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.
Here in Manhattan, movies are $10.75. No way am I spending that to see Tom Cruise.
Ok, that sounds great. So the only movie you will see this summer and from here on out is Batman Begins and anything that has Bale in it. But be careful because tom cruise is engaged to Katie Holmes so might want to re-think batman.
Do they have any cheap theaters? We can go to one theater and see movies after they've been out for a while for $3.50 every day except Tuesday. On Tuesday, it's $1.50.
Online, the theater then has a coupon for a free large drink w/ a large popcor, and the large popcorn has a free refill. I take in cups and split the drink and the popcorn between me and my kids.
We can see a movie for about my 3 kids and I can go to the movie for around $10.
That's how we go to lots of the movies. I just tell the kids we'll see it at the cheap theater, and they are okay with waiting.
I took my family to see WotW today and we all agreed it was one of the most amazing, astounding, intense, and frightening movies we'd ever seen.
The film conveys better than any other what it would be like to actually experience an alien invasion. There are few heroics of any kind, mostly just fear, mayhem, and inhumanity.
I recommend it to anyone who enjoys the alien attack genre or anyone who just wants an extremely heart pounding experience.
My daughter is nearly 11. She was fairly freaked out by the film, but loved it and wants to see it again. There's no real gore and no "F" word. Mainly it's just extremely intense.
could not agree with you anymore!
It's "Batman Begins" not "Batman Returns." "Batman Returns" was the dismal sequal to the OK-at-best original with Michael Keaton.
My review:
Just saw it. It was good, not great. Dakota Fanning is incredible. She definetly carries they film. The acting and CGI were awsome, the script wasn't. The main actors added all they could, but some parts just lagged, and others went by too quick without time to devolp. I wish some scenes were cut out, and other extended. I did not feel the farmhouse scene was necesssary. It lagged too much. If they cut it down, I would have liked it better. I loved the father-daughter relationship though, Fanning made it all happen. I liked the story, I just wish it was paced better and I wish we were giving more insight to what happens after the end (which was far too abrupt, but I like happy endings). I say 4/5 stars.
Saw the movie this afternoon. I thought for the action it was worth seeing. Not a great movie, but worth a large popcorn and a box of goobers.
yeah could have done without the farmhouse scene... And as far as dakota fanning goes, she make the movie better. like you said the father daughter relationship...
I loved the first movie and have read most of HG wells work. His books are very Dated and reads more of a scientist recording events but i love how he incorporated the era's scientific knowledge and extrapolated as to how the Martians technology worked.
The first movie was great and did not need to be remade, even the effects for the time hold up fairly well.
I am just thankful Ben Affleck is not in it and do plan on seeing it though maybe not until DVD
WTF is right! Are you serious?! Geez, nothing like ripping the original story to shreds.
Peter Jackson...paging Peter Jackson! Pick up the white phone, please.
And Bale's dad is married to Gloria Steinham! That's a two-fer for celebrity! lol
Feel assured, there was hype for this movie. It just wasn't overly directed at the "masses" but did buy a spot on last January's Super Bowl. It was okay.
A lot of hype was directed straight to the fans through the net and comics, etc. I started going to their movie website almost as they launced it and got to see it slowly uploading more pics and trailers. But they had the story there and the feel through words and pictures.
But as my profile shows, I'm more a "fan" than most! ;-)
Just came back from seeing it. I thought it was great....a mix of old fashioned family values with spine-tingling special effects. Spielberg has succeeded despite the few odd moments of dullness. It's a pity plenty of people never read H.G.Wells. My daughter, for one,was disappointed with the ending because she was waiting for human ingenuity to kill off the aliens. Bad bacteria is still an unvanquished enemy.As for Tom Cruise...he did alright. I expected less from him. I give it a 9.
I saw it tonight. I liked it, but I'm not all that picky about movies. I didn't notice that the buildings remained standing, though. It seemed like all the buildings were destroyed in the long shots I saw.
I don't think Tom Cruise qualifies as an action hero in this movie. He doesn't do anything beyond what anyone else in the movie is doing, and I heard an interview with Spielberg where described Tom Cruise in this movie as anti-hero, as he's not heroic at all.
But the quote that comes to my mind regarding Jack Nicholson and Tom Cruise is: "You see, Danhy, I can deal with the bullets, and the bombs, and the blood. I don't want money, and I don't want medals. What I do want is for you to stand there in that faggoty white uniform and with your Harvard mouth extend some fucking courtesy. You gott ask me nicely."
Agree...some of the realism is lost and I've often thought the overuse of special effects is designed to cater to a generation raised on video games....all action, little or no plot.
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.