ALL SCI-FI

[Bongopete]

Interesting film for a variety of reasons with those who hate it falling sort of on the anti Tom Cruise band wagon and those who like it not really being able to say exactly why (or so it seems).

Spielberg sets out to sort of make an up to date version of the novel . . . with our hero (Cruise) sort of taking the same trip that the narrator in the novel does . . . wanting to reconnect with his wife (in this movie, his ex-wife . . . very late 20th and early 21st century family dynamic here) and having the action that IS portrayed on the screen only be things that our hero can see.

In my opinion, here is one of the movies major failings . . . the bringing into the story of the two kids.

We see that Cruise and wife are divorced . . . very dysfunctional relationship between these two and then between Cruise and his kids. In this story of War of the Worlds . . . I'm not sure exactly what point Spielberg is trying to make with this dynamic.

Both of the kids are Spielbergian loud. Both are annoying and whiny. The son because he has a chip on his shoulder and later wants to get out there and mix it up with the Martians and kick their butt. The whole thing with the son and needing to get to where the action is just didn't come together for me. While I didn't care for either kid and their introduction into the story, I felt that the angle with the son was the weakest and should have been discarded. The daughter was a little know it all shrill.

The other major failing was in the movie's events only being those that could be seen by our hero. Since Cruise can't see what the battle over the hill looks like (since he doesn't go up there), WE don't see it either!!!!
It's an interesting idea, but for a big blockbuster movie I think a realllllllllly fatal one.

What action we see is almost ALL from a distance.

Tim Robbin's Ogilvy is a sort of combination of the books artilleryman and the curate. While in the book the curate is also a bit nuts, Robbin's really goes overboard in the role and hams it up.

I am still waiting for a big budget retelling of 'The War of the Worlds' and considering the special effects wizardry of today's films and the room to go crazy in showing the war . . . it's disappointing for this film to be about a man and his two bratty children who happen to be in the general area of the war.

[Bud Brewster]

I agree that Cruise is a good actor and this version of the story does offer some interesting ideas.

However, I kinda wish Spielberg hadn't tried to do what Signs actually did better -- tantalizing the audience with things NOT shown.

The battle that took place on the other side of a hill so we couldn't see it, and the people who were pulled inside a tripod which we never see the interior of -- these parts just frustrated me instead of making me try to imagine what I hadn't seen. The concept worked much better in movies like Signs and the original The Thing from Another World.

After seeing Man of Steel recently I was reminded of how special effects have replaced story in today's movies. Man of Steel was so determined not to give anyone in the audience a chance to go to the bathroom that it piled action FX onto action FX and rarely took the time tell a story.

Despite my frustration at things not seen in War of the Worlds, I'm beginning to think they erred less in that direction than I originally thought.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Bongopete]

That's why I said that it was an interesting idea that we only see what Cruise's character sees . . . but I just don't know if that was a good idea in this film.

In the novel, the narrator character manages to see a fair amount of action. I think the narrator sees several fighting machines destroyed, one by the ironclad Thunderchild. I want to say another by a battery of artillery right before they themselves are destroyed.
It really seemed a cheat to me and what could have potentially been a sequence that made as big an impression as the combat sequence in the 50's version.

[Bud Brewster]

I wonder if it would have solved the problem if Cruise had barely gotten to the top of the hill, looked over, and seen about 30 seconds of the battle. That way we'd feel less cheated, but we wouldn't have to endure a long, loud, FX rich scene that just seemed to be showing off how terrific CGI can be — like so many movies are doing today.
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[Bongopete]

I agree with that! Even a short pov of the hell going on over that hill would have been great! Instead we are left with a tease of the Marines going over the hill and a few seconds later a bunch of driverless Humvees driving back in retreat aflame.

While I agree that it seems that most movies today are all flash and no heart, I think a little less of the estranged family dynamic (in place of real story mind you) and a little more of what the title says the film is to be about . . . well, you get the idea.

ID4 would have been great (for me at least . . . hey, I still LIKE the movie) if it didn't have all the humor it had. ESPECIALLY Randy Quaids character!!!!! ID4 made a fun popcorn movie, but War of the Worlds seemed to be trying for something perhaps a bit more adult.

[orzel-w]

The hardest pill for me to swallow was the aliens "beaming down" into the machines that were buried underground. I didn't understand the rationale behind that approach. (That is, I understand from the standpoint of the aliens' sudden appearance needing to be a big surprise like it was in the book in an earlier era, but not from the standpoint of alien technology.)
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------

[Krel]

To me, the Aliens were a missed opportunity. They were CGI toons, so they could have made them look like the Martians from the book. Instead the movie had, monkeys.

David.

[Rocky Jones]

My biggest problem with this film was the fact that the invaders didn't land in spacecraft, but just popped out of ground. Sure. That's gonna happen. A better title might have been "War with the Nasty Groundhogs".

[Bud Brewster]

Right, there's no defense for the dumb decision they made about how to present the Martian invaders. I'd love to see a video of the story session in which some genius said —

"Guys, I have a great idea! Instead of spaceships that streak down and disgorge cool aliens, like in the novel, let's have a big thunderstorm that zaps the ground with lightning and causes big tripod machines to bust up out of the asphalt!"

(Long silent pause while everybody at the boardroom table stares glassy-eyed at this guy, and then Spielberg says — )

". . . Perfect!"
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
~ The Space Children (1958)

[orzel-w]

[Bud Brewster]

[Rocky Jones]

Uh, right, Bud guh-great idea. Moving back to what Wayne said, though...

[orzel-w]

Apparently only the machines had been buried, some time long ago. The "crew" were "beamed down" in those lightning bolts. Still didn't make sense.
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------

[Rocky Jones]

Ah, it's been awhile since I saw this one and I'll admit it didn't make too strong an impression in spite of the fancy effects. Tom Cruise saved the world, as I recall (excuse the spoiler, but who didn't know?).

[orzel-w]

Even for George Pal's 1953 updated storyline, Mars was still mysterious enough at the time to sell the idea of Martians sneaking up on us.