# War of the Worlds (2005)



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Mar 17, 2004)

*Spielberg & Cruise Teaming on War of the Worlds*

Here we go again:



> Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise will bring *The War of the Worlds* to the big screen, with Cruise expected to star, reports _Variety_. David Koepp will rewrite a Josh Friedman first-draft script based on the classic H.G. Wells alien-invasion novel.


More here: http://www.comingsoon.net/news.php?id=3949

I suppose Spielberg will make an enjoyable enough popcorn fest out of this one, but I have to ask - why Tom Cruise?


----------



## dwndrgn (Mar 17, 2004)

*Re: Spielberg & Cruise Teaming on War of the Worlds*

He's doing a lot of producing lately as opposed to acting, so he may be producer here while Spielberg will direct.  He may or may not act in it as well.


----------



## littlemissattitude (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: Spielberg & Cruise Teaming on War of the Worlds*

Well, I'm not a big Tom Cruise fan.  To say the least.

However, Speilberg getting his hands on "War of the Worlds" is an interesting prospect.  As I said in the thread on remakes, I'm not always enthusiastic about them.  On the other hand, I think this one is ripe for an updating.  Just hope it doesn't scare the bejezus out of me like the 1953 version did.  It got re-released when I was in elementary school, and my parents took me to see it at the drive-in.  Well, the top of the Martians' ship started unscrewing near the beginning of the movie, and I spent the rest of the thing hiding in the back seat of the car.   Oh, and by the way, the 1953 version is one of those films that was partly filmed around the town where I grew up.


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 18, 2004)

*Re: Spielberg & Cruise Teaming on War of the Worlds*



> I think this one is ripe for an updating


I agree. The 53 version was a fine film but kind of strayed a bit from the novel. I'd like to see this 'remake'  set in it's original time and location (with the original look to the machines).

I'm not a big Tom Cruise fan either but I thought he carried himself off  quite well in Minority Report so, fingers crossed, he can do the same again.

It's Speilberg at the helm that worries me. I just don't think his style is suited to this task. Maybe I'm wrong.  I hope so. I'd like to see this film be a success and live up to the very fine book on which it is based.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 25, 2004)

*War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

I just noticed in a report from the BBC about Spielberg that there's a passing mention that he's planning to use Dreamworks to recreate HG Well's War of the Worlds for the screen. 

 In fact, I've just noticed an article about it - apparently planned with Cruise. (Oh, no! Not another _American_ British accent!!  )


*Spielberg 'to direct War novel'*

  Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise are reported to be planning a film of HG Wells' novel The War of the Worlds.   Industry website Variety.com says work on the sci-fi epic, based on the 1898 novel, could begin in 2005.  

  Cruise, who also worked with Spielberg on Minority Report, is said to be co-producing and starring in the movie. 

  Orson Welles' 1938 radio adapation of the alien invasion novel caused a stir when listeners did not realise it was a work of fiction. 

  David Koepp, who wrote Cruise's action film Mission Impossible and penned the screenplay for Spider-Man, is expected to work on the script, says Variety.


   The War of the Worlds has been made into a film once before, in 1953. 

  The adaptation, directed by Byron Haskin, starred Gene Barry and British-born Les Tremayne, who was more well-known for his US radio career in the 1930s and 1940s. 

  Spielberg is currently finishing work on romantic drama The Terminal, with Catherine Zeta Jones and Tom Hanks. 

  Cruise, who last appeared on the big screen in war epic The Last Samurai, is due to start filming the third Mission Impossible movie shortly. 

 From: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/3520100.stm


----------



## littlemissattitude (Apr 25, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*



			
				I said:
			
		

> In fact, I've just noticed an article about it - apparently planned with Cruise. (Oh, no! Not another _American_ British accent!!  )


Maybe not.  When Orson Welles did his famous radio drama, the story was re-set in the northeast United States.  When the 1950s film version was made, the story was re-set again, this time in southern California.  So, with any luck, we'll be spared yet another fake British accent.

At the very least, if Spielberg puts the story back in Britain, perhaps they'll have the brains to cast Cruise as a transplanted American rather than trying to make him into an Englishman.


----------



## polymorphikos (Apr 26, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

If I see another classic "adapted" to America, I'm going to scream. And if he tampers with the plot, or screws up one of my favourite books of all time, I'm going to hunt Spielberg down and kick him.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 26, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

Lol!!


----------



## Morning Star (Apr 26, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

I hope it's not turned into a bloody balls up. The movie was good in terms of its special effects...but other than that, the only similarity it had with the book was the title. Where the hell were the Fighting Machines?

War of the Worlds, what a classic, turn of the century England invaded by towering 3 legged machines of war, the utter dispair and hopelessness of the humans as they finally give up is unequaled.  There are such classic lines from it.

"All that was of value to me was gone...it was the beginning of the rout of civilisation, the massacre of mankind."

"The Thunder Child had vanished forever, taking with her mans last hope of victory, the leadened sky was lit by green flashes, cylinder following cylinder and no-one or nothing was left now to fight them.
The earth belonged to the martians"

I listen to the soundtrack that was composed for it all the time, they could make such a stunning epic if they stuck to the original book.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Apr 26, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

Jeff Wayne's soundtrack was good, wasn't it.


----------



## Morning Star (Apr 26, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

Excellent, I listen to it constantly. The Eve of War is so powerful.


----------



## bookbrow (Sep 6, 2004)

*War of the Worlds*

Well I just happen to hear that Tom Cruise & Steven Speilberg are remaking "War of the Worlds", While Spielberg is a good filmmaker who does enjoy the sci-fi genre, Encounters..., Minority Report, and to a lesser degree AI. he also has ET on his resume so you wonder... Tom Cruise is really just a popular actor who can open a film well enough to make a profit, he was very good in Magnolia but tends to be so known that the characters he plays in his films tends run together. So with all this said I went out and bought the book "War of the worlds" to have some thoughts of the origins of the story before the "marketing sets in"The 1950's Movie adaptation was extremely well done.

I have been going back and reading some of the pioneers of sci-fi so I am looking forward to reading WotW.

bb


----------



## Dave (Sep 6, 2004)

I have to admit I have never read the book either. However, I have listened many times to the rock opera, musical adaptation 'War of the Worlds' by Jeff Wayne from 1976, so I do feel that I know the original story. It doesn't feature any Americans or Atom Bombs, and is much more of a 'journey' story set in south-west London.

One thing that was good about the 1952's film was the design of the alien vessels with the three-coloured eyes. It has become an iconic image even if the film is a little suspect.

I'm sure that the book is worth reading since I have read other HG Wells -- 'The Sleeper Awakes' and 'The Invisible Man' -- they are thought provoking and well written, not pulp fiction.

Tom Cruise must be about the most well known actor in the world today, and Steven Spielberg is probably the biggest grossing director, so that's quite a combination.

I've heard that Jeff Wayne bought and still holds the movie rights, so maybe he is involved in this new project? Anyhow, I would also like to see something made that is more like the original -- along the lines of the recent 'Bram Stoker's Dracula' and 'Mary Shelley's Frankenstein' films.


----------



## ray gower (Sep 7, 2004)

There is indeed a new film due for release next year, and is much as Bookbrow describes. I honestly thought we had a thread for both the film and book!

As for Tom Cruise. Yes he is hit and miss as an actor, but he does appear to have grown up a little in the last few years, and it could have been so much worse e.g. Wil Smith?

The book is an excellent read, well described, but not over wordy. 
While possibly not of great help to Bookbrow, but perhaps to Dave; if you live or are from the Home Counties you can have a whole day of fascinating fun actually tracing the route Wells describes (recommend old 1" to the mile OS maps) I know much of the landscape described in the book does exist (or did until 15 years ago).

As one might expect the 1952 film is quite different in detail, but does actually follow the same theme. Thought the Martian ships don't hover in the book and obviously there are no atom bombs


----------



## bookbrow (Sep 7, 2004)

Apparently the new movie version of war of the Worlds will be set in contemporary USA,  yup, we have seen this sort of stuff before "independence day" I also read that they will avoid blowing up the White house this time due the sensitive nature of the country.

I too remember the Jeff Wayne album with excellent narration by Richard Burton and fairly decent music by a member of the Moody Blues. keeping in the book mode an interesting book that deals with the UK is "A scientific Romance" by Ronald Wright , about a man who comes across research notes to a time machine and travels into the future.

bb


----------



## Dave (Oct 5, 2004)

> _Originally posted by bookbrow _
> *Apparently the new movie version of war of the Worlds will be set in contemporary USA,  yup, we have seen this sort of stuff before "independence day"
> bb *



Reading this I have to agree, just from the characters alone it doesn't sound like a faithful adaptation of the book...



> _from SciFi Wire_
> 
> Tim Robbins and Miranda Otto have been added to the cast of Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, according to The Hollywood Reporter. Robbins will play an astronomer named Ogilvy, while Otto (Lord of the Rings) will play the wife of the main character, to be played by Tom Cruise. Dakota Fanning (Taken) is also set to appear as their daughter, the trade paper reported.
> 
> The Paramount and DreamWorks co-production is the latest adaptation of the classic H.G. Wells novel of the same name, which deals with an alien invasion of Earth. The film is scheduled to begin filming in mid-November for release in 2005.


----------



## Dave (Nov 26, 2004)

This confirms it; filming will be around New York and New Jersey, not south west London...



> _from SciFi Wire_
> 
> *War Speeds Into Production *
> 
> ...


----------



## Dave (Dec 10, 2004)

>>>Moving to Up and Coming Films>>>

Filming is now well under way for this. Connecticut police were alerted by makers of Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds that two life-sized mannequins were lost in a local river over the weekend during location shooting, Zap2it reported.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 11, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

There's a teaser trailer out now: http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/

Would love to see a remake in the Victorian context - I'm not convinced that War of the Worlds in an entirely modern context is really going to do the business. We've already had the modern reinvention under another name.


----------



## polymorphikos (Dec 11, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

The trailer won't load for me, so is a synopsis out of the question? Sorry.


----------



## Alysheba (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

I think this is going to be loaded! The teaser looked great and I can only imagine what they can do now with CGI technology with this film. I hope it doesn't overpower the movie because there are some pretty heavy actors assigned to it.


----------



## polymorphikos (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

The teaser shows nothing. Only some lines adapted from the book, the typical American voiceover guy (seriously, what the hell is up with American voiceover guy? They use the same voice for everything and it always sounds laughable) and an explosion. I am no more happy than I was ten minutes ago, when I was yet to see it. In fact, I'm worried.

Justifiably worried.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Dec 29, 2004)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

Yes, but what it does show is the completely change in environment to modern America. We had that with Independence Day, though - what can a shredded new War of the World's movie do? Vote of cynicism here.


----------



## immortalem (Jan 9, 2005)

*war of the worlds trailer*

hi,

This is my first time posting a message on a board so, please be patient if it's not correct.  But I was curious if anyone has seen the War of the Worlds trailer and if they had what were their thoughts on it?


----------



## Dave (Jan 9, 2005)

Welcome to Ascifi, Immortalem.

I've not seen the trailer myself, in fact, I didn't realise that filming was so far advanced that they had produced a trailer.

Hopefully, someone will see it and reply.

This is a big site, please introduce yourself in General Discussions and tell us what else you like.

Dave


----------



## immortalem (Jan 9, 2005)

*war of the world trailer*

thanks for replying. 

 I saw the trailer and was not impressed with it so, I was wondering if anyone else felt the same.  You should go to quicktimetrailers.com and see it and tell me what you think. 

 In response to introducing myself at the general discussion, i'm not sure where to do that.


----------



## rune (Feb 19, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*



			
				I said:
			
		

> Jeff Wayne's soundtrack was good, wasn't it.


 
I thought it was brilliant, one of my favourites as a kid  

I am very curious about the movie, and hoping it's good.  Should be as Spielberg rarely does a bad movie.


----------



## Tsujigiri (Feb 19, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

Gah

I watched the trailer and had Jeff Wayne start playing in my head.....OUT! OUT!
It's no good.....I'm going to have to listen now.

The Red Weed intro, so soulful and beautiful...

Incidentally, if Cruise can manage to stop being cruise for a this film it may actually be ok...he didn't do to bad a job in Last Samurai.


----------



## Dave (Feb 23, 2005)

*Aliens to be true to HG Wells*



> _from Scifi Wire_
> 
> *War's Aliens Faithful To Wells*
> 
> ...



A little off-topic, but HG Wells used to live where I do now in London. One of my hobbies is family history and while researching my wife's ancestor's I came across his excellent descriptions of Victorian London in this book:  The New Machiavelli


----------



## immortalem (Feb 24, 2005)

i think this adaptation of War of the Worlds will be interesting.  I really liked the original movie.  I saw the trailers for Spielberg's War of the Worlds and I am excited to see it.


----------



## Jerry (Mar 4, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

I'm sure Speilberg's WotW will be visually spectacular, but its sad to see yet another classic novel being needlessly Americanised to ensure bums on seats. I guess that was also the reasoning behind replacing novel's main character with a whole nuclear family complete with obligatory cute kid. But I suppose it provides yet another excuse to symbolise the peril to civilisation (ie America) by showing the Statue of Liberty getting all beat up yet again (Independence Day, Day After Tomorrow etc etc).... and maybe I'm being cynical, but I wonder if Tom Cruise gets to save mankind instead of a common germ? *grin* 

I'm placing my hopes on Pendragon Picture's version of War of the Worlds, which is due for release on March 30th and claims to be "The First Authentic Movie Adaptation of The 1898 H.G. Wells Classic Novel". At least its set in the right country and the right period, so that gives it a head-start in my estimation

You can see the trailers for this version here: http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWKEY.html


----------



## Tsujigiri (Mar 4, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

Thanks for that Jerry, I didn't even know that film existed! It should prove to be interesting to compare it to the Hollywood version.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 6, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

Not yet seen a trailer for the Pendragon pics version - which is a shame seeing as the release date is so close. All I see is images on the site, not film excerpts.


----------



## Tsujigiri (Mar 6, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

Yop right hand of the page there is a trailer link. Look for 'Theatrical Trailer'.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Mar 7, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds: Spielberg and Dreamworks*

Odd - I was on a completely different page. 

Thanks for that - quite a tease.


----------



## Dave (Mar 8, 2005)

Well I'm sorry to say, Steven Spielbergs version doesn't sound that good to me, but apparently rumour has it that there are 2 other versions in the works (so 3 versions in all) - an animated version of the Jeff Wayne musical album I already mentioned - and another British produced version that is more faithful to the book.

It's just like London buses - it is said that you wait ages and then they come along in threes!


----------



## ray gower (Mar 8, 2005)

Don't know about the animated one, but the second version by Pendragon is listed on IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/ and tagged as the "First authentic movie adaptation of the 1898 H.G. Wells classic novel." It does appear (from the traillers) to at least been set in the right time, but how accurate it is anybodies guess.
It is due to appear first as well- 30th March release.

The notes I've found suggest that the Speilberg version is going to be like Independance day- 80 minutes of SFX and 10 minutes of story, missing out all mention of Martians to make sure there are no race relation arguments


----------



## Drake Knight (Apr 7, 2005)

*War of the Worlds*

I haven't heard too much hype about this movie, yet. But, I think it has potential, considering the director and lead actor. (Yes, I think Tom is capable of a good performance)


----------



## Quokka (Apr 8, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds*

I'm kind of hoping for the best but expecting the worst with this one. I havent seen much in the way of trailers, alot for me will depend on whether they'll just be paying lip service to the story so they can use the title or not? Jeff Wayne's soundtrack (1978) is still by far my favourite re-telling of War of the Worlds.

I remember as a kid lying outside late at night stargazing while I listened to it just to freak me out.


----------



## ravenus (Apr 8, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds*

The protagonist of Wells' WoTW was a survivor not a hero. That goes against Hollywood's philosophy for big budget spectacle movies. So this one will almost necessarily be a taint on the original story.

btw there is another production of WoTW happening, British I think, which is more faithfuly adapting the tale, atleast setting it in the same time frame.


----------



## Quokka (Apr 8, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds*

Thanks for the heads up on that ravenus, sounds interesting and a good point about the main character.


----------



## ray gower (Apr 18, 2005)

Does anybody know what happened to the Pendragon production of War of the Worlds?

Or is it one of the poor British productions that are barred from cinemas in fear of losing the 'Next Big Thing' from America, so only gets played in the big London specialist picture palaces?


----------



## Drake Knight (Apr 24, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds*

I'm reading the actual story right now. So far, I'm not that impressed. Because of that,  I hope that Hollywood does put its usual spin on it. The story could use a little extra kick.


----------



## ravenus (Apr 24, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds*



			
				Drake Knight said:
			
		

> I'm reading the actual story right now. So far, I'm not that impressed. Because of that,  I hope that Hollywood does put its usual spin on it. The story could use a little extra kick.


 It's not one of Wells' better stories per se, although again not has bad as First Men in The Moon...I don't know what's meant by 'not enough kick'...what do you feel would improve it?


----------



## littlemissattitude (Apr 24, 2005)

*Re: War of the Worlds*

Speaking of "The First Men in the Moon"...There was a silly but ultimately entertaining film version of it made in 1964 in the UK.  I remember going to see it at the drive-in when I was a kid.  It's a period piece and pretty campy, but I remember enjoying it quite a bit.  Of course, I was only eight years old when it came out, so that might explain it.


----------



## Dave (May 12, 2005)

No idea, dropped out of sight like a stone.

The trailer of the Speilberg/Cruise version makes it look good, even if it has very little to do with HG Wells.


----------



## Dave (Jun 20, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ray gower _
> *Does anybody know what happened to the Pendragon production of War of the Worlds?*


Okay, on a list I'm subscribed to someone said they picked it up in a WallMart sale, so presumably it went straight to DVD in the USA and hasn't been released here in the UK. It might eventually surface in the middle of the night on an obscure cable channel.

The reason: he said that it is really, really badly made. Three whole hours long, and consisting of the narrator walking here, the narrator walking there, the narrator walking everywhere, and three minutes of the crowd being charred by the Martian heat rays. It is quite possibly, a very faithful adaptation of the book, but great cinema it isn't. 

At least the Speilberg/Cruise version looks exciting to watch.


----------



## GOLLUM (Jun 29, 2005)

*War Of The Worlds*

I haven't seen this film yet, opened today BUT the several film reviews I saw on TV today all seem to be rating this movie pretty highly including Tom Cruise's acting efforts.

Anyone seen it yet?

I'm sure someone on Chronicles will post something soon LOL!.. 

*EDIT* * Supposed to be very scary/frightenning and therefore realistic in terms of an alien invasion.


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jun 29, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Curious about this one, too - while a modern reinvention rather than classic adaption, the trailer is inviting...


----------



## Eradius Lore (Jun 29, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

have not seen it yet but it looks interesting, might go see it on the weekend. I hope its good


----------



## Calis (Jun 29, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

go in with an open mind and dont expect it to follow the book exactly. And you should be fine unless it really sucks.


----------



## Foxbat (Jun 30, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

_The Scotsman_ has given this movie a very good review today. The one point the reviewer did make was that the actors _re_act rather than act. And because of this, he went on to point out that the movie would probably have been just as good if it had no A-list actors in it. The one thing he was very critical of was the ending. 

Time to judge for ourselves folks


----------



## Eradius Lore (Jul 1, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

i am going to see it on sunday so fingers crossed it should be good


----------



## Dave (Jul 1, 2005)

> Ananova:
> 
> Tom: I believe in aliens
> 
> ...


Anyone seen this yet?

I haven't had a chance yet.


----------



## Dave (Jul 2, 2005)

I saw this today, and I have to say that I was very impressed. And I didn't expect to be.

It changes the setting to modern day America, but it is faithful to the original story. Rural outskirts of American cities are much the same as the rural outskirts of London, and when electricity and cars don't work, there is little difference from the 19th Century.  So, the mood and tone is the same.

Neither Mars nor Martians are mentioned, but neither are they dismissed as the origin. 

"Terrorists?"
"They come from further away!"
"Europe?"

The aliens are probably closer to Well's description than other versions. Tom Cruise actually has to act and does a good job. His character has many obvious faults and he has to overcome them during the course of the film. I found it a little similar to 'Rain Man' in that respect. Speilberg keeps up the tension throughout, and I thought that it was a little too frightening for a 12A. I would have made it a 15. One child was taken out of the cinema during the cottage cellar scene.

This is not a remake of the George Pal (1953) version, but there are a few scenes that they pay homage to. Gene Barry and Ann Robinson have cameo appearences, though I missed them.

This was also not 'Independence Day'. There were some great special effects, but they were not the story. The story was a human one, much as that Well's told. I also liked the way they used cars. The car is so essential in America today, but obviously did not exist in the novel. The disbelief when they didn't work, the people fighting over the only working car, and they way the aliens could pick them up like toys, it symbolised the futility of the situation.

I would recommend that you see this one.

edit:





> _from Scifi Wire_
> *War Conquers World*
> 
> War of the Worlds, starring Tom Cruise, led the box office in North America with estimated ticket sales of $77.6 million, the second-best tally for a July 4 holiday weekend, the Reuters news service reported.
> ...


I work near a cinema and it is taking more business in the late evenings than for 'Star Wars episode III'. So does anyone want to discuss this?


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos (Jul 3, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I saw it yesterday and I have to say this is a great film!

The ending was a bit...ummm....lacking in something. Just a few little things weren't explained like I thought they would be. The special effects are amazing and the acting is top notch. Overall a film that everyone just has to see!

Out of 10.....I'd give it a 9


----------



## GOLLUM (Jul 3, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

High praise indeed.... 

Look forward to other people's reviews once the'ye seen it, plan to view it within the next few weeks...


----------



## WarlikeMenelaos (Jul 3, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I would have written a more in depth review but I didn't want to say too much before people had seen it. I'm sure most on here have read the book which the film is rather surprisingly loyal too but my own politness stops me from saying anymore.

I plan to go and see it again as soon as I have enough free time. Hope everyone enjoys it!


----------



## Eradius Lore (Jul 3, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

just came from the cinema a few hours back, thought it was amazing. yet another alien based film Steven Spielberg has managed to pull off.


----------



## Culhwch (Jul 5, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I thought this film was quite ordinary, actually. A lot of it was just stupid if not ridiculously convenient, it contradicted itself constantly, the main characters were annoying, and the ending was a major dissappointment. Failed to hook me from the very start. Which is a shame, cause I had rather high expectations for it and thought it had major potential. Never read the book but I'm tackling it now to see what went wrong...

Best thing about it was I saw a preview of King Kong beforehand. Now there's a movie that is looking impressive. Hope it delivers more than WotW did.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Spielberg was good enough to stick to HG Wells' original ending - but failed to make it work. The Martians just die, and the explanation was given in a voice over (more or less verbatim from Wells' original text), which seems fair enough, but didn't really get the point across for a lot of people in the theatre where I watched the film

I'm not sure if it was really a worthwhile adaptation, all in all. Apart from the people assuming at first that the Martians are 'terrorists' (in the 50s it'd have been 'Russians' I suppose) nothing is really done to add a fresh angle to the story, apart from simply transporting it in place and time to modern-day USA.  Althugh there is a supposedly touching human story at the core of the movie, the emotional dynamics are all too boiler-plate and the acting rather stilted. Cruise's character is implausibly sure-footed and never wrong in any of his decisions as he herds his children across the country to safety, but OK< since when have cinematic heroes been fallible. 

I liked Tim Allen's performance though. Delightfuly demented. And, as usual, Spielberg couldn't resist making even evil invader aliens look kinda cute. I won't comment on the special effects, because they really don't make a difference to me. All in all, a pretty standard popcorn movie, with all the usual Speilberg eye-kicks. A decent wat to waste three hours of your life harmlessly.


----------



## Leto (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

no better than the 50s movie then ?


----------



## Stalker (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Don't have the opinion of my own, 'cos I am going to see it only this weekend.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I haven't seen the 50s movie, but I have read good things about it, and suspect this won't measure up, except for the visual fx buffs.


----------



## Stalker (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

So, I may assume that Spielberg with his "War of the worlds" didn't manage to create a stir in Amirica of such a scale as Orson Welles did it with his infamous radioplay on the same theme back in 1938?


----------



## Calis (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

the only recent movie to do that was the Blair Witch Project when people thought it was real.


----------



## ravenus (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*



			
				knivesout said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if it was really a worthwhile adaptation, all in all. Apart from the people assuming at first that the Martians are 'terrorists' (in the 50s it'd have been 'Russians' I suppose) nothing is really done to add a fresh angle to the story, apart from simply transporting it in place and time to modern-day USA.


Perhaps it is to please lovers of the 'faithful' adaptation...not entirely a bad idea in this case...besides I'm not too sure of what 'fresh angle' can be added to a popcorn film sourced from a popcorn novel about an alien invasion of our world...without making it drastically different from the source material. Perhaps you can throw out some ideas on this.


> Cruise's character is implausibly sure-footed and never wrong in any of his decisions


One of my quibbles with the film (haven't seen it as yet)...a star like Cruise carries too much baggage to be identifiable as the common man he plays in the movie. I'm atleast thankful that they didn't have Cruise jumping on to the striders and dropping germ grenades into the maws of the aliens, which is what I'd feared this film would be.


> I liked Tim Allen's performance though. Delightfuly demented. And, as usual, Spielberg couldn't resist making even evil invader aliens look kinda cute...A decent wat to waste three hours of your life harmlessly.


Tim *Robbins*. Tim  Allen is some TV comedian dude. I like the idea of the invaders being cute and killing people. *Three hours?!* I thought this movie was about 100 min.


----------



## warlock (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise but I thought he was surprisingly good in this, good film on the whole, I thought the crowd panic scenes were done very well, very believable...just a shame about the ending. 

There's supposed to be another adaptation of War of the Worlds out, probably straight to dvd. It's a British film, set in Edwardian England, so its a straight adaptation from the book. I've seen a couple of pictures from it and it looks interesting if you can find it


----------



## Green (Jul 6, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

*Possible Spoilers*

I went into this with low expectations, and they were met. Over-directed and Tom Cruise can't play the average man. Just unbelievable as a father, let alone anything else. I agree with the point about him always making the right decisions all the time... but that's Spielberg for you - he couldn't resist the Cruise-Demi-God persona that the guy has.

The crowd/death scenes were great, the bits between were boring. You could tell they were trying to be tense, but it's all been done before (not least in the old movie, which I also didn't think was anything special, but also recently Signs did this stuff better), so it kind of missed with the punch.

Has pretty much the same ending as the old movie, and was pretty much the same let-down. Just when you thought things couldn't get any worse and everyone was doomed with no way out... the humans win. This is probably the book's ending (not read it), and probably worked as a twist back then in the 13th century. But it's not a new idea anymore, and it had no impact.

Gets 2.785 stars out of 5 on the Green scale of goodity... if there'd been more action/crowd scenes and less "tension", it could have scraped a 3.154

PS - And oh yeah! If the aliens wanted to harvest bodies, why didn't they start using big scoops on the HUGE crowds when they first appeared, instead of vapourising everyone and then picking them off one by one once they had spread all over the place? That's like trying to pick up rice with a toothpick, when you could have just used the hoover.


----------



## ravenus (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*



> You could tell they were trying to be tense, but it's all been done before (... Signs did this stuff better)


Well I shall have to gulp in trepidation because *Signs* was one of the most god-awful movies I have seen...it seemed to me a lower-budget, ultra-dour version of a Spielberg flick...ended up hollow, pretentious and utterly annoying.


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I'd have to agree about Signs. Personally, aside from his first movie and Unbreakable, I think Shyamalan's painting himself into a corner creatively. 


As to fresh angles on the story - c'mon dude, Spielberg's supposed to be the big honcho Hollywood storyteller here - why pick on me for ideas???


----------



## Green (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Signs was much better than this film. But that's beside the point. You can't really call Signs a lower-budget version of this, because Signs purposefully stayed away from the CGI Independance Day spectacularrrrrr (and if it had held true to that all the way to the credits, it would have benefited from it, imo). WotW was brain-dead blasters for the most part (which is fine if that's what you're after), but the bits where it tried to make you feel anything (the bits that Signs did ten times better) fell flat on their arses. I could tell I was supposed to be scared/tense/worried/upset because the music and Tom Cruise's Bag O' Tricks told me so. But I just didn't feel any of it.

The ending to War of the Worlds was such an anticlimax. And it nearly gave me diabetes. Spielberg can't resist the SuperHappy ending.

After all that though, it wasn't a terrible film. It should have stuck to the big death scenes that it did so well, and stayed clear of anything else.


----------



## ravenus (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

The only scene in *Signs* which even slightly gripped me was the one where this guy walks through the fields at night, gets scared by the whole atmosphere and marches quickly back. Everything else was mumble-mumble "I'm trying to be oh so profoundly wounded and hurt" unconvincing clap-trap...and his redemption is equally pointless and pat..."An alien that made a lot of crop circles came to my house and got beaten by water. Surely God exists and watches over us...now where's that darn white collar?"


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*



			
				ravenus said:
			
		

> "An alien that made a lot of crop circles came to my house and got beaten by water. Surely God exists and watches over us...now where's that darn white collar?"


 
I just broke my jaw laughing.


----------



## GOLLUM (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Have to agree *Signs * was one of the silliest stories/movies I've ever seen, way too many half-baked conicidences and characters for my liking...


----------



## Jayaprakash Satyamurthy (Jul 7, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

You'll find even more, although without the attendant ET gibberish in *Basic*, a film starring John Travolta and Samuel L Jackson. A totally pointless case of not just whipping a dead horse but twisting its tale wayyyy too many times! Eww.


----------



## rune (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I hoping to go see it this afternoon    I'm all excited


----------



## warlock (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Compared to *The Village*, *Signs* was a work of genius. *The Village* stank on so many levels, from the completely obvious and uninteresting "twist", to the non-scary nature of the creatures, to the stilted performances and uninvolving cast. Think Shaylaman has peaked.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I actually enjoyed The Village more than Signs.
I quite liked the films setting (circa 1700s) and was enjoying it on the same level as Brotherhood of the Wolf.

I think MNS should ditch have a twist ending in _every_ movie though. It's not a twist if you know its coming... D'oh!
Also, he stinks as an "actor". I think he should ditch his ego and just do cameos if he feels the need to have his Id massaged by appearing in his own movie.

Back to War of the Worlds - I liked the design of the Tripods but I agree that Tom Cruise isn't convincing as an everyday family man, and the film would have benefited by launching the career of a "no-name" talented actor.
I didn't like the aliens 'death ray' though - that was too over the top and jarred me out of any sense of realism.

Verdict: Fairly watchable popcorn movie if you leave your brain behind.


----------



## Stalker (Jul 8, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Wow, Knivesout has changed for PKD's image. The motto reminds me of his extravagant Mez speech.


----------



## rune (Jul 9, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Went to see the movie yesterday afternoon.  Well, I'm sorry to say I feel it could of been better.  The acting was OK, but the actors were reacting and not really acting.  I expected better because Spielberg as done good movies and had good actors with really moving performances.  This movie was seriously lacking in that.

However, the special effects were good, I liked the aliens, I thought panick was well done, in fact it seemed like the whole movie was a panick attack all the way through.

The ending though true to the book just seemed a bit flat.

I really like the war of the worlds album by Jeff Wayne, and at times wished that music had been used.  It felt so odd hearing someone else narrate those famous words at the start of the movie.  Richard Burton did them so much better


----------



## GOLLUM (Jul 9, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

HMMM.. might wait for it to come to DVD then....


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jul 9, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Watched this last night too and was underwhelmed.
There were too many questions left unanswered and for long periods of the movie, nothing happened. 
Spielbergs decision to entirely focus on 1 families story worked sometimes and didn't others - I got a bit sick of seeing them hide in the basement 
The scenes of panic & loss weren't done with sufficient weight or focus to make them tragic. Most of the time it was strangers running, looking scared. Ironically, Independance Day did this better, by focussing on the stories of 3 or 4 different people in different settings.
I wasn't too bothered by the ending, as it is true to the book as was handled well.

On a brighter note, I thought the design of the tripods was excellent, and the sound they made before each attack was very chilling.


----------



## rune (Jul 10, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*



			
				Winters_Sorrow said:
			
		

> Watched this last night too and was underwhelmed.
> There were too many questions left unanswered and for long periods of the movie, nothing happened.
> Spielbergs decision to entirely focus on 1 families story worked sometimes and didn't others - I got a bit sick of seeing them hide in the basement
> The scenes of panic & loss weren't done with sufficient weight or focus to make them tragic. Most of the time it was strangers running, looking scared. Ironically, Independance Day did this better, by focussing on the stories of 3 or 4 different people in different settings.
> ...


 
I agree with your thoughts.  Probably that was the problem with the movie.  Not quite enough going on, and I got fed up of the kid screaming    She did a good scream mind, it just got tiresome after a while.  

This movie is worth seeing for the aliens though, very well done.  But personally I would wait until it comes out on DVD and hire it.


----------



## Tikal (Jul 10, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*



			
				rune said:
			
		

> I agree with your thoughts. Probably that was the problem with the movie. Not quite enough going on, and I got fed up of the kid screaming  She did a good scream mind, it just got tiresome after a while.
> 
> This movie is worth seeing for the aliens though, very well done. But personally I would wait until it comes out on DVD and hire it.


 
I agree, it concetrated too much on that one family, I expected to see a bit more of the aliens. I did phase out a bit in the film (I remember watching that peanutbutter sandwhich slide down the window with great interest!), but I would still go see it at teh cinema, it is a good film, it just depends what you like.


----------



## Stalker (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Saw the movie. Total disappointment.
Speilberg tries to view individual tragedy in the war and the war is only a fantastic background for it. The movie lacks panoramicness and that differs it from HG Wells' book. Good effects, sometimes you even feel that grim atmosphere filled with sticky fear and horrors but only sometimes. Primitive typically Hollywood script, too many logical flaws.


----------



## Traveller (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Saw it last Wednesday It wasnt too bad honest it wasnt, the Tripods were the best interpretation id seen though the noise they made reminded me of that Tv series shown years ago called Tripods anyone remember that?

It was boring though I had expected more action even tho Id heard it was more psychological, the Plane crash was well thought out the plane having been brought and then wrecked. The Train was shocking not something Id have thought of but just the image going through the crossing.

The clothes that were seen strewn about were provided by lost and found at airports imagine seeing your missing jumper on screen. .

Its not the sort of film you would want to go see day after day.

I did wonder why noone had ever built a house on top of one or maybe they did but wouldnt they have noticed a huge ship type thing there when they did the foundations.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I suppose the premise was that these things had been planted on Earth 'a million years ago' and buried pretty deep (guessing 100 foot+ or so) so unless you get a major engineering project, they wouldn't be disturbed.

Would have been nice trying to see one climb out of the hoover dam reservoir though


----------



## Stalker (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

One of the mot serious flaws of the movie: so, hy had they waited for so long?Or maybe, I just missed something?


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Well, I think the movie missed the point. In the novels and earlier film - the ships _*landed*_. What kind of fool sends advanced technology to the world you're about to invade & conquer only to run the risk of it being discovered, adapted & used against you.

Pillocks. They deserved everything they got


----------



## Traveller (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I had heard that Gene Barry & Ann Robinson who starred in the 1953 version starred in this version so I toddled along to imdb to see who they played and to see if they could be spotted only to discover they play the grandparents at the end of the film.

Some of the trivia for the film is interesting for example 





> In the cellar, note the multi-colored lights just prior to the probe entering. This references the red, blue and green lights from the probe in the 1953 version of the film, though no part of the probe in this film emits any of those colors.


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I was actually quite annoyed with the probe scene. In the '53 War of the Worlds it served a purpose. It was taken away & examined by the scientists to 'setup' the audience for the ending.
In this version it was a pale & pointless homage that served no purpose other than to allow us to glimpse the aliens. 
But then I hated the whole 'basement' scene with Tim Robbins as completely pointless too.


----------



## rune (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I've heard the movie hasnt got good reviews either.  It's such a dissappointment when you know that Spielberg and do so much better.  I for one really got my hopes up for a great movie, especially as I didnt like the old one.  
Perhaps it's partly my own fault for having too high expectations


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I find that about movies too. If I let myself get too excited for a movie it never quite lives up to your own imagination. If I go in with low expectations or none at all, it seems to work out fine.

There's a moral in there somewhere but I'll be damned if I can figure it out...


----------



## Brian G Turner (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

The ships don't even land?? Hm...doesn't sound promising at all. I can see the frustrations with logical problems already.


----------



## Circus Cranium (Jul 11, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

It's got a few plot holes, but I rarely see scifi that doesn't. This film was an absolute trip, loved it. Just don't go in expecting Shakespeare and you'll be fine.


----------



## angrybuddhist (Jul 12, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I enjoyed this movie more than Fantastic Four and Batman Begins (which has gotten rave reviews).  It would have been better served as a mini-series that followed more than one survival plot, though.


----------



## Alia (Jul 18, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*



			
				WarlikeMenelaos said:
			
		

> I saw it yesterday and I have to say this is a great film!
> 
> The ending was a bit...ummm....lacking in something. Just a few little things weren't explained like I thought they would be. The special effects are amazing and the acting is top notch. Overall a film that everyone just has to see!
> 
> Out of 10.....I'd give it a 9


 I saw the film last night, and have to agree the ending was lacking something.  There were a few mistakes made that I caught, and that's pretty bad if I caught them.  I have to admit I was expecting a lot more from Speilberg and Cruise.  But overall it's a good Video movie...

And I think a 9 is too high, more like a 6 or 7 from me, out of ten.


----------



## heyzeus321 (Jul 19, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*



			
				Alia said:
			
		

> I saw the film last night, and have to agree the ending was lacking something. I have to admit I was expecting a lot more from Speilberg and Cruise. But overall it's a good Video movie....



I am going to have to agree with Alia 100%.  The end just kind of tapered off.  Right after the grenade fiasco, the verynext scene "huh....the Aliens are dead....oh....ummm.....well I guess....I'll see you...tomorrow....alright"  Horrible.


----------



## Jock (Jul 20, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I found the film quite boring to be honest, though the FX were excellent.


----------



## lazygun (Jul 25, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

Starts well enough,then goes down hill from there,in my humble opinion.
Felt like 30mins.of the middle of the film had been cut out...?.
What I got was.......Aliens?....RUN AWAY!...The End.
..You can tell i was dissapointed?....


----------



## Alexa (Jul 31, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I didn't like the aliens. They were supposed to be more advanced than humans. All their superiority consists in spaceships and tripods ? No sign of inteligence ? All right, I agree the tripods were something special. But the way aliens used humans to feed themselves, yeak !  Don't let children under 14 watch it ! 

I liked Tom Cruise's performance. But this is my opinion, so I'm gonna keep it.

There were too many scenes of distruction and people running away. Some of them made me think at Independence day and others at Titanic's sinking. I thought the boy died during one of those rare and poor battles against the tripods. I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw him very much alive at the end of the movie. 

The episode in the basement was interesting. At least, you could see somebody planning a resistence and not walking miles like zombies. Our famous aliens made their appearence finally and showed some interest in those debris of human environment.

The end of the movie was indeed miscarried and demoralising. Humans are worthless ?

Maybe I'm not fair with the movie's story. Maybe all those undevelopped parts were the result of a poor science-fiction story. 

My intuition was right. This movie is good only for a DVD rental.


----------



## kyektulu (Jul 31, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I saw this film the other night and although it was good, action packed most of the way through the ending totally spoiled it. 
Talk about an anti climax! The ending was so rushed and as soon as the final chapter began it was over.
They had to do a happy-reuniting ending to which I didnt like not realistic what so ever.
I would say watch this film but if your anything like me it will be the one and only time.

xxxkyexxx


----------



## ThulsaDoom (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

On first viewing, I reasonably enjoyed this, but I have to say it's definitely a one watch movie. There's nothing in it that would make you want to see it again.

Plus Points - For the most part good acting, (even from Tom Cruise! Shock!!), Good destruction scenes and special effects, reasonably entertaining.

Minus Points - 
1. There is no middle to this film. It starts off interesting, then just turns into "We run from aliens" Next scene - "We run from aliens" Next scene - "We run...." (You get the idea!)
2. There is no real story going on. Despite the fact that the end of both this and the original version mean that man's efforts meant nothing, the original at least had a gradual feeling of discovery and desperation as it went.
3. All the 9/11 references (The dust covered faces, the boards of people looking for loved ones, etc) They just come over as a bit crass, when in interviews you realise spielberg did them so deliberately. The photo thing felt like a shoe-horned reference, since in the film's circumstances, people probably wouldn't have had time to do those things.
4. Aliens burying their ships. Um... why? If you intend to invade, why not do it when you drop the hardware off, and there's NO chance of the enemy having a way to defeat you? Also, if there were so many buried, how come nobody's ever come across one? There's no WAY they would have gone totally undiscovered in this day and age in those numbers (Hell, if we can find dinosaur bones that have become basically just slightly different shaped rocks to what surrounds them, we can find several tons of metal Alien hardware dotted all over the place!)
5. Why did people stand in front of things as they happened? Or conversely go toward them?? People RUN when they're panicked! Or at least leave the situation!
6. The reason for the son going over the hill wasn't to join in the fight (Which at least would have made SOME sense) but "I have to see this." That's like looking at a burning inferno, and deciding to walk into it to examine what's making the flames, just for the hell of it. Stupid.
7. The basement. Dragged out, and annoying. So many stupid things happened here, they're not even worth mentioning, but it was still the best thing in the film.
8. The son surviving. WHY WHY WHY?? You lose all the dramatic emphasis of him having to choose to give his son the choice to die pointlessly, and there's no explanation of how he survived an absurdly huge fireball seconds after he went over the hill!
9. The ending. A bit lacklustre, but I didn't mind too much. However, there should have been SOME explanation of why the ex was still there, and hadn't tried escaping somewhere!

I still think it's probably Spielberg's best SF film. It's a shame he's just not that good at them! He always has enough spectacle to make people go "ahhh!!! Isn't he brilliant!" But they fall flat on their faces as soon as you start thinking about them.
It's a shame about WOTW, but we'll just have to wait for somebody to do a _decent_ remake in about 10 years!


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*



			
				ThulsaDoom said:
			
		

> I still think it's probably Spielberg's best SF film. It's a shame he's just not that good at them! He always has enough spectacle to make people go "ahhh!!! Isn't he brilliant!" But they fall flat on their faces as soon as you start thinking about them.


 
I agreed with most of what you said, but Spielberg's best sci-fi movie has to be Close Encounters - hell, even ET & AI were a long country mile ahead of WoW in plot, characterisation & storyline.

The thing to remember about Spielberg (exceptions Jaws & Schindler's List) is that he loves his curdled milk and pours in bucketfuls of cheddar into all his movies.


----------



## Culhwch (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*



			
				ThulsaDoom said:
			
		

> It's a shame about WOTW, but we'll just have to wait for somebody to do a _decent_ remake in about 10 years!


 
I'd like to see a literal adaptation, set in the time period the novel was set and written in. But then, I guess, you couldn't cast Tom Cruise....

Would Jurassic Park be considered sci-fi? Sci-fi/adventure, I guess. But better than WotW, too, I reckon. AI was a bit of a nothing film, as was Minority Report. Spielburg's not hit any genre out of the park for quite some time...


----------



## ThulsaDoom (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

I suppose Jurassic Park would be SF, yeah, so okay, not his best! ;-) I'd say WOTW was better than AI and Minority Report though. Not as much plot, but they just fell flat on their faces! ;-) To be honest, I think Spielberg's over-rated. The best film he's done of his own is still Jaws. The Indiana Jones films he only directed. (I know Schindler's List has a hard message, but I always feel it's somewhat lost, with a feeling of spielberg's "I want my Oscar!")


----------



## Culhwch (Aug 1, 2005)

*Re: War Of The Worlds*

His next one is shaping up as promising - 'Munich', based around the Israeli reprisals for the Palestinian murders of Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympics. I was reading an article about it on the weekend and it seems much darker and more confrontational than the usual Spielburg fare. I don't think he could squeeze much cheese into this one...


----------



## ray gower (Aug 6, 2005)

Me!

My advice is forget the original Pal film, this one is about as close to the Wells book as Hollywood is ever likely to get.

For the first third of the film I really hated the Cruise family. The kids are obnoxious and cruising for a spanking, the father is a layabout- All in all a horribly ordinary disfunctional family. Which rather helped build the rest of the story.

As Dave has observed the effects were largely kept where they belong, in the background and used to increase the tension. The sight of the burning train charging over the level crossing with everybody looking on dully is going to live with me for weeks. Meanwhile the wreckage of the jumbo in the back garden was simply silly (professional opinion).

With the exception of the ending scene there are very few nits to pick with the actual film. The end scene of an undamged suburban estate, when the rest of the US had been destroyed, and a happy family reunion with Mother, father and ex looking as if there had never been anything wrong was, at best, incongruous.

Which only leaves the rather inexplicable way the aliens attacked, where a number of questions need to be answered:-

Why did they just burry their machines all those years ago?
If they could get them here, then logically they could get here too. So why bother going through the risk of the machines being found?

Comes to that, after 10,000 years the equipment is going to be out of date, even if they could get them to start.

If they did come all those years ago, after 10,000 years one would have thought they would have found a way to combet the common cold, or whatever they died of?

Burrying their machines seems a rather precarious way of hiding things too. If they are too far underground it is going to take a lot more than a bit of lightening to drill a hole down to them. While anything under a few hundred feet is going to make discovery inevitable- Especially under a city with an underground system, even if natural events doesn't uncover them, or burry them so completely they are lost forever


----------



## ray gower (Jan 18, 2006)

Helpfully, in the UK, the third variant of HG Wells War of the Worlds to enter the 2005 starting blocks is called Invasion.

In retroflect, it may have been more appropriate if Mr Speilberg's version were called Invasion and this was called War of the Worlds, of the two this is the closest rendition to the book, all be it set in the US in 2005.

Now I've been kind, I have to say that, regretfully, Speilberg's rendition, helped by all those millions of dollars is the better film to watch.
Or, put another way, it reveals the weakness in Mr Wells' famous story. Not much really happens.


----------



## philoSCIFI (Jan 19, 2006)

Wow. You just called HG Well's War of the Worlds "weak" and even more surprising, I agree with you?  :rolly2: 

I dunno. The book was still different compared to this 3rd version. I thought the movie was alright, but found the story "weak" as you say. I think it's the ending that throws it all away. It usually is with the 'aliens taking over the world' plots. _Signs_ for example. It's always something about earth or about "human nature" that ruins the aliens from taking over. I'm guess thats one of the reasons I like Planet of the Apes? 

If we're guaranteed to win or at least I feel that in the end we always win, I don't find the whole "fight" meaningless. I can't watch these movies as often as I'd probably like. It gets... old. In the movies, its usually the superpowers taking care of the "enemy" and of course... we win - whether it be be force, accident, nature of the universe, etc. Bleh. I can't really blame anyone though as I can't think of a different or unique way we would win either. And as for loosing... well. Yeah see... it's why I like Planet of the Apes.  :dead: :blush:


----------



## ray gower (Jan 19, 2006)

Should clarify the 'weakness' bit: 
Ignoring the plot hole, that the red weed only appears in the last few pages, after it has taken over the world, the book is about as good as Sci-Fi gets, full of rich narrative and description. Strangely, it works really well on radio as a play too.

It is when it hits film that things go astray. While the acting in this version was not bad, it was not up to the task of stopping the feeble minded eye looking for something to occupy its flighty attention and there is nothing there. 

While I remember plot holes and this film:-
Why, when the engine of his car stopped working, because of the EMF effect of the ship's crash landing, were the parking lights still on?

From a chap who can recognise that elderflower contains a strong analgesic to reduce fever. How come he did not see the great flaw in his plan with infecting the aliens with rabies?
Rabies needs direct blood contact to spread.
It is a shrewd guess that with any race whose spit will take your face off in seconds, kissing each other is not going to be a major part of their culture. 

Has anybody seen the Pendragon HG Wells War of the Worlds version at all?


----------



## philoSCIFI (Jan 23, 2006)

Ah, I see. 

Tangent:
Just a question... no matter what book to movie adaptation, I'm guessing you prefer the book better. Have you encountered a movie adaptation that you _have_ liked just as equally as the movie (with the minor differences or not... whether or not the movie stuck to the book version?) ?

Back on topic:
I haven't seen the Pendragon HG Wells War of the Worlds version. But now I'm interested in watching it.  Would you recommend it?


----------



## ray gower (Jan 23, 2006)

> Just a question... no matter what book to movie adaptation, I'm guessing you prefer the book better. Have you encountered a movie adaptation that you have liked just as equally as the movie (with the minor differences or not... whether or not the movie stuck to the book version?) ?


Actually- Several come to mind immediately- 
I liked Speilberg's version of WotW, not because it followed the book literally, but because it was a spectacular interpretation. But as we've observed, the book needs interpreting for film to make it interesting.

The LOTR films, with spectacular scenery and superb cast, put a rich substance to the literary words of Tolkien. I would recommend them over the books to anybody who may struggle with the weight of Tolkien.

And I would take the film version of Dune over the book any day.

Having said that, the film version of Battlefield Earth was a travesty.

And let us not forget- The book of the film is invariably a real pigs ear! 
-------------------------------------------
I was hoping you could tell me about the Pendragon variant!
Many of the reviews seem to make a particular point about walking


----------



## steve12553 (Aug 19, 2006)

This is where I had to disagree. I thought the Speilberg version was rather dull. I thought the effects added little to the story and Cruise's interprtation of the everyman character made me hope he'd get it next. If you're going to be a hero you ether have to be heroic or at least worthy. His character was a miserable human being who caused most of his own problems and he did nothing for anybody. In both the fifties version and the book the human race as seen through the eyes of the main character struggled and fought nearly to the death and then was saved byt the weakness of the aliens. THis one there was little fighting to the ddeath and a lot of running and panicing. Almost like a Godzilla movie. "Look, Martians, Run." Just couldn't get into it and I was thinking "Welles, Speilberg. Can't miss." Missed.


----------



## ray gower (Aug 19, 2006)

But the book is not about the struggle of humanity, or indeed of the main character being heroic. It is quite literally extracts from the diary of a learned man trying to escape and observing the ways of those around him as he does it. Written by a novellist who could make the names in a telephone directory sound interesting.

From this point, Speilberg made a dammned good fist of the plot: Introducing far more of the book themes than the 60's classic and avoiding making the hero into a rootin-tootin shoot the greenies Arnie clone.

In retroflect the kids were a mistake, I'd have nailed them to the first lamp post, but they like the Cruise character were indicative of 'ordinary' people today, as were all the other flotsam of humanity that drifted through. The film would have been odd indeed if some independent means bookish gentleman started wandering around, dispassionately observing the peculiarities of the human race, which is largely what happens in Invaision.


----------



## steve12553 (Aug 19, 2006)

I was just disappointed for two reasons. With today's CGI technology they could have made the book. Turn of the previous Century England. The walking machines. The plants and the human harvesting. They made a monster movie. Cruise's character was whiney and not capable of reporting as in the book or much of anything else. He should have died in the first reel and they could have followed somebody interesting. With all that raw talent this should have been a great movie, not a mediocre one.


----------



## bison1 (Mar 20, 2009)

*The day the Earth stood still (1951)*

In the original version of The day the Earth stood still, it is never explicitly stated where Klaatu came from. However, there are clues, given early in the movie, which seem to point strongly at a particular place of origin. Has anyone deduced the answer?


----------



## Dave (Mar 20, 2009)

*Re: The day the Earth stood still (1951)*

I give in. You'll have to tell me.

BTW there is a transcript here:
Day the Earth Stood Still, The Script at IMSDb.


> ...military leaders are considering two possibilities; that it came from some unfriendly power here on earth -- or that it actually arrived from another planet.


----------



## dask (Mar 20, 2009)

*Re: The day the Earth stood still (1951)*



bison1 said:


> In the original version of The day the Earth stood still, it is never explicitly stated where Klaatu came from. However, there are clues, given early in the movie, which seem to point strongly at a particular place of origin. Has anyone deduced the answer?


 
Outer Space?


----------



## Foxbat (Mar 21, 2009)

*Re: The day the Earth stood still (1951)*

In the end, does it really matter where he comes from? 

The whole point of the story is to point a critical finger at ourselves. Using an alien character to do that is merely a convenient plot device. He could have come from an undersea kingdom or some unknown island...it wouldn't have really mattered because Klaatu's origins has no effect on the story whatsoever.

P.S. welcome to Chronicles


----------



## bison1 (Mar 21, 2009)

*Re: The day the Earth stood still (1951)*

Thanks for articulating the point of the story for any who might have missed it. I wouldn't have thought that anyone had done. Since we share a similar understanding on this point, I'm not sure there would be a great deal to discuss in that line. I'm willing to try, though.   My question was about the 'texture' of the film, if you will. I happen to be interested in the science in science fiction and wondered if anyone else was , too. I could have asked: 'why did Klaatu react the way he did when he saw and heard a musical box'? In order to spark a conversation on, say, creativity. Or perhaps you'd find this question more relevant: Klaatu and his people seemed primarily concerned about the threat we could eventually pose to them. Given the nearly six decades since the film was made, does it seem today that  we would be less, or more threatening? In other words, have we grown up a bit, or not?


----------



## steve12553 (Mar 22, 2009)

*Re: The day the Earth stood still (1951)*



bison1 said:


> ... In other words, have we grown up a bit, or not?


As a species we seem today to be less likely to blow up the planet but very much more likely to kill each other in many separate incidents. Out war seem to be smaller but much more frequent.


----------



## clovis-man (Mar 22, 2009)

*Re: The day the Earth stood still (1951)*

Iron curtain paranoia was rampant when this movie was made. You couldn't trust anyone, so be suspicious of everyone. The theme was repeated in other films of the time as well. *Invasion of the Body Snatchers*, *It Came From Outer Space*, *Invaders From Mars*, etc.

It was more of a Weltanschaung thing than a reflection of how really bad we were.


----------

