British Expatriate Network

Full Version: "War of the Worlds" *Spoilers for anyone who didn't read the novel in the past 100 years*
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Had a spare day today (the others are in California, doing Disneyland today) so treated myself to a trip to the movies and watched "War of the Worlds".

I liked how it gave several nods to the original, H.G. Wells novel - more like Jeff Wayne's musical version, as opposed to the old Hollywood movie version.

Tom Cruise was ok to decent in it I thought.

The effects were quite amazing and it was hard sometimes to distinguish what is digital and what was actually live effects. I particularly liked the fighting machines, the heat ray and the frightening but effective sound they would emit to terrorise the humans they were after. Funny that Wells predicted machines that made a terrifying noise as they attack and so it was when Hitler used the Stuka dive bomber many years later.

All in all, I found it entertaining but with a bit of an abrupt ending. Still it follows the original novel but with a far more modern look and it was interesting to see the US military throw literally everthing it has into the battles.

Shame it wasn't set in London and Surrey like the original though sad
I'm going to try to watch it maybe this week. To be honest I'm kind of put off it by Tom Cruise. To paraphrase Mike McShane from the film Drop Dead Gorgeous he seems as crazy as a shithouse rat wink I want to try to see War Of The Worlds and The Fantastic Four. ( I can't believe that a few minutes ago I was talking about a film like The Station Agent to The Fantastic Four shock )
Not that Tom Cruise is the best actor of all time or anything but I liked his character in this movie. Although he's no match for the Richard Burton rendition in Jeff Wayne's version, not to mention Spielberg's influence in making this a literally "family" movie, I still thought Tom Cruise was decent and playing a more grown up role than his usual fare.

Try watching the beginning and not thinking Richard Burton's narrative at the start of Jeff Wayne's spectacular. The language is a bit simplified for today's average viewer but it didn't matter as no one could ever utter the "No one could have believed......" quote any better.

(Sounds like Morgan Freeman reading it this time but I did not check this yet).

OK, IMDB says it is Morgan Freeman so I can now sleep tonight wink
I will be going to see this tonight, I hope, if all goes to plan.
I want to see it in the theater as it looks like a movie that would be so much better on the big screen.
Me and my 16 year old went to see it last weekend.

We thought it was great.

I'd have to agree Wendy, definitely one to see on the big screen.
ok we got to go see it yesterday and I thought it was good, though a bit predictable in the storyline.
Loved the Dakota Fanning as the little girl.

wendl @ Tue 19 Jul, 2005 6:32 am Wrote:
ok we got to go see it yesterday and I thought it was good, though a bit predictable in the storyline.


Wendy - isn't that a bit like saying "The Passion of the Christ" was predictable? :wink:

pilgrim_007 @ Tue 19 Jul, 2005 Wrote:

wendl @ Tue 19 Jul, 2005 6:32 am Wrote:
ok we got to go see it yesterday and I thought it was good, though a bit predictable in the storyline.


Wendy - isn't that a bit like saying "The Passion of the Christ" was predictable?  :wink:


Now that you come to mention it, that Charlie and the Chocolate Factory and Willie Wonka thing was a bit samey? :wink:

not really what i meant with the storyline have only heard the song, never read the book and not old enough to have heard the radio broadcast.

I meant more along the lines of tom cruise and the whole family thing
The lack of a timeline through out the movie bugged me, they made it seam like it was all over in three days. That must have been why they never ate and only slept once?

Best shot of the movie was the start of the ferry scene, just as the machines are coming over the hill. Quite a fantastic scene thought me wink
I wouldn't eat for 3 days either if all that was available was peanut butter sandwiches. Couldn't understand why Tom Cruise didn't just open up his ex's fridge - they'd have food stacked in there I bet.

I think the timeline in the novel is about 5-7 days. It certainly mentions the main character sleeping at least 3 or 4 nights.

I liked the scene of the tripods "herding" people. Silly me forgot the ferry was only going across the river and was rather hoping some equivalent of "H.M.S. Thunderchild" would come steaming up to sacrifice itself, so that the ferry would get away.

pilgrim_007 @ Thu 21 Jul, 2005 Wrote:
I wouldn't eat for 3 days either if all that was available was peanut butter sandwiches. Couldn't understand why Tom Cruise didn't just open up his ex's fridge - they'd have food stacked in there I bet.

I went to see War Of The Worlds today, and as I watched him making the sarnies I thought to myself why don't you go in the fridge??

Quote:
I think the timeline in the novel is about 5-7 days. It certainly mentions the main character sleeping at least 3 or 4 nights.

I think youre right about the timeline. I'm not entirely sure about this but wasnt it a specific 6-7 day timeline to coincide with biblical paradox of creation and the destruction of the Earth?

Quote:
I liked the scene of the tripods "herding" people. Silly me forgot the ferry was only going across the river and was rather hoping some equivalent of "H.M.S. Thunderchild" would come steaming up to sacrifice itself, so that the ferry would get away.

I thought the imagery of the film as it developed was of shock as the tripods emerged, then of sheer horror as they were exterminating everyone. I thought the special effects was very good. I loved the way that tripod emerged from the water, even I felt the horror :shock:

Ive never been a fan of Tom Cruise, and to be quite honest I thought he was pretty good in this film. Ive always been a fan of the old War Of The Worlds film with Gene Barry, and in the old film it gave the world view of the invasion, a big picture, but in this version it more or less stuck with the small picture of Tom Cruise's character and his various situations/ scrapes he gets into. It was as though the film was kind of shot in a documentary style like those early William Friedkin films. (like The French Connection/The Exorcist) Did you think that the 'bad parent comes through as strong parent ' storyline was also used in Jurassic Park with Sam Neil's character? And the terrifying noise which the tripods made to me at least was similar to the screeches which the dinosaurs made? I watched Close Encounters Of The Third Kind a few weeks ago on TCM and I think that the film style of War Of The Worlds was closer to Saving Private Ryan than what it was to Close Encounters. I liked the military scenes too, and I loved the military in the old War Of The Worlds with their old green uniforms (all being disintergrated :shock: ) compared to this version, which is very modern and a little more believable :wink:
Just think the original War Of The Worlds movie won Oscars for its special effects at the time it was pretty groundbreaking. It just shows how far special effects have improved over the years. :wink: I think I'd probably watch it again? I'd sooner watch Charlie and The Chocolate factory again though, probably just for the squirrels alone :wink:

Saw it last night.

Gods his kids are annoying.

VegasRudeBoy @ Tue 26 Jul, 2005 Wrote:
Saw it last night.

Gods his kids are annoying.



Saw it last night and your words were exactly the same as the Mighty Mick when we left the theatre.

Reference URL's