|
Post by obiwanbeeohbee on Jun 30, 2005 19:04:40 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? Thanks for brining this up Iron Man. I probably should have explained this further in my post. By gratuitous, I mean unecessary to further the storyline, but considered necessary to fit the 'Blockbuster Formula'. Look at it this way - They had Cruise in the situation of an ordinary man fighting to survive under extraordinary circumstances already. And, I might add, up to that point, the job he was doing was heroic. I've never been a refugee, but I imagine figuring out ways to keep yourself and your kids from being killed by invaders from space is heroic enough for the average movie-goer to say, "Wow. I don't know how he made it." After the movie my wife said that she would have been ready to give up and just allow the aliens to take her and get it over with when they entered the ruined house. But, the 'Blockbuster Formula' says that your leading character has to exact some sort of revenge against the antagonist in response to an evil that has been perpetrated against him. So, instead of Cruise and Fanning making their way to Boston after the ruined house scene, seeing the death and destruction that the aliens wrought along the way as per the novel; we get this: Cruise and Fanning meet the the tentacle/periscope again. Cruise axes it as Gene Barry did in the Pal film. But instead of escaping, Fanning runs outside and Cruise follows, both seeming to forget that the alien periscope was still attached to the fighting machine. Of course, Fanning is captured, and Cruise has to save her. He coincidentally happens to find some grenades and chucks one at a tripod to get its attention. He is then captured with the grenades and then they pull out the old "foot-soldier jumps on the advancing enemy tank and chucks a grendade down the hatch" cliche. Of course, they tried to confuse you by making it look like the alien enema scene from 'Evolution', but you get my point. I don't mean that it wasn't entertaining, I just mean that you had to suspend belief a bit too much to fit that in and it was a very good movie and Cruise was heroic enough without it.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Jun 30, 2005 19:06:11 GMT
Went and saw the Paramount version last night. Overall, I've got very mixed emotions about the film. I know that seems out of line with the consensus here, but let me tell you why I feel that way.
I'll put my negative comments first, before going on to the things I loved.
1) Screenplay/Themes - The adaptation of the book elements was very well done, but I was surprised how much those clashed with the 'family' storyline. To my mind, the book themes ended up as a backdrop to the 'family-discovers-each-other' dominant theme, which was a shame. They're both worthwhile, but they clashed instead of complemented each other. It pushed almost the entire invasion into background for the family drama. The aliens and the battles were completely reduced to 'wallpaper' behind the family story. I would've prefered a straight political polemic to that kind of reversal. This was nowhere more evident than the short shrift given to the demise of the 'aliens' at the end, so that valuable screen time could be given to the warm family reunion. As well, why invoke the 'sleeper cell' metaphor with 'they're already here' and then not use it for anything? If the hubris-of-superpowers theme of the book had been showcased, this would have been worthwhile. As it stands, there's no point.
2) Screenplay/Consistency & Logic - People are running for their lives, but they have time to stop and put up posters about their missing loved-ones - and then they keep on running, so the posters do absolutely no good? (Remember - no cell phones working) Cruise defeats the alien eye-tentacle, then runs immediately outside into the open and starts shouting for his daughter to 'make a lot of noise' - with no thought, look, or apprehension that there must be aliens around? And then looks surprised that one is standing over him? The aliens are dying and nobody seems relieved or even surprised? "They just started behaving erratically - keep moving please." Huh? As the scene opens where Tom 'lets his son grow up and go to war', all the refugees are running towards the fighting, including women, children, and old people. Everyone, even though the battle has been raging for a bit. Huh, redux.
3) Acting/Character Development - "I see you managed to get your shirt off!" (one of my favorite lines from GalaxyQuest). Ahhh, Tom gets to defeat a fighting machine after all, even though such heroics are totally out of the character he's playing. He spends the whole movie either running from responsibility or avoiding conflict to protect his family, then suddenly decides to be the hero? It would have been better for the story if the soldier who helps 'pull him out' had been the hero and Tom had stayed to protect his kid. Who cast Pinoccio the Wooden Boy as the son? This person should be sacked.
4) The Ending - Huh? Why was nobody surprised? Why was there no anything about the demise of the aliens? In the space of three or four minutes, we go from 'they're unstoppable and everywhere' to 'Oh, by the way, they're dying. I love you Dad.' The '53 movie did this almost as quickly, but at least there was some build-up and recognition of the event! Listening to people leaving the theater, all the people who hadn't read the book - 95% of the audience - were confused, lost, and disappointed by this. I heard many more than one "what the hell happened?" out of them.
Okay, that's what bugged me. Here's what I liked:
1) Tripods, Tripods, Tripods! - Hands-down the best interpretation I've ever seen. The highlight of the film, for me. Seeing them sweep over the dark ridgeline chasing fleeing refugees had the feeling straight from the book, and still gives me chills.
2) Acting/Character development - Yes, I disliked Tom and the 'son'. Tim Robbins and Dakota Fanning, however, ran away with this picture. Dakota, even not accounting for her youth, nailed the bright little girl perfectly. Far more believable than Tom with the Inconsistent Father. Tim Robbins was possibly more creepy than the invasion! I'd never thought to combine the Artilleryman and the Curate, but this is one spot where the writers and actor pulled it off amazingly well. Outstanding.
3) Cinematography/Moods and Atmosphere - This was a creepy, scary, movie. Some of the individual vingettes were amazing, disturbing, distressing. Perfect. The CGI was beautifully done. Seamless and supportive of the story, rather than being the story.
4) The Basket Scene - Yeah, not in the book, and I utterly loathed the opportunity it gave Tom Cruise to be the Hero yet again. BUT - it really captured the feeling of what it would feel like to be 'captured' and I'm glad it was in the film.
So that's my take. I'm glad the movie was made, but I think I wish someone other than Speilberg had made it. That on the basis of the intrusive family plot, almost excusively. It's a good plot, but I don't think War of the Worlds is the right backdrop for it, as the book has highly relevant themes of its' own that deserve the spotlight.
Think of what Peter Jackson would've done with this story! THAT would've been something!
|
|
|
Post by RickyB on Jun 30, 2005 19:34:31 GMT
I liked it. I loved the tripods and wanted to see more. One person said, "Oh my God" next to me when the news people were showing the film of the tripods invading a big city.
I did think it ended too quickly. I think that was a let down for me. I also thought the aliens design was a little too crap. I also thought they changed size at one point. They were big walking past the window and smaller when playing with the bike. I would have preferred to see them less. Sort of like the first alien film. The best thing in film making is ther imagination and the full frontal of the aliens left nothing to be desired. Also some of the special effects seemed rushed (the aliens running on the mountains).
I'm being picky, but I did enjoy the film.
R
|
|
|
Post by DaveJames on Jun 30, 2005 19:43:43 GMT
4) The Ending - Huh? Why was nobody surprised? Why was there no anything about the demise of the aliens? In the space of three or four minutes, we go from 'they're unstoppable and everywhere' to 'Oh, by the way, they're dying. I love you Dad.' The '53 movie did this almost as quickly, but at least there was some build-up and recognition of the event! Honestly I didn't find the ending rushed at all. It seemed like a lot of time was spent in the cellar, and it felt like after their escape from the basket Ray and the others had been walking down that road for quite awhile before they got to the city. While technically the entire invasion may have only lasted a week or so, it certainly felt to me like more time than that passed. With Peter Jackson it would have been much more of a grandiose, larger than life epic probably. I much prefer Spielberg's idea of seeing these events from one family's perspective. And I didn't really find it too intrusive either. Maybe Ray could have been less of a dick, but somehow the family still felt authentic to me. I know my family would be bickering just as much in the same situation. ;D
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Jun 30, 2005 19:51:00 GMT
I did go and see the movie. I thought I might review it professionally (I publish a bit about aesthetics and politics), so I went to see a 9.30p showing. My wife and kids are out of the country for a month. In any case, there’s no way I could have talked my wife into seeing this film (she has a doctorate in culture studies), whether in the theatre or on DVD. (It’s not appropriate for children, either.) If I was going to see it, I’d see it now -- my only chance.... And, what the hell, I thought, from a career perspective, it’s yet another review for my tenure and promotion file!
Here’s my initial notes and thoughts.
The theatre itself was scarcely filled. Those that were there early were largely high school children. I was rather relieved when some college students finally came in. When the film started, the hall was about 10-15 percent full.
There’s not much to say about the film itself. It’s dreadful. Cruise is convincing only when he plays an obnoxious prick (which he usually does); the teenage (college?) son was scarely more believable; and we have the ubiquitous Spielberg blonde girl who can shriek at aliens or poltergeisten or whatever. Tim Robbins played the part of Ogilvy like someone who had walked in upon the wrong set and seemed scarcely interested in the role he played (he was more convincing as president in Austin Powers). Morgan Friedman narrated in a bored monotone and gave the film as much atmosphere as a Walmart showroom.
It’s not even worth discussing whether or not the book lives up to H. G. Wells’s vision. The Wells society has a right to be indignant. As a remake of Pals’s classic 1953 film, though, it does a journeyman performance.
Unlike others on the forum, I actually liked the first 10-15 minutes and at first I thought the film might be going somewhere. Clearly, I about gagged on all the flags waving (every house!) and the cliché lines about terrorism, but I found myself drawn into the initial dialogue and dramatic appearance of the tripod. But that quickly changed and as the film progressed I simply became more and more uninterested. There was truly no substance -- anywhere -- there wasn’t even enough bad content to get indignant about. I felt cheated.
Like any time I’m ‘working’, I had brought along my notepad and a pencil because I planned to take extensive notes on the film – narrative outline, snippets of dialogue, scene shots, development, imaging, whatever – so I might write my review. But by the time the airplane crashes upon the mother’s house, I realized I had put down my pad and was just passively watching. There was nothing really to write about, really, or really nothing to think about. In the basement scene, I found myself increasingly uninterested in any of the characters and ultimately got bored. I was just waiting for the movie to end.
The special effects? Stunning, really, but that’s about it for the film. I loved the tripods and the heat-ray, and probably would have demanded by $6.75 ticket charge back had I not been so impressed by the design. The eyes seemed like an hommage to Corrêa’s wonderful art nouveau lithographs. But the same can’t be said for the ‘aliens’ themselves. They looked like dusty gremlins from the Twilight Zone film (remember the John Lithgow scene?), or like bad-tempered, rabid lemurs who had gotten hold of terrifying future technology. In the basement scene, I suppose the bicycle falling on one of them was to be ‘subtle’ comic relief. Were we supposed to wonder why the aliens would be interested in old photographs?
Audience reactions? It’s a college town, so the clientele is a bit more critical. Out of the small audience, I heard three people state loudly as they left the theatre: ‘dumb’, ‘stupid’, or ‘that was stupid’. One young woman told her boyfriend - very indignantly - 'That was the stupidest f*cking movie I ever saw'. A few people even chuckled at the ‘dramatic scenes’, especially when the hand crawled out of the hatch at the forced Pals hommage. The guy behind me told his girlfried that she needed ‘to read the book -- it’s much better’. Those who liked it seemed rather tepid in their enthusiasm.
Whether these people represent general audience attitudes, I cannot say.
For my part, I disliked the film simply because it was so bloated and boring. If anyone were to see but one high-budget sci-fi film this summer, I’d recommend Revenge of the Sith -- a film, despite the horrid dialogue, that was suprisingly entertaining.
I’ll conclude on a serious note:
This summer, Hollywood has lost a huge amount of revenue and people all across the industry are debating the causes and pointing recriminating fingers. On the right, they blame a ‘reaction’, by the ‘moral voter’ crowd, against the usual Hollywood mindless filth and they say that the conservative bloc is voting with their pocketbooks. On the left, they complain about the ‘summer of remakes’ and say that Hollywood is intellectually and morally bankrupt. They too say that Americans are voting with their pocketbooks and are turning more and more to independent film.
For the Hollywood moguls, much is riding upon Spielberg’s film. Will it salvage their ‘business as usual’ mantra? It is worth noting that Spielberg’s ‘War of the Worlds’ -- the most expensive film ever -- has ciphoned over 1/3 of its budget to advertising alone.
How that will translate into ticket sales will soon be seen.
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Jun 30, 2005 20:12:31 GMT
Thanks for the great review, Topaz. We've missed you around these parts!
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Jun 30, 2005 20:32:50 GMT
I just dont get 2 things, 1 HOW CAN YOU SAY YOU WERE BORED? Do you take seditives?
and 2. The ending was pretty damn faithful to the book in this one, did you not like the ending to the book either?
Elaborate a bit more on WHY you felt the way you did. Personally, I cant find too much wrong with this movie other than a few plot holes and the escaping the basket scene
|
|
|
Post by DaveJames on Jun 30, 2005 20:35:52 GMT
Audience reactions? It’s a college town, so the clientele is a bit more critical. Out of the small audience, I heard three people state loudly as they left the theatre: ‘dumb’, ‘stupid’, or ‘that was stupid’. One young woman told her boyfriend - very indignantly - 'That was the stupidest f*cking movie I ever saw'. A few people even chuckled at the ‘dramatic scenes’, especially when the hand crawled out of the hatch at the forced Pals hommage. The guy behind me told his girlfried that she needed ‘to read the book -- it’s much better’. Those who liked it seemed rather tepid in their enthusiasm. It's always interesting to me how the size and makeup of a crowd can influence one's opinion of a movie. I saw the movie in a packed theater of mostly adults and everyone was incredibly involved and engaged by the movie, all the way through. They even applauded at the end. There have been other movies I saw a second time in an empty theater and somehow all the life and energy got completely sapped out of the movie. Strange how that works.
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Jun 30, 2005 20:43:32 GMT
"They even applauded at the end" Relief that it was finally over maybe?. Heh. D.F.
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Jun 30, 2005 20:53:23 GMT
I think we are seeing two types of personality here. Those who love Science fiction and those who are really more into fantasy type movies.
Science Fiction in general has often long been criticized for poor character development, especially hard science fiction, but that suits me as I quickly get bored of too much of this while fantasy seems to me to be more focused on the characters.
If you go to view War of the Worlds as a typical Science Fiction movie then I think you will thoroughly enjoy it. If you are more into character development, then chances are you probably won't.
In reference to quaderni, my wife and I found Revenge of the Sith dull as dishwater but then it is classed more as fantasy than Science Fiction. It was just too long winded and tedious for us.
|
|
Jehuty
Junior Member
Posts: 33
|
Post by Jehuty on Jun 30, 2005 21:59:18 GMT
Just been to see it...
Really, really intense but very enjoyable. The tripods were just incredibly scary though I DID think we spent too much time with 'family issues' rather than seeing the invasion. BUT I can see why they did it this way.
Thumbs up (though I still wish in a way we could have seen more fighting machines!)
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jun 30, 2005 21:59:22 GMT
I did go and see the movie. I thought I might review it professionally (I publish a bit about aesthetics and politics), so I went to see a 9.30p showing. My wife and kids are out of the country for a month. In any case, there’s no way I could have talked my wife into seeing this film (she has a doctorate in culture studies), whether in the theatre or on DVD. (It’s not appropriate for children, either.) If I was going to see it, I’d see it now -- my only chance.... And, what the hell, I thought, from a career perspective, it’s yet another review for my tenure and promotion file! Here’s my initial notes and thoughts. The theatre itself was scarcely filled. Those that were there early were largely high school children. I was rather relieved when some college students finally came in. When the film started, the hall was about 10-15 percent full. There’s not much to say about the film itself. It’s dreadful. Cruise is convincing only when he plays an obnoxious prick (which he usually does); the teenage (college?) son was scarely more believable; and we have the ubiquitous Spielberg blonde girl who can shriek at aliens or poltergeisten or whatever. Tim Robbins played the part of Ogilvy like someone who had walked in upon the wrong set and seemed scarcely interested in the role he played (he was more convincing as president in Austin Powers). Morgan Friedman narrated in a bored monotone and gave the film as much atmosphere as a Walmart showroom. It’s not even worth discussing whether or not the book lives up to H. G. Wells’s vision. The Wells society has a right to be indignant. As a remake of Pals’s classic 1953 film, though, it does a journeyman performance. Unlike others on the forum, I actually liked the first 10-15 minutes and at first I thought the film might be going somewhere. Clearly, I about gagged on all the flags waving (every house!) and the cliché lines about terrorism, but I found myself drawn into the initial dialogue and dramatic appearance of the tripod. But that quickly changed and as the film progressed I simply became more and more uninterested. There was truly no substance -- anywhere -- there wasn’t even enough bad content to get indignant about. I felt cheated. Like any time I’m ‘working’, I had brought along my notepad and a pencil because I planned to take extensive notes on the film – narrative outline, snippets of dialogue, scene shots, development, imaging, whatever – so I might write my review. But by the time the airplane crashes upon the mother’s house, I realized I had put down my pad and was just passively watching. There was nothing really to write about, really, or really nothing to think about. In the basement scene, I found myself increasingly uninterested in any of the characters and ultimately got bored. I was just waiting for the movie to end. The special effects? Stunning, really, but that’s about it for the film. I loved the tripods and the heat-ray, and probably would have demanded by $6.75 ticket charge back had I not been so impressed by the design. The eyes seemed like an hommage to Corrêa’s wonderful art nouveau lithographs. But the same can’t be said for the ‘aliens’ themselves. They looked like dusty gremlins from the Twilight Zone film (remember the John Lithgow scene?), or like bad-tempered, rabid lemurs who had gotten hold of terrifying future technology. In the basement scene, I suppose the bicycle falling on one of them was to be ‘subtle’ comic relief. Were we supposed to wonder why the aliens would be interested in old photographs? Audience reactions? It’s a college town, so the clientele is a bit more critical. Out of the small audience, I heard three people state loudly as they left the theatre: ‘dumb’, ‘stupid’, or ‘that was stupid’. One young woman told her boyfriend - very indignantly - 'That was the stupidest f*cking movie I ever saw'. A few people even chuckled at the ‘dramatic scenes’, especially when the hand crawled out of the hatch at the forced Pals hommage. The guy behind me told his girlfried that she needed ‘to read the book -- it’s much better’. Those who liked it seemed rather tepid in their enthusiasm. Whether these people represent general audience attitudes, I cannot say. For my part, I disliked the film simply because it was so bloated and boring. If anyone were to see but one high-budget sci-fi film this summer, I’d recommend Revenge of the Sith -- a film, despite the horrid dialogue, that was suprisingly entertaining. I’ll conclude on a serious note: This summer, Hollywood has lost a huge amount of revenue and people all across the industry are debating the causes and pointing recriminating fingers. On the right, they blame a ‘reaction’, by the ‘moral voter’ crowd, against the usual Hollywood mindless filth and they say that the conservative bloc is voting with their pocketbooks. On the left, they complain about the ‘summer of remakes’ and say that Hollywood is intellectually and morally bankrupt. They too say that Americans are voting with their pocketbooks and are turning more and more to independent film. For the Hollywood moguls, much is riding upon Spielberg’s film. Will it salvage their ‘business as usual’ mantra? It is worth noting that Spielberg’s ‘War of the Worlds’ -- the most expensive film ever -- has ciphoned over 1/3 of its budget to advertising alone. How that will translate into ticket sales will soon be seen. Even though like every film I've seen positive reviews [ and some suspicious ones saying it's the best film they've ever seen, bla, bla ] - what you've said there sounds very accurate to some of the reviews I've seen about this film. It sounds like the type of film that might impress at first in some areas, but when you look back on it you realise how crap it is.
|
|
|
Post by DaveJames on Jun 30, 2005 22:18:33 GMT
It sounds like the type of film that might impress at first in some areas, but when you look back on it you realise how crap it is. I won't deny that the more I think and reflect on the movie, the more it seems absolutely riddled with plot holes and inconsistencies....... but for me that is MORE than offset by all the incredibly vivid and memorable images and emotions that are burned into my brain. Logically the movie may not hold together that well, but as an emotional experience it's simply brilliant. It's as close to experiencing a real alien invasion as you'll ever get.
|
|
|
Post by smokeswithwolves on Jun 30, 2005 22:30:39 GMT
This movie blew me away. Jumping right in...
Did anyone catch the analogy with Rachel's splinter? Ray wanted to remove it with force, but she said her body would naturally push it out. That's brilliant. And you can't say the ending cheated if you caught that.
I think the movie owes a lot to Spielberg. Action direction: Did you catch the street light activating as the dark cloud loomed over it? The tripod cracks the earth's surface, but did you realize the massive handler machine is using the same function when it creates the whirlpool? Those are fun touches.
The character development script-wise wasn't very special, but everyone felt real and that got under my skin. Watch Rachel's body language during the splinter scene. Watch the body language of the soldiers when they're ordered to keep the crowd off the ferry. And the crowd rushing to the battle front hit home for me - somebody mentioned that it seemed stupid, but to me it was one of those momments in life that may be irrational, but it feels right. Here is the U.S. army blazing away, the fireworks, a flase sense of security, scurry up to the threshold, sneak a peek over ther hill, and run back down and flit around the bottom, feeling empowered and important and making sense.
The basement was a highlight reel of Spielberg's past direction. Silent gun struggle = Silent knife struggle in Saving Private Ryan. The probe = Raptors in the kitchen. Wheel spin = E.T.'s wheel spin.
What about the cinematography? A dash of JAWS and a teaspoon of Saving Private Ryan. JAWS = water level approach, WOTW = street level approach. And there is the ongoing theme of mirrors and indirect visuals. This theme has a snide culmination in the probe fiasco: The way Spielberg has played this running visual like a game is very fun to consider, and wether it has any deeper significance I am uncertain.
THE BLEEPING SOUND DESIGN! Sorry, but if this film doesn't take every Sound Oscar then those categories should be done away with. The ULLAA was almost a dignity ploy for the puny humans. The screeeeech in the first basement, which I can relate to; once during a hurricane, the air in the house was violently sucked out for some reason, and the windows produced the same piercing SCREAM. It has haunted me ever since. And the throbbing, rythmic piston sounds outside Oglivy's cellar was even creepier; it was so matter-of-fact and business like.
Lighting is always a key device for the Berg. WOTW is no different. There's nothing as beautiful as the silhouette shelling in Saving Private Ryan, nor the muzzle flashes of the ghetto in Schindler's List, but they hit a more violent note here. Harsh, bright, blinding. The strobe flashes in the first basement, the almost painfully obnoxious blasts of light on the hill, and the red glow of the weed conquered landscape.
The aliens are perfect in my head, and i've heard many complaints. They're almost "cute," they have big gleaming eyes, and a pathetic toothless suckhole. This is the point. They have devolved. Their technology is so great that even teeth have become obsolete.
There is a dread in this film. The first 45 minutes of A.I. had a similar effect. It's a nauseating sort've tension and I can't put my finger on it. The way things unfold in harsh daylight, the edginess of the camera, or some formula that Spielberg unleashes. The lack of music in some scenes don't allow for the audience to become detatched: it is unforgiving, it never falls into rythm with adventurous music, it never hits that flow, instead the tension still looms over the most action packed sections.
Epic scenes in here do the impossible in that they manage creepiness. This is achieved mainly through noise and light. Tripods descending on a town is something tremendous in scope, and it runs a danger of becoming so enthralling that the audience wants to cheer it on: But when that ULLAA booms, the air siren drones, and the huge spotlights blind us, it was more disturbing than thrilling.
I could go on and on, but I think i'll shut up now. I loved this movie. Seeing it again today.
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jun 30, 2005 23:07:40 GMT
Just seen it myself. Again, another odd sensation of not believing I was finally sitting there to watch a film I've been giving so much attention to over so many months- I didn't even get this involved in the lead-up to Revenge Of The Sith!
Thoroughly enjoyed the movie- the first appearance of the tripod had my heart hammering, especially as the heat ray wiped out running people, cars and buildings- this I found very scary. in fact, I found much of the movie very scary and the suspense and horror elements were well handled- often using the 'you don't have to see it to be scared by it' theory which always works best in my humble...
I loved the tripods- they were fantastic and very much up there with the Jeff Wayne tripods in my opinion (I grew up with the latter- difficult to give an objective comparison). I wasn't so keen on the aliens themselves- the tripedal design was OK but they looked too familiar and perhaps not unpleasant enough.
Tom Cruise's performance was perhaps his best that I have seen- great at playing the unpleasant, selfish dad out of touch with his kids.
The scene in the baskets was good, but a little too obvious. But so many elements from the book were there- puffs of smoke from the machines, the howls, the exodus, baskets (finally!) and red weed. And, unlike both the Pendragon and Asylum versions, there was a summarisation at the end of the film- not simply, smiles hugs, roll the credits.
That's about all I'm going to say- so much has already been posted above. I'll be off to see it again at some point. Perhaps with a pillow to hide behind!
|
|
slayer
Full Member
"...if it bleeds...I can kill it"
Posts: 124
|
Post by slayer on Jun 30, 2005 23:09:36 GMT
I must have missed the street sign "VAN BURAN". Which part of the movie did they show it?
|
|
|
Post by nervouspete on Jun 30, 2005 23:44:50 GMT
(Warning, some spoilers)
Well, I've just come back from watching it, around three hours ago.
Man. That was something.
It started off neatly with Morgan Freeman giving a creditable, workmanlike delivery of the famous H G Wells opening. Then an economical set-up with Ray rather realistically, and somewhat amusingly, portrayed as a boyish screw up. These scenes were aided by Miranda Otto, who though pregnant is still unspeakably lovely. I liked the splinter scene, as it set up the ending, though I wonder if any of the audience will remember that important analogy as what happens in the next hour is truly disturbing.
The camera work for the first hour and a bit is sublime. Shot almost like a documentary with a lot of hand held work, the view is kept mostly hunkered down to eye level, giving a real sense of vulnerability. I was also very impressed by the sound work, with a real immersive enviroment conjured. I kept trying to keep my ears open for the anxious and amazed conversations between Ray's neighbours, and wasn't disappointed. It felt somehow real, and by this point my pulse was beginning to race.
But it's when the tripod emerges, that my jaw hung slack with awe. The mini-quake was astonishing, with people thrown to the ground with what looked like real force. And when the machine emerged, in that desaturated realistic way, I couldn't tell it was an effect, frankly. The heart stopping moment was when everybody just stared, and then somebody screams, and they all start backing away, stumbling and then running.
And then it starts firing. It's odd, I'd heard about the 'organic disintegrator', and figured it would look cool, but not as scary as a heat ray. What surprised me was that I found it EVERY bit as scary as the heat ray. It's the suddeness of it, and the way there's no escaping unless you're hidden. It's like switching a light off - you're just dead with not even a body for your grave. This was the only point when I cried as well, which again surprised me, as a blonde haired woman - the only one we see killed in a tight close up detail - run with a determined fear only to suddenly be a statue of ash and blow apart. For some reason that moment shattered me. Ray's escape is convincing, he just happens to run in the right direction.
Then there's his trauma when he gets back into the house. He can't even speak, and it takes him some time later to give a stumbling explination to Robbie. It really feels as if this took place only a few blocks away, and when he snaps out of it the tension is palpable. Manny's ceaseless Bronx chatter in the face of Ray's panicky demands should be funny, but it isn't, it's terrifyingly bleak.
And then hell breaks loose again.
What follows is a realistic flight, with a real sustained note of vulnerable tension. Notice how Ray and his kids repeatedly navigate open spaces, the camera framing them against horizons, where you just expect any second a tripod to appear. During the next half hour a plausible, difficult relationship is established... Robbie is the father figure, almost. Ray's just an irresponsible estranged brother. Then come the little shocks... the downing of the airplane and most disturbingly, the bodies in the river, floating with smooth rapidity downriver in the dozens.
The approach to the ferry gives us a human apocalypse, a real nightmare. It's interesting that this film derives much of its potency to the fear of the people Ray meets, the crowds and the individuals. Much kudos to the extras for their acting, they make this film. In fact, I felt that the film lost some of its potency when it focused closer in on Ray and Dakota, and it lost some of the feeling of helpless terror that came in the crowds.
For the ferry scene, there were several notable moments. The arrival of the first tripods. The human chain of guardsmen. The ripping away of the anchored bollard through fearful neglect, crippling several. And Robbie's aid to those dangling from the ramp, the only one with the presence of mind and selflessness to do so. Some good acting from Cruise at this point, as a look of real pride steals over his face. Then the horror really returns again, and the ferry capsizing scene is genuinely disturbing. Again, it's just the helpless feeling, and the way Ray and family only survive because they happened to have jumped early, and were further away. Luck really. When they reach dry land, there's an amazing shot back over their shoulders, a real Heironymus Bosch shot, of hell on Earth. Four or five tripods, and another coming over the hill, 'dusting' hundreds of fleeing people.
I'm glad Spielberg refrained from looking over the hill, my mind is coming up with some interesting variations. It's his very teasing, his not quite looking over, that leads to the credibilty of refugees running to take... just a quick look! It's almost mesmeric, the false security of the hollow and something unimaginable on the other side. Like being handed a pandora's box, it's almost impossible not to open.
After being taken into Ogilvy's basement, there is a tense and wonderfully directed game of hide and seek. Robbins plays a convincingly dangerous man. Out of his head with grief and madness, but at first with a quiet earnestness of blunt statements that grows into a hodge-podge of hysterical fear and stupidly cocky bravado. It's here that the film makes it's first unfortunate mistake.
The aliens.
They should have remained hidden. After pulling off the almost impossible trick of making terrifying tripods, they shouldn't have pushed so far as to try to fit the aliens themselves in it. Doug Chiang has done some sterling work in his past, and his tripods are very impressive, but the aliens don't quite work. They're interesting to look at, and almost provide a relief... as if there is a trace of human emotion in their curiosity, even if we were all turned into Grade A fertilizer. But they simply jar the film. The horror thus far has been in the mixing of the known (911, Tsunami, the everyday) with a faceless horror personified in emotionless machines. When the aliens arrive, we know they are mortal, but we also know that they are whimsical... and with whimsy comes the knowledge that we are watching a film. And the film does find it hard to recover that past horror from this point in. Whether this was intentional to keep a broader appeal and to be more entertaining, rather than punishing, I'm not sure. It's a shame it happened, as up to his point a flawless picture of hell had been painted. To fail in such a way was a little dispiriting.
If they had to have aliens, they should have been Well's martians as well. They were so inhuman, like bears crossed with octopuses, and there was nothing but cold intellectual evil in them. Doug's version is a little too akin to ID4's, and displays little imagination. Grey, check. Big heads, check. Scrawny torso's and long limbs, check. It's too obvious, and in the wake of the 'nightmare made flesh' promises of 'a universal picture of fear' (not real quotes, paraphrases) we're left with something that's almost playful and vulnerable.
But I can't bring myself to fully censure Doug, the tripod designs are damn impressive, and he has done good work in the past. What's more, the red weed is a success, and when Ray opens that door the film truly steps into a fantastical setting. It's a very good one, and tripods feeding and spraying blood remain frightening, but it's a lot more disconnected from our own world, and thus the fear factor dwindles a little.
(Continued)
|
|
|
Post by nervouspete on Jun 30, 2005 23:45:14 GMT
(Continued)
The basket scene was very good, and the way they took out the tripod was plausible and exciting. I just wish the guardsman had done it, taking the grenades from Ray as it was 'his job', and dying inside there with explosion. The odd thing, it isn't really a 'hero moment', anyone would have done it in that basket - there was nothing to lose. But ironically where, say, Adrian Brody or William H Macy would have succeeded, Cruise fails because his career is primarily as an action star, and so even though it feels a natural takedown, the very fact that it is Cruise somehow 'Hollywoodizes' it.
As for the ending, I felt it a good one. A little too fast, there should have been another ten minutes there. Ray and Rachel wandering Boston, finding Miranda's home destroyed, but finding her later at Rachel's intact school, flicking through her text books with tears in her eyes. Robbie presents more of a problem, as it is unlikely that he would have survived... but the reunion feels so DESERVED, after the horror that they've been through, that in the end I felt guilty for have feelings of wishing a bleaker ending upon them. They earned it. The takedown of the last tripod was good as well, with no "HOO-RAH'S!', just a clinical weary job with a lot of relief thrown in. Unwelcome pop up for the dodgy alien again though, that seems to say, "Bah!" before it dies.
Acting: Cruise very good, Chatwin good, Dakota eerily amazing again. Miranda a fox, and good. The extras... some of the best I've ever seen. 8/10
SFX: Astonishing. Where can they go now? A couple of slight rough patches, and the aliens were a disappointing, but overall brilliant. 9/10
Plot: Could have been a bit longer and a little more emotionally satisfying at the end, with more shots of the shock and trauma following the invasion. I found the method of invasion satisfying, and figure FTL machine burial thousands of years ago, followed by slowboat stasis pilots sent from orbit explains things. The red weed had to be fertilised with human blood, and the aliens had to drink human blood at first, but the weed was being planted as a synthetic organic producer of blood (hence being like veins... a giant farm) and therefore the tripods felt no quibbles about exterminating large crowds as well as capturing. The first hour was amazing. 8.5/10
Script: Taut, some good wry humour in the darkest of places. Surprisingly grim but not overwrought, with no cheap emotional tuggings. Koep's best work, and unusually accomplished. 9/10
Music: Discordent, fitting, but not catchy. Probably the best type for this film. 8/10
Sound: Unsurpassed. Everything about it was organic, frightening, and real. 10/10
Direction: Faltering a little after the basement, and again mood misjudged with the aliens, but overall some top work. 8.5/10
Average: 9/10
An excellent film, and genuinely scary for the first hour. I'd strongly advise thinking twice before bringing kids. The twelve year old sitting next to me was terrified for the first hour, muttering 'Oh my God' at certain points, and seemed near sobbing at others. He perked up with the aliens though, and calmed down after that. So maybe Spielberg was right after all, damn.
Audience reaction: 8/10 liked it, I reckon. No laughs throughout, apart from the intentional jokes. Lots of drawn breaths.
Conclusion: Now my fave alien invasion movie. I think in years to come the film will garner more and more critical praise, interestingly, a good proportion of the negative reviews are against it emotionally - they don't feel that Spielberg made the film to say anything other than "I'm going to scare you all ****less." I can live with that, Hieronymus Bosch did the same thing with the same aim, and everyone thinks he's a genius.
And that's my immediate mental comparison... the scapes Spielberg shows us have all the horror of Bosch's paintings. Top stuff.
|
|
|
Post by DaveJames on Jul 1, 2005 0:10:19 GMT
If they had to have aliens, they should have been Well's martians as well. They were so inhuman, like bears crossed with octopuses, and there was nothing but cold intellectual evil in them. Yeah I would have preferred to see Well's martians too. But for me, the fact that these aliens could instantly call upon their huge, nightmarish machines whenever they wanted made them more than intimidating. And you have to admit, their initial entrance into the cellar was pretty impressive.
|
|
|
Post by Victorian Squid on Jul 1, 2005 1:14:37 GMT
I saw the film this afternoon (30th) in my local megadome or whatever it is. I was worried about it being pretty full - I'm not one for the packed cinema experience - but as it turned out there were about 20 people in there!!! And it nearly £2 for a Cornetto I'm not surprised! I've been really looking forward to this film for months and months on end and I always thought SS was the man for the job. He didn't disappoint - in fact, barring a couple of things, I thought it was one of his best. The set up was really good - Cruise is a pretty fine actor when given the right material and he's good at playing cocky little whatnots ... Fanning and Chatwin were spot on also. After only five or ten minutes I was completely into the film. The appearance of the first machine was brilliant. The moment when it clicked into gear, paused and then let rip was a real spine tingler, a real rush. Even the destruction of the flyover which I must have seen dozens of times in the trailers was a real thrill. And the "ullas"!!! Wow! Incredibly I forgot all about the plane crash scene until Ray staggered out of the cellar door and saw the engine - though I have got a mind like sieve! That was really quite overwhelming. As was the mob scene - that guy tearing at the windscreen and Ray sobbing in the diner. The ferry sequence was quite effective, although I remember being completely bowled over shortly afterwards by the view of the estuary with the tripods going to and fro, chasing humans over the hill, the lights on the tenticles scooping up their prey and the sweeping heat rays - that was the moment that I knew for sure that Spielberg had cracked it. It looked terrific and really conjured up the feel of the book. My first little quibble is about the ruined house scene. The Ogilvy character didn't seem quite right .... either (a) the character was insufficently developed on the page or (b) the direction was too vague. Maybe Tim Robbins was the wrong guy for the job, though he's normally so good that I'm loathe to believe that. Basically, when the time came for Ray to see him off, I think that, had I not been familiar with the story, I would have thought it was a bit harsh. In the book the Curate slides into insanity and cranks up the volume accordingly. Here, Ogilvy seems to display all the traits of the Curate, with some Artilleryman thrown in for good measure, but this isn't translated into out-and-out tension between him and Ray other than in a couple of small scuffles. A little more eyeball-to-eyeball huffing and puffing and noisy rambling (with Ray putting to boot in) was required I think. The basket scene was well done I thought and, yeah, a little "hollywood" maybe, but, ahh, what the heck!? My only other beef was that after they ecaped from the machine, suddenly they were in Boston looking at a crashed tripod. Nothing wrong with that scene at all, except that it just required five minutes - just five minutes! - of Ray and Rachel wandering despondantly through deserted suburbs looking at gutted houses, red weed, bodies etc. - Dead London man! That's all. Just a little linking passage that basically says "We're down! We're beat!" The very end I thought was fine - I didn't mind that Robbie was still alive - and quite moving without being over sentimental. And hey, it's Spielberg. My friend said he would have liked a bit of the Epilogue - views of the aftermath - but I think that just ending it was OK ... although I may have felt differently if I was A N Other with no knowledge of the book. But then again, the whole death of the .... invaders? (Martians, lets face it!) is pretty odd to your average movie-goer, so who knows? All in all though, it was pretty darned good. I think it would be damned near impossible to improve on the tripods. The aliens were alright, though too visible, I think less would have been more in this instance. The red weed looked really good and the general tone of the film was superb. Fingers crossed for an extended director's cut on the DVD though - only because I could have sat through another hour of it quite comfortably!!!! Should do well. VSx PS The bloke in front of me brought his two kids along - a boy of about 12 and a girl of about 8 or 9. They seemed to lap it up and weren't fazed at all by the violence. In fact, the little girl kept checking with her Dad things like "is he digging a tunnel to escape?" and when Rachel was snatched she just said "Hmmmm. She should have hid in the bush!", which, had it not been so charming would have ordinarily annoyed me to the point where I'd have had some kind of Curb Your Enthusiasm-like confrontation with the father. The little lad sat there goggle-eyed and at the end just said "Woaaah!" I think the Dad and my friend and I were the ones squirming the most!!
|
|