War of the Worlds

[BOP_101TFS 0]

Spielberg's War of the Worlds

I have read the original novel, I like it

http://www.waroftheworlds.com/

http://www.eveofthewar.com/

http://waroftheworldsfilm.com/

http://www.war-of-the-worlds.org/

...

[Bernadotte 0]

I have read the original novel, I like it

A true classic, written by H.G. Wells in 1898...  According to a Wikipedia article about the original book:

Quote[/b] ]The book has been viewed as an indictment of European colonial actions in Africa, Asia, Australasia, and the Americas. Justification of the conquest of non-European peoples was usually along the lines of might-makes-right; i.e., the Europeans had vastly superior technology and so must be naturally superior people and so are perfectly justified in taking the lands for themselves. This argument gets flipped on its head with the arrival of comparatively technologically superior Martians who, according to the colonizers' own arguments, must therefore have every right to subjugate Europeans.

I wonder if Spielberg's version retains any of that political message.

Perhaps Tom Cruise is portrayed as an insurgent.  

[Akira 0]

San Jose Mercury News

Quote[/b] ]It turns out, it's not the end of the world. You just wish it were by the end of the movie.

"War of the Worlds" is a picture without a thought in its pretty head: the Tom Cruise movie to end all Tom Cruise movies. If we're lucky. The movie has nothing much to say about the shape the world is in, other than a few reflexive questions about whether the explosions that accompany the arrival of space invaders might actually be caused by "the terrorists."

Oh, them.

The last time somebody made this movie, its subtext was all about the Cold War. But the new version's closest brush with metaphor arrives as the movie dead-ends in Boston, when some pigeons land on one of the alien fighting ships near Faneuil Hall, apparently mistaking it for a statue of Paul Revere on horseback. Tom Cruise -- who never stops seeming exactly like Tom Cruise, even though his character has been given the unlikely name Ray -- gets very excited about this and tries to shout something to a soldier. But there's so much noise in the movie at all times that the soldier can't hear him, and neither can we. This gives you something to talk about as you exit the theater.

"War of the Worlds" is supposed to be about aliens who go stomping around the countryside on long-legged fighting platforms -- known instantly to everyone in the movie as Tripods -- that almost certainly are the least practical interplanetary attack vehicles ever devised. But the invaders are only there to provide a backdrop for the movie's seemingly endless tableaux of Tom Cruise -- Tom Cruise running for his life, Tom Cruise being bathed in the blood of others, Tom Cruise yelling at his movie kids like a guy who wishes he knew where to get his hands on some Ritalin.

The best science fiction movies are grounded in everyday life, as pictures such as "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still" ably demonstrate. But "War of the Worlds" operates at such a distant remove from reality that when the invasion turns hundreds of thousands of people into refugees, wandering across New Jersey, we don't see a single displaced dog among them. This is a movie so completely de-contextualized from real life that it makes you yearn nostalgically for the unreality TV of Cruise's recent rampage through the talk shows.

Director Steven Spielberg and writer David Koepp, who collaborated on "Jurassic Park," have updated the story and the special effects so completely that comparisons to the novel upon which the movie is based -- written by H.G. Wells in 1898 -- or the 1953 sci-fi picture by producer George Pal are pointless. Spielberg is more likely trying to create a visual analog to the historic radio broadcast by Orson Welles' Mercury Theatre on Oct. 30, 1938, but the astonishments that Welles conjured for the mind's eye have now been given the face of a cultural banality.

As you would expect, the movie is larded with visual effects that keep Ray and his children, Robbie and Rachel -- the Raylettes -- in constant peril. Spielberg makes the threat to the rest of the world seem real enough, but the story is told through the eyes of Cruise's character, and we know that he will remain in a protective bubble for the duration of the picture. With that realization, boom goes the dynamite of our illusions. And our fears.

The only really scary moments come when bad things threaten the life of 10-year-old Rachel, played by the 47-year-old child impersonator Dakota Fanning. In fact, the creepiest scene in "War of the Worlds" is also one of the quietest, and it comes when Spielberg allows his camera to linger on Fanning's face as she takes in a horrible sight.

There are other splendid images in the film, as when a train suddenly races by Ray and the army of darkness he has joined, making them all look up from their zombie-like trance in wonder at the train's bright lights.

There also is a long scene involving an alien probe with a face that makes him look like the misbehaving younger brother of E.T., the extraterrestrial. The probe is sent into a basement to search for humans, which is odd, because until then the invaders have simply been blasting buildings to bits, indiscriminately vaporizing everybody in them. When they come to the house where Ray is hiding with a loonyburgher played by Tim Robbins, suddenly they start going door to door like Amway salesmen.

Come to think of it, maybe it is the end of the world after all.

In contrast, Variety

Quote[/b] ]A generation later, Steven SpielbergSteven Spielberg has made the anti-"Close Encounters" in "War of the Worlds," a gritty, intense and supremely accomplished sci-fier about some distinctly unbenign alien invaders. Latest adaptation of H.G. Wells' endlessly malleable and resonant 1898 novel preys upon the insecurities of a modern audience that's more fearful and skittish than was the case when the director made his optimistic early-career smashes about outer space visitors. Relentless mix of breath-sapping scares, awesome spectacle, Tom CruiseTom Cruise and a massive marketing push look to deliver the biggest B.O.B.O. haul Spielberg has enjoyed in quite a few years.

With each telling, this elemental story -- the first ever written about an alien assault on Earth -- offers a subtext appropriate to the paranoia of its era. Wells' original reflected attitudes about the British Empire as well as the rapid rise of science and technology; Orson Welles' panic-inducing 1938 radio broadcast (which had a New Jersey setting, as does Spielberg's film) arrived less than a year before World War II broke out; and the George Pal/Byron Haskin 1953 feature was very much a product of the anti-communist Cold War mentality.

Implicitly, then, this new take exists in the shadow of 9/11 and fears of new enemies bent on nothing less than the total destruction of the West in general and the United States in particular. Granted, "War of the Worlds" arrives after such pics as "Independence Day," "Armageddon""Armageddon" and many others have served up similar doomsday portraits in vivid detail, so such images are now commonplace in the collective pop culture mind. But Spielberg's vision of worldly wipeout has such visceral immediacy that it connects almost at once and rarely flags until the end.

For a $135 million special effects epic, it's striking how grungy and ordinary it looks. Foregoing the widescreen format, desaturating the colors and focusing on nondescript working-class neighborhoods, Spielberg and cinematographer Janusz KaminskiJanusz Kaminski employ a raw, inelegant visual style to disguise the film's extraordinary stylistic sophistication and make seamless the interlacing of real and computerized action.

No sooner has dockworker Ray Ferrier (Cruise) taken weekend custody of his kids, disaffected teen son Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and nervous daughter Rachel (Dakota FanningDakota Fanning), from newly married ex-wife Mary Ann (Miranda Otto) than dark clouds envelope the low-end waterfront area and thunderless lightning bolts hit the ground, knocking out electricity and motor vehicles.

In effects that look as realistic as the humdrum setting, streets crack open and collapse, buildings crumble and an enormous warrior robot rises from beneath the ground and starts firing away with an incinerating ray, vaporizing fleeing Earthlings and blowing up anything it wants. This is annihilation, without explanation.

In its frenzy of surprise firepower and sudden death, this initial action salvo packs a punch not unlike that of the opening of "Saving Private Ryan," albeit with a PG-13 gore factor. Spielberg is very good at filming frenzied flight -- his films are full of it -- and showing the characters subjected to the attack as fish in a barrel.

Somehow, Ray figures out how to get a car started, and manages to spirit his kids off to Mary Ann's house, where they pass a tense night. In the morning, they are greeted by the sight of a crashed passenger jet and members of a news crew, who inform them the 100-foot "tripods" are wreaking destruction everywhere. Despite this, Ray is determined to get the kids to Boston, where Mary Ann and her husband are visiting her parents.

From here on, Spielberg paints a portrait of devastated humanity that at times takes on medieval overtones in its evocation of widespread arbitrary suffering and every-man-for-himself opportunism while a pitiless force rains down pestilence on a suddenly pathetic-looking race. It's a canvas that has room for some striking, surreal brush strokes, such as Rachel witnessing dozens of bodies floating down a river, or a blazing night train roaring down the tracks.

Amid the mayhem, the volatile Ray can't keep his fractured family unified. Overcompensating for his failure as a husband and father by yelling a lot and trying to appear in charge when he's not, he drives his son away and maintains control of Rachel only due to her youth and his promise to get her back to her mom. He's supposed to be a regular Joe with plenty of foibles but good survival instincts. But he also seems to be on uppers, as Cruise is in overdrive virtually throughout. It's easy to see why Spielberg wanted the commercial cushion of an above-the-title superstar, but this is no more a performance-based picture than "Jurassic Park," and might have proven more balanced and artistically effective with a no-name cast.

Ironically, the suspense highlight is provided by the film's most intimate and quiet scene. Encountering a half-cracked man, Ogilvy (Tim RobbinsTim Robbins), at a farmhouse, Ray and Rachel hide with him in the basement, which is soon penetrated by an enormous tentacle that slithers around every wall and post as the humans scurry to avoid detection. The framing, cutting and timing of this breathless sequence are unerring, revealing the master hands of Spielberg and editor Michael KahnMichael Kahn. Interlude precedes the long-delayed revelation of the aliens themselves, nasty looking buggers with dark crustacean-like heads and emaciated versions of a human torso (unlike all previous versions, this one does not identify them as Martians).

There is more terror in store, but when the end comes -- the solution is taken directly from the novel -- it arrives suddenly, with brief framing narration intoned by Morgan FreemanMorgan Freeman easing the viewer out of the nightmare. Quiet conclusion may leave some feeling a bit hollow at fadeout, but muted wrapwrap-up is refreshing after all the overdone, slam-bang action climaxes of recent years.

Except for the anonymous soldiers obliged to do their duty, pic completely eschews the military and government types that are normally standard issue in this sort of fare, just as Spielberg and scenarists Josh FriedmanJosh Friedman (the upcoming "The Black Dahlia") and David KoeppDavid Koepp ("Jurassic Park") avoid the cliche of showing landmarks being destroyed.

"War of the Worlds" alludes to many of Spielberg's previous works, and not just his sci-fi features. The contrast could not be more obvious between the gentle-spirited aliens of "Close Encounters" and "E.T." and the present film's murdering monsters. But there are unstressed echoes of many other pictures: the societal upheaval and personal displacement of "Empire of the Sun," the genocide of "Schindler's List," the sudden and arbitrary slaughter of "Saving Private Ryan," the mass hysteria of "Jaws," the fractious motorized family struggle of "The Sugarland Express."

Making the film look as grubby as it does was inspired, as it both enhances the action's believability and distinguishes the picture from the grandiose physicality of its big-budget brethren. Never before have such diverse and numerous visual effects appeared more naturalistic and undifferentiated from the actual, photographed material. Tech contributions are first-rate across the board, and John Williams' string-dominated score is unusually somber, even mournful.

[D.murphy man 0]

This looks great, im going to see it soon with a few mates most properly...once i get some money and a job

Maybe i can revive my war of the worlds Mod topic on the addon discussion board again now the movies been released

[Balschoiw 0]

The movie seems to be crap.

At least that what critics here say.

Lots of eye-candy but no good movie and not really related to the H.G. Wells original.

Anyway, I will not watch it because I full-heartly dislike Tom Cruise. One of the most incompetent actors of our times, imo.

I like this excerpt from Akira´s quote though:

Quote[/b] ]the life of 10-year-old Rachel, played by the 47-year-old child impersonator Dakota Fanning

Anyone seen "Hitchhikers guide through the galaxy" yet ?

I´ve seen some teasers and I liked it.

Worth watching for a hardcore Douglas Adams fan who has read all his books ?

[SpongeBob 0]

Wow, Star Wars, then Batman, now WotW, the big movie blockbusters keep getting better and better.

Isn't there a second Spielberg moving coming out this fall, something about the hostage taking at the Olympic Games.

[Akira 0]

Well looking at Speilberg on IMDb I found these very interesting entries.

# Untitled Ukrainian Holocaust Project (2007) (announced) (executive producer)

# "The Pacific War" (2006) (mini) TV Series (announced) (executive producer)

# Untitled Steven Spielberg/Abraham Lincoln Project (2007) (pre-production) (producer)(directing too)

# Untitled Transformers Film (2006) (pre-production) (executive producer)

# Jurassic Park IV (2006) (pre-production) (executive producer)

# Flags of Our Fathers (2006) (pre-production) (producer)

# Untitled 1972 Munich Olympics Project (2005) (pre-production) (producer)(directing too)

# Memoirs of a Geisha (2005) (post-production) (executive producer)

Plotline for the Munich movie

Quote[/b] ]In the tragic aftermath of the 1972 Munich Olympics, a Mossad agent (Bana) tracks Palestinian terrorists who assassinated Israeli athletes.

[BOP_101TFS 0]

how about this?

Timothy Hines's The War of the Worlds (2005)

[D.murphy man 0]

Hmm looks intresting, i take it it stays true the the novel, the special effects arnt very good but hey being a OFP fan who cares about graphics

[jakerod 254]

Personally didn't really like the movie.

1.) Focuses too much on Tom Cruise and his family instead of the world.

2.) Tom Cruise and his family seem to get incredibly lucky every time the thing attacks.

3.) A few inconsistences with the whole EMP thing.

I do think however that there were some good parts that kind of made me think and be on the edge of my seat but over all I didn't really like it all that much.

[kerosene 0]

Hatred of Tom Cruise, the crap that spews out of his mouth and scientology probably mean I'll give this one a miss.

[Tovarish 0]

Got to go to the premiere in Ottawa a couple of days ago, and well, I'm glad I saw it, and that I saw it for free. It wasn't bad (except for the blonde little shrieking machine Tom Cruise carries around the whole movie, after the first half hour I desperately wanted her to be killed off - no such luck, so you may want ear plugs), but it definitely does not live up to all the hype.

Quote[/b] ]Anyone seen "Hitchhikers guide through the galaxy" yet ?

I´ve seen some teasers and I liked it.

Worth watching for a hardcore Douglas Adams fan who has read all his books ?

Definitely worth it Albert! It roughly follows the first book, and except for the mandatory Hollywood-fabricated romance, it's a very good film. (and when you do see it, stay after the credits)

[SFWanabe 0]

I'm going to see tonight. I hope there will be lots of military action in it.

[Tovarish 0]

I hope there will be lots of military action in it.

I suggest you go see a military flick

[SFWanabe 0]

I'm sure it will be like indepence day.

[SpeedyDonkey 0]

I saw the movie today. I must say that I liked it. I had no expectations and didn't really know what kind of a flick this was. I don't have any sort of personal agenda agains Cruise, even though I think he tends to over act in some of his movies. I am glad I wen't to see it and it's well worth the money.

[Tovarish 0]

Quote[/b] ]I'm sure it will be like indepence day.

Just like it!

Except there are no F-18's - I think you'll see some F-16's for a whole half second.

The aliens this time around must have installed Norton, because I didn't see any snazzy Apple laptop saving the day

The biggest military lesson from this movie -from the longest "battle" scene of maybe 2 minutes - Burning Humvee's travel a lot further than burning M1A1's

Tom Cruise is just like Will Smith though, I swear

[Daniel 0]

Quote[/b] ]Anyone seen "Hitchhikers guide through the galaxy" yet ?

I´ve seen some teasers and I liked it.

Worth watching for a hardcore Douglas Adams fan who has read all his books ?

It is really worth watching as Tovarish said. 'Tis a bloody good laugh.

"So long, so long, and thanks. For all the fish..."

[EiZei 0]

Tom Cruise did make me raise some eyebrows when he called psychiatry a pseudoscience and soon afterwards started praising scientology's merits..

[cozza 24]

I was in Sydny going to some place and I went to the scene of Mission Impossible 2 on that island. And wat I saw was scary. Tom Cruise is short...

[The Frenchman 0]

I'm not much of a Cruise fan myself. The only films he was in that I liked were Collateral and The Last Samurai. Minority Report was okay.

I'm not one of those people that can't enjoy movies if it doesn't have alot of action but TBH I was disappointed after hearing of the lack of Army vs Aliens battles in the movie. I wanted to see what was happening to the world and how they were combating the Aliens. I could really care less what was happening to Dakota Fanning.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Definitely worth it Albert! It roughly follows the first book, and except for the mandatory Hollywood-fabricated romance, it's a very good film. (and when you do see it, stay after the credits)

Unless Albert is an alien bodysnatcher you´re adressing the wrong guy

I will go see it anyway. I just love depressed robots

[.pablo. 0]

just watched it today, and i was disappointed for basically the same reasons that everyone else has already laid out (although i didn't read anything about the movie until afterwards).

[Ares1978 0]

Another movie I'm not going to pay for to watch.

[Tovarish 0]

Quote[/b] ]Definitely worth it Albert! It roughly follows the first book, and except for the mandatory Hollywood-fabricated romance, it's a very good film. (and when you do see it, stay after the credits)

Unless Albert is an alien bodysnatcher you´re adressing the wrong guy

I will go see it anyway. I just love depressed robots

LMAO Sorry Bals - Bad habit of mine to just be looking at the Avatars. You should have seen my face the first time I saw blackdog use "buddy Christ" as well.