Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Author Topic: War of the Worlds  (Read 2913 times)

Description:

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline X-rayTopic starter

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Jul 2004
  • Posts: 4370
    • Show only replies by X-ray
War of the Worlds
« on: July 28, 2005, 09:21:58 PM »
Saw it at the Pueblo Tinseltown.
Well, this has to be the first time that a Spielberg movie has disappointed me so much. Cruise was the wrong choice for the lead, because you expect the dashing/capable hero type character whenever he is on screen, not the Average-Joe Father that he is trying to portray. They also gave Dakota Fanning far too much lens-time. This reminds me of the constant zooming in on Elijah Woods' miserable hobbit face in the first of the Rings trilogy. You know, it gets too much. She's always on the screen, wide-eyed, shouting or screaming and quite frankly it got on my tits after a while.
Tim Robbins' talent was buried under a totally-unbelievable and pointless character. Even the special effects were nothing special after all. The only good thing about the film was the sound.
A totally missable film: if you haven't seen it already, then give yourself a pat on the back and congratulate yourself on money saved.
 

Offline odin

  • Colonization had Galleons
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Feb 2002
  • Posts: 6796
    • Show only replies by odin
Re: War of the Worlds
« Reply #1 on: July 28, 2005, 09:27:30 PM »
It's lame...nuff said.

  • Guest
Re: War of the Worlds
« Reply #2 on: July 28, 2005, 09:53:18 PM »
These discussions are already in full swing at whyzzat.com.  Much more suitable place for movie discussions.
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: War of the Worlds
« Reply #3 on: July 28, 2005, 09:57:52 PM »
I saw it when it first came out, but too I was ultimately dissapointed. That said, I went there pretty much determined to hate it anyway being a fan of the book since I was old enough to read ;-)

The original story had a wealth of social commentry and many subcontexts that fit the era in which it was written. The exploitation of less advanced nations at the hands of those more advanced, the portents of mechanised warfare, genocide, etc.

I think the attempt to make a contemporary retelling of the work with contemporary meaning struggles. However there were some plus points to the movie.

The movie managed to portray the sense of total helplessness in the original story. Nowhere do we see governments or authorities beyond the military attempting to 'deal' with the situation (common in most invasion movies) - they couldnt resist a degree of holywood heroism as Tom Cruise manages to bring down a fighting machine, but on the whole they kept this in check.

I can't help wondering if Dakita Fanning is a bit of an in joke. Speilberg cant help shoving some wide eyed little girl in movies for the cute appeal, but let's face it, she is anything but. A constant screeching irritation that leaves you wishing she'd stayed in the basket ;-)

Combining the original; curate and artillery man and relabelling the fusion as Ogilvy was... interesting. The resulting character certianly was neurotic enough :lol:

I was dissapointed at the lack of Thunderchild, but then I suppose that's what the army was there for; mans most advanced arsenal falling hoplessly short of making any difference.

On the sfx side...

The fighting machines were a reasonable effort. The book is very coy about their description, seen through the eyes of the lead character who struggles to describe them. You need to read it through several times just to get an idea. However, and this will sound like heresy to Jeff Wayne fans everywhere, the fighting machines in this movie are a good deal closer to the book description. They are not stiff legged, cumbersome machines. Wells ultimately describes them as fast moving and fully articulate, animal like almost, down to the presence of what he describes as 'sham musculature'.

The machines in the movie are surprisingly close to how I imagined the books description. The 'cowelled hoods' are unmistakable and there's even the slight puffs of luminous green smoke visible from them in some scenes ;-) You even get the "ulla" sound - almost.

The aliens themselves, however, look like rejects from independence day. Nothing like the fat, atrophied cephalopod like beasts in the book.
int p; // A
 

Offline PMC

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: May 2003
  • Posts: 2616
    • Show only replies by PMC
    • http://www.b3ta.com
Re: War of the Worlds
« Reply #4 on: July 28, 2005, 10:53:03 PM »
I agree with you Karlos, my introduction to Sci-Fi literature was reading War of The Worlds whilst doing a primary school project on the Jeff Wayne album.  A long love affair with Sci-Fi was born and continues to this very day.

I'd much rather have seen Spielberg shoot the movie truer to it's Victorian Britain roots, the novel itself is a very illuminating social commentary on the late 19th century, with such novelties as poison gas, ballistic weaponry and mass devastation being described in horryfying detail twenty years before the imagery came to life in Flanders and the Somme.  In it's modern context, it's just another alien invasion movie that pays homage to Independance Day and the lesser known John Christopher novel The Tripods (the scene where Cruise incpacitates a tripod with a hand grenade is lifted straight from the text of Christopher's 1968 work).  As a further thought, Christopher's triolgy makes much more sense to film in a modern context than WOTW - seeing as the premise of The Tripods is that it's set in the future when humanity has shunned technology in favour of an agrarian existence.

In fact, I think The Tripods would make an excellent dramatisation (memories of ropey BBC special effects aside).
Cecilia for President
 

Offline Karlos

  • Sockologist
  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Join Date: Nov 2002
  • Posts: 16879
  • Country: gb
  • Thanked: 5 times
    • Show only replies by Karlos
Re: War of the Worlds
« Reply #5 on: July 29, 2005, 01:13:51 AM »
I'm actually looking forward to the Pendragon Pictures version (period based, straight from the book). If it ever gets released that is.

Not heard much about it since they finished filming :-/
int p; // A