|
Post by TOMAHAWK on Jul 17, 2005 23:32:31 GMT
Hmm to say I am disappointed is a bit of an understatement.
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Jul 17, 2005 23:55:56 GMT
I wanted to watch this movie with my father, but he and my mom and their friends were on holiday when the movie opened, so I had to wait a couple of days. I almost went by myself, that's how excited I was about this production. Then on the following monday we went to the cinema. After the first half, during the brake (here in the Netherlands they put in a brake half way through a movie) we talked to eachother and said we hoped the second half would be better. And then the second half started. During the cellar scene I turned and looked at my dad, he looked back and was making a rolling motion with his hand, as to say 'get on with it'. We left the cinema totaly dissapointed.
During a lot of scenes which were meant to be disturbing (tripod ashing the people in the street, bodies floating in the river, people drowning in their cars etc.) there was laughing in the cinema. I wonder if that is due to the people watching, or due to Spielberg totally missing the boat with this movie.
I must confess... at the end of the first half I couldn't sit still in my chair. But that was due to I had to go to the bathroom.
Like others said, that was 2 hours and 16 Euros (I paid for my dad) I never get back.
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 18, 2005 0:46:17 GMT
Half of the audience laughted too, and I think it was more because, what was presented, was just plain not scary anymore. So many films have pushed the boat further than this, that seeing a few bodies, or a few people explode into dust is almost funny.
Especially the way this film - and I use the term with less conviction the more I think over it - handled everything.
The clothes in particular, got a massive laught in the cinema I was in, people where seriously just sat their giggling 24.7. It was an advertisement for Nike and how their clothes are extra resistant.
"Martian Invasion of Earth? Dont worry, wear Nike! The none vapourisable choice."
Terrible film. Not adaption. Film!
The argument that people who are nay-sayers, and dont cream over this are doing so because it isnt 100% faithful to the book has been used far to often. And it just seems like a lazy way to avoiding justifying why were wrong.
So, I can not stress enough that this is a bad FILM.
- Marcus
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 18, 2005 0:50:09 GMT
Sorry for the second post... but a friend of mine who was in the cinema - We didnt go together, we just know eachother via the geek circles in my town LOL - said that he half expected, due to the sappy ending for the anouncement to be made at one point:
"Miraculously, no one even died in the invasion. Even those who were turned to dust managed to live on, and now live happily with their famalies, some, all the better for it."
or
"Please note children that running into an active battleground will likely result in your death. While in this film Snow White saved Robbie, it is highly unlikly this would occur in reality, hence, viewer disgresion is adviced."
|
|
|
Post by Gnorn on Jul 18, 2005 0:55:36 GMT
Marcus, you MUST admit that you were blown away by the CGI effects of the birds flying away during the ferry scene!
Anyhoo, what you said. I'm not dissapointed because the movie isn't a faithfull reenactment of the novel (in fact, this movie has a lot more in common with the novel than the Pall movie did) but it is the pathetic way this movie was made.
-Gnorn
|
|
|
Post by Marcus on Jul 18, 2005 1:20:43 GMT
Well that was exactly my point, that me and you, along with the other haters hate the film as a film, not as an adaption, which seems to be why everyone thinks we dont like it, ya know?
I know thats why you didnt like it, but others, not nessecarily everyone seems to assume that we dont like it JUST becasue it wasnt 100% pure.
And the Pal version was better hands down.
And oh yeah, why, the birds!
Its worthy seeing just for them again!
|
|
dalek
Junior Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by dalek on Jul 19, 2005 6:30:03 GMT
Hi, the Spielberg film I though was great but I have always wanted a 1898 version . Not a Pendragon fiasco but a really heavy duty epic which translated the Wells prose to screen so that the audience could soak up the atmosphere. Not just just the terror of the fleeing humans and the merciless heat ray but also the battle tactics of the martians. The tripods in the 1898 version were terrifying but not invincible and when they discovered how deadly human artillery could be they attacked with the black smoke to exterminate all possible hidden guns posts. I can understand why SS went for a modern day setting but I think a big budget movie set in the Wells era would have still brought in the bucks and done this story justice. I think the Jeff Wayne version will be the best bet for this although I would have preferred human actors. dalek
|
|
|
Post by insidethecylinder on Jul 23, 2005 3:29:26 GMT
Well, I saw the movie a while ago, and I don't think it was bad at all IMHO.
It tried a lot harder to remain to the text, albeit being set in modern day and America. There are tripods, the Ruined house, and a combination of the Artilleryman and Curate. There are scenes of the black smoke, not a main focus of any one scene, but it's in the background. There is green smoke, and a Thunderchild-esque scene. What more could I ask for? Well, a movie that's the book on screen, but just short of that, I got this. And it was good. Really, really good.
Pendragon isn't all that bad, but it needs a lot of touch-ups.
|
|
|
Post by lanceradvanced on Jul 28, 2005 20:43:54 GMT
Okay, just saw it... my thoughts...
The street screwing around before it caved in - cool - SUV coming flying out of the pit - silly - Plane Crash leaving that much intact - WTF Ray not checking his wife's refigerator - um duh... Mob attacking Ray's car - understandable untill they get to the ferry, at which point, it's WTF, why weren't -those- cars attacked, and if they wern't working, for gods sake, roll em overboard to make room for folks.. The Hudson isn't the caribean.. I don't think there's a tree that looks over Boston like that.. WTF was with that head level bit with the tripod? Would the aliens make up their mind, take them out, and suck their blood on the ground, or inside the machine... The '53 homages were a bit heavy...
|
|
|
Post by ArmoredTrackLayer on Jul 29, 2005 1:04:38 GMT
A couple of things I have noticed from reading early script leaks and looking at concept art, the heat ray DID originally have the same effect as it did in the book, lighting people aflame and such. Also some pieces of concept art showed a couple of tripods smoking in battle scenes, as if they had been hit. I know the heat ray HAD to be toned down to save the rating from being R, but....Why? If it was R it woulda been a hell of a lot better movie. dont get me wrong I loved it, but I think and R rating would have been needed to catch the whole horror. I know there was black smoke ORIGINALLY in the films script as well, some scenes where stated as "New York Coming Under Gas Attack" and there were large bins photographed on set that said "Black Smoke" Again, they got axed. I think that a bit more time in post production mighta helped fix some of peoples gripes. I am willing to bet that the people floating down the hudson was an after effect of the gas attack on NY, but since that scene was hacked outta the movie, the INTACT bodies floating down river makes no sense, considering what the heatray does to ppl.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Aug 7, 2005 1:45:05 GMT
I admit that I was biased against this film as soon as I found out that Cruise was to star and it was being updated predictably to modern America. I tried before I went to see it to accept it for what it was and to put away my preconceptions.
Was it any different to what I was expecting?........er no, not really.
It was pretty much as I expected. Great special effects, some good scenes such as when the tripod first appears and the corpses in the river. The tripods looked great and the sound they made seemed to shake the entire cinema and I liked the bleakness of the film and the cinematography - but that really is about it.
The whole thing with Cruise and his kids was contrived [ like I also expected ]. The usual dad who's a 'jerk' but gradually gains the respect of his kids routine. The characters were also pretty annoying and I really couldn't have cared less about them. Most of this just went totally over my head.
Fanning was predictably wide eyed and screechy and Cruise's acting was exactly what I thought it would be - average at best and as for the bit with the grenade - well most of the audience were groaning at this point.
I just couldn't take Cruise seriously at all and this might aswell have been called 'Cruise the hero in the end saves his kids from some nasty aliens'. As predicted his ego has to be on screen for most of the time.
I thought the 9/11 references were in very poor taste and I still question Cruise and Spielbergs motives for making this film. Spielbergs next film is also surprise, surprise to do with terrorism at the Munich olympics.
The aliens were ok but largely uninteresting and they did reminded me of the ones in Independence Day and I'm normally a big fan of John Williams scores but this one left me cold. As for the ending - well that was enough to ruin the film on it's own for me - Typical sappy Hollywood crap!
All in all I wasn't disappointed with this film as I wasn't expecting much to begin with. To think with all the money and Wells book as a reference this is all they could come up with.
What a wasted opportunity!
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Aug 20, 2005 21:36:08 GMT
I find it fascinating that people who don't like this film say people in the cinema were laughing at it. I think this underscores that films are a group experience. When I saw it, I was surprised at how quiet the theatre was-- this is a very intense, absorbing film. If that mood had been disrupted by inappropriate laughter, perhaps I wouldn't think this was such a good film either.
When I saw it there were a few places where people laughed, such as the "burning train at the crossing" scene, but laughing at such a bizarre occurrance is quite appropriate. Frankly, I never even noticed the Nike "swoosh".
Just now I had a brief look at the post-ers above who hate this film. All of them which I noticed are from the U.K. I'm coming to the conclusion that this film is so directly aimed at the American experience that it doesn't work as well for those not living in this country.
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 10, 2005 1:51:51 GMT
No they're not all from the UK as we discussed in another thread. And some of the people who liked this film originally - no longer do and say they were [ understandably ] caught up in the hype when it first came out, but you're right about this film being aimed overwhelmingly at an American audience.
Independence Day was also aimed pretty much at an American audience but I didn't mind that so much as it wasn't pretending to be anything other than an expensive B movie and more importantly it didn't pinch the title War of the Worlds - unlike this mediocre experience.
|
|
|
Post by Moorkey on Sept 10, 2005 16:25:01 GMT
I must say I enjoyed Independence Day a whole lot more than WOTW. ID4 had more of a sense of the awesome might of the alien force. You get a real sense that mankind may just be screwed. WOTW, however, seems to lack this. Yes, I know the martians and their almighty air-horn wielding tripods look good, but they lack the arse-slackening intensity of a City Destroyer from Independence Day. Also, in ID4, just when you think that you have seen it all, you are suddenly face-to-face with a swarm of thousands of attackers. Then follows the most intense ride of a movie I have ever seen. (Or as my friend put it, "Not since the opening scene of Star Wars have you seen a spaceship, and said 'that's big', only to see the next shot, and go 'HOLY S**T, that really IS big!'")
War of the Worlds was good (dont get me wrong). However, it just feels as if something is missing. I felt a real sense of loss for the President's wife, and Jimmy Wilder (Will Smith's pilot buddy), and the countless other main characters that buy it in Independence Day. That started to creep in with WOTW, until the schmaltzy, sappy ending where, after being toasted in a massive fireball, Robbie is ok.
|
|
Yamcha
Junior Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by Yamcha on Sept 10, 2005 21:00:30 GMT
Isnt it funny how all the people in the cinema of the haters of the movie were laughing, but werent in any other cinema around the world?
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 11, 2005 2:06:43 GMT
Isn't it funny Yamcha how you can come up with a sweeping statement like that. You've been to every cinema around the world to watch WOTW have you and seen everyones reactions? In my posting I said MOST [ not ALL ] of the people were groaning [ and not laughing ] at a particular scene. No doubt one or two were laughing though.
|
|
Yamcha
Junior Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by Yamcha on Sept 11, 2005 9:25:10 GMT
Isn't it funny Yamcha how you can come up with a sweeping statement like that. You've been to every cinema around the world to watch WOTW have you and seen everyones reactions? In my posting I said MOST [ not ALL ] of the people were groaning [ and not laughing ] at a particular scene. No doubt one or two were laughing though. No. But I have seen it 3 times and everytime the audience were captivated.
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Oct 10, 2005 20:50:50 GMT
Playgroup must have had an afternoon off that day ;D
|
|
Yamcha
Junior Member
Posts: 45
|
Post by Yamcha on Oct 17, 2005 14:12:40 GMT
Playgroup must have had an afternoon off that day ;D That's it? that's your entire argument against this movie? Im dissapointed. Anyway, I liked the film, and I can understand people not liking it, but some people were out to get it from the beginning. As soon as it was announced it would have Tom Cruise in it.
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Oct 20, 2005 11:52:01 GMT
Playgroup must have had an afternoon off that day ;D That's it? that's your entire argument against this movie? Im dissapointed. Anyway, I liked the film, and I can understand people not liking it, but some people were out to get it from the beginning. As soon as it was announced it would have Tom Cruise in it. No, that was my argument about your entire audience being 'captivated'... ;D As to my comments on the film well please kindly rewind back to my review in July. Some good, some bad. Not a bad film, but not a great one given the hype or the huge budget applied
|
|