War of the Worlds

[Feraud]

Mild Spoiler included....

Saw War of the Worlds. My wife and I enjoyed it. I think it was a well done film with good effects, acting, etc. I was not as annoyed with the children as I thougth I would be. No comparison to the original tho', I am a sucker for 50's sci-fi!

The only problem I had with the film was it's ending. All that world destruction and no one from Tom Cruise's immediate and extended family was hurt, let alone killed?!? C'mon now, that is so lame! I at least expected the ex-wife's new husband to have a bandage around his head!

Afer that tearjerking build up with the son who "needs to see this", he walks out of the mom's house at the end?? What the heck?! He would have been creamed along with all the army guys. This almost killed the whole movie for me.

My favorite recent film is Batman. WOTW could be second.

 

[Andykev]

I give it a "C"

I saw War of the Worlds today. I thought the special effects were good, but the plot lame. In the original film, the Martians arrived in space ships as meteors. In this film, they supposedly were here for a million years, and then were activated by the controlled lightning storm and transfer of the aliens in lightning bolts.

So, why did the Martians wait a million years...if the attack robots were planted so long ago, how do you answer the technology? Did that exist then..so what about now? And if they could plant the machines so long ago, what is the purpose of the attack today? What? They watched for all these years until we populated the planet? Ok..maybe they needed a full, over populated world to suck our blood and spray it on every square foot of the planet to grow the red roots...

I would have preferred if they had arrived in the same fashion as the original film.

Oh, and why did that stupid kid scream and scream and scream? Ham acting/
and Tom Cruise has maybe one other film worse than this...the race car one.

Most of the other body of work he as done, Mission Impossible, Eyes Wide Shut, Top Gun, Far and Away, Jerry Mcguire, and A few Good Men...those were good.

 

[thefish]

I liked that it was sort of a "from the cheap seats" approach. Cruise' character WASN'T a scientist or anyone "in the know." Just running for his life.

But, I have to agree, the 50's George Pal version is better in my opinion. There is nothing...NOTHING...as creepy as the sound effects from the War Machines in the Pal version...(cept maybe those "tatooed" fedora nightmares that Stetson's selling...)

Still, pretty predictable as a Spielberg movie always is.

 

[swinggal]

When I mean the original....I mean the book!! Not the 50s film!

 

[Feraud]

When I mean the original....I mean the book!! Not the 50s film!

I see your point swinggal. I think we can rarely compare books vs. film. They are vastly different mediums that present similar stories in very different ways.

 

[thefish]

A friend of mine, (one I now have to take a bullwhip to for this,) loaned me a DVD of another new version of War of the Worlds done almost as a direct translation of Wells' novel. Directed by Timothy Hines, produced by Pendragon Pictures. I point this out, because you should avoid it. I think he got it in the dollar bin at Wal Mart.

He wasted 100 cents!

It was 3 hours of dreck!

Now, this has nothing to do with the book. I agree that the book is fantastic, and I'd have rather seen a period piece than a modern story, (fact is, that you can hardly call the Cruise film "War of the Worlds" because of it. If anything, it's a remake of the 1954 film, and not the novel. Anyway...)

The script was a serious nightmare, with plot threads popping up out of nowhere. Totally ham-handed attempt by someone who has never studied script form. Completely pointless...

The actors looked like they were an amateur theatrical company, (complete with spirit-gummed on mutton chops and handlebar moustaches,) all American cast, all faking British accents, all badly...

The martians themselves and the war machines were CGI...I use that term loosely. I could have done better 3D animation. Really...I could...

They shot on video...bad video. Then they tried to color correct. In some scenes, it looks like they were going for that "Sky Captain" effect, in others, it looked like they were going for sepiatone. Still others looked like just badly color corrected video, and then others were tinted pale blue, (because some bright fellow in their production team read that you can substitute day for night if you tint everything blue.)

Some of the sets were old houses and large fields, but most of it was badly CGI'ed virtual sets with actors blue screened in. Their chromakeying made 70's era Doctor Who special effects look brilliant! People would turn their heads, and their noses would disappear...

Three hours of this...

Now, I appreciate their effort. There are a few bits that really shined, (I've only ever seen one film that I found absolutely nothing redeeming about,) but good lord! This doesn't even rate a railing by Crow and Tom Servo...

So, if you're looking for a period "War of the Worlds," and you stumble across this one, keep walking...

-Dan

 

[swinggal]

I would have liked to have seen Speilberg or Peter Jackson tackle the original story properly is all. I think Peter Jackson would have done a better job by far. I just hate seeing classic stories used and abused and given no respect by modern film makers. Anyway...

 

[flat-top]

I saw (or read) a quote from Speilberg, and I'm paraphrasing here, where he says he had absolutely no interest in the period that the book takes place in, and would only do it in modern times or not at all.
flat-top

 

[swinggal]

Yep, well that's typical of people who have more money than sense. Wonder how he'd feel if someone remade Raiders and set it in the 70s.

 

[thefish]

If they keep setting the date back on Indy 4, and maintain the concept that Ford is going to play the role, you might get just that!

-Dan

 

[jake_fink]

thefish said:
"The script was a serious nightmare, with plot threads popping up out of nowhere. Totally ham-handed attempt by someone who has never studied script form. Completely pointless..."

The script was by David Koepp (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0462895/ ), who wrote one good film and then made a career of work as you described. If you like any of his films, I'll bet it's not the screenplay that got to you. More likely you're thinking, that could have been such a good film, if only the script didn't suck.

He was behind the appropriately named television series "Hack."

 

[thefish]

thefish said:
The script was by David Koepp (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0462895/ ), who wrote one good film and then made a career of work as you described.

No, this was a completely different version of War of the Worlds I was talking about.

IMDB entry here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/

Timothy Hines wrote the screenplay, (if it can be called that.) Directed it, (if it can be called that,) Edited, (if it can...do you see a pattern here?) and DPed it.

Done as a period piece, and I think went direct to video, (should have gone directly in the toilet...) Just in response to Swinggal's comments about wanting to see it as a period piece. Just saying to AVOID THIS ONE at all costs...

The 1 star review it gets on IMDB is actually quite tame compared to what I'd write ;-)

 

[Feraud]

That WOTW sounds so bad you guys are making me want to see it!

 

[jake_fink]

Oops

Yes, my anti-Koeppness got the better of my reading comprehension.

 

[K.D. Lightner]

WOTW

It is interesting how that film gets re-made at a time when Terrorism, which can come out of nowhere, is rampant.

The 50's version was filmed when McCarthyism was waning, but we were immersed in a long, scary cold war. When I was a child, the feeling around was that, at any time, things could drastically change -- and the world could end because of nuclear disaster.

Actually, when I saw the film Indepedence Day, which came out a few years ago, I thought -- this is a remake of War of the Worlds, even down to the deadly bacteria killing the space aliens (although, with a modern twist, it is laboratory-created bacteria that is delivered as a payload to the aliens by the heroes of the film).

Watching those huge ugly space ships, which looked like giant manhole covers, gliding over the cities and shutting out light and space, gave me the creeps, if for no other reason than that I am a bit of a claustrophobic.

Anybody ever hear the Orson Welles radio version that scared so many people silly back in the late 30's?

I agree that it would be interesting to do a film from the book, in the time period in which it was written. A different story altogether....

karol

 

[Alan Eardley]

The fascinating thing for me about the book (and others by Wells) is that the topology amd geography are accurate. That's as important as the milieu. If it ain't set in Woking and it ain't set in the early 1900s, then it ain't WOTW! Why not call the film something else? It bears no relationship to the original and no-one in 2005 is going to see it because it has that the same title as a book few people have read. What's the point, Mr. Spielberg?

By the way, there's a nice replica of a Martian war machine standing in the High Street in Woking.

 

[thefish]

Anybody ever hear the Orson Welles radio version that scared so many people silly back in the late 30's?

Got it on my iPod ;-)

 

[MDFrench]

War of the Worlds reviewed at www.frenchbrosreviews.com for anyone wanting a NO-SPOILER review.

Mike

 

[thefish]

That WOTW sounds so bad you guys are making me want to see it!

I've had several people say that to me. And normally, I enjoy watching a good stinker to just laugh at how awful it's been done.

BUT, this is the one exception I've encountered.

If you decide to seek it out Feraud, remember that I warned you against it.

It is THAT bad. And it is 3 hours long. It NEVER ends...

Anyway, best of luck.

-Dan

 

[Explorer]

To take Swinggal's comments a bit further, some classic stories don't translate well in a modern setting. For example, Sherlock Holmes stories work best set in Victorian England.