|
|
Post by deadsword on May 21, 2006 4:26:42 GMT
I have notice over the near a year since this version came out that there seems to be more that hate this movie than there are people that liked the movie. Me, when I saw it the first time in the theater it left this strange feeling in me. I get panic, anxiety attacks in and outside of movie theaters and(lol i wish i took a good toke of marrijuana and or had some beers before i went to see it, i think i would have enjoyed it more)beside that something else begin to grow or build inside of me concerning this movie. And it did not help my depression but my depression related to it had nothing to do with my my opinion of whether this was a good movie or not, i thought it was very good, just wanted to see more tripods, heat rays and better ending and more of the scope of the invasion outside of just Ray and his family, plus the deleted scenery. I was just thinking should this version or any other versions of wotw stay strictly with the novel. Would it not be a good idea to have the movie made in modern times?
|
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on May 21, 2006 9:35:41 GMT
Hm I see what your saying Deadsword.
I think the fact that sends most people up the wall (Yes, including me sometimes) is by moving it into a 'modern day' setting is our weapondary.
Yes, us, with our, cruise missiles and nuclear weapons and the rest - it's simply too powerful.
So what do the movie makers do? They use the original idea of putting shields on the tripods and making them industructable.
Back to the SS movie, I like the tripods, but the plot isn't the best.
But I do like this movie more than I like Pendragons.
|
|
|
|
Post by jeffwaynefan on May 21, 2006 11:20:18 GMT
I like the film as a science fiction movie but NOT as a adaptation of a Well's story, because that it isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on May 21, 2006 11:43:47 GMT
I enjoyed Spielbergs War of the Worlds as an invasion film based loosely on The War of the Worlds. I think this version has more to do with Wells' TWOTW than the Asylum and Pal version though i think the Pal versions better.
The tripods definatley were the highlight. The first hour was amazing. If the film continued like the first hour then the film would have been so much better.
I noticed when this film was released more people liked it than didn't, now peoples opinions seem to have changed.
The film was too short aswell.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
Post by beecus on May 21, 2006 12:03:02 GMT
I like the film as a science fiction movie but NOT as a adaptation of a Well's story, because that it isn't. Ditto, my thoughts exactly. |
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on May 21, 2006 13:11:03 GMT
I think the SS WotW's is a classic, i know liking the movie is a crime on this forum but what the heck.  D.F. |
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on May 21, 2006 18:28:56 GMT
I think the SS WotW's is a classic, i know liking the movie is a crime on this forum but what the heck. D.F. What he said! Great movie. Tripod |
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 21, 2006 19:30:07 GMT
pis, pis, pis pis pis pis...
|
|
|
|
Post by Luperis on May 21, 2006 20:17:22 GMT
I like the film as a science fiction movie but NOT as a adaptation of a Well's story, because that it isn't. Yep... I totally agree. It's an OK movie when looked at as a standard sci-fi invasion movie inspired by WotW, when looked at as a straight adaptation of Wells' novel it is pants. |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 21, 2006 20:24:09 GMT
If Tom Cruise wasn't in it and Spielberg had a decent actor in the lead role - then maybe it would be passable as a sci fi movie. Because he's in it - it's nothing more than an advert for 'Mr I'm in love with myself' TC.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on May 21, 2006 20:46:40 GMT
I think it's a good movie but not a great one. It has some great virtues, especially its suspense and its realistic portrayal of the shockingly swift breakdown of what Edgar Rice Burroughs, author of the Tarzan series, called "the veneer of civilization".
But it also has some great flaws, and thus overall I can't say it was a Great movie. And yeah, it would have been far better if it hadn't been labeled "War of the Worlds", because of the great differences.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on May 21, 2006 22:28:42 GMT
I think it's a good movie but not a great one. It has some great virtues, especially its suspense and its realistic portrayal of the shockingly swift breakdown of what Edgar Rice Burroughs, author of the Tarzan series, called "the veneer of civilization". But it also has some great flaws, and thus overall I can't say it was a Great movie. And yeah, it would have been far better if it hadn't been labeled "War of the Worlds", because of the great differences. If it wern't called WOTW then i think people would be taking the piss out of it for ripping off WOTW. At least its just War of the Worlds and not "The War of the Worlds". Anthony |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 21, 2006 22:51:17 GMT
I think it's a good movie but not a great one. It has some great virtues, especially its suspense and its realistic portrayal of the shockingly swift breakdown of what Edgar Rice Burroughs, author of the Tarzan series, called "the veneer of civilization". But it also has some great flaws, and thus overall I can't say it was a Great movie. And yeah, it would have been far better if it hadn't been labeled "War of the Worlds", because of the great differences. If it wern't called WOTW then i think people would be taking the piss out of it for ripping off WOTW. At least its just War of the Worlds and not "The War of the Worlds". Anthony I think it's the other way around. I think if this film was called something else and had 'based on' HG Wells TWOTW clearly in the opening titles then this film would have come in for far less stick. It's not THE WOTW yes but it still comes across as a total rip off from the novel. It's a pure case of a famous film director trying to put his stamp on a famous novel so he can claim the story as his own creation. |
|
|
|
Post by deadsword on May 22, 2006 0:47:47 GMT
I think it's a good movie but not a great one. It has some great virtues, especially its suspense and its realistic portrayal of the shockingly swift breakdown of what Edgar Rice Burroughs, author of the Tarzan series, called "the veneer of civilization". But it also has some great flaws, and thus overall I can't say it was a Great movie. And yeah, it would have been far better if it hadn't been labeled "War of the Worlds", because of the great differences. Good point about its title. Question is what title could have been more suitable? |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 22, 2006 2:10:39 GMT
I'd have to have a good think about that but I quite liked Out of the Night - the rumoured title
OUT OF THE NIGHT
A Steven Spielberg film
Based on the original story by HG Wells
|
|
|
|
Post by Commandingtripod on May 22, 2006 7:20:58 GMT
I think the SS WotW's is a classic, i know liking the movie is a crime on this forum but what the heck. D.F. I wouldn't say liking the movie on this forum is crime. We have our own choices and opions about it. I quite like it myself - though personally I thought the plot could be better developed.  |
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on May 22, 2006 9:15:56 GMT
I don't dislike it.. it certainly has some great things about it. As a summer blockbuster it's top notch. It's just it could have been so much better with more attention to the book. But hey ho. |
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on May 22, 2006 13:56:01 GMT
I have notice over the near a year since this version came out that there seems to be more that hate this movie than there are people that liked the movie. I think what it is that the euphoria of having a WOTW movie after all this time whipped people up into a false sence of elation. Once the film was out, the DVD released people began to watch the film and once the euphoria had gone many fans realised how let down we were. |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on May 22, 2006 16:24:37 GMT
I still think it's a pretty rubbish film [ with one or two good bits ] even if it had a different title though and I'm not sticking up for it one bit. Cruise wrecks it for me for a start - plus the rest!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on May 23, 2006 19:48:42 GMT
It's pretty strange how this Forum's positive reactions to the film are so easily overshadowed by negative ones. Like for every positive post two negative posts are thrown at it.
Anyway for me this movie is as much WotW as H.G.Wells' book, Orson Welles' broadcast, Pal/Haskin's film and Jeff Wayne's Musical. A great story that knows no age and can be used for many years to come.
Tripod
|
|
