War Of The Worlds (Steven Spielberg's)

Garrett

Moderator
Joined
Apr 21, 2001
Messages
56,456
Reaction score
18,750
Points
11,395
Location
The best thief you'll never see.
Got round to watching this last night and had a love hate relationship with it.

For a kick of I'm not a lover of grain to me its arty farty %$£& and goes with my hating of anything that draws my attention all the time to the fact I'm watching a film rather than immersing myself in it. The opening scene in the docks where you can see the buildings across the bay normally they be pin sharp lines of windows these are now grained to them almost being blurred.
A number of shot Tom Cruise's face looks like hes got some skin infection.
The colours also seem washed out although I don't think the sun shines once throughout the film.

On the other hand the sound exact opposite for me it one of the best if not the best Ive heard and really make good use of the surround and although 2D it almost made me dodge to the side in one scene where a car gets shot though the air.

The film is more near
to the book than the George Pal outing and more based on one mans struggle to keep alive and his family (although at points you wish he left them to there own devises to die as there quite a few spot they become really annoying) than what the authority's are doing to repel the invaders.

The effects are quite spectacular especially at the start but there one scene I did not understand was when the
invader emerges it jumps up into the air and nothing no more is mentioned of it then the dude pops out of the ground that really breaks the ground and towers above then, so what was the first thing that popped out. Also if they hid the machines in the ground over a million years ago why did they not invade then
:confused:
I really would have loved to have seen the battle that was going on over the brow of the hill.

Film:7.5
Picture:2 (that's because of my hate of the grain)
Sound: 10
 
I'll be watching this one again soon shortly (love the steelbook!).

War of the Worlds is a bit love/hate for me too actually. Some bits I really like. I like the grainy PQ myself, takes a bit of getting used to but it suits the film. I bet you must love Hurt Locker PQ ;)

However, one thing nearly ruined this film for me...Dakota Fanning. Seriously...how annoying is this girl?!
 
Another here that likes the grainy washed out style to the film and the soundtrack is truly incredible but as for the film itself I much prefer the original lol
 
Too many incosistencies in it for me - all electronics dies but a camcorder still works and an 'ordinairy Joe' knows about top hat mode for a very modern missile and could even fire it.
The reason the Christopher Reeves Superman film was so good in it's day is that is was contistent and the characters behaved consistently.
It's the same reason I prefer the previous version with Rod Taylor.
 
However, one thing nearly ruined this film for me...Dakota Fanning. Seriously...how annoying is this girl?!

Was it you in the steelbook thread that did not like her?

There a few times I wish they thrown her to the aliens but she was only acting as that age group would but her bother was a real prick although that age group you could expect it in normal circumstances but in the one they were in you think his common sense would have over rode his rebelliousness. I cant say I liked the main character Tom Cruise was playing although seemed to step up to the mark somewhat when the invaders appeared.

Iv not watched Hurt Locker on Blu or any HD format only normal broadcast. Grain to me is like say putting some cheese cloth over the lens and saying that improves the film and about as arty as Damien Hirst's cows. If I remember it had wobbly cam an other of my hates, although the story was good.
 
I'm not a huge fan of Kamiski's cinematography either. I don't mind grain, but I don't like the look of overexposed grain that he seems so fond of. It reminds me more of advertising than film.

Otherwise I think the film is fantastic till Tim Robbin's turns up and then it grinds to a stop from which it never recovers. The aliens are a bit rubbish and Robbin's is awful and hammy. Tom Cruise is totally outclassed by Dakota Fanning who was a far more talented actor at the age of ten, than Cruise will ever be. In the 70s Spielberg would have cast a believable character actor like Richard Dreyfuss as a loser blue collar dad, rather than a high maintanance film star.

That said, I like how much it retains from the novel, of which I'm a huge fan and there enough thrilling sequences to still make this one of Spielberg's best later films for me.
 
Last edited:
Was it you in the steelbook thread that did not like her?

There a few times I wish they thrown her to the aliens but she was only acting as that age group would but her bother was a real prick although that age group you could expect it in normal circumstances but in the one they were in you think his common sense would have over rode his rebelliousness. I cant say I liked the main character Tom Cruise was playing although seemed to step up to the mark somewhat when the invaders appeared.

Iv not watched Hurt Locker on Blu or any HD format only normal broadcast. Grain to me is like say putting some cheese cloth over the lens and saying that improves the film and about as arty as Damien Hirst's cows. If I remember it had wobbly cam an other of my hates, although the story was good.

About as annoying as her age group could possibly be I think though! Oh yeah, her brother was damn annoying too - is this film an argument against having kids?! :D

My advice is definitely rent Hurt Locker on blu before buying. I was shocked at how much grain is on this one...its probably the grainiest film Ive seen, certainly the newest. I still really like the film though.

Agree about Damien Hirst too :smashin:even if I dont agree with your grain comments on the whole.
 
However, one thing nearly ruined this film for me...Dakota Fanning. Seriously...how annoying is this girl?!

Well, that's how a ten year old girl would react when the world falls apart around her. She gives a fantastic performance and strikes me as the most realistic character in the film. She roots the film in an emotional reality. Seeing her terrified brought home the terror of the alien threat, but I suppose many audiences these days need all their characters to be "badass"
 
Last edited:
I'm not a huge fan of Kamiski's cinematography either. Otherwise I think the film is fantastic till Tim Robbin's turns up and then it grinds to a stop from which it never recovers. The aliens are a bit rubbish and Robbin's is awful and hammy. Tom Cruise is totally outclassed by Dakota Fanning who was a far more talented actor at the age of ten, than Cruise will ever be. In the 70s Spielberg would have cast a believable character actor like Richard Dreyfuss as a loser blue collar dad, rather than a high maintanance film star.

That said, I like how much it retains from the novel, of which I'm a huge fan and there enough thrilling sequences to still make this one of Spielberg's best later films for me.

I liked Tom Cruise in this one myself - hes getting better as he gets older (I cant stand Top Gun for instance even though I love some other 80s cheese).

Agree on Robbins...the film does come to a bit of a stop here. You can hear all the noises going on up on the surface and I bet 99% of people are thinking "I want to see whats going on up there not this dungeon stuff!"
 
Well, that's how a ten year old girl would react when the world falls apart around her. She gives a fantastic performance and strikes me as the most realistic character in the film and she roots the film in an emotional reality. Seeing her terrified brought home the terror of the alien threat, but I suppose many audiences these days need all their characters to be "badass"

The most annoying 10 year old girl in the world maybe! :D My niece was nowhere near this annoying at that age for instance.
 
Original 53' version on Film4 this afternoon @ 15:10. ;)
 
The most annoying 10 year old girl in the world maybe! :D My niece was nowhere near this annoying at that age for instance.

What exactly was it you found so annoying about her ? Has your niece been through an alien apocalypse ? ;)

I suspect it has more to do with your ability to empathise than with Fanning's performance.
 
Too many incosistencies in it for me - all electronics dies but a camcorder still works

maybe because it was not working at the time and was not connected to the battery, same as the car that was broke they replaced the solenoid and that worked. In not saying that's the real explanation just a possibility.
Or they guy could have been out of the area effect at the time as the lightning did not happen everywhere at the same time also as an aoe could have had spots not covered.
One I though of besides my spoiler one how deep were the buried, no one mining or laying foundations or pipe works found one:confused:

I too prefer the original and hope they clean and hide the ships strings, as to The Time machine this is one of my all tame favorite films and one I can watch again and again. Mind you Im a huge fan of Rod Taylor and he oozes charisma that Guy Pearce seems like cold dead fish in comparison.
 
Well, that's how a ten year old girl would react when the world falls apart around her. She gives a fantastic performance and strikes me as the most realistic character in the film. She roots the film in an emotional reality. Seeing her terrified brought home the terror of the alien threat, but I suppose many audiences these days need all their characters to be "badass"

Before the muck hit the fan shes probably the most level headed of anyone in the film, how many here on the forum admit to hiding behind the sofa as a kid watching Dr Who. as a 10 year old not watching it on TV but happening to her yes 100% acting as if it happened to a kid in RL even a level headed one.

By the way look out for cameos by Gene Barry and Ann Robinson
 
I remember the DVD DTS audio just about exploding my new 5.1 kit at the time, those lightening bolts near the start lifted more dust of my carpets than the old hover ever did.
 
It really is a love/hate film as there are very memorable great scenes and I liked the take of one families struggle with all that's going on around them. But it's the family that is the let down apart from Dakota Fanning and a film that Spielberg should of made thirty years ago when his take on family interaction was at it's highest. Tom Cruise just doesn't cut it as the father figure in this as you can't see him as the blue collar dad .
 
Didn't find Dakota Fanniing annoying myself, but her brother I would have given an elbow to the face, he really annoyed me.
 
The working camcorder is always thrown up as an inconsistency with this film, but it is explained quite simply.

When an electro-magnetic pulse disables electronic equipment , it only affects equipment that is powered up when the pulse hits. Electronic equipment that is switched off at the time is not affected.

+ 1 for Dakota Fanning's performance. Incredibly impressive - and as annoying as any child would most likely be during Armageddon.

I have a love/love relationship with this movie. I think it is one of Speilberg's best and it remains so true to much of Wells' novel.

The three most renowned adaptations of the book were not interested in placing it in the Victorian era, as they realised that Wells' metaphor had powerful contemporary relevance for many different eras beyond his own. Just as Orson Welles did during the tense period leading up to the outbreak of WWII and George Pal did during the paranoid atmosphere of the Cold War, Spielberg interpreted the novel to address contemporary fears post 9/11 and at the height of the Iraq war.

I think that's what he meant when he said in interviews that the time was right to re-visit War of the Worlds.

Simultaneously great science fiction, gut wrenching horror and a powerful anti-war polemic that works on so many levels.

All that and lots of cool stuff exploding. What's not to love? :smashin:
 
Last edited:
Trollslayer said:
Too many incosistencies in it for me - all electronics dies but a camcorder still works and an 'ordinairy Joe' knows about top hat mode for a very modern missile and could even fire it.
The reason the Christopher Reeves Superman film was so good in it's day is that is was contistent and the characters behaved consistently.
It's the same reason I prefer the previous version with Rod Taylor.

Which 'ordinary Joe' fired a missile? I remember Cruise's character throwing a grenade, but if you're talking about the bit near the end with the javelin those people were soldiers.
 
My problem with the film was all I really took away from it was just how weird Tim Robbins was in it. My only memories are of his scenes, and I'm sure there was plenty more I enjoyed I just can't remember it at all! Need to watch it again I think.
 
I don't mind this one, idea or look.


But isn't about time someone actually filmed the book.

As with Sherlock Holmes, I've a lot of time for the argument that the novel was never intended to be a period piece - at the time it was written, that was a contemporary setting.
 
As with Sherlock Holmes, I've a lot of time for the argument that the novel was never intended to be a period piece - at the time it was written, that was a contemporary setting.

The same goes for Jane Austen and the Brontes, but there is a reason why most of the time those adaptations are costume films (though there is the occasional exception, like Clueless)

If you want to do a Wells adaptation that genuinely is faithful, then you have to set it in the period it was written, because you have to change so much to make it work for current times that you basically invent half of the plot new. When you read the book, you don't update it in your head because it's impossible.

On the whole I thought Spielberg did a great job in updating the novel to modern times and liked how much more he kept from the book than the 50s film, but it's certainly not how one would imagined it when reading the book. I still would like to see that film. Hollywood generally regards a steam punk approach a hard sell because much of the time these films flop (John Carter, The League of Extraordinary Gentleman), but I like the contrast between a period piece and sci-fi and would love to see the tripods lay waste to a Victorian London.

And while we're at it there also still hasn't been a faithful adaptation of The Time Machine, despite both adaptations having been set in the past. The 60s George Pal film was a fun adventure romp, but it just changed too much to make it kid friendly (the Eloy aren't human, the end of the novel is downbeat but could be visually amazing) and the 90s remake basically ignored most of the novel to come up with an insultingly inferior storyline (and despite advanced effects technology still didn't do the devolved Eloy justice).
 
Last edited:
Not disagreeing with what anyone has said - some massively good points made.

I'd just like to see a really good version of the book, in as close as its possible to get.

I actually think that the juxtaposition of Martian technology vs Victorian era paraphernalia would be very interesting. Indeed, more so since we have a better idea of what space ships would look like than HGW did.

Steve W
 
I love this film. Never quite got the hate that Tom Cruise has gotten over recent years, and thought this was a great adaption with some very memorable visuals - the burning express train for instance.

As for the blu ray, I have to watch it when the wife is out so I can put the amp right up.

On the Universal Studios Hollywood studio tour, you get to drive through the plane crash set and it's an amazing sight to see. Quite interestingly, it is right next to the Desperate Housewives set which makes for a rather amusing juxtapose.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom