War of the Worlds movie review by Roger Ebert

Sun Times ^ | Jun 28, 2005 | Roger Ebert

[FraudFactor.com]

Excellent movie review by Roger Ebert

Here is an excellent critique of the War of the Worlds movie by Roger Ebert, pointing out some of the many flaws and the lack of quality in the movie. This review is analytical and insightful. However, it does not cover all the flaws, probably because there are too many flaws to cover in a single reasonable length review.

[mowowie]

I wish I could have my 10 bucks back.

[ClaudiusI]

Warning to anyone considering seeing it: save your money. See Batman Begins if you must go the movies this summer.

[kidd]

Hollywood is a trash factory. Most of the films being produced are sequels and remakes. The rest are exercises in special effects.

Narnia may be the only redeeming movie of the year, and it is still 5 month away.

[Rodney King]

Ebert is very good when he stays out of politics.

[killjoy]

I liked it. The special effects are great. Batman Begins is a much better movie but I don't regret going to see War of the Worlds.

[Vaquero]

not having seen it....here goes. First, War of the Worlds was remade around 8 years ago. It was called Independence Day and the aliens were killed with a virus (albeit a computer virus)

second. Mr. Ebert may be a good movie reviewer, but knows little about physics. A tripod is a very stable platform. a four legged platform always has the tendency to wobble about on 3 legs unless the surface and the legs are perfect level and a perfectly length. A tripod always has all legs on the ground.

All that being said, it seems this one is a bust and I will wait for the video.

[7thson]

And the Fantastic Four!

[KillTime]

Guess I'm in the minority this time cause I loved it, so much so I saw it twice. Batman flick was the boring one to me; needed a bit more action for my taste.

[BIRDS]

What was it that you "loved" about the film?

Seriously, just curious...was it the effects? The story? The actors or one or a few of them, as in, a performance or the performances? The direction? Editing? Or some combination of some/all of those?

As I said, just asking, as in, I'm curious as to your enthusiasm. I haven't seen the film and have decided to withhold box office dollars and wait for the DVD, but after reading so many critical/annoyed/disappointed comments from those who have seen the film (similar to what Ebert writes), I'm curious about the few who are enthusiastic. "Love" response indicates more than enthusiasm.

I read that the Marines enacted military scenes in the film, and based upon that, I'd nearly gone to see it...but...

[KillTime]

Yes, the effects were outstanding, story was a nice update from the origional book (but nothing beats the book, as usual). Dispite Cruise's recent rantings, in the movie he is an outstanding actor and I didn't think once of his rantings, etc. The little girl actor is also outstanding. It is a blockbuster that needs to be seen on a big screen to appreciate it, from the awesomely loud lighting storm that initiates the Invasion, to the cracking of the streets and the rising of the first Tripod, to the blasting of the folks....and the effect of the bridge as it...well, it is just very cool effects throughout the whole movie. The movie starts running almost right away and it doesn't let up until the end. Even the scene that takes place in a farmhouse basement has high tension throughout.

The editing of the car sceen as it speeds away from the exploding city: freaking fantastic. I still don't know how they did it. The camera constantly pans around the van as well and in and out of it as it speeds around stalled cars, etc. Excellent editing, to give you one example.

Those who say this is boring, etc...man, they are on a whole different wavelength from me this time. Each time I saw it, people were clapping at the end.

Save your money if you want, but for my money it was well worth it. Spielberg did this one well. Had a few illogical flaws, but didn't distract. 5 Stars? Prob not, but close; it is great entertainment both visual and storyline.

[BIRDS]

Interesting...thanks...

I was not among those offput or even amused by Cruise's whatevers, whenevers, so that wasn't even (remotely) a reason for my not having seen TWOTW in theatres (I actually didn't find Cruise's sofa dance as strange as many other than it indicated a certain uncouth attitude about other people's furniture, but, otherwise...a non issue to my view as to his personal views, etc.).

I, also, find Cruse a great performer -- so I enjoy his films, for the most part, if not consistently.

My hesitations and outright objections to the idea of TWOTW was that it's a remake of a great film. I love the original film and found the whole modernization/remake/"new vision" thing offputting about a great film, great as it is in the original.

About the big screen, I'm someone who gets far more from a DVD than I do from theatre viewing, primarily because I see and hear/experience far more details about a film from DVD (great screen, excellent sound system so I'm happy with the DVD experience), plus I can advance, rewind and view as many times as I want while theatres are often a problem due to people chattering, coughing, heads in front, all that...even the finer theatres have a sound system that makes for headaches afterward so I just altogether am far more happy when I can view films on DVD.

But, I'll buy this DVD, and enjoyed your take on the film. Like I said, I enjoy Cruise as performer and although I have a mixed-reaction to some of Spielberg's films, I think his "Artificial Intelligence (AI)" was outstanding...while the TV series, "Taken" left me completely cold, as have some of his other films and television series (something far too insincere in his camera work, can't quite define it beyond writing here that he manages to capture his own insincerity about literary issues on film and it's uncomfortable for my view, in that it discourages empathising with what's on film). "AI" supplanted that for the most part and so I hope that "TWOTW" might, also...

[Sam Gamgee]

Frankly Ebert is a terrible reviewer. I hate pretty much everything he recommends. I go with Roepper. There isn’t much he likes, so when he chooses something I go for it. I rather liked War of the Worlds. Maybe it wasn’t the way I would have done it, but it was a fairly decent movie. I could use less character development and more action, but that’s just me.

[Sam Gamgee]

The more I thought about WOW, the more I really liked it. Independence Day is basically popcorn crowd fair. WOW is just a wee bit more intelligent and well made. Haven’t seen Batman Begins. I actually liked F4, though most reviewers do not.

[Sam Gamgee]

The movie really kept to the spirit of the book that it was all action right from the get go. The book cannot be beaten I agree, but I remember the character in the book would finally find a place to stop and rest, and then wouldn’t you know it, another one of these damn walking pods appear. That was well captured in the movie. I didn’t care much for the idea that the machines were always there. That didn’t add up. Also the movie could have explained WHY the aliens came. The book has a great but grim ending where the main character comes across dogs eating the carcass of one of the aliens. I would have liked to see that in the movie.

[FraudFactor.com]

"I wish I could have my 10 bucks back."

I felt the same way. War of the Worlds was not worth the money or the time to watch it. In addition, the theater subjected us to a full twenty minutes of paid commercial advertisements after the official movie start time.

Only you got off easy. I wish I could have my 20 bucks back. I paid for two tickets.

I found an interesting viewpoint column about Steven Speilberg's infatuation with communist dictator and mass murderer Fidel Castro. It was published in the November 26, 2004 issue (Volume 6 Issue 17) of the Las Vegas Tribune, and is located at:

http://www.lasvegastribune.com/20041126/viewpoints2.html

Also, Steven Spielberg's political contributions reflect his romance with Marxism. He donated $799,373 to Democrats, only $4,000 to Republicans, and $20,750 for special interests between 1984 and 2004.

Steven Spielberg made many donations to extreme socialist Democrats including Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY), Barbara Boxer (CA), and others.

This information can be found at:

http://www.newsmeat.com/billionaire_political_donations/Steven_Spielberg.php


Ditto for Tom Cruise's political contributions.

Tom Cruise donated $39,000 to Democrats and nothing to Republicans between 1990 and 2003.

Tom Cruise made the following donations to extreme socialist Democrats:

$10,000 to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (NY)
$2,000 to Senator Barbara Boxer (CA)
$1,000 to Senator Tom Daschle (SD)
$500 to Senator John Kerry (MA)

and the balance to other Democrat candidates and committees.

This information can be found at:
http://newsmeat.com/celebrity_political_donations/Tom_Cruise.php

[FraudFactor.com]

I thought War of the Worlds did not have enough military battle scenes, and spent too much time on the less expensive footage containing interpersonal dialog, driving in a car, and hiding in a building or basement.

I thought the Terminator and Lord of the Rings movies were superior chase movies.

Also, War of the Worlds never even explained who the aliens were or why they were attacking the earth - were they supposed to be Martians as in the original story?

There were many logical holes and contradictions in this remake of war of the worlds.

[FraudFactor.com]

Well said!

[FraudFactor.com]

"Hollywood is a trash factory. Most of the films being produced are sequels and remakes. The rest are exercises in special effects."

Well said!

Hollywood produces lots of trash movies with a few real gems (e.g., the Lord of the Rings movies) in the mix as their business model for financial success.

We need to be smart and selective consumers.

[FraudFactor.com]

"Mr. Ebert may be a good movie reviewer, but knows little about physics. A tripod is a very stable platform. a four legged platform always has the tendency to wobble about on 3 legs unless the surface and the legs are perfect level and a perfectly length. A tripod always has all legs on the ground."

A tripod with rigid fixed length legs is stable in the static condition as in the case of a three-legged stool, but not necessarily in the dynamic condition as in locomotion.

When analyzing three versus four (or more) legs for stability, it is necessary to differentiate between the static and dynamic conditions, and whether the legs are of fixed length and rigid geometric configuration as with a stool, or effectively of variable length and geometric configuration through the use of joints.

With only three legs, at least one leg must be off the ground at a time to move, leaving at most two legs in contact with the ground. This leads to instability unless there is some effective balancing mechanism (i.e., sensors, a means of balancing by shifting the weight distribution, and a control loop).

In nature, legs come in pairs or even numbers, due to bilateral symmetry.