War Of The Worlds
- Thread starter Elvis
- Start date
dr_stupid
Active member
This thread is pretty exhaustive! I don't know why, but I felt like throwing in my own two cents late in the discussion here...
I thought the movie was entertaining, but I would be hard pressed to give it anywhere near the praise that so many of you have. But perhaps we are looking at in different ways.
Without question, the effects are a monumental achievement. The visual and auditory art is really amazing, and it is difficult for a little guy like me with a DVX to comprehend how something like that was ever made. And as filmmakers yourselves, I imagine that many of you can't help but marvel at exactly that. How amazing to create something imaginary and make it look real like that! What artistic talent! What an achievement!
What I find as a viewer, though, is that no matter how amazing the visual creation, I am most moved by story, character development, and dialogue. I found these to be lacking, relatively speaking, in WOW. They weren't terrible. And WOW should get credit for doing a significantly better job with story/characters/dialogue than the majority of films that achieve a similar level of greatness in the realm of effects. Nevertheless, they weren't very good, either. I really didn't feel a strong connection to any of the characters. I wasn't moved by Tom Cruise's relationships with his children and struggle to protect them. The story was thin, there were parts that really just didn't fit well (Tim Robbins, Robbie's whole subplot and mysterious return, the suddenness and emptiness of the ending).
I find that what really makes me entertained -- what causes me to leave a theater fully satisfied, and to want to watch a movie again and again, is how good the story is, and how well it was told. For this reason, I almost always find myself preferring that surprising eclectic low budget film -- the one that was so incredibly creative, or so moving and poignant, or had such a uniquely wonderful story -- to ANY summer blockbuster with a stellar cast and amazing effects, no matter how pseudo-sophisticated they managed to make the plot or the acting.
I read somewhere once that the goal of any film is to achieve a "suspension of disbelief" among the audience. We know that we are watching something fake, but we are willing -- in fact, we are hoping -- to be drawn in to the film in such a way that we completely and utterly forget that we are sitting in a chair and watching the film. We suspend our disbelief and become one with the film's reality -- the story becomes a real world for us and moves us along with it. This simply didn't happen for me in WOW. I felt as though I was watching something that looked amazing. And no matter how amazing it looked, I was still sitting in a chair and watching the amazingness. That's not a bad feeling -- it's an entertaining one -- but if given a choice, I prefer to watch something that somehow manages to suspend my disbelief and bring me in. Does that make any sense?
I guess some of you might question how I could criticize the "story" from such a great piece of literature. But I would say that I'm not criticizing Orson Wells' story -- I've never read it, and I suspect it is probably a wonderful experience to read it. I guess I'm criticizing the film as a vehicle for that story. In a very similar way, I strongly disliked the LOTR. I only saw the first one, and decided not to see the other two. I was a very big fan of the novels -- they formed the richest, most precious, and most cherished literary and imaginative experience I have ever had, and I simply hated seeing the attempt to turn that whole world -- those people that were so real and important to me -- the story that was so profoundly moving -- into a 2-3 hour movie with actors and props. I feel like that story was meant to be told exactly how Tolkein told it -- in no other medium, and in no other way. The attempt to make it a movie was valiant, but doomed from the start; no film could ever do anything but detract grossly from the true original.
Just my humble thoughts.
Provocative to anyone?
Oh yeh -- one final comment. Someone wrote up above that they would never question Spielberg's work, or "tell him how to make his film," or something to that effect. Why on Earth not? Spielberg's work is art -- it has no intrinsic value or significance other than the pleasure and response of those who contemplate it. That, and, I suppose, whatever joy it gave him to create it. Your own opinion of the art is no less valid because of the fame and riches and public acclaim of the guy who made it. God himself could have made WOW; if you didn't like it, then for you, God made a lousy movie.
I thought the movie was entertaining, but I would be hard pressed to give it anywhere near the praise that so many of you have. But perhaps we are looking at in different ways.
Without question, the effects are a monumental achievement. The visual and auditory art is really amazing, and it is difficult for a little guy like me with a DVX to comprehend how something like that was ever made. And as filmmakers yourselves, I imagine that many of you can't help but marvel at exactly that. How amazing to create something imaginary and make it look real like that! What artistic talent! What an achievement!
What I find as a viewer, though, is that no matter how amazing the visual creation, I am most moved by story, character development, and dialogue. I found these to be lacking, relatively speaking, in WOW. They weren't terrible. And WOW should get credit for doing a significantly better job with story/characters/dialogue than the majority of films that achieve a similar level of greatness in the realm of effects. Nevertheless, they weren't very good, either. I really didn't feel a strong connection to any of the characters. I wasn't moved by Tom Cruise's relationships with his children and struggle to protect them. The story was thin, there were parts that really just didn't fit well (Tim Robbins, Robbie's whole subplot and mysterious return, the suddenness and emptiness of the ending).
I find that what really makes me entertained -- what causes me to leave a theater fully satisfied, and to want to watch a movie again and again, is how good the story is, and how well it was told. For this reason, I almost always find myself preferring that surprising eclectic low budget film -- the one that was so incredibly creative, or so moving and poignant, or had such a uniquely wonderful story -- to ANY summer blockbuster with a stellar cast and amazing effects, no matter how pseudo-sophisticated they managed to make the plot or the acting.
I read somewhere once that the goal of any film is to achieve a "suspension of disbelief" among the audience. We know that we are watching something fake, but we are willing -- in fact, we are hoping -- to be drawn in to the film in such a way that we completely and utterly forget that we are sitting in a chair and watching the film. We suspend our disbelief and become one with the film's reality -- the story becomes a real world for us and moves us along with it. This simply didn't happen for me in WOW. I felt as though I was watching something that looked amazing. And no matter how amazing it looked, I was still sitting in a chair and watching the amazingness. That's not a bad feeling -- it's an entertaining one -- but if given a choice, I prefer to watch something that somehow manages to suspend my disbelief and bring me in. Does that make any sense?
I guess some of you might question how I could criticize the "story" from such a great piece of literature. But I would say that I'm not criticizing Orson Wells' story -- I've never read it, and I suspect it is probably a wonderful experience to read it. I guess I'm criticizing the film as a vehicle for that story. In a very similar way, I strongly disliked the LOTR. I only saw the first one, and decided not to see the other two. I was a very big fan of the novels -- they formed the richest, most precious, and most cherished literary and imaginative experience I have ever had, and I simply hated seeing the attempt to turn that whole world -- those people that were so real and important to me -- the story that was so profoundly moving -- into a 2-3 hour movie with actors and props. I feel like that story was meant to be told exactly how Tolkein told it -- in no other medium, and in no other way. The attempt to make it a movie was valiant, but doomed from the start; no film could ever do anything but detract grossly from the true original.
Just my humble thoughts.
Provocative to anyone?
Oh yeh -- one final comment. Someone wrote up above that they would never question Spielberg's work, or "tell him how to make his film," or something to that effect. Why on Earth not? Spielberg's work is art -- it has no intrinsic value or significance other than the pleasure and response of those who contemplate it. That, and, I suppose, whatever joy it gave him to create it. Your own opinion of the art is no less valid because of the fame and riches and public acclaim of the guy who made it. God himself could have made WOW; if you didn't like it, then for you, God made a lousy movie.
Z
Active member
Just returned home from War of the Worlds and all I can say is ARE YOU KIDDING ME? After reading all of these great reviews I thought WOW, I must rush and see this amazing movie. Well, it was a huge let down. Not only were there several "things" that killed it but there were several things that had already been done "in its own."
The first was the shot from camera 2 from inside the window when the baseball was thrown. It may have worked for the viewer but a bad choice by a director and an editor givin the course of the baseball. We all know that camera would have been bust, what is this a documentary? It should have been left out. The second was the shot when Ray was upside down in the truck peering through the windshield, through the hole... uhh yes, something ring a bell, already been done, in the first act. They should have had another cup of coffee before they said yes to that one. The third scene that killed this movie script or not was in Tommys basement with the all seeing serpentine. That is a complete ripp off of the Matrix and Jurassic Park period. Even if ID4 was a ripp off of this WOW, it is still another alien movie and falls short of all this hype. I just love the part when Ray jumps into the van and drives right through the plain wreckage with no problem and nothing in his way. What puzzles me is how some can say Star Wars is Crap and this, however, this is amazing and the movie of the summer. Are you guys serious?
basically dat sums it up
The first was the shot from camera 2 from inside the window when the baseball was thrown. It may have worked for the viewer but a bad choice by a director and an editor givin the course of the baseball. We all know that camera would have been bust, what is this a documentary? It should have been left out. The second was the shot when Ray was upside down in the truck peering through the windshield, through the hole... uhh yes, something ring a bell, already been done, in the first act. They should have had another cup of coffee before they said yes to that one. The third scene that killed this movie script or not was in Tommys basement with the all seeing serpentine. That is a complete ripp off of the Matrix and Jurassic Park period. Even if ID4 was a ripp off of this WOW, it is still another alien movie and falls short of all this hype. I just love the part when Ray jumps into the van and drives right through the plain wreckage with no problem and nothing in his way. What puzzles me is how some can say Star Wars is Crap and this, however, this is amazing and the movie of the summer. Are you guys serious?
basically dat sums it up
dat5150 said:
Jay Rodriguez
Coffee Member
that's it, going to see it tonight!
Zim
Veteran
I'll sum it up. IT"S a movie and we go to have fun. If we let all the little details get in the way like,why are all the cars park out of the way on the interstate, it would ruin every movie we see.
I still had fun watching this movie with my 16 year son eating popcorn and drinking cokes. For almost 2 hours we were entertained. That's the whole idea of a movie like this. Fantasy and special effects . Steven Spielberg and his crew plan these things through don't you think? The guy with the working camcorder(what brand was that?)
was that a goof or was it planned? Did Steve say "it's just a movie, move the cars out of the way so the van can drive by",,,
Still the worst part of the movie was with Tim Robbins,,,,,
I still had fun watching this movie with my 16 year son eating popcorn and drinking cokes. For almost 2 hours we were entertained. That's the whole idea of a movie like this. Fantasy and special effects . Steven Spielberg and his crew plan these things through don't you think? The guy with the working camcorder(what brand was that?)
was that a goof or was it planned? Did Steve say "it's just a movie, move the cars out of the way so the van can drive by",,,
Still the worst part of the movie was with Tim Robbins,,,,,
DinosaurInc
Active member
spidey said:
Wha?!
Look, I understand trying to chime in on the boards and getting excited to post, but can you just take a look at they way that you are writing? :thumbsup:
So many words, not enough time...
I repeat the 2/3 sentiment. What took me out of the film was the whole Tim Robbins segment-->completely useless to me. I think that I would have felt differently (Tim Robbins acting excluded) if the fight escalated from the shotgun incident where Tom stops Tim from shooting the aliens. By the time Robbins was off his rocker I had lost any emotional pull. I also can't help but feel that Robbins is one of those actors who can play one role really well, but can't play any others for shite (Andy Dufresne in Shawshank).
I will also echo the sentiment that when Cruise first comes out of the basement looking for his daughter, the landscape that he sees over the hill is strikingly out of place. I didn't care for that aesthetic whatsoever.
Big pro's:
The aliens: I loved the simple but good look of the aliens
The machines: Straight from Spielberg, the machine design was absolutely briliant
The sound: For me, it's what made the movie
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
The next time I hear someone say that Star Wars (Otherwise known as crap on a stick) is better than War of the Worlds you must resign from dvxuser.
Star Wars sucks so bad; George has ruined it; you are obviously a Jedi Geek which means your opinion is tainted
Okay I feel better now.
Star Wars sucks so bad; George has ruined it; you are obviously a Jedi Geek which means your opinion is tainted
Okay I feel better now.
J.R. Hudson
Spirit Animal
Oh for f*** sake Kemper; knock it off. I see you have been here for a whole 8 posts. If you had been here longer; you would know (Like the majority of users here) that I am talking smack. (Its a running joke around here that I do not like SW).
Nice attempt with Failed Filmmaker; I have never been one in the first place. Now chill out.
Nice attempt with Failed Filmmaker; I have never been one in the first place. Now chill out.
I wasn't a huge Star wars fan until this movie. I guess i didn't really have alot of preconceived rancor that alot of people do about the prequals and Lucas. They may have valid points, but they don't hold true for me.
I was trapped in the movie the first time i saw it and the 4th. I never do that.
Obi-wan seemed really cool to me as a kid so this movie rocked.
I was trapped in the movie the first time i saw it and the 4th. I never do that.
Obi-wan seemed really cool to me as a kid so this movie rocked.