War of the Worlds

mAlice

professional daydreamer
Fairly sucked. If you feel you must see it, wait for it to come out on DVD. It's the kind of movie you can watch with friends and not miss anything if you talk during the movie.
 

jwwb2000

pretty black roses
Saw it last night and I would have to disagree with ya. There was a part or two that was slow but overall it was a movie that kept ya on the edge because you didn't know who was gonna be the next to wacked by the tripods. I don't think I will be letting my kiddos watch it anytime soon because I don't want them to think everytime there is a storm with lighting, the tripods will come up out of the ground. :lol:
 

bresamil

wandering aimlessly
I thought it was pretty good. Interesting twists on the classic. Once the action got going it was pretty intense. But then I am a big scifi fan and I was looking forward to this flick.
And even if Tom is going crazy he's still on my list. I've done crazy before.
 

Bustem' Down

Give Peas a Chance
I found a lot of people that didn't like it said they didn't like the ending. I thought everyone knew how it ended? I thought it was ok. gave it 7 out of 10.
 

BuddyLee

Football addict
Dont Read This I May Spoil It!

Bustem' Down said:
I found a lot of people that didn't like it said they didn't like the ending. I thought everyone knew how it ended? I thought it was ok. gave it 7 out of 10.
Everyone expects a grandiose ending, especially in this film. To appreciate the ending of this film you almost have to watch the 1953 version of War of the Worlds. I loved the very ending but not the ending before the ending, stay with me here. The very ending did an extreme close up to the culprits who were responsible for killing off the alien beings. I thought that was an appropriate ending, in that the beginning started off in this manner. I thought the beginning of the movie was showing the tripods/creatures before you even got a mere glimpse of them. The close ups of the tiny organisms/bacteria resembled them in detail, I thought. Adding the distinct and powerful voice of Morgan Freeman was a fine choice.



Now to the ending before the ending. Somebody should have been sacrificed! The ending before the ending was way too sappy for a doomsday film. Millions die but yet Ray and the whole gang make it to Boston all to meet up with the unscathed mother, step father, and grandparents whose upscale apartment and street seem to have less than a brick out of place. The city of Boston is like Hiroshima but here stands this street and apartment building untouched. Way too sappy. Robbie should have been whacked and chalked up as a sacrifice! But why? He should have been an American sacrifice, what we've strived to be, patriotic. That he was patriotic, helping those on the boat and then fleeing to fight the tripods on the hill, leaving Ray and Rachel behind. If anyone else in the movie should have been sacrificed it should have been Ray, for two reasons. The first reason was because, to me, Ray symbolized the average American male. Before you criticize, Ray was symbolized as the average new age American male. Ray drove an all American hot rod, was divorced, had his disorganized apartment, was lazy, and sang his daughter The Beach Boys' Little Deuce Coupe when he didn't know the words to any other lullabies. Now then, the sacrifices given to our country (during times of war) has mostly but not always been by the life of man. For this reason, as with Robbie, Ray should have been sacrificed for his country and his family's greater good. The second reason had to deal with the edgy Tim Robbins character who dwelled in the cellar of the old farmhouse. Tim states that those who hang onto life are those who keep their eyes open and keep thinking. A few scenes following this one Ray closes his eyes to sleep while his daughter Rachel keeps hers open only to find one of the tripods spying glasses looking directly at them. If meaning of dialogue is meant to be followed correctly in the film Ray should be dead by the end.



Sci-Fi, doomsday, war, patriot, and action movie fans rejoice for this is your movie. The Sci-fi and action speak for themselves and you will get more than a ton in this film. The special effects are phenomenal and literally make the film. Without the special effects the film would be the 1953 version, not bad but not entertaining for the times. Doomsday fans this is your Independence Day of 2005. Independence day mirrors this film with great effects for the time, explosive action, and quick witty humor. Most importantly to me, the war and patriotic meanings stuck out. So much of this movie reminded me of 9/11 and The Revolutionary War. For 9/11, so much emphasis was put forth to the point of Rachel asking if it were the terrorist. The overall destruction, the plane falling from the sky and landing beside the house, and the surprising attacks all make us think about 9/11 and the terrorists. For The Revolutionary War aspect, entering the scene with the battle behind the hill reminds me of the stories I've heard of the cannon and musketry flashes of yesteryear. The grassy hill and the white old farmhouse add more to the beauty of the scene and the symbolism of The Revolutionary War, where we as Americans first fought and sacrificed on a grand scale for our own good. Then we fought a king and his shipment of men, now we fight tripods and a shipment of beings.



Overall, the film was superb and I will be more than exuberant to line this on my DVD shelf. The film had a few slow scenes but I did not mind that because I like analyzing everything. However, although heartwarming:ohwell:, the ending before the ending was a bust, there should have been a sacrifice or two, at least. The characters are how I thought they would be with the exception of Dakota Fanning. I believe Dakota's character was down played in this film to a great extent because of Cruise being the all American heroine. I rate this film an 8/10.
 
Last edited:

Nickel

curiouser and curiouser
BuddyLee said:
The city of Boston is like Hiroshima but here stands this street and apartment building untouched.

I thought that was weird too. My guess is that the tripods had just surfaced in Boston (maybe they didn't all come out at the same time...remember that in Russia and Japan - I think - the lightning struck about a day before it hit wherever Tom Cruise lived. Also, the tripods were still roaming the streets of Boston, tearing stuff up, when he and Rachel got there, so it's realistic to think that they just hadn't made it to the outskirts yet. :shrug:

Overall, I think it was a good movie. I wasn't expecting much, so it exceeded my expectations.
 

BuddyLee

Football addict
Nickel said:
I thought that was weird too. My guess is that the tripods had just surfaced in Boston (maybe they didn't all come out at the same time...remember that in Russia and Japan - I think - the lightning struck about a day before it hit wherever Tom Cruise lived. Also, the tripods were still roaming the streets of Boston, tearing stuff up, when he and Rachel got there, so it's realistic to think that they just hadn't made it to the outskirts yet. :shrug:

Overall, I think it was a good movie. I wasn't expecting much, so it exceeded my expectations.
I have to disagree Nickey. Remember the scene before the ending before the end:lol: when Ray and Rachel finally made it to Boston? Ray picked up a piece of that growing vine which had died because of the bacteria. I believe the tripods had been there already and that it took a few days for the bacteria to send them to their death beds. If you're right and the tripods/vine thingies did just hit Boston then why didn't they all die in a day? When they first hit NYC or even in that beautifully crafted scene where Ray chases after Rachel out of the old farm house, remember all the red in that scene? They were not down in the cellar for that long but yet the red vines had taken over. It is my belief that it took at least a few days for the bacteria to reach the beings.
 
B

Bruzilla

Guest
My biggest downer with the movie was having the alien machines coming out of the ground, and even worse... stating that they had been buried there long before mankind existed! What the Hell was Spielburg thinking? Why would these aliens go to all the effort to plant these machines in the ground before mankind existed, so that they could do battle with mankind to take over the Earth? They already had control of the Earth!!! If they were here first why didn't they just hang up a SOLD sign and call it a day? I was thinking that maybe it was because they were harvesting humans for food, but that would open a real Pandora's box of questions like how did they know humans would develop on the planet (assuming they didn't seed is here)? Or why did Freeman say during the opening voiceover that the aliens had been watching us with envious eyes, which would imply they were after the planet and not the people? And lastly, why did all those aliens digging holes in the dirt apparently survive infection, when according to Freeman the invaders were doomed the minute they breathed our air, drank our water, etc.?

My problem with the ending was how it was led up to. In the original movie, you have the scientist racing to find his girlfriend, and then finding her in the church. Then, as the alien machines come down the street, and the church begins to come apart from the attack, you hear the machines start to falther and crash to a halt. In the new movie, you go right from a nighttime high-excitement, high-spectacle scene of Cruise destroying the tripod, to a bright daylight scene of Cruise walking quietly through the streets of Boston with a dead tripod wrecked into a building. It sure seemed to me that there was something missing in between, and there was no build up to the ending at all. It was like Spieldburg just wanted to wrap up the movie with a "tada... they're all dying of germs - ain't that ironic!" ending in the easiest way possible. He could have gotten the same effect by having the alien commander in his ship looking at a globe and smacking his head while saying "Earth? What the $%&* are we doing on Earth? We were supposed to be on Sigma Alta 5! Oh man, let's get out of here!"

Lastly, the boy should have died. Period. Cruise is standing there as the whole ridge where the kid went is engulfed in flames so hot that all of the humvees are on fire, and only runs towards the farm house after the flames have scorched everything. For the kid to have survived, he would have had to run past Cruise, and Cruise would have seen him. For the kid to show up at the end of the movie, unscathed, was really outrageous.
 

Hessian

Well-Known Member
Oh...and by the way:

© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

"A screenwriter for the blockbuster film "War of the Worlds" says the malevolent Martian attackers represent the American military randomly slaughtering Iraqi civilians.

Dave Koepp voiced his controversial explanation of the movie script to an obscure Canadian horror magazine titled Rue Morgue,..."

yeah...he's a mainstream American.
 
Bruzilla said:
It sure seemed to me that there was something missing in between, and there was no build up to the ending at all. It was like Spieldburg just wanted to wrap up the movie with a "tada... they're all dying of germs - ain't that ironic!" ending in the easiest way possible. He could have gotten the same effect by having the alien commander in his ship looking at a globe and smacking his head while saying "Earth? What the $%&* are we doing on Earth? We were supposed to be on Sigma Alta 5! Oh man, let's get out of here!"

Lastly, the boy should have died. Period. Cruise is standing there as the whole ridge where the kid went is engulfed in flames so hot that all of the humvees are on fire, and only runs towards the farm house after the flames have scorched everything. For the kid to have survived, he would have had to run past Cruise, and Cruise would have seen him. For the kid to show up at the end of the movie, unscathed, was really outrageous.
:yeahthat: I had the same thoughts, my husband had to explain to me how they died because I totally missed that part (the whole sec. explaination). It was exactly like you stated above, rush to the end, then it just ended (a little bit lame). Nothing really there, but it was a decent movie overall, I enjoyed watching it in the theater where they had it LOUD, it was awesome! Whoever invented subwoofers was a genious. :lol:
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
teverheart2002 said:
:yeahthat: I had the same thoughts, my husband had to explain to me how they died because I totally missed that part (the whole sec. explaination). It was exactly like you stated above, rush to the end, then it just ended (a little bit lame). Nothing really there, but it was a decent movie overall, I enjoyed watching it in the theater where they had it LOUD, it was awesome! Whoever invented subwoofers was a genious. :lol:
I basically liked it.

I mean, I *loved* "Batmans Begins"! Enough to watch it again, many times!

But this one - I'm not sorry I spent money to watch it - I think some of the scenes only work on a big screen.

MOST of the things I've read - from *viewers* - points to the fact that they are not familiar with the story. They're surprised by the ending. Now, some movies really don't need to be re-made - like "Casablanca" - but - you can't do a remake and then come back and say "WHAT! She *gets on the plane*! I didn't like that - she shoulda stayed with Rick!". Sorry. That ain't the story.

Same here. Germs kill them. It happens rather abruptly in the story. We don't "beat them" and we don't upload a computer virus into their mothership. We just survive them.
 
Top