The War of the Worlds

This movie came out recently, and my father was kind enough to take me to see it.

It sucked.

Don't get me wrong, I know that the movie ended how it ORIGINALLY ended, but.... I just thought this movie was poorly done.

If you have to see it, go to a matinee. However, it would be worth your while to see Batman Begins. I personally loved that movie.

As well as that, the Chronicles of Narnia are coming out this december. yay.

How're the destruction scenes? If they're decent, I'll rent it when it comes out on DVD.

well, the robots blowing shit up and annihilating people was cool.

I'm gonna see it maybe tomorrow night. Also. Batman sucked

I thought Batman was good... except for the parts where he was Batman. His Batman voice was horrid, the fight scenes were impossible to follow, and none of the situations seemed all that exciting. The Bruce Wayne stuff was enjoyable, though.

Anyway, this movie hasn't gotten all that swell reviews, so it matches what I heard. Nice how Spielberg just goes into cruise control on some movies and produces (admittedly very glossy) run-of-the-mill action flicks.

I just kind of assume any movie with Tom Cruise in it is going to suck. Since after all I don't know any exceptions to that rule yet. And I don't know why anyone expects much from Spielberg, the only film of his I really like is Schindler's List.

And bleh, if I wanted to watch Chronicles of Narnia on film I'd rent the old BBC miniseries, which was in fact quite excellent.

sargebaldy said:

And bleh, if I wanted to watch Chronicles of Narnia on film I'd rent the old BBC miniseries, which was in fact quite excellent.

I second that.

Though, it's been a couple of years since I watched that, so maybe I'd find it crappy today.

I saw War of the Worlds today and I loved it, which is odd because I hate Cruise, I was never a big fan of Spielburg (and everything he's made in the past decade was pretty bad), and action films don't really do anything for me. The way it was filmed was excelent, and the tripods were creepy as Hell. Bah, I say, to all ye naysayers.

Also, it was far better than Batman Begins.

Fredrik said:

Though, it's been a couple of years since I watched that, so maybe I'd find it crappy today.

Yeah, I last watched it when they came out (over 10 years ago), but I think I'd still enjoy it.

I'm amazed this movie is generating revenue- usually americans won't see a movie if the actor(s) have shown that they can be complete idiots. then again, I don't understand the american public.

Csonicgo said:

I'm amazed this movie is generating revenue- usually americans won't see a movie if the actor(s) have shown that they can be complete idiots. then again, I don't understand the american public.

Mabye because the American public lack Intelligence while the American Government lacks Common Sense (putting Nuclear bombs near a extinct volcano lol)

Screw Tom Cruise - there's freakin' aliens. I haven't seen it yet, but I plan on it, and it has nothing to do with whether I like Tom Cruise or not. Hell, it was my favorite book as a kid, and if it's even a halfway decent movie adaptation, I'll be happy.

Oh, and I absolutely loved Batman Begins.

The one thing that bothered me about Batman more than anything else was how they pronounced Ra's Al Ghul's name. I'm so used to the way it was in that cartoon that for me to hear his name in the movie was quite unsettling. Still, I didn't let that stop me from enjoying the movie.

Batman blew, WOTW was coo

sargebaldy said:

And I don't know why anyone expects much from Spielberg, the only film of his I really like is Schindler's List.

Not much of an Indiana Jones fan, are you? ;)

Hey remember that time that Batman could totally control bats and make them swarm people?!

Anyway, as far as the american public and cruise, surprisingly it hasn't been on TV all that much from what I've seen so maybe tabloid television just didn't see it as a story that would raise enough commotion

Dodge said:

Not much of an Indiana Jones fan, are you? ;)

Well, the first and last ones are really good for action films, but I guess I don't care much for action films in general. I think the second one just kinda sucked though.

No love for Jaws?

I love jaws. :P

I liked the first JP

Just got back from the theater. Very nice actually.

The theater was nice?

heh.
Actually they had all sorts of problems at the theater. The movie was delayed ~30 minutes.

I really liked everything about WOTW except for the ending, which seemed to wrap up Mr. Cruise's situation a little too nicely. Otherwise, it was a pretty intense movie. Every new scene brought something to get tense about, especially the basement with that creepy guy. Also, the Tripods (especially in the scene where one first appears in that intersection) were severely badass and looked very, very nice. Ebert says he didn't like the design too much, but what the hell did he expect?

This movie has received an 8.5 out of 10 on the Dunbar's Personal Movie Awesomeness Meter(DPMAM), with some points missing due to the overly happy ending, and the lack of more destruction scenes involving Tripods vs. Buildings.

Liked it a lot, although there were some big weak points, one of which was the ending. I liked the design of the alien technology. They made it look more utilitarian than you might expect, as they didn't go overboard and try to make it look too organic and in-your-face "alien".



Minor Spoilage:
I didn't like the design of the aliens themselves too much. I admire the attempt to move away from humanoid aliens a little bit (like in Signs for example), but their "setup" just doesn't seem right from an evolutionary standpoint. You can tell it's pretty akward when you see them moving about later, although the animators did their best. And am I the only one who thought they were a bit on the cute side? I'm having mental images of Gizmo crossbred with a monkey.

I thought the movie was really awesome, however the ending seemed like they ran out of time and wanted to wrap it up without any type of cool reason of beating them. I mean, the aliens just randomly died after they did all that work to figure out how to actually kill them. Come on.

I guess it's better than water in the middle east.

*SPOILERS*

Well, that's the same way they died in the book and the original movie. The aliens didn't realise that the common cold would be so deadly to them.

Actualy, the book was an analogy to the conquest of America. One side is insanely technologicly advanced compared to the people they are invading. "This isn't a war, it's a massacre." The aliens dieing from the common cold was an analogy to smallpox, but in the the case of WotW, it was the invaders that succumbed to it instead of the defenders.

Danarchy said:

Actualy, the book was an analogy to the conquest of America. One side is insanely technologicly advanced compared to the people they are invading. "This isn't a war, it's a massacre." The aliens dieing from the common cold was an analogy to smallpox, but in the the case of WotW, it was the invaders that succumbed to it instead of the defenders.

How the hell is that really analogous specifically to the conquest of america as opposed to any other? Considering the martians die and all...a failed conquest of the sort would be much better

haha it had some really big plotholes, like in the beggining no one has any electronic devices and then you see a guy with a working video camera, I was like wtf.

insertwackynamehere said:

haha it had some really big plotholes, like in the beggining no one has any electronic devices and then you see a guy with a working video camera, I was like wtf.

He may have come into the area after the EMP was activated. That was my take on it. That team came into the area after the initial attack and recorded.