|
Post by razor3 on Jul 6, 2005 12:49:30 GMT
I'm just going to post my gripes with this movie, you can take it as read that the bits I don't mention I really enjoyed.
Film length. I was acutely aware throughout the film that it was only going to be about 2 hours, when I was watching the cellar scene I was beginning to think it was eating up a large proportion of the run time. I wouldn't have shortened the cellar scene, I would have just lengthened the movie!
Aliens arriving in lightning bolts. With so many questions about what the aliens purpose is and how did the machines get under the ground why did the film go out of it's way to show the aliens arriving in the lightning bolts? The chances of the film crew managing to capture footage, slow it down and see the aliens, and bump into Ray to show him, are very slim so the film goes to some length to show how they arrived. It's not needed, leave it a mystery with the rest of the questions.
Ending. Happens too abruptly, seems rushed.
Pal movie. Too many similarities! Carbon copy 'hatch opening' scene, hatchet and the probe, goddam shields! After Independence day, the Pal original, can't anyone come up with an alternative, no imagination!
Missing persons. I interpreted the 'missing persons' message boards as a nod to the recent disasters and the use of them (9/11, Tsunami). They don't work in this film, we are talking about a dispaced population of a country pretty much running around with no clear idea of what to do. With the pace of events unfolding and people moving everywhere I don't think it's realistic. People with banners in a crowd is adequate (as depicted).
Aliens. If that is what they look like, we don't need to see them. They lost all menace to me at the moment I saw them, they eat into the time of the film as well, unneccesary.
Thunderchild. Or rather lack of it, it's my favourite chapter of the book, shame they could not find a way to incorporate it into the film.
Ogilvy, Artillerman, Curate. 3 into 1 does not go, nuff said.
Confusion. At the end of the film Ray shouts 'Look at the birds! The shields are down!' And we do indeed see birds flapping around the hood of the machine. So the fact that birds are circling around the hood indicates the shields are down does it? If the shields were up would the birds have been fried? Or perched on the shield? How can the tripods pick people up if the shield is on then?
Apart from that I generally liked it. I'm only grumbling because films of your favourite book only come round every so often, so when one does come out you hope and pray it meets your expectations, so you set the bar high. This manages 7.5/10
|
|
|
Post by David Faltskog on Jul 6, 2005 13:27:10 GMT
Just watched it the movie and i can't really add to what other's have said so will just say... FREAKIN' AWESOME!!. Yep a nice short and sweet review, Nuff Said. D.F.
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 6, 2005 15:56:08 GMT
No, but while Speilberg hired Koepp to write the script. That makes its Koepp interprutation.
Did Speilberg say yes and no to things, most probally, but its still, on the whole Koepps.
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 6, 2005 18:48:25 GMT
I've just come back from seeing the film, two words....
BLOODY AWESOME!
The acting was great, especially from Cruise. It was interesting seeing him as a 'deadbeat' Dad thinking of the kids more as an inconvenience than anything else. The emergence of the Tripod was awesome, and the war cry it made was stupendous! When people get fried left, right and centre you just felt that sense of horror.
When we see Ray & Co travelling through the countryside and they stopped, my jaw nearly dropped when we see the convoy of Military vehicles, such a comprehensive mixture of Tanks, Artillery & Trucks. Nice to see vehicles that exist rather than some made up Tanks that resemble a M60 Patton type Tank.
The Ferry sequence was very well made, albeit a little short. An inclusion of a USS Thunderchild would've made this scene better, with the resounding Foghorn challenging the ULLA War Cry. As we see two kinds of Titans fighting it out.
The Hilltop Battle was a little better than i expected, the first sequence with the Fighter Jets flying over was great, it was pretty creepy how everything became undone and they had to flee the scene. The basement scene exceeded my expectations, Tim Robbins was effective as Ogilvy and the whole tense scenes really worked out.
I agree with what others have said about the ending, it was a little rushed and it did seem to jump after the Ogilvy sequence. The downing of the Tripod was excellent and it seemed like you were with a real Army unit, very professional and disciplined.
I'm not too keen on Morgan Freeman's narration, he's an accomplished and very talented actor, however i didn't feel he quite nailed it somehow. It was as if it wasn't even his voice speaking. Anthony Hopkins may have proven better, or perhaps Timothy Dalton.
Again i've only mentioned a few things especially the Battle sequences since everyone else has mentioned the relevant parts.
Great film 9.5/10 from Iron Man!
|
|
|
Post by celticdragon on Jul 6, 2005 22:00:44 GMT
Hey there everyone, I have just got back from watching this at the cinema and I have posted a review up on my forum, I hope you don't mind me posting the link here as I am a MASSIVE WotW fan.... soundchaser81.proboards33.com/index.cgi?board=TV&action=display&thread=1120686776I hope this doesn't simply repeat what everyone else has said about it. I didn't read any other review until I wrote this so it is purely my humble opinion. All the best, Andy
|
|
|
Post by sunnyrabbiera on Jul 7, 2005 1:56:19 GMT
Okay just got back from the film and I must say that I liked it for the most part... but it was lacking something that the 1953 film had...
as a person who has not only read the book, but also have an audio of the Orson Welles 1938 broadcast, seen the 1953 film and proudly owns a copy of Jeff Wayne's awesome Musical I must say that this film was good... but it was missing something: a better lead up to the invasion and not end it on such a happy note...
I know that in the ORIGINAL story the aliens arrived in large cylinders and we got to see how they arrived here... but we are supposed to believe they hid their ships beneath the ground and they arrived in lightning? I think Spielberg should have given more elaboration. now true to the book Spielberg did end the film with the aliens dying of viruses, but its after this is where I think most people were teed off... that Tom Cruises "son" [Robbie] miraculously survived the ordeal on the hill during the middle of the film, it was like "oh joy the aliens died of a virus, and look Robbie survived!" GAH!
was this a good film though? yes was it true to the book? a bit more then the 1953 film did it have good special effects? yes was it better then the 1953 film? no
sure the 1953 film had its flaws, but what makes it better is the lead up to the story and it handled the ending better as well, also the blasting of the tripod at the end of the film seemed too ID4 in the new Spielburg film.
was the 1953 film true to the novel? not 100% but I can understand that did it have good special effects? for its time, yes was it better then the new film? you bet your ass, though it still had its flaws.
still in the end I say this: if you dont like the new film or the 1953 fim, then pick up the book... it is lightyears a lot better then anything Hollywood can nuts out
|
|
|
Post by robkral on Jul 7, 2005 5:58:16 GMT
Gnorn:
I found your review interesting: I agree with all of your points, though I wasn't disappointed to the DEGREE that you seem to be. I find it helpful as some feel we're getting too picky etc...but the fact is that several of us ARE feeling a little cheated on the story, or at least come out feeling a bit flat....like something was missing.
I say that really is a pity because it could have been GREAT in every sense of the word...a little more filled out, show us a little more etc, and it would have been an absolute new CLASSIC of film making.
It's a pity also because the good scenes wer just SOOOOO good, you can get a great big taste for how good it would have been if only....(fill in the blank!)...
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 7, 2005 10:30:27 GMT
Okay just got back from the film and I must say that I liked it for the most part... but it was lacking something that the 1953 film had... as a person who has not only read the book, but also have an audio of the Orson Welles 1938 broadcast, seen the 1953 film and proudly owns a copy of Jeff Wayne's awesome Musical I must say that this film was good... but it was missing something: a better lead up to the invasion and not end it on such a happy note... I know that in the ORIGINAL story the aliens arrived in large cylinders and we got to see how they arrived here... but we are supposed to believe they hid their ships beneath the ground and they arrived in lightning? I think Spielberg should have given more elaboration. now true to the book Spielberg did end the film with the aliens dying of viruses, but its after this is where I think most people were teed off... that Tom Cruises "son" [Robbie] miraculously survived the ordeal on the hill during the middle of the film, it was like "oh joy the aliens died of a virus, and look Robbie survived!" GAH! I think the Aliens arrived through Wormholes, since you could see an epicentre of swirling clouds, and note how the wind was getting sucked towards it. Also Robbie says that lightning hit one spot 26 times, so either they were transporting the Tripod in parts or the lightning acted more like a 'tunneling device' digging a clear path towards the Tripod. If they could only transport their machines in parts then maybe it makes sense to assemble them underground since if they did on the surface, they would be exposed. Again i know the revelation of them being here for a million years seems far fetched, but it's the explanation we're given. Also i didn't see anything wrong with the ending, it's no different than when the Narrator meets his Wife again. Robbie must've somehow escaped with the Refugees just before the explosion, or he escaped with the remnant Military force and was escorted to Boston. sure the 1953 film had its flaws, but what makes it better is the lead up to the story and it handled the ending better as well, also the blasting of the tripod at the end of the film seemed too ID4 in the new Spielburg film. I didn't feel the blasting of the Tripod was too 'ID4', not at all it's appropriate considering in the book a few Tripods were killed by High Explosives, which makes it more engaging than the invincibility of Pal's Martians. Spielberg's version was much more visceral and uncompromising and to me conveyed more of a true sense of horror that we were being pursued and exterminated. I felt the film did lack some action scenes, we didn't see the annihilation of the Military forces on the hill, and there was also no Thunderchild sequence. The Ferry scene would've been perfect for a Thunderchild scene, but there we go. Also more scenes of the Tripods exterminating would've been good. I would say the latter half of the film was a little rushed, and did seem to quickly jump from scene to scene. It's interesting seeing a distinction between certain WOTW fans, i think it's fair to say there's a branch that leads to fans liking the Pal version, and then another to the Spielberg one.
|
|
Boz
Junior Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Boz on Jul 7, 2005 12:45:44 GMT
What sold Spielberg's movie to me was his strict adhesion to first person narration. He didn't even cheat by using more than one narrator. The most affecting scenes were for me those away from immediate danger - arriving at Ray's ex-wife's house, the toilet break just before discovering the bodies in the river. The lack of information is somehow more disturbing than the devastation seen at first hand - although this is handled brilliantly. A lot of people here seem to be frustrated that the movie wasn't more like Independance Day with everything spelled out in fast edits and the information gaps in Ray's experiences filled in by a metanarrator. That would have been easy to do. And have been very summer blockbuster. Spielberg has instead resisted that and made a dramatic, chilling document of how quickly and easily civilisation can be overturned and how these catastrophic events would effect one ordinary family. Stuff like that.
|
|
Boz
Junior Member
Posts: 21
|
Post by Boz on Jul 7, 2005 12:47:36 GMT
By the way - I am not in the payment of Mr Spielberg, nor do I fancy him or any of his family although I'm sure they're all very good people.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Jul 7, 2005 14:39:30 GMT
Gnorn: I found your review interesting: I agree with all of your points, though I wasn't disappointed to the DEGREE that you seem to be. I find it helpful as some feel we're getting too picky etc...but the fact is that several of us ARE feeling a little cheated on the story, or at least come out feeling a bit flat....like something was missing. I say that really is a pity because it could have been GREAT in every sense of the word...a little more filled out, show us a little more etc, and it would have been an absolute new CLASSIC of film making. It's a pity also because the good scenes wer just SOOOOO good, you can get a great big taste for how good it would have been if only....(fill in the blank!)... Cheers Robkral. The feeling I've got is that Koepp & Co wrote up some scenes of what had to be in the film, but never gave a thought on how to tie those scenes together and lost all overview of the complete story. The whole movie feels rushed (which in fact it was) and it suffers heavely from that. I've read a lot of reviews on IMDB addressing the same issues, so it's not just me -Gnorn
|
|
dalek
Junior Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by dalek on Jul 8, 2005 10:41:56 GMT
Hi, I though the film was very good, but just lacked a few more scenes showing the destruction wreaked in the aftermatch of the tripods as Ray left the house and travelled to Boston. I guess a similiar scenario to 'Dead London' is the missing element here. I think it was the rush, rush scheduling that precluded this. Also the escape from basket scene would have been better with the soldier committing suicide to explode the grenades instead of Ray being pulled back out. I thought Cruise was excellent and he's gone up several notches in my estimation. dalek
|
|
|
Post by <[Iron Man]> on Jul 8, 2005 11:27:46 GMT
Also the escape from basket scene would have been better with the soldier committing suicide to explode the grenades instead of Ray being pulled back out. dalek Perhaps that scene is a metaphor for Mankind? How we can have an unwavering determination not to give up no matter how bad things get? I could be wrong of course!
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Jul 9, 2005 5:18:18 GMT
REVIEW: HEAVY SPOILERS INCLUDED. ... A few times I felt like "did we just skip a scene or two?". ... Very nicely said, all of this review. You captured in this idea above something I definitely felt but hadn't been able to express properly. I agree completely.
|
|
|
Post by Topaz on Jul 9, 2005 5:23:09 GMT
Thanks for the great review, Topaz. We've missed you around these parts! Thank you, Quaderni. I enjoyed yours as well, and ended up with a similar level of mild interest in this movie by the time the thing was done. And yes, I've been away too long.
|
|
|
Post by Earthrise on Jul 9, 2005 14:29:07 GMT
G'day Rob and my mates old and new,
The overwhelming memory I will take away from this movie was the trauma it put me through. My wife and I could barely make eye contact as we ate our lunch afterwards. When I saw it the second time with my family, my brother said after the movie he felt like he'd woken up from a nightmare. From the first lightning bolt until Ray blows up the Tripod, I was gripped by the movie; squeezed and assaulted. After the first Tripod emerged, I was so traumatised I like the people in the movie did not want to meet one again. So when you see the three of them towering over the crowd fleeing towards the "already packed (ferry)", I was terrified. I was wrong about you Messieurs Spielberg and Cruise, you proved us all wrong. For all the plot holes, a truly masterful movie. Though I think my reaction is partly based on a childhood wracked by nightmares about invading Martians.
From Ray blowing up the Tripod until Morgan Freeman's closing monologue, the ending needs to be fixed. The problem is the first hour is sooo good, I don't know if it can or will ever be done better. As such, the ending should be fixed in some kind of Director's or DVD cut. I have some ideas, which I'll post below.
The ending, like the plot holes, didn't detract one iota from my original viewing; for once I was able to suspend all belief and hand myself over to a Master. Even now, I don't care about the buried machines, because the effect of the lightening and emerging Tripod is truly worth it. My only gripe in the first hour, and it is only small, is that Robbie should have gone to fight the invaders rather than to "see". Though I thank the posters on this forum for explaining why the refugees were going towards the Hill, with Robbie's heroics on the Ferry and desperation to join the National Guard by the roadside, it built up for him to run off and fight. And considering the 9/11 and terrorist tie-ins, having the young man go off to fight (and die) would of made sense in a country whose sons die every day in Iraq.
I feel very fortunate to be alive to see my two favourite books (LOTR & WOTW) brought to life so convincingly and with passion. Hopefully I'll be alive to see the next round.
Your friend, Earthrise
|
|
ben
Full Member
Posts: 53
|
Post by ben on Jul 9, 2005 15:19:57 GMT
Strong points Earthrise. I must admit, I too felt fortunate to be alive after watching the film. I`m also a lot more respectful of bugs, since they are "on my side" and arent evil aliens.
In light of the recent terrorist attack on London and the pictures from there...i feel the film has been given added power by this, even though i saw it some time back now.
Films like this really bring home what it is like to live through a disaster or violent attack.
|
|
|
Post by Stormdragon666 on Jul 10, 2005 6:44:31 GMT
Yesterday was finally my turn to watch the movie. I must say i,m pretty impressed, a lot of nods to the book, and the 53 movie. The Fighting Machines came pretty clost to wag HG Wells described them to be, i liked the biomechanic look to them, and ooooooooh yes THE WARCRY ;D. Ogilvy was definitivly the curate and the artilleryman rolled up into one. The aliens them selfs reminded me a bit too much of ID4 though. The final scene was indeed a bit rushed but also was another trip to memory lane because it really reminded me of the Dead London painting in the Jeff Wayne album, so it was pretty beautifull as well. Only one thing bugs me though, and is in my opinion the only real downside to the movie. NO FRIGGIN CYLINDER!!!!! In my opinion its a key essence to the story, and i really would have loved Ray and the occupants of the city standing around a pit with a more true to the book Ogilvy, watching that thing unscrew and the aliens come out, then offcourse the present day version of the Horsell Common massacre. The Heat Ray, was again something straight out of the book (well not invisible though) like Wells described a inevitable sword of heat. i,d rate it a good 8,3
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 10, 2005 20:59:44 GMT
"The Heat Ray, was again something straight out of the book (well not invisible though) like Wells described a inevitable sword of heat."
In the book The Heat-Ray is invisible, and turns whatever it touches into flames. Men are even described as stumbling and falling while their on fire. Their clothes are also burnt, surprisingly so, they dont float away like Nike is doing an expensive advert for the strenght of its fibers. Also, people do not burst into dust, like Buffy has got her hands on them.
Its not the Heat-Ray, or atleast its nothing like the books version of it. This is some kind of poorly thought of out Microwave beam.
So its nothing like the book.
And yes, the Cylinders absent is soorly missed, and the poor, alternate explaination of how they arrived is contrived and utterly unrealistic nonsence.
When I review this film I have the feeling I was high from excitment, but the more and more I think about it, the more I see it really wasnt very good at all. Almost like having your the last ever copy of your favorite book torn up before your eyes... which, metaphorically, and of course, to some degree literally, this is what the film amounted to for me.
So, having given serious thought and consideration I have decided that my initial rating of 3 stars over on the rating thread is horrifically high. I would now give it a 1 star.
And only because we wernt given the option of lower ratings.
- Marcus
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Jul 11, 2005 8:30:36 GMT
I watched it on Friday night and thought overall that it was an excellent adaption. As some people have mentioned there were one or two areas that let it down slightly, but not enough to detract from the enjoyment. There was a couple of minor points with Ray's character. 1. why did he have to be the best damn crane operator they had? They had done well to give him an ordinary Joe job but then went on to have his foreman rush over to say they couldn't cope without him...a little over the top. Why couldn't he have just been ok at the job? Also, same goes for him being asked by the mechanic for his advice on getting the mini van working...he's being asked by the mechanic? Why couldn't he have stood briefly chatting to the mechanic when he figures it out for himself? I did find it a bit of a shame that they roled Olgilvy, the Curate and the Artilleryman all into one. They could've introduced one of these as a separate character I thought. Although, I do think Tim Robbins did an excellent job - really gave him quite a disturbing edge. The ending did happen a little quickly and I was a little surprised that they allowed Robbie to survive certain death. It would've been more realistic and more poigant to end the film not knowing whether Robbie was alive or dead. It wrapped it up far too neatly. I agree that missing out Thunderchild was a damn shame - my favourite chapter too. Given that the ferry was set on the Hudson, it was impossible to have a larger vessel, but they still could've had Thunderchild as a gunboat or a corvette. I agree about the shields too. Why give them shields? It would've been better just to have them as being made of an extremely tough metal that was very difficult to penetrate except maybe in a couple of vulnerable areas. I would've also liked to have seen a little more of the American military might getting a good ass kicking, but that's just me! But with all that said I still think the film was excellent! Very well shot in a Saving Private Ryan style. Tripods were excellent as was their call (a distinct homage to the Victorian era). Acting was all excellent - I was really impressed with Mr Cruise - he did very well I thought. The use of CGI was extremely good - how it should be used. The sounds and effects of the heatray were really good as was the red weed. The people floating down the river could've been from a collapsed bridge or something, so I don't consider that to be a plot hole. I didn't mind the missing person posters either, I thought that was a fitting nod to 9/11. And I didn't mind them explaining the aliens arriving in the lightning bolts either - I think it slotted a piece into the jigsaw in a reasonable way. So I'm going to go 9.5 out of 10 overall.
|
|