Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"War of the Worlds" -- a Freeper Review (SPOILERS)
vanity | 6/29/05

Posted on 06/29/2005 12:59:23 PM PDT by pabianice

Just got back from the new version of "War of the Worlds." In short, this is an epic remake of the nifty 1953 version done by George Pal (later of "The Time Machine" with Rod Taylor, 1960). The FX are spectacular, of course, but the film just doesn't quite pull it off.

The story is shot through the eyes of Ray, Tom Cruise's character, so it lets a lot of action occur off stage. This tactic can do a lot for a story, but in Cruise's case, it doesn't work. His costars, including young Dakaota Fanning, are excellent, but ... we've seen it all before. Cruise looking desperate and put-upon. Fanning running the different shades of panic and dispair. Tim Robbins as a crazy pedophile (ok, this may just be good type-casting). A cast of hundreds of real extras and thousands of CGI people being vaporized -- neat, but again, we've seen it before, especially in the 1953 version.

This latest Spielberg version is just too full of logic and continuity holes to hold together. The alien Tripods have been buried here on Earth for tens or hindreds of thousands of years until they are activated today. WTF? Were the aliens waiting until we could fight back to launch their invasion, instead of easily taking-over 50,000 years ago? The aliens themselves ride lightening/EMP bolts down from space, arriving underground with the baggage of several thousand Gs. Can you say Puree of Alien? As in the 1953 version, the Tripods have protective force fields that deflect anything thrown at them. But when the aliens catch colds and start to die, they also conveniently manage to turn-off their shields so the remaining National Guard troops can take them out with Stingers and small arms fire. The EMP strikes fry all auto and machine electronics but leave cordless phones and video cameras running.

Even though this is a war movie, we get Hollywood's Guns are Bad! rap. When Cruise goes on the lam with his kids he takes his .357 with him, although he hides it from the kids because, you know, guns are 'bad.' When his car is hijacked and his family nearly killed, another character takes his gun and promptly murders a third with it (yes, guns are 'BAD,' even when you are trying to save your kids from being killed).

The aliens' death rays are wonderful eye candy, turning people into (antiseptic) flaming ash while leaving their clothes intact. Another WTF? Very 'green' and all. There are a lot of annoying gripes. A local ferry boat captain in one battle scene is wearing the cap of a US naval officer -- and the eagle is looking left -- something the US Navy changed in 1941. Oops X 2. Couldn't Spielberg do better than that?

As pure popcorn munching, the movie is fun and the tension holds up at a certain visceral level, but the mind is never engaged -- a requirement for the best movies. The major sets are great: a downed 747, horribly empty of bodies because everyone was vaporized in flight by that neat antiseptic death ray which, like the evil Neutron Bomb, kills people while leaving structures intact (apparently the Aliens like our architecture). The scene of the first Tripod breaking through the street and incinerating people is also a wonderful realization of set design. The cast does ok (although Fanning's wonderful horror expression is starting to get overused in movies), but again, with so many CGI people being vaporized, it all starts to glaze over. With the camera on Ray 100% of the time, his costars don't get to do very much. When Ray grabs some hand grenades, you know what he's gonna do: bring-down a Tripod that is trying to turn him into Soylent Red with which to fertilize Alien Kudzu (I am not making this up). It's kinda neat to see mashed humans being sprayed across the landscape like the operation of Lawn Doctor's evil twin, but human blood to fertilize plants from the planet Koosbane? Cummon! When the action finally moves to Boston, Spielberg is too lazy to recreate a view of Boston and we get action in what appears to be downtown Los Angeles. Maybe he just got tired.

My Freeper Rating: Hype: 9/10. Movie: 7/10. Spielberg could have done far better than remake a 52-year-old film that was pretty neat in its day. But then, most movie goers never saw the 1953 version. Their loss.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last
To: somerville
Christian doing interviews in the accent of his character is probably a way of protecting his private self.

I think he does it, because its easier for people to grasp and understand, and they won't get confused.

Think about it, Batman with a welsh accent, even if its not in the movie, if he is promoting the film, it might turn people off.

He's a smart guy, he doesn't stay in character per say like Pee Wee Herman, but he wants to sound like him and keep it close to the character.

Thats a pretty darn good work ethic and consideration if you ask me, thats going above and beyond the call for a film.

61 posted on 06/29/2005 2:18:49 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: JZelle

"I've never seen "Mars Attacks". I heard it was funny. Is it worth renting?"


YES! I hope you like yodeling!


62 posted on 06/29/2005 2:19:49 PM PDT by Blzbba (Let them hate us as long as they fear us - Caligula)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Borges
I don't know Borges....that 1953 version of War of the Worlds was fabulous!!! It's scary everytime I see it, and I don't know if anyone else has mentioned it, but the "bling bling" noise from the alien's craft really adds to the drama as one of them comes closer, closer, closer.

And not only that....the 1953 WotW had a love interest. Yu can't beat that damsel in distress angle.

Ever notice how a little special sound effect like that is so important. Freddie had one...even Law and Order's got it's "ching ching".

I will not go to see Spielberg's War of the Worlds, and it's not because I feel any affinity for the novel. It's the 1953 movie I don't want messed up for me.

63 posted on 06/29/2005 2:27:43 PM PDT by YaYa123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Callahan

I can't get over the fact that Christian Bale was the kid in Empire of the Sun.

He's a very good actor, and I do like what he has been in.


64 posted on 06/29/2005 2:28:42 PM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot

Thanks for the other point of view....


65 posted on 06/29/2005 2:29:46 PM PDT by Rummyfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M
They were not "already here".

The aliens rode down in metal capsules inside lightening bolts.

The tripods were already here....not the martians.

66 posted on 06/29/2005 2:30:43 PM PDT by DCPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

There is another 2005 remake of the classic with C. Thomas Howell as the main character. It is so far from the original novel that the movie went straight to DVD, bypassing the theaters.

Too bad they didn't consider the script. It should have gone straight into the trash can before they waisted any money on production.

===

Hollywood has become so devoid of new ideas that all they seem to be able to generate are remakes and remakes of remakes. And they wonder why their revenues are in freefall.


67 posted on 06/29/2005 2:31:03 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot
The tripods were already here....not the martians.

Lazy aliens.

68 posted on 06/29/2005 2:32:24 PM PDT by Sonny M ("oderint dum metuant")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: YaYa123

As a matter of trivia...two of the three stars of the 1953 film, Gene Barry, ann Robinson and Bob Cornwaithe...are still alive.


69 posted on 06/29/2005 2:34:35 PM PDT by Borges
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Here's a link to another review:

http://ae.mercurynews.com/entertainment/ui/mercurynews/movie.html?id=341004&reviewId=18391

It doesn't sound like a good movie, too much Tom Cruise.

It also sounds like Tom's career is tanking!


70 posted on 06/29/2005 2:38:28 PM PDT by luckystarmom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DCPatriot

"The aliens rode down in metal capsules inside lightening bolts."

That sounds painfully unbelievable and stupid. No wonder Hollywood is hurting.


71 posted on 06/29/2005 2:42:56 PM PDT by finnman69 (cum puella incedit minore medio corpore sub quo manifestus globus, inflammare animos)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I'll stick to "Independence Day." Thanks.


72 posted on 06/29/2005 2:44:49 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: finnman69
A laser would seem stupid to a caveman too...so I don't agree.

Also, space travel to other galaxies sounds painfully stupid right now also....

73 posted on 06/29/2005 2:44:58 PM PDT by DCPatriot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Hillary Clinton thanks you for your contribution to her upcoming presidential campaign.


74 posted on 06/29/2005 2:52:11 PM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: luckystarmom

Another recent revelation about Tiny Tom:

http://www.thesuperficial.com/archives/001038.html


75 posted on 06/29/2005 2:58:04 PM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: All

Im sorry I'm going to have to disagree with you. I think you have to realize all in all that its still just a movie. I do understand and agree with a few things you mentioned. Yes, the emp's did not exactly take out everything. I think you blowing this way out of porportion. The movie was really good. Yes, Tim Robbins plays a weird role. Don't get me wrong though. I personally do not like him, but a pedophile. All I have to say is go see the movie and come up with your own opinions.


76 posted on 06/29/2005 3:18:37 PM PDT by MILO 82 (Dang! You got shocks, pegs... lucky! You ever take it off any sweet jumps?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: pabianice

Its only a movie!!!! I don't understand why people go to movies now a days and look for something wrong. Of course their are going to be flaws and things that do not make sense. Hollywood has been doing it for years. They also know that they are making a movie. Or also known as entertainment. I would just recommend that you don't go to the movies anymore. Yeah I happened to agree with you on a few things. But all in all I know its just a movie.


77 posted on 06/29/2005 3:25:45 PM PDT by MILO 82 (Dang! You got shocks, pegs... lucky! You ever take it off any sweet jumps?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: MILO 82
>go see the movie and come up with your own opinions
"It's on the road that War of the Worlds makes the jump from thrilling to frequently unpleasant, as Spielberg burdens the movie with Holocaust imagery and commentary about terrorism and wars of occupation"

-- Gary Thompson, PHILADELPHIA DAILY NEWS

-----------------------------------------------------

Yeah, but the thing is,
even if I go alone
in the afternoon,

it still cost six bucks.
I'd rather know that it's crap
and save my money

then throw away cash
just to gather data for
my own opinion.

78 posted on 06/29/2005 3:30:12 PM PDT by theFIRMbss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: theFIRMbss

Ok, thats fine you read the reviews and don't go see the movie. Im not for or against the movie. All Im trying to say is that this whole political ties to the movie is a little drawn out. I can see where people form these ideas, but on the other hand why do people go to movies to look for this crap. I saw the movie less than an hour ago. I liked it because i know its a movie.


79 posted on 06/29/2005 3:38:02 PM PDT by MILO 82 (Dang! You got shocks, pegs... lucky! You ever take it off any sweet jumps?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Sonny M

I see your point about why he would keep his accent. He does seem to have a very good work ethic. In interviews, Bale seems more concerned about his craft and his character than himself, unlike Cruise and other ego-maniacal Hollywood stars.


80 posted on 06/29/2005 4:02:52 PM PDT by somerville
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson