"The War of The Worlds"?

[Brandles]

Anyone going to see this movie? It's coming to town here, so I'll be going and for $2.00, I'll watch just about anything. ;)

Lamar the People's Movie Critic (from the Bob & Sheri show) gave it a full six pack (out of 12) and this is what he said:

A full six-pack because you find yourself pulling for Tom Cruise while you're in the theater!

[numberlady]

I told DH this morning that I want to see it. I wil have to try to forget all the idiotic things Tom Cruise has said over the last couple of months.

[meggers]

Right now I really have no urge to see the movie at all. I am thinking that DH and I will either wait until it is in the cheap theater or it is on HBO or Starz On Demand.

[camberne]

It got a great review from Gene Shallot on The Today Show this morning, and even Matt Lauer confirmed that he really liked it! I have to wait until my son comes home from summer camp on Friday before I can see it, or else he'd kill me!!

If it were up to me, I'd ditch work and be at the theatre in about an hour.

[KristyK]

Review: 'War of the Worlds' Feels Generic

Jun 29, 10:56 AM (ET)

By DAVID GERMAIN

(AP) Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning star in the Steven Spielberg update of H.G. Wells' sci-fi classic...

Big concept. Big director. Big star. Big, big budget. Big deal. Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise's "War of the Worlds" comes off exactly the way it started: An assemblage of enormous talent on a frantic dash to meet a deadline. They made it, but the rush job they delivered shortchanges story, character, design and even execution on some of the colossal special-effects sequences.

The update of H.G. Wells' sci-fi classic of marauders from the skies went on the fast-track late last summer, when a narrow window opened in Spielberg and Cruise's schedules. Their haste shows.

"War of the Worlds" is so disjointed and episodic, it plays like 32 short films about alien invasions. As a divorced dad, Cruise alternates through a succession of explosive action scenes and uninspired exchanges with his two screeching and moaning kids.

Among disappointments of modern Hollywood, "War of the Worlds" ranks with "Pearl Harbor" and the "Planet of the Apes" remake, two other bloated spectacles conceived as blockbusters first, human dramas second.

This is Spielberg's "Attack of the Clones," a movie burdened with stiff dialogue and fatuous relationships, dolled up with the gloss of computer animation into a big-screen video game with puny humans as targets.

Millions are dying, yet unlike the wonderful blend of humanity and horror in George Pal's 1953 take on Wells' story, this "War of the Worlds" presents the masses as anonymous chaff.

The only three people who matter here are Cruise's Ray, an undependable father, his 10-year-old daughter, Rachel (Dakota Fanning), and his teenage son, Robbie (Justin Chatwin).

We're talking civilization on the ropes, about to go down, and Spielberg's spinning a tedious tale of a manchild who only learns to be a responsible father when space invaders land in his backyard.

In the opening minutes, the screenplay by Josh Friedman and David Koepp sets Ray up as a stereotype of the paternal ne'er-do-well, a guy who can't even manage to stock the fridge with food when his ex-wife (Miranda Otto) and her new hubby drop the kids off for the weekend.

After this superficial start, the fireworks begin. The skies turn blackish, bolts of blue lightning zap the earth, and towering machines bust out of the ground, wandering about on three legs and zapping people into dust and buildings into rubble.

Some visual effects, notably the alien tripods emerging, are remarkable and thrilling. Elsewhere, particularly in battle scenes involving the futile American military, Spielberg falls back on loud sound effects, colored lights beyond the horizon and close-ups of Ray and his terrified kids, as though time did not permit the filmmakers to finish the visuals on the drawing board.

Ray always seems to find himself at the heart of the storm, and though the screenwriters have told us he's a lunkhead, he manages to stay five steps ahead of the rest of the scurrying rabble and even pauses to point out a battle-strategy opportunity to oblivious soldiers. He's like an "X-Men" superhero whose mutant power is a mega-dose of street smarts.

Conveniently commandeering a minivan that's the only civilian vehicle still operating after the aliens' electromagnetic pulses fry our circuitry, Ray dashes away with his kids, a clear path somehow always appearing amid abandoned cars and mounds of debris.

Tim Robbins enters the movie with jarring abruptness as a semi-demented survivalist railing about payback against the aliens, and he departs just as suddenly.

NASA's Mars landings have scotched Wells' notion of invaders from the red planet, so Spielberg opts for aliens of unspecified origin. He retains some of Wells' other trappings, including the gnarly red weed that spreads across the landscape, and Morgan Freeman delivers opening and closing narration largely lifted from the novel.

Flying machines have been the norm in science fiction, so it's refreshing that Spielberg stuck to Wells' terrifying conception of mechanical monstrosities on stilts. Yet with their fluid motion, the alien tripods look like something grabbed off the reject pile from "The Matrix" movies and given a fresh shine.

Likewise, in the few glimpses we get of them, the aliens look like computer-generated concoctions begged, borrowed and stolen from any and every recent movie about space beasties. The creatures are more frightening when Spielberg only offers a peek; once we see them full on, they're nondescript and boring.

Given his sensational body of work, Spielberg's entitled to a clunker, but it's odd how generic "War of the Worlds" feels, lacking any real stamp of who's behind the camera.

This might as well be the hokey crowd-pleaser "Independence Day," another not-so-short film about alien invasions. And sadly and strangely, a better one.

"War of the Worlds," a Paramount release, is rated PG-13 for frightening sequences of sci-fi violence and disturbing images. Running time: 116 minutes. Two stars out of four


I'm not going to see this, I "might" wait for the DVD, but I'm not too into TC lately, since he's become so friggin stupid!

[lawyerlee]

I don't think it looks very good, so I don't plan on seeing it. But I hope others who want to see it enjoy themselves.

[kugrrly]

I am really not interested in seeing. I will probably check it out on hbo.

[MsPeachy]

I really want to see it. I usually make a point to see big action movies with lots of special FX in the theater to get the full effect.

I have heard mixed reviews - some love it, some hate it, and some think it's mediocre - but I don't pay too much attention to reviews. :cool:

[Brandles]

I'm not a big fan of Tom Cruise anymore...but I figure that this movie will have so many special effects that should be seen on the big screen to do them justice. And for $2.00...I think I'm going to go see it tomorrow! :)

Remember when "V" had state of the art special effects? :p

[Rosebud]

A co-worker of mine saw an advance screening last night and said it was really good. As much as I loathe Tom Cruise, I think this'll probably be a pretty entertaining film.

[MsPeachy]

Remember when "V" had state of the art special effects? :pYou know - I can still remember what it looked like when Diana ate a guinea pig! Also - the rows of stored "food" ;)

[Brandles]

And the state of the art flying space ships that just looked SO REAL back in the 80's. Sci-Fi Channel had a "V" marathon on a few years back and I couldn't believe how hokey those space ships looked! ;)

[MsPeachy]

And the state of the art flying space ships that just looked SO REAL back in the 80's. Sci-Fi Channel had a "V" marathon on a few years back and I couldn't believe how hokey those space ships looked! ;) I think I caught some of that marathon - specifically when that girl gave birth to the alien "baby". Now there's some F/X for ya!! ;)

Seriously - I have "V" on my To-Get DVD list (right after Miami Vice! ) :o

[Sophia]

$2 for first run??? The cheapest I can see a first-run movie here is $4.50 for the very first showing of the day, M-F only.

[Rose]

I think we might see it this weekend. It may be the only movie I can drag DH to see.

[cantwait]

I saw it last night and highly recommend it. My exact quote to DH was, "That scared the piss out of me" (not literally!) The special effects looked so real and the whole impact of the movie was very similar to post-911. If you are easily spooked, don't see it. I watch a lot of action movies (DH is a fan) and this was the best we've seen in years. I hated the ending though (we can discuss why after some of you have seen it!)

BTW, we loved Batman Begins, too.

[bellaprincess]

My boyfriend and I saw it last night also. It was very good and I also thought the special effects were fabulous! Like Cantwait, I was also hoping for a different ending, but I still recommend it.
Dakota Fanning is a very talented actress and does a great job in this movie. Tiny Tom ( Cruise) is ok also.

[sublime311]

Why does Tom have to be such a tool, I usually love all his movies. Grrr...

[Irish Elf]

Ugh I hated HATED this movie. The sets looked fake and the actors were terrible in it.. Oh Dakota, what happened? You are so cute and normally great. I came so close to walking out of it. The only decent thing I can say is the theater was air-conditioned.


I love campy sci-fi. I love cheesy movies. This was neither. Mr Spielberg, you owe me $6. I had snacks but I have to eat so I'll cover those costs.

[Brandles]

$2 for first run??? The cheapest I can see a first-run movie here is $4.50 for the very first showing of the day, M-F only.

Yeah, it's a family-run theater. There are 2 movies showing and all seats are $2.00 before 5pm. Even the Cinemark an hour away is only $2.25 for matinees before 5pm. It's GREAT! :D

I saw it today and I really liked it! I was able to forget that Tom Cruise was Tom Cruise and just get swept away with the movie. I thought Dakota did a really good job showing terror and shock and panic. Her screams were wonderful!

The special effects looked so real and the whole impact of the movie was very similar to post-911.

I agree with this. I kept thinking about that through the movie...especially when they showed all the flags in a row on the houses.

I wish I didn't already know how it came out! :( I was glad I'd seen it at 1pm and walked out into warm sunshine. I was glad it wasn't over cast or night time.

[camberne]

All in all, I liked it. Didn't LOVE it, but liked it. It really did scare me in a few places (I don't watch horror, but I like mystery/suspense) and I was hanging on to my husband's arm much throughout. However, I hated the "resolution" at the end. I know how the story ends, but I mean (trying not to offer any spoilers) the resolution with the family completely left me shaking my head in disappointment. I think with another 20 minutes or so, they could have developed things a bit more fully.

I, personally, thought that the acting was pretty good. I didn't like the character of the son very much other than his initial interactions with his sister. I thought Dakota Fanning did a great job. Her job wasn't to "be cute" it was to be scared out of her freaking mind in the midst of a horrible massacre. Her high-pitched screams did grate on my nerves occasionally, but I reconciled that with the fact that she WAS supposed to be terrified.

The movie started moving pretty quickly, and I was impressed by the evolution of Ray from a cocky, generally absent dad to a man who has come to realize that his family IS important to him. I felt that, and I felt it was well portrayed. I was also heartened by the fact that it wasn't turned into a 'Ray saves the world' thing.

I'd recommend it, but I'd recommend seeing a matinee!!

[sarahh]

This is probably a really stupid question...but here goes!

Do you actually see the aliens? And if so, are they like the freaky big head, huge eyed aliens? I am terrified of aliens, but part of me wants to see the movie.

Just as a point of reference, I had a panic attack in the theatre when we went to see "Signs". I'll never know why I agreed to see that movie!!

I think I would be able to handle it if they don't show the aliens, or if they look like the aliens from like "Aliens" or "Predator".

So...am I a dork or what! :o

[camberne]

Yes, you see aliens... they're a little freaky looking, same skinny legs, big head, small mouths. A little, um, slimier than usual... think along the lines of Independence Day, and you don't see much of them.

Edited to add: the "ships" and mechanics of the aliens you see much more of and there were parts that they scared the bejesus out of me!!

[sarahh]

Thanks Alice! I will definitely NOT be seeing the movie! :( I'm such a baby! :rolleyes:

[jules1025]

ITA with camberne about the movie. It was entertaining, but not the best movie I've ever seen. It was more suspenseful than scary... I think "Signs" is way more of a scary alien movie than this one.

My main issues with the movie were:
1. The ending (when can we start discussing this??)
2. There were several contradictions in the movie (i.e. after the electro-magnetic pulse, Ray's watch didn't work but that guy in the street was able to use a video camera???) - there were a few times I was like "wait a minute..."

sarahh - "Signs" scared the crap out of me, but the aliens in this movie are not what's scary. I didn't even think the movie was "scary", it was just suspenseful. I was holding on to DH's arm b/c I was like "omg! Are they gonna get caught?!", not b/c I was scared. :)

ETA - Overall, I'm glad I saw it in the theaters b/c it does have great special effects and it was definitely an entertaining movie. I recommend attending a matinee!

[Clubqueen]

Wow, we sure get ripped off up here at movie theatres. I had to pay $9.50 to watch it on a Saturday night.. and that's a cheap price! It normally costs around 13 bucks per adult.

Anyway, we watched War of the Worlds last night. It wasn't fantastic, but it didn't suck either. It was okay. I think I was expecting more.
The visual effects were fantastic, but some scenes were very obvious sets (ie: when Tom runs outside to look for his daughter after the aliens find them in the basement. It totally looked and sounded like a soundstage).

It wasn't scary, by any means (and I'm a wuss. I won't watch horror movies). It was more like, "Oh, I wonder if they're going to make it" instead of "OMG! This is terrifying!"

I thought Signs was scary! Totally freaked me out. But this movie didn't.

[Brandles]

"Signs" scared me because of what you DIDN'T see. You didn't know what the alien was...who it was...what it looked like. There was a general idea (the video at the boy's birthday party and then later, the fingers in the pantry), but you weren't sure.

[angelraven]

DH and I saw it the other night. When it first started Tom Cruise got on my nerves. I thought he was over-acting a little bit. As the plot developed he got better, but it wasn't my favorite movie of his. It wasn't too scary, more suspenseful. Signs was much more scary. I enjoyed it for the most part, but I am glad we don't have to pay to get in to the movies. DH's best friend's dad owns a chain around here, so we get in for free! :D

[evagatesgreen2]

DH and I saw it last night, I was shooting for seeing Batman or Star Wars again but we ended up going into one of the later matinees($4.50/ticket)

My reaction to the movie is ehhhh, DH had a similar feeling towards it. It had its good parts. But we both kept waiting for the kids to get it. :rolleyes:

I now wish we had waited to see it. :confused:

[LeslieR]

I think "Signs" is way more of a scary alien movie than this one.


I was thinking THE SAME THING! War of the Worlds did not scare me at all. There might have been one scary moment in the whole thing and it was more like being startled than scared if that makes sense. I admit I had originally wanted to see this movie before all of the Tom Cruise shenanigans started and then my disgust for him overtook me and I had no desire to see it at all. DH wanted to see it, so we went. What a waste of money. We should have just waited for the DVD. It was so freaking cheesy. I didn't think the special effects looked real at all. And there were so many holes in the story, which only further annoyed me the more I thought about it. ugh.

[Sazoo]

Saw this movie yesterday with DH. It was good, but not great, IMO.

My favorite line -

The son asks something like "where are they from?"
Tom Cruise's character says something like "somplace far away from here" (sorry, I can't remember the exact dialog of this part)
Son says "You mean like from Europe?"
Tom says "No, NOT like from Europe!!!"

:p

[KaliLily]

DH wants to see this movie, but I'm totally turned off by Tom Cruise. Fortunately, he wants to see Fantastic 4 more, so I might be off the hook until it's out on DVD...and on sale! These days, even matinees are expensive.

[MsPeachy]

I have a question - Why is it that so many of you think that this was supposed to be a "scary" movie? Those of you who were under the impression that this was supposed to be scary, are you familiar with the original Orson Welles radio broadcast or the book? Because quite frankly, if you were, I just don't see how you could have expected "scary". :confused:

[cutebride2007]

I don't want to see any of Tom's movies after the way he's been acting lately. I think he should keep his opinions to himself! His movie is not getting my money, that's for sure!

[Secret_Squirrel]

I have a question - Why is it that so many of you think that this was supposed to be a "scary" movie? Those of you who were under the impression that this was supposed to be scary, are you familiar with the original Orson Welles radio broadcast or the book? Because quite frankly, if you were, I just don't see how you could have expected "scary". :confused:

Ok, that confuses me.

Now I have a question: what does everyone think "scary" means? I think a movie about aliens brutally slaughtering the human race should be scary. I think the original broadcast by Orson Welles was intended to be scary - and he did such a good job of it, that people thought it was real and started panicing in fear (although fewer than reported). Also, the radio play prompted similar hysteria when it was broadcast in Santiago and Quito. So if you were familiar with the original, why wouldn't you expect it to be scary?

Personally, I thought the movie was scary. Especially the begining, when it seems like a normal day, the storm rolls in and things start going awry. I have kids myself and I identified with the fear of trying to protect them in such a situation.

But, like Jules said, there were a lot of contractictions in the movie. EMP was too selective. The idea that they would have buried themselves millions of years ago before humans were around didn't make sense - why not take it over then?

But all in all, it was better than I thought it would be.

[MsPeachy]

Ok, that confuses me.

I'm sorry if I was confusing. I think the message I was getting from the tone of others' posts was that going in, the preconception was that the movie was a scary alien movie - like Alien perhaps. Scary in a sci-fi horror movie kind of way. That's why I asked about familiarity with the broadcast & book. I do think the story is supposed to be frightening for all the reasons you mentioned but it didn't seem like the other posters were feeling that and that was why I asked. Hope that helps clear up the confusion!

[Secret_Squirrel]

Thanks, Peaches!

I see what you mean. Aliens is a totally scary movie! I do think WotW was scary, but not in the same way.