MikeD wrote: Hmmm, there is still something to be said for the good old 'open canvas'. |
War of the Worlds thread - Spoilers too!! • Page 2
-
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years ago -
deem 31,667 posts
Seen 8 months ago
Registered 18 years ago -
morriss 71,293 posts
Seen 3 months ago
Registered 17 years ago/crashes and spins off the road. -
Scimarad 9,965 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago"I think you should just go see the film to have. If you're in that Popcorn munching, summer blockbuster movie kind of mood, then you'll loveit"
Actually I really don't agree with that - It's not really a 'fun' movie, though it is an extremely good version of War of the Worlds.
I think the difference is, in most alien invasion films the aliens turn up & commence blowing up buildings, vehicles and especially famous buildings and monuments and then somehow get their arse kicked at the end.
From the moment they turn up in this film they attack PEOPLE and you see the effect it has on humans. For the first time in one of these types of story it brought home that being invaded by aliens with death rays would really, really suck!
Being a huge fan of the story in its various incarnations (well, most of them!) I'll probably go see it again in the near future to figure out what I feel about the film in general. -
IronGiant 6,352 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoBig disappointment for me. Some excellent moments and some truly dreadful ones, oh well Charlie and the Chocolate Factory next. -
WoodenSpoon 12,360 posts
Seen 7 months ago
Registered 19 years agoWhich bits did you think were dreadful?
I thought it was the best fim I'd seen in ages. -
Sniffer 328 posts
Seen 9 years ago
Registered 17 years agoWoodenSpoon wrote:
Which bits did you think were dreadful?
Amongst other elements (a lot of them), I thought the biggest sin the film commited was with its' pacing.
First 20 minutes = nice character building
Next 45 minutes = some nice action, chasing, panic
Next 20 minutes = AUDIENCE GOES ASLEEP WHILE THE REMAINING CHARACTERS HIDE UNDER THE STAIRCASE
Next 10 minutes = Tom and Dakota in a net
Last 5 minutes = Is basically the same as the bit in 'Shaun Of The Dead' where Shaun talks about his plan to save his mum and girlfriend, with each possible scenario ending up with them all sat in the pub / on the sofa drinking a pint / cup of tea.
Yes, the happier ending is in the book, but the way it's presented here is just too... nice, a total contradiction to the predicament we'd been put in (as a species) up to that point.
'Blade' did a similar thing, it's peaked after 7 minutes (Bloodbath), then nothing that follows can compete with it (although in the case of 'Blade', there was more than enough comparable action for it to be less noticeable).
The audience's initial hopes have been dashed and they leave the cinema feeling a little 'flat'. Probably explain why WotW suffered such bad 'word of mouth' commercially as it did.
Every bugger saw it in the first five days, then didn't recommend it as much as teh studio wanted.
'Batman Begins' was the opposite, started comparatively slowly, but the week-on-week box office drop offs were significantly less and the film kept on performing admirably... -
Kay 21,321 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoAlthough it was a brilliant film, I agree with Sniffer, there was something about it that felt 'flat'.
The first hour was absolutely brilliant, and relentless (with some of the most realistic special effects I've ever seen). However, the film lost its momentum by the time it reached the Tim Robbins basement scene, and I was pissed off by the 'happy' ending - the film had maintained such a strong sense of realism up to that point, but it was totally destroyed once Cruise and co. (and especially his son) managed to reach Boston safely. Also, there were some stupid scenes, particularly the bit when Cruise blows up the tripod with a well-placed grenade. Also, the ending felt rushed, and should have been explained a bit more.
All in all, though, it still was a superb film - worth getting on DVD for the first hour alone - it's just that it could have been so much better.
Edited by Kay at 09:04:04 01-08-2005 -
Salaman 24,162 posts
Seen 2 weeks ago
Registered 17 years agoIt left me a bit underwhelmed.
Started off great abd then got a bit boring.
I think Sniffer nailed it with his breakdown.
Whoever was putting his hopes on seeing Charlie and the chocolate factory next .... don't get them up too high.
It's also an OK but not greatmovie imo. -
Kronos 794 posts
Seen 1 day ago
Registered 19 years agoI thought the aliens themselves were dreadful..far to cgi and cutesy .
Spielberg seems to have a thing about putting kids in his movies which, for me, is a bit of a cheap sentimental trick. I wouldnt mind this so much if the kid actually acted like a kid and not an adult.
The whole film felt like a tv movie to me. Far too clean and pc. It really needed more blood and visceral shocks. -
WoodenSpoon 12,360 posts
Seen 7 months ago
Registered 19 years agoThe ending rushed?
I see your point about the pacing Sniffer, and I agree that the whole hiding part could have been cut down big style, but in all honesty it didn't bother me that much. I thought that the weird slowness of that bit was far outweighed by the overall greatness of the rest of the film - everything about it seemed top notch.
I enjoyed War of the Worlds more than anything else I've seen recently (including Sin City which everyone seemed to be raving about, but I don't really rate at all). -
DrPhil 694 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 16 years agoWorst ending ever.
Charlie and the chocolate factory was good though. -
IronGiant 6,352 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoYeah the basement bit was awful, really was no need whatsoever to see the aliens.. a lot of the power from the original is based on not seeing the buggers at all!! Kind of destroyed part of the impact of seeing the alien hand flop out of the craft.
Ending was cheesetastic and just pandering to the american audiences. Considering how good the special effects were, and how powerful the alien machines looked on screen, i just feel they wasted a fantastic opportunity to come up with some of the most incredible battle scenes ever seen on the big screen. All we got was some rockets flying over head and some pap explosions on the brow of the hill.. oh and some jeeps rolling past on fire. What a waste.
The way folks were vapourised was crap, a weapon that destroys all matter apart from trousers and shirts.. yeah ok, but then it did let steve mirror one of his scenes from schindlers list.
All my opinion of course and i much prefer the original version. -
Scimarad 9,965 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 18 years ago"a lot of the power from the original is based on not seeing the buggers at all!! "
Which originial would that be? You see them in the '53 film and you certainly see them in the book.gif)
I like (with a few reservations) the first time I went to see it but I ended it up seeing it again and liking it much more the second time. -
IronGiant 6,352 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoWell yes but nothing like in this movie.. tiny glimpses are much more powerful than seeing them picking up photos and spinning a wheel round! .gif)
Have no desire to watch it again. -
Dirtbox 92,600 posts
Seen 2 hours ago
Registered 19 years ago -
I don't think seeing the aliens per se is a problem, it's just the fact they looked like cutesy versions of the independence day guys. Playing with a bike, ffs.
They need to be horrible, like the tripods - which is the reason I liked the film overall. It was brilliant just about every time the tripods and their heat rays / tentacles were in it - vaginal basket being a slightly silly exception. It's a long time since I've been genuinely scared by a scene, like when the first tripod bursts out of the ground. Great stuff.
As for the ending...meh. Can't say it ruins the film for me. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years agoIronGiant wrote:
Considering how good the special effects were, and how powerful the alien machines looked on screen, i just feel they wasted a fantastic opportunity to come up with some of the most incredible battle scenes ever seen on the big screen. All we got was some rockets flying over head and some pap explosions on the brow of the hill.. oh and some jeeps rolling past on fire. What a waste.
But it was done for a reason, to not be like every other film. If you want that watch ID4, there was no point in them making the same film.
I like the fact they followed it from the human perspective and not the aliens taking the planet, it makes it a stronger movie, imo. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years agourizen wrote:
I don't think seeing the aliens per se is a problem, it's just the fact they looked like cutesy versions of the independence day guys. Playing with a bike, ffs.
They need to be horrible, like the tripods - which is the reason I liked the film overall.
Why? They came here to survive, not to fuck us over. If you went to another planet I doubt you'd just walk straight through and not look in amazement at things you'd never seen before. It gave them more character than other aliens and, again, I think it's better for it.
If you want relentless 'nasty' aliens watch alien or ID4.
It's odd how when everyone wants new and inventive games, you all want the same rehashed movies. Go figure. -
@Derblington. No, I definitely don't want rehashed movies - I actually agree with your previous post (not the one where you disagree with me, natch 
) about the human perspective - the reason why the best scene for me was the emergence of the first tripod - I thought it captured pretty incredibly what pretty hypothetically such an occurrence might be like for those who witnessed it.
But - breaking one of my own rules here - I'm drawn back to the book with it's description of the martians as hideous and bear-like. It's just stuck with me, so I found the big-eyed goons a wee bit disappointing. -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years agourizen wrote:
But - breaking one of my own rules here - I'm drawn back to the book with it's description of the martians as hideous and bear-like. It's just stuck with me, so I found the big-eyed goons a wee bit disappointing.
But it's Spielberg's vision of it, it's not the book, it couldn't be the book. -
Derblington wrote:
urizen wrote:
But - breaking one of my own rules here - I'm drawn back to the book with it's description of the martians as hideous and bear-like. It's just stuck with me, so I found the big-eyed goons a wee bit disappointing.
But it's Spielberg's vision of it, it's not the book, it couldn't be the book.
Hence the 'breaking one of my own rules' bit - I may as well criticise the film for not featuring Phil Lynott, David Essex and OOOLAAAAHs.
And if I went to another planet, I agree, I probably would stop to marvel at the novelties - but then again my reason for going there wouldn't be to use its inhabitants as fertiliser
Judging that scene as part of Spielberg's vision, it feels like an attempt to add sophistication where it doesn't really belong. Would I really care about the hobbies and habits of my compost? -
Derblington 35,161 posts
Seen 4 days ago
Registered 17 years agourizen wrote:
Judging that scene as part of Spielberg's vision, it feels like an attempt to add sophistication where it doesn't really belong. Would I really care about the hobbies and habits of my compost?
I doubt you'd care, as I doubt they did, but you may be intrigued at an object, as they were.
There were plenty of plot holes to pick at, but the stuff people have a problem with I find odd as it was an attempt to do something different. Each to their own. -
Derblington wrote:
urizen wrote:
Judging that scene as part of Spielberg's vision, it feels like an attempt to add sophistication where it doesn't really belong. Would I really care about the hobbies and habits of my compost?
I doubt you'd care, as I doubt they did, but you may be intrigued at an object, as they were.
There were plenty of plot holes to pick at, but the stuff people have a problem with I find odd as it was an attempt to do something different. Each to their own.
Fair point. I'm not one for picking plot holes (honest!). And I like the film for some of the same reasons as you. Just not the aliens themselves. Each to their own -
IronGiant 6,352 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 18 years agoDerblington wrote:
But it was done for a reason, to not be like every other film. If you want that watch ID4, there was no point in them making the same film.
I like the fact they followed it from the human perspective and not the aliens taking the planet, it makes it a stronger movie, imo.
The last thing i wanted was another ID4, that movie is bloody awful. Following it from a human perspective would be fine if the characters/script were upto the job. You can't tell me the Tim Robbins basement part of the movie worked.. then to cap it all off it concludes with that corny ending. His eldest son happens to survive a battle and manages to get all the way to boston. Utter tripe. -
one-eye 1,221 posts
Seen 2 years ago
Registered 20 years agoID4 = Leave your brain behind.
I do like it as it's fairly epic in scale. Some good dvd reference/show off moments in it too. -
Scimarad 9,965 posts
Seen 8 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoI generally watch Independence Day to see the aliens blowing the crap out of stuff and turn it off half way through, assuming they won .gif)
And, yeah, it was great at the cinema.
What is the problem with the way the aliens look in WotW? Why do they need to look hideous? Also, what is the problem with them showing curiosity?
Oh and Urizen they weren't bear-like in the book. They were big brains with tentacles that were about the size of a bear.
Linky
/is WotW nerd
Edited by Scimarad at 07:38:13 02-08-2005 -
Kay 21,321 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 18 years agoI wached ID again when it came on TV last Friday, and although it's still a good film, I realised how cheesy and unrealistic it was compared to WotW - the latter did the whole 'alien invasion' scenario a lot better.
Apart from the ending, and a few dubious scenes, WotW was still a fantastic film. -
bivith 2,469 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 17 years agoone-eye wrote:
ID4 = Leave your brain behind.
I do like it as it's fairly epic in scale. Some good dvd reference/show off moments in it too.
Um I don't think so. The Independence Day DVD is one of the worst quality I have seen, with fuzzy lack of detail, and copius amounts of edge enhancement. It looks shockingly awful through a home cinema projector. -
Watched this on 'DVD' at the weekend and I feel that it somewhat of a pile of wank.
1. So the aliens plan this over 100 years and bury the tripods ready...in which case they would have had to carry out Seizmic sureys etc...so...why did they not think to measure the chemical make up of the planet??!! /slaps forehead with palm of hand
2. You dont really get to see humans getting their arses really kicked or see a full on battlfield scene in which the army gets destroyed ar anything cool like that. All you get is a few token people gerring zapped and the old 'battle going on over there..trust me you dont need to see it' crap.
3. The conservative approach to the film grated big time. Funny how it was the poorer areas of the US that got attacked in the film first and then the 1 token middle class house later on..hmmmm I'm really sure that aliens would have a good grasp of the socio-enomic intricacies of this planet....AND NOT BOTHER TO MEASURE THE ATMOSPHERE OR ANYTHING!.
4. The ending was a damp suib...felt like an incomplete sneeze....
.gif)
.gif)
) about the human perspective - the reason why the best scene for me was the emergence of the first tripod - I thought it captured pretty incredibly what pretty hypothetically such an occurrence might be like for those who witnessed it.
.gif)
And, yeah, it was great at the cinema.Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.
