War Of The Worlds

John_Hudson said:
I hear alot of questions being asked that just seem pointless to even ask them. This stroy was told from the point of view of the survivors; there are no scientists to explain every detail and nuance. Why do we need to know WHY they attacked? Does it matter? What does WHEN have to with anything? Who knows but the Alien's.

It's a story about an alian invasion with the main characters being the centerpice of the story. To me, this is the perfect 'sit back and enjoy' film. There is no need to know why this or why that. Would we know if it actually did happen? Not at all.

Do we have to have the aliens talking in their motherships with subtitles? To we have to have the clever JEFF GOLDBLUM character figuring it all out and racing to government headquarters to save the world?
Click to expand...

I agree. In this film your not meant to know what the DNA structure of the virus is, or what metal alloy makes the arms of the tripod so flexible. Its to show the experiences of the little people trying to survive, not the big superhero that saves the world... think about it.... the little people (cruise and family) don’t know what’s going on, they don’t know what the things are, it really puts us in their shoes so we can relate to their character and what they are experiencing. If we knew what was happening and they didn’t, it would not have been that exciting.



All through it I thought cruise was going to figure out the secret on how to stop them and go tell the president…. but I’m glad he didn’t figure it out, its different from all other movies like this… and that could be why there is such a division between people who like it and don’t like it. We were expecting something standard and got a whole new thing, which some people like and some people don’t.


As for the ending, there might be someting everyone has missed in it (including me) when i watch it again i will be looking out for .... something...
If not I wouldnt mind seeing a directors cut.


 
The ending seems pretty clear cut to me ... its as if when people don't like the way something ends, they have to find some sort of justification for their feelings.

I dunno, I'm still awed by the stupid behavior of these advanced beings (drinking our water from broken sewage pipes - just idiotic).
 
You know, another thing I found weird was when people were zapped and vaporized with the alien death rays, it was odd that parts of their clothing stayed intact. Zap! Oh, wait, there's his Banana Republic cotton weave button down shirt wisking in the air. As I watched the scene where Tom is walking through the forest and all of these people's clothing were floating down in the air, it hit me ...

If people wrapped themselves in an extremely high thread count fabric (like some kind of Egyptian cotton sheets or along those lines), they could've probably survived a couple shots of those deathrays cause the rays wouldn't be able to vaporize the high quality textiles. Wrap the military vehicles and suddenly earth has a chance!!!
 
Sorry for joining the conversation late, just saw the film yesterday. I loved it. Thought it was great and all that, but we've covered that ground.

As I think on it, the aspect that keeps coming back to me is the family part of it. To me that's the core of the film. A very big point of this film is that Tom Cruise's character needed to learn to be a good father, and these circumstances were the swift kick that caused him to embrace that roll. At the beginning of the film he's a rather heartless jerk. He loves his kids, but seems rather uninterested in really caring about his son, or even feeding his daughter.

When the aliens hit, then he's concerned for their survival, but only their survival. He's pretty cold and harsh to their feelings and emotional health, focusing instead on their physical well-being. As the film goes on and on he becomes a real father. He even realizes what's best for his son (letting him go over the hill to the battle) even though it was completely contrary to what he felt was best for his son (more on that later).

His relationship with his daughter also grows, probably the most during the Tim Robbins segment. He's really willing to do anything to save her. The climax of the film is Curise saving his daughter from the single tripod. The film was never set up for Cruise to wipe out all of the aliens Will Smith style. It's more low-key than that. His goal was the save his daughter. The man vs. monster/nature/self conflict was always surrounding his daughter. Even before Robbie ran off, Cruise was more focused on his daughter than his son. So that part of the ending seemed extremely appropriate to me. After the tripod explodes, then the rest of the film is basically an epilogue.

There's been a lot of talk in this thread about the reunion scene. I submit that Robbie had to be there. Not for the audience, but for Cruise's character. From the beginning of the film to the end of the film he has gone from nobody to a father. He had to make all the right decisions on this journey to ensure the survival of his children. Had he not let Robbie go (in what was a bit of a heavy-handed scene: "You have to let me do this." Yeah, we get the idea) then all three of them would not have survived. What's the liklihood that Cruise could have saved both kids from the tripod? But instead, he let Robbie choose his own way, which is a huge part of being a parent. And in the end, that was what was necessary for Cruise to become a father.

I'm not suggesting that the aliens were just a deus ex machina to tell a story of a man becoming a father. The film has many different levels to it, but the family level is the one that was the most touching and important to me.

Chris
 
I think letting his son go was more of a Sophie’s Choice. He could rescue his son or his daughter, but not both. It was a poignant moment.

But having his son survive at the end (along with the rest of his extended family) was just pure cheese.
 
But by letting his son go he did rescue him. And he grew as a character. That was the point I was trying to make anyway. One man's cheese is another man's Mystery Science Theater ... no, that's not right. One man's cheese is ... dang! I know there's a catch phrase in there somewhere. :)

Chris
 
That combined with the fact the street was purely untouched and lit with sunlight and leaves blowing in the wind ... what, did they have a forcefield around the town or sumthing?
 
I'd say they were lucky. It's like how you never see Canada get destroyed in Independence Day.
 
The worst part of all:

When Cruise literally has to "let go" of his son and he is slipping through his fingers...

I chuckled.
 
Just saw the film on Saturday, and as a Spielberg-a-maniac, this was a little disappointing (Cruise and Dakota were good, if not great--although it kinda sux when his social life and the water squirt incident overshadow the movie).

The "EMP-immune" camera thing, the Cruise family "only working" van, the shields disappearing, and oldskool Star Trek fake sets, which people have already brought up was really bad, but sort of forgettable for the story's sake. Still though, these mistakes, given whose involved, should've never been in the movie.

Morgan Freeman has a great voice, but having him narrate a film that just happens to have Tim Robbins in it would be kinda like having a movie with Hayden Christensen in it with "guest narration" by Ewan McGregor--was this supposed to be a hidden Shawshank sequel rib?

What the hell was Tim Robbins role supposed to be or mean anyway? I suppose the point was to further the plot device of a father doing anything to protect his family, but then, you could've put anybody in the Robbins role if that was the case. If he was doing it for political purposes (more than likely), then I'm not surprised at all at the way he was spoofed in Team America.

The scene with the son was very powerful, but the "I'm sorry dad" ending killed its worth. His ass should have died. Let me guess: Did the pregnant Eowyn of Rohan yell "I am no MAN!!!" at the aliens in Boston, thus the whole city was untouched? What endings did they reject?

Did we have to see the aliens? They looked like Kit Fisto mixed with H. R. Geiger (and no, that's not a positive remark). Should've kept the mystery to retain the audience fear.

And yes, this movie felt like Jurassic meets Signs (great by themselves, but put in a blender, not so great).

Me and my buds left the theatre saying to each other: "What a JERK!!!! You're a JERK!!! Such a JERK!!!"(quoting Cruise from his water squirt incident), and "You're right!!! I am DANGEROUS. . .Ice (pause) Man (bite teeth)!!" :laugh:


Again, I idolize and worship Spielberg, watch Jaws, Raiders, and BTTF religiously, but I was only able to watch this with movie with rose-colored glasses for only so long. Hope Indy 4 makes up for this. Sorry, but his lifelong filmaker friend in the flannel shirt and jeans, who never changes facial expression, did the better job this summer.
 
sugahsean469 said:
Sorry, but his lifelong filmaker friend in the flannel shirt and jeans, who never changes facial expression, did the better job this summer.
Click to expand...

no he didnt.
 
sugahsean469 said:
Sorry, but his lifelong filmaker friend in the flannel shirt and jeans, who never changes facial expression, did the better job this summer.
Click to expand...

Now there you go and take a nice solid review and yank the weight out from under it. :huh:
 
I only said Maroon cause you said Maroon first. :)

B. I will say that I think that you are being sort of optimistic when you use the phrase "critical audience". But I think you answer your question, with your question. How many people do you know have read and have fond memories of LOTR? Okay, how about WotW? Again I'm on your side, I love literacy, but I am silently preparing to mourn the death of it. (If it hasn't already, that is)

C. I agree with you here, too. Those endings wouldn't have worked (and would've been much worse). Endings are nearly impossible.

M.



speedbump said:
Machardi:

B. She was also critiquing a work that was meant to directly connect with a pre-existing and forthcoming work (volumes I and III), by the same 'creators'. She wasn't critiquing a work that was essentially a fan-film of previous works. So while expecting someone who is watching LOTRII to actually have seen LOTRI makes sense, expecting someone who is watching WOTW to have read the original WOTW and seen the original movie isn't entirely senseless, but it makes a lot -less- sense.

C. Part of the absurdity of Dowd's critique was her desire to assert her own contemporary value system (manliness,evil orcs, live and let live, et al) on the world of
Tolkien. The issue of disliking the ending is not one of cultural disconnect, it is one of structural narrative dissatisfaction. Given that the culture of WotW was supposed to be ours, I'm not even sure if a Dowdian mistake (dowdian, lol) could even be made.

Good points. Regarding B: why should we not expect a critical audience who is going to a REMAKE not to be familiar with the original material? And why can we have a greater expectation that LOTR people should have read the books, but not WOW people?

Regarding C: man, you have hit it right on the head about Dowd... she was imposing her contemporary value system on a story that doesn't possibly pertain to that value system. However, I can argue (weakly) that what would have been a more satisfactory ending? Happy survivors, waving goodbye? Scene after scene of people lending a helping hand to unfortunates buried in the rubble? Sounds like a plastic Hollywood ending to me, which is what a lot of us on this forum don't buy. I frankly don't have a clue about that until I see it; but it seemed to me to be surprising considering the original story.

no offense, but I went back and read the last couple chapters of WotW just so I wasn't being a complete ass (or maroon) by responding to your post without a fairly complete frame of reference, and I'm pretty sure you're -almost- entirely wrong.

After reading it, I don't think that "The book ends abruptly" can be used to defend "the movie ends appropriately."

The movie ends with the protagonist being reunited with his family, and then a 2 sentence blurb about what killed the martians.

The end of chapter nine, leaves the protagonist with -his- family, but there's more closure and commentary as Wells uses the opportunity to illustrate how meaningless the Prot's original life was (comparitively) and how impossible it is to try to resume it ( but then comes chapter 10, "The Epilogue" (The bit that was cut from our movie, allegedly)

In Chapter 10, Wells discusses the laboratory experiments on the corpses of the aliens, the attempts to reverse engineer their technology, which would've been interesting but not necessary, but also he discusses several ramifications of the invasion, my favorite being

Will the [Martians] invade again?

Well, maybe I am a maroon after all. I do not remember that material you talk about, my impression from the original was, boof! That's it?! Hmm, I'm going to take my own advice and check it out.
Click to expand...
 
The ending displays the typical Spielberg "deus ex machina", where the hero does nothing to bring about the actual resolution of the conflict. In Jurassic Park, they're saved by a T-rex that bursts in at the last minute. In Raiders, the nazis would have looked in the ark regardless of what Indy did or didn't do, looked or didn't look (how's that for deus ex machina -- they were actually saved by God!) And in WoW, earth was saved completely regardless of what the hero did or didn't do -- he stood by or hid in a tunnel while the aliens all magically collapsed due to bacteria.

I think that's why some of us found the ending unsatisfying.

Contrast that with Spielberg's masterwork, Jaws, where a hydrophobic sheriff has to enter the depths of the water (and not only water with imagined horrors in it, but water with a big nasty homicidal shark in it!) in order to personally pull the trigger and bring about the resolution of the conflict.

Or Aliens, where Ripley had to face the queen of the aliens one-on-one, face to face. She made the decision to nuke the planet, and she personally defeated the queen, so there will be no more aliens (ignore 3 & 4, of course...)

Or Star Wars, where Luke personally delivers the killing blow to the Death Star. There he resolves two conflicts at one -- he restores the validity of the Jedi order, and defeats the biggest threat to the galaxy.

As audiences we like to see our hero make a difference. We like to see our hero "win" (even when a "win" isn't necessarily what people are expecting... such as Thelma & Louise driving over the cliff... or Rocky losing the fight but "going the distance"... or Luke turning Vader back to the light side in ROTJ, even though it was Vader who destroyed the emperor, and Lando who blew up the death star, the quest Luke was on was to redeem Vader, and he "won" that). We don't like our "wins" doled out by the gods unpredictably, and that's pretty much what Spielberg resorts to on occasion.

The argument could be made that WoW's hero's quest wasn't about the aliens at all, that the alien invasion was merely a backdrop for Tom's real quest, to become a relevant father figure. If so, it still left us completely unsatisfied; in the end he turns Dakota over to her mother, and waits outside. And then, for no discernable or justifiable reason, Robbie shows up -- completely unbelievable.

I wouldn't dream of trying to tell Spielberg how to "fix" his movie, I'm just pointing out reasons why many of us were left unsatisfied by the ending.

I thought WoW was a spectacular piece of filmmaking, incredibly riveting, with some amazing effects that really left you feeling overwhelmed. Up until they ended up in the house with Tim Robbins... after that it kind of became "Signs" all over again, but without the connect-the-dots aspect of Signs. It still gets high marks -- 2/3 of War of the Worlds is absolutely brilliant, world-class filmmaking. The ending was, however, quite unsatisfying.
 
Well put Barry and good insight into the hero's quest. I can agree with the 'general sentiment'. The first 2/3's of this film is mastery.
 
do you think the ending was a producer call or Speiberg's idea? or is that just how it is in the book?
 
like i said if speilbug didnt have a happy enind then its like what the hell did i watch for everyone in the world. i showed my dad minority report the other day I love the movie. he aked who made it and said who made this it good. i said speilburg he said kinda dark for a speilburg. speilburg can't not be speilburg but it would be interesting to see.
 
The book has the machines suddenly die out; and makes reference to the reason being microbes. I havent read the entire book; just web .txt.
 
It's a great story of a guy trying to keep his family alive for 48 hours. The whole world wasn't destroyed because the aliens died so fast. The way the movie ended didn't bother me, it just happened to fast. I think they wasted to much time with Tim Robbins.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top