|
Post by Rob on Jun 29, 2005 8:08:31 GMT
Please post all reviews in this thread, reviews placed elsewhere will be reposted here by a mod
|
|
waza
New Member
Posts: 4
|
Post by waza on Jun 29, 2005 10:21:36 GMT
Knowing, for the most part, what is coming, but not exactly knowing HOW it will come (unless you've not avoided spoliers) makes this an intense film to watch. In short:
Tom Cruise - success Tripods - uber success Retelling of story - success. It's done. Get over it.
I was entertained. Mission accomplished. One of most interesting things to come out of the night was leaving the theatre and having a group of late teens behind us. One was heard saying,disapointedly, "It didn't have a big battle at the end of it like Independance Day!" It's a funny old world at times isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Jun 29, 2005 20:18:58 GMT
MEGA SPOILERS ...I saw it..... OH GOOD LORD! Fantastic, absolutely brilliant! Does it have its faults? Yes. (For me it was the Aliens....I do not like the way they looked at all, and the bit where they run into the news reporters is a bit.....cliche to me but anyways) And the escape from the basket scene is going to get alot of people whining, but I didnt find it too bad at all (Reminds me of a certain scene in starwars ) What a film, the opening paragraph read by Morgan Freeman made me almost cry. I was that excited. The film starts off slow, FOR LIKE 10 MINUTES. Actually one problem I had with the film was, it moves TOO fast, the whole event seems like it takes about 2 days, even though it HAS to a be longer time frame than that. When the ground opens and the first tripod strides out, I would be hard pressed to find ANY WotW fan who doesnt want to cheer. They look amazing. And the ULLLLA they emit is a mechanical sound, but still strikes a chill up your back. There where so many scenes that captured the feel of the book, the ferry scene felt like it was pulled from a different perspective of a character in the Thunder Child Chapter of the book. Speaking of the Thunderchild, in this movie THE ARMY is the thunderchild, bravely sacrificing themselves so that the refugees can escape. The political overtones ARE there, but not in your face at all. Scientology? NONE, dont worry. this whole film is just a big wow experience, one after the other. Ogilvy is more of the Artillery man, with a dash of the Curates loud mouth sprinkled in. (The final scene with him and Ray is very very disturbing.) Do they feed? Yep. Same as in the book? Yep. infact here is a few similarites to the book. the tripods Indeed, puffs of smoke coming from them, green flashes and all. The Heat Ray...To a point, some things burst into flames, and it DOES sheer off the tops of many a house The Whole Escape from the city scene reminds me of Maybury Hill, in fact it is very very noticable that THIS was the inspiration behind that scene. It has NO battle porn at all, but a few good little skimishes. red glows on the horizon, plenty of those, its so creepy. A scene where the tripods burst through the trees, like the in the storm scene ULLLLAAA, need I say more? The ruined house, and the whole character of ogilvy pays good homage to the book. Dead London, there Oh its good, I already listed the bad up top. The atmosphere is so believeable. Not to fond of the effect the heat ray has on people, but it makes for some disturbing scenes in the aftermath of the attacks. One scene in particular, with the tripods decending on the town of Athens New York, is specatular. And is so creepy, between the screams of people, and the wail of an air raid siren, the sound alone chills your blood. I could go on and on, but ill stop, it was ace, thats all ya need to know.
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Jun 30, 2005 0:26:24 GMT
Well it's only been 10 minutes since I left the cinema and I couldn't resist popping onto the forum and telling you that Steven Spielberg has proved me wrong. Originally I was skeptical on whether he would produce the goods, but boy has he done it! I won't blather on too long about the movie. I agree with pretty much everything Rob said in his review so I don't need reinvent the wheel. However let me tell you how he proved me wrong:
1) I thought that Tom Cruise was way too pristine and precious to embody the role of deadbeat dad Ray. Wrong! Tom is like a teenager thrust into the role of responsible parent. He is often out of his depth and his children know it and don't forget to remind him. His acting was so convincing I could see several single fathers that I know reflected in his character. In the first 10 minutes he comes flying into his driveway in a hotted up Mustang and we see his kitchen has a 302 V8 engine on the table. At this point I was thinking, I know this guy.
2) The translation into a modern setting would water down the intensity and essence of the book. Wrong!! This move is as intense as it comes. Once the tripod emerges from the ground and starts disintergrating everyone the tension rarely lets up. As Rob said, there is dialog but it more gives the audience a breather from the unrelenting assault on the senses. This film treads a fine line between drama and action and it pulls it off masterfully. I was on the edge of my seat for most of the movie.
3) Being a fan of the WOTW text I would judge it more harsh due to omissions/additions. Wrong!!! Sure there are things missing from the film that are in the book (black smoke anyone?) ,some things have been changed (the deal with the red weed) and some things have been added (force fields). However none of this affects the essence and drama of the story. In fact, being a fan of the original text I found that seeing the whole thing come to life on the big screen in awesome CGI, like a bit of a dream come true.
The tripods themselves are jaw dropping and the "Ulla" sound they make is spot on. It is both an alternating of two "musical" notes and it roars like thunder. I can't wait to pop the DVD on at home when it comes out and rattle the windows with my subby. However, like Rob said, the tripods seem to vary in size a bit, but they are able to contract so that is what I put it down to.
Of course the movie does have it's flaws. For one thing the decay and death of the aliens is a little too rapid and it feels like the whole ending is a bit rushed. Also the red weed concept seems a little tacked on to placate fans of the text but it is beautifully realised. All in all, any flaws that the film has are more than made up for in it's imaginative storytelling, beautifully shot (and downright alarming) crowd scenes which really do illustrate "mob rule' and believable special effects.
All in all, I heartily recommend this movie to anyone, especially fans of the book. It was enough to keep a cinema full of teenage kids motionless and quiet - enough said!
As a bit of a Postscript to my review, I thought I'd add a lot in this movie seems very familiar. You'll be sitting through some scenes thinking "where have I seen that before?" This is due to the various homages (George Pal, HG Wells, ID4 ) that Spielberg has worked into the film. However he does it so well that it does not seem a cheap rip off but rather it adds to their vision. I was wrong to doubt his genius.
I heard one reviewer on the radio this morning say it was the film of the year and one of our major newspapers gave it 4.5/5. Go out and see it!
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jun 30, 2005 0:30:59 GMT
Does it feature a lot of jumpy/scare scenes such as in Signs?
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Jun 30, 2005 0:43:46 GMT
Yeah it has a few. Mainly in the basement scene. Fortunately it doesn't rely on them.
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jun 30, 2005 0:53:45 GMT
Is the airplane scene one of them?
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Jun 30, 2005 1:59:22 GMT
Sort of. They do arrive rather suddenly! As someone has previously mentioned, the Armed Services are the equivalent of the Thunderchild. Their weaponry is futile, all they can do is buy the civilians more time. I admire their dicipline in the film. If it were me, I'd be running as soon as I saw the tripod.
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jun 30, 2005 2:03:33 GMT
Well i wouldn't say their weaponry is futile not until their shields are down, what its like when they down that Tripod at the end? One person on 'Eve of the War' said it was gratuitous, how?
So many questions lol.
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Jun 30, 2005 2:21:17 GMT
Gratutious? Lol, it seems perfect after all the hell you see us humans get put through, lets just say, there are ALOT of AT rounds fired!
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jun 30, 2005 2:33:54 GMT
I still feel we haven't been treated to an all out spectacle where Military forces clash with Extra-Terrestrials. Warships, Tanks, Artillery, Planes you name we throw it! I know this is extreme Battle Porn (TM) and people will tut and roll their eyes but why not? If we want to see two species conflicting then make a big conflict.
The problem is many alien invasion films only show partial areas of conflicts instead of a total war. I'd like to say i feel character developement is just as important, which is why i always stress a 'Band of Brothers' approach. Which IMO perfectly blends character and 'battle' needs to make a great and enthralling story.
Now getting back to WOTW, considering the fact that the bacteria is a slow burner and it takes time for it's effects, i.e loss of shields. Could the Military with that knowledge have delayed a major attack until the Tripods were weakened? Perhaps send in small guerilla forces and even air assets to harry them while the bacteria takes effect?
I'd like to add that during many of my let's say 'Pro-Military' ending discussions, i did suggest that the bacteria could act as a weakening force which would make them vulnerbale enough to be destroyed. But nevermind ;D lol.
I'm definitely looking forward to seeing WOTW on screen, just to see how our world is taken apart piece by chunk.
|
|
|
Post by obiwanbeeohbee on Jun 30, 2005 3:46:55 GMT
Just saw the SS/TC version with my wife who is NOT, I repeat, NOT a science-fiction fan at all. We both spent most of this movie completely on the edge of our seats. We held hands all through the film (nothing unusual) but I noticed that we had to let go every once in a while during this one because we noticed that we were squeezing so tight that we cut off each-other's circulation. (Very unusual) My wife freely admits that she found herself forgetting to breathe during some of the more scary moments. IT WAS THAT GOOD! The trailers are a good indication of the pace of the movie; a very few moments on just how sucky life is in New Jersey when you're an irresponsible deadbeat dad, and then BANG! A few lightning strikes and TRIPODS ALL OVER THE PLACE! Now things are REALLY sucky.
Things that really worked in this movie: (Warning! May contain spoilers.)
1. Morgan Freeman is to this movie what James Earl Jones is to Star Wars. You never see him, but you very glad to hear him.
2. The opening showing the microbes in the drop of water didn't register to my wife, who isn't familiar with the story, until the end of the movie when she said, "Oh. That makes perfect sense!" Quite an inside joke.
3. People today are just a bit too sophisicated (and, dare I say it, paranoid) to stand around for a whole Saturday staring at a cylinder in a pit wondering who is inside and whether or not they want to be friends. The lightning, EMP and ground-shaking come quickly and effectively convey the experience of a sneak attack.
4. The Tripods. Not a completely original design. They seemed to draw on some of the more elegant elements from tripods drawn by many early illustrators of the novel. I'm glad that Spielberg went that route with the design. The movement of the tripods was as realistic as I believe I could have imagined. Finally, Spielberg remembered the Ulla! Can you believe it?
5. The Heat Ray. An incredible effect that was used sparingly, and for the most part only in the very beginning of the movie. It was clear that Spielberg only wanted to use the effects to further the story. There was no gratuitous, "Hey, lets see what we can blow up next!" Don't get me wrong. There are plenty of explosions. Just not too many.
6. The Demolished House. This scene takes the best elements of the novel, and the 1953 Pal production and melds them into a very scary, gut-wrenching experience. You see the aliens running about, get to watch them 'feed' their plants, and get a very well done redo of the Pal periscope idea.
7. Dakota Fanning. This movie wasn't a stretch for her. She's played this same character before. Only opposite Brittany Murphy instead of Tom Cruise. Oh, yeah. And without aliens running around in tripods, killing everyone.
8. Tom Cruise. This was the only way I could get my wife to the movie theater. If not for Tom, I'd have eaten that whole large buttered-popcorn myself, and she would still not realize why I'm such a WOTW freak. Now she gets it.
9. Tim Robbins. Anbody who was ever married to Susan Sarandon could surely keep it together during an alien extermination of humanity. Well, maybe not. What was it Buffalo Springfield said? Paranoia runs deep?
Some things that didn't work for me:
1. The Metal Fishermans Basket. "Come on, they had shields! You couldn't do the part where the artillery shell hits the tripod and it runs into the church at Shepperton if they have shields!" Well, did you have to destroy the tripod a la Luke Skywalker and the AT-AT on Hoth? Very annoying. And, by the way, you do see the artillery-takes-out-a-tripod-and-it-in-turn-takes-out-a-building scene later, and this time it kinda makes sense. This was the 'Hollywood Block-Buster Formula' at its worst. Totally gratuitous.
2. I was very glad to see Gene Barry and Ann Robinson. I just wanted to see more of them. Couldn't Spielberg have given them a few lines? Oh, well. The Director's Cut or at least the deleted scenes hold out some hope for me.
3. No Thunderchild scene. "They had shields. HELLO!" Yeah, I know. The ferry scene was good, but it wasn't what I hoped for. They let Cruise blow up a tripod. Why not let the Navy, the Coast Guard, or even Steven Segal on a jet-ski ram one?
All in all, this was a very enjoyable experience for me. I hated 'Hitchhiker's Guide' and didn't think 'Revenge of the Sith' was the movie it should have been. I was really counting on this one to bring me out of my summer movie dissapointment. It did.
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jun 30, 2005 12:40:09 GMT
1. The Metal Fishermans Basket. "Come on, they had shields! You couldn't do the part where the artillery shell hits the tripod and it runs into the church at Shepperton if they have shields!" Well, did you have to destroy the tripod a la Luke Skywalker and the AT-AT on Hoth? Very annoying. And, by the way, you do see the artillery-takes-out-a-tripod-and-it-in-turn-takes-out-a-building scene later, and this time it kinda makes sense. This was the 'Hollywood Block-Buster Formula' at its worst. Totally gratuitous. Good review btw, but i had to pick out this particular point. Isn't the book 'gratuitous' in parts too? Such as the following passage... The shell burst clean in the face of the Thing. The hood bulged, flashed, was whirled off in a dozen tattered fragments of red flesh glittering metal. 'Hit!' shouted I, with something between a scream and a cheer Or what about the scene when the Narrator is holed up with the Curate and witnesses the Alien feeding? Do you mean it's 'gratuitous' in the sense that the Military can't destroy them with their shields, but individual efforts like Tom Cruise's can take them out with a handful of grenades?
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Jun 30, 2005 16:12:41 GMT
I'm going to have to rest my jaw now to get over the ache from jaw dropping effects of the Tripods.
Well I have to say that as far as amazing effects and tension, Spielberg delivered. At first I had been thinking about the fact they skipped the landing of cylinders and replaced it with what I thought was a silly underground concept. You get a very brief explanation of this a bit later in the movie. Cruise meets a reporter, who uses some captured slow motion news video to show him how the aliens come down in a kind of capsule riding the lightening to penetrate the ground. They use this method to enter their machines. I guess this was the nod to the arrival by cylinders in the original novel and movie. I really think this whole concept was done more for dramatic effect than whether it made any sense.
However this was soon forgotten during the scene where the ground and nearby buildings begin to crack and break apart. A towering tripod soon raised itself up and then proceeded to annihilate everyone and everything with its twin heat rays. YEAH BABY! Simply jaw dropping and awesome! And the bass bellowing sound for the ullaa cry was very effective and spine tingling.
I personally found the heat ray’s effect on people quite effective. In my opinion he managed to convey some horrifying scenes without actually being gruesome.
The Tripods in this movie made me totally forget whatever may be wrong with this movie for the whole time I was watching it. If that's the case then the Movie has done its job. It gave me the same kind of feeling that I had when I first saw Jurassic park as my jaw dropped thinking how real those dinosaurs looked. The physics of the machines was impressively real. When the Tripods hit buildings with their bulk, you really did feel it was a massive machine with a matching weight smashing into that building!
This really is one movie that you don't want to drink too much soda LOL and so my wife and I made sure we didn't drink too much to miss anything :-) Once it gets going, this movie is full of action and tension.
Did anyone notice the street named Van Buren? I wonder if that was an intentional nod to the 1953 movie's character Sylvia Van Buren.
I actually thought the landscape setting in parts did seem to convey an atmosphere similar to what you might see had it been set in England. They also didn't make any direct reference to Mars yet subtly implied the Martian connection at the beginning with the red sphere becoming a traffic light. Of course the redweed could be taken as another.
A couple of friends who went with us, thought the aliens were meant to be children and I can see why they thought this as they did act more like a child would than might be expected of a mature adult creature. They sort of reminded me of a 3 legged feline almost.
They also complained that Cruise was a bit ineffective in the movie ie he didn’t seem to know what to do or come up with any plan. I said that was the point as in this situation, you really wouldn’t know what to do. I know I wouldn’t! To all intents and purposes they seem invincible so what *would* you do!
I have to say that it was pretty obvious in places that the the 1953 movie was the template with such scenes as the house scene and the ending with the hatch opening. I also noticed that when Cruise chopped the snake like camera inside the house, for a very brief moment it made that same sound effect as in the original.
Also the military scene wasn't overplayed like some movies and thankfully didn’t end up being a “we’ve come to save the world” over dramatization. They mention how the Tripods are invincible due to having shields but they don't show this and they don't need to as it's not necessary and would just use up valuable time in the movie.
One question I would like to ask. Were the old man and woman who opened the door at the end, Gene Barry and Ann Robinson? I know they are in the movie, but just wanted to know if I recognized them in the correct part of the movie!
I ended up being so stupefied with tripod effects that I really couldn't care less about whether the ending was any good or not LOL
|
|
|
Post by DaveJames on Jun 30, 2005 16:32:35 GMT
Count me as another one who had no problem with the ending. I didn't think the cellar sequence dragged at all, and was suspenseful as all hell. Sure the idea has been done before, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work here. The escape from the basket was a bit farfetched I admit, but Ray's heroism had a precedent when he watched his son pull those people onto the ferry earlier. And the reunion in the end wasn't nearly as cheesy and syrupy and ridiculous as I was led to believe either. You definitely got the sense that these people have all been through a traumatic experience. Yeah the one character shouldn't have survived, but it didn't really annoy me all that much. Overall I just loved this movie. I never had a clear picture of the tripods from reading the book, but the ones in the movie were just as nightmarish and strange as I imagined them being. The special effects were incredible (even though deep down I could tell what was CGI and what wasn't). And I didn't think the story was disjointed and "clunky" at all. It seemed to flow very naturally and realistically. And I thought the death of the aliens was handled subtlely and gradually enough as well. Obviously there are plot holes galore, but if you can accept the idea of dinosaurs being created from frog DNA in Jurassic Park, SURELY you can suspend your disbelief for this movie.
|
|
jo73
Full Member
Posts: 52
|
Post by jo73 on Jun 30, 2005 16:43:43 GMT
Yay! Yay! and thrice Yay! Everything I imagined it would be, and more! I don't think 117 minutes has ever gone by so fast. From the opening to end credits, it felt like it rushed past in a matter of seconds, only now that I've had a few hours to think about it do I realise how much I enjoyed this movie.
The atmosphere is perfect, the acting all round is damn good (did anyone else want to give Cruise's son a damn good slap?), the effects - wow! One thing that did impress me (looking back at it) is how sparingly the tripods are used. But when they do appear, it's an awesome sight (and sound, how loud was that film?). I thought the 'ulla' sound to be a tad too reminiscent of the sound of the mothership in CETK when it plays the low note that blows out the window, but it was still chilling. And only Spielberg could make rustling trees seem sinister, the same as the glass of water in Jurassic Park, and the cracking glass in the Lost World. Haunting images a-plenty (12A? I don't think I would take a 12 year old to see it) with the river of bodies, the raining blood, the clothes falling out of the sky all staying long in my memory.
I thought the ending was OK, the way people were speaking I was expecting a full family reunion, with Ray's wife suddenly remembering why she loved him and all that. My only very slight grumble will be with (as with many other people's I should imagine) the basket scene. I don't think the movie needed it, and it's going to give a lot of ammo to the people who say that Cruise has to be a hero.
My favourite part? The camera shot that follows the conversation in the car, from inside the car, to outside the car, to around the car. Awesome.
I want to see it again, this time to really enjoy it and take it all in rather that be sitting in the theatre thinking to myself 'it's finally here!!!!'.
|
|
|
Post by thomas234 on Jun 30, 2005 17:25:13 GMT
Here's what I will tell those who have not seen the movie yet, and have concerns and doubts.
First: Tripods look and sound about as perfect an adaptation from the book as you could want. A creepy blend of something obviously mechanical that flows very organically.
Second: This movie will have your heart beating 100 plus nearly the whole damn time.
Third: No gung-ho type scenes like many in ID4. This is in no way anything like ID4.
Fourth: I think this is an excellent modern adaptation of the book with many aspects of the 53 Pal movie weaved in. Not to worry, it works!
Fifth: Sorry, no nukes.
Finally: This is NOT a happy go lucky popcorn summer feel good movie. This is horror, terror, helplessness from one man's perspective. This is a desperate story of fear and the need to survive annihilation.
|
|
alabaster
Full Member
Watched keenly and closely by intelligences greater than man's...
Posts: 112
|
Post by alabaster on Jun 30, 2005 18:11:13 GMT
The first thing I noticed upon seeing this film is that it isn't really an alien invasion movie. Oh sure. There are aliens (supposedly- we never actually see them come from farther up than the smog layer) and they do invade, but what they are and what they do is incidental. We almost never see them; we are never taken to their leaders and they don't reveal their plans to us. This isn't about them. This is, as Spielberg said long ago, a refugee movie.
Much has been made of the 9/11 imagery in this film, and there are moments that were quite sickening and, I have to say, bordered on bad taste in their blatant allusion. But what this film really reminded me of was World War II. Spielberg takes scenes we subconsciously associate with old, faded newsreels and places them in modern dress; ragged dirty innocents fleeing the corpses of ancient cities, families hiding from extermination in cellars, sturdy buildings reduced to hollow shells. The actions of the aliens parallel those of any human invading force: random shots, quick, clinical death, but recall the Nazis in their reduction of human life to fertiliser, a slight tweak to the novel's logic that echoes the horrific utilitarianism of Auchwitz, with its carpets of human hair and treasure troves of gold teeth. This isn't just a refugee movie, it's a holocaust movie.
For me, the scariest moments weren't the impersonal murders of the aliens, but the actions man takes against man in order to survive. I cringed when Ray Ferrier drove his car, willing to run people over, until he sees a woman with a baby, and crashes his car to avoid hitting her, inadvertently exposing his daughter to the ravages of the mob. His murder of Ogilvy, echoing the murder of the curate in the novel, was also well handled. Rachel singing "Hushaby Mountain" in accompaniment to his silenced screams and John Williams' throbbing score, was a cliched but effective bit of horror.
And on the subject of John Williams' score, what is surprising is how little of it there is. Only rarely do we hear its atonal throbs, reminicent, especially in the prologue, of Gyorgi Ligeti's contributions to 2001. That Williams chooses to forego his etermally catchy, melodic style in favour of such atmospheric, incidental pieces just goes to show how little Spielberg, not a man above using a score to manipulate an audience, wanted to create a movie. Instead he was aiming, it seems, for a pseudo-documentary. Far from being apolitical, Spielberg's WotW is first and foremost a message movie, a glimpse of a possible future, showing America what it was like to be within the margin of error of a surgical strike. Spielberg, American Jew, child of a refugee culture, is reminding his happy nation of the horrors that forged it.
So did I like it? Yes and no. It lacked the grandeur and the scope of Close Encounters, constrained as it was by the artistic chastity Spielberg and Koepp employed to distance themselves from earlier "adaptations" of Wells's novel, such as Independence Day, but it suffered for it. I wanted to see the mad artilery man and his terrifying vision of humanity's future, leading the helpless masses towards the beginning of his underground vermin culture. The composite character of Ogilvy was too far gone to be truly frightening. I wanted someone with real authority. True, the lack of "battle seqences" (as the extermination of the military would be called, had we seen it) certainly sidestepped cliche, but had they been present they would have placed the concept of alien invasion in its proper, cosmic context, and would have allowed the audience some relief. Intensity is good in moderate doses, but after a while it just becomes tedious.
For all the outcry about it betraying Wells's novel, it turned out to be more faithful to it than any previous adaptation, except perhaps the Pendragon one, which just goes to show how trivial the ideals of "faithfulness" and "purism" are when recreating art. I think it suffered from trying to wedge Wells's plot around modern scientific ideas. I can almost see the thought transcript running through Koepp's mind: "Hmmm. Well, there's no civilization on Mars, so they have to come from another star. But we need tripods- what good are tripods if you can just arrive in orbit and wipe us out? Oh! I know! Let's bury them underground, that way, there can still be a reason to use them. But tripods are moronic war machines! One hit to one leg and they'd be down! Oookay. We'll need shields then..." And so on. "Ah!" the purists cry, "then why not set it in the 1900s, as it was meant to be?" Well, then WotW would become a work of fantasy, not a work of science fiction, which would betray the very genre Wells helped create.
On the whole, I'd say this was a successful adaptation of War of the Worlds, though I don't think it will ever match the colour, beauty and style of the Pal/Haskin version. I don't see why Pal's version, because it is unfaithful to the letter of the novel, is therefore a bad adaptation. I am not a "purist." I don't even understand the concept. You want the pure experience, read the bloody book. If you're going to make an adaptation, at least have the artistic courage to put your own stamp on it.
|
|
Spleen
Full Member
It's bows and arrows against the lightning.
Posts: 114
|
Post by Spleen on Jun 30, 2005 18:39:36 GMT
Hi All!
Have just watched this film twice, back to back!
I'm not going to post a review as such, everyone has his or her own opinion of a movie so I will stick to some hard facts.
My girlfriend is 'non sci-fi' however she watched this film with me...... twice! (maybe it was the extra Hagen Das I promised her!).
It is chilling, some of the scenes will stay with you long after you have left the cinema. The human suffering and destruction is clear to see, some of it is left to your imagination which makes it all the more chilling!
Remember, this film is about Ray and his family, the alien invasion is a backdrop, however, you will see your fair share of the invaders.
Best of all, your heart WILL stop when the first tripod makes it entry and begins the attack. The heat ray and it's effects on humans are on the ball and disturbing. The sounds made by the of the tripod machinery, motions and communications are haunting!
Enjoy this film for what it is!
I'm off to see it again tomorrow, enjoy people!
Spleen.
|
|
jo73
Full Member
Posts: 52
|
Post by jo73 on Jun 30, 2005 18:50:25 GMT
I will also say this. It's the only movie I've ever been to that I got so into, I forgot to eat my popcorn
|
|