably is an explanation it works (eg. It was in a protective covering at the time) but that’s beside the point.. think about it… why was it included?... I believe it was included on purpose to make comment on how society has become so “consumer-ised” by technology, that they forget about what its really doing, its killing nature, they seem to be so preoccupied with it they forget about “nature” (when I say nature I also mean going outside and playing ball in the park as well as plants and animals.). I get this because the guy with the camera is so preoccupied videoing the tripod with his consumer technology he forgets about the reality that he should run away and instead he dies. Spielberg may have been commenting that people who use video cameras will be crushed if the try and make a film with video and not film! (Don’t take it to heat, that’s a joke, does not have much creditability).



A few comments on the artists:

The Director/DOP combination was top standard. Every shot was near-perfectly composed. The SFX composition was also near-perfect. The editor did an awesome job, there was a lot to take in for a lot of the high actions scenes and when they cut to blackness to give us a rest you just know the editor know how to edit! By giving us time to rest so we don’t loose track because there is to much to take in. Music/sound was great I could feel the floor shake!



Main Purpose:

The main overall purpose and effect I find from the movie is that: Society has forgotten about nature and has become in tangled in technology and slowly we are killing nature, even though we need it. Why do I get this? – The majority of the film (excluding the start and end narration) uses blue/red colour themes, I noticed little green/brown colours (which are colours of nature (trees)). Throughout the whole film I thought how are they going to stop the invasion? No where in my mind did I give any acknowledgement to nature. Even shots of nature didn’t look like nature, they were either blue or in the dark. Then all of a sudden I see…….. the birds flying around a tripod and it hits me! “nature is going to stop the invasion” the very thing technology is destroying is our life saver, and then it hits me again, of course we breath because of trees! We need nature to survive. Its war of the worlds and nature is part of our world and not one human in the movie considered that either (except Tom Cruise – which I believe is a point that shows his character has developed as he can understand that (which is also great filmmaking- character development). The way colours were used to excluded nature from the movie was fantastic, then it explains it with the ending of the book that nature was in fact what killed the aliens (or their plat that they needed to survive).



And that is why I think it was such a good movie, because it is so clever showing that we are forgetting about nature. (it possibly also comments on how nature will eventually kill us as well because it owns this world not us).



The Ending:

Unless there is a directors cut with the real ending (instead of the happy one with Robbie) here is a little theory I have – Robbie did die, didn’t you see that explosion, Robbie running out may have been an illusion/metaphor for the dad (Tom Cruise). He wasn’t at the door (yes he could have run out after the shot cut away) and there was a great amount of tension between Cruise and the parents (which obviously don’t like Cruise) and Cruise knew it, but by having Robbie run out to hug him shows more character development – cruise doesn’t care what the parents think of him as a father, he loved Robbie and let Robbie know that, he was also able to let Robbie go and give him his independence and make his own choices, and the metaphor or Robbie running out at the end shows the Cruise is comfortable with his decision.





Lets discuss it further – I am not 100% set on my thoughts as I have only seen it once and there is no real answers.



 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top