War of the Worlds

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

it was a great popcorn movie, but the best part of the whole experience was the preview for the lion, the witch and the wardrobe.

[Landon D. Parks]

Yeah, the preview for the Chronicals of Narnia where pretty cool, even though I already seen it on APPLE! trailers, still a little 6" x 4" preview is nothing like a preview on the big screen!

[Frank DiBugnara]

I saw the film this weekend as I did the trailer for King Kong. Each film provided a few "wow, I really am in love with film" moments when I experienced that sort of intangible magic of some shots where something about the image just blows you away.

 

I was also reminded of HOW MUCH Spielberg loves to move the camera.

 

Although I loved the look of the film overall, I too was distracted by the change in look throughout the film. I guess I was so used to the visual consistency in Minority Report and Saving Private Ryan. The differences in looks between scenes really caught my attention that I found myself trying to figure out "what direction is he going visually?" and "what does the change in look mean to the story?" The huge halo around the lights in the ferry scene again made my eye snap off the actors and right to them to wonder why they looked the way they did.

[Michel Hafner]

The family conflicts coming up in of course the most inappropriate moments. Granted its probably realistic  to assume this stuff breaks free in moments of heavy stress and yet it was so predictable and overdone to the extreme here.  Probably because I felt those conflicts had no connection to the actual plot that I felt it was just too calculated in order to get some more hysteria... a good example was at that hill where the son wants to get to the army suddenly shouting and accusing the divorced father of not having been there for them while down the hill the daughter is about to get "kidnapped" and lets not forget the giant manslaughtering aliens attacking some tanks and helicopters and so on at the same time...

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are mixing up scenes. In the hill scene the son says something else. This scene is about growing up/letting go while the 'apocalypse' is going on in the wings. A great scene, by the way. If you want to find a 'flaw' it's the 'trick' to have the daughter in distress at the same time so the father has to chose and let him go a la "Sophie's Choice". A bit contrived.

[Gregor Mac]

I don't know about you guys but just on the visuals and the story alone, it doesn't suck me in - it just didn't look real.

 

I've seen other science fiction/fiction films with supposedly less "credible" happenings, like Fantastic Four, and Sin City - and for whatever reason - they all seemed more credible.

 

On the topic of the story alone - read this post for an example of some amazing things that seem so fantastic as to be fiction - but actually happened:

 

http://hnn.us/articles/1801.html

 

See what I mean about the "war of the worlds" - it's more "real" yet more fantastic because it is real, no?

 

I still think the film could have been made in an even more gritty and realistic way than it was and less sugar coated than it was - it would have been more believable and would have drawn us all in.

[James Brown]

I have to come in here and state my single point.

 

I really hated this film, and i only hated it for one reason, this reason being, i did not feel for the characters at all. I thought 'visually' it was great, like all spilebergs films but not once did i care about any of the characters. The only emotionally sparking piece of film was the little girls performance, which was great. I'm sure i stepped on some toes here but when i left the cinema i felt it did not do a single thing for me.

Oh i almost forgot, what happened when it tried to end?????? and the son turning up, your kidding me.

 

James.

[Adam Frisch FSF]

I don't know what all the criticism is alla about - this is probably as good as a summer, popcorn shlock fest can be.

 

For the short amount of time he shot, Spielberg did a splendid job. As far as I'm concerned, the man is a genius. I'd like to see anyone but him try this from conception to release in less than 9 months and make half as good a film.

[Tenolian Bell]

The criticism of this movie is moving into the ridiculous.

 

Reminds me of when I was in film school. Everyone felt they had license to rip into every film they saw. I would tell my classmates to keep things in perspective and take into account you are a student ripping into the work of a professional getting paid to do this.

 

The other points I would make is looking at your meager body of work do you really think you could do any better and would your humble work survive your own criticism? The answer to both are of course not.

 

It's pretty easy to sit on the side lines and throw rocks at the people actually doing something.

 

On the other hand there is room for criticism, especially of flaws in basic filmmaking fundamentals. But that's different from mean spirited attacks.

 

I'm surprised that few people could see the talent in skill that goes into making something like War of the Worlds. And some very interesting things Spielberg does that few can do well.

 

First this story was not about the aliens is was about the people. I guess some wanted a general summer film with grande alien battles. But this was about a father and his two kids. I guess you can be disappointed in that but I don't understand why.

 

One great aspect of the film was keeping the camera low with the people. Very few shots were wide or from up high. Mostly that type of shot was used to give some context and the feeling of the people being trapped. Even with the height of the tripods and at many times the grand nature of what was going on, much of the time the camera kept people in the foreground, especially close ups.

 

I was really impressed with the scene that revealed the first tripod. We in the audience sat there with about as much information as the characters about what was going to come up out of the ground and what it was going to do next. And there really wasn't a very clear view of the tripod at first. We only see bits and parts of it. Once it finally stood erect it was obscured by smoke and debris. As the characters in the film looked at the tripod its ominous form was shown and some what obscured through window reflections. That is great filmmaking.

 

The other masterful part of that sequence was the camera running with the crowd as the tripod incinerated everyone. The camera was running with close up shots of people in the foreground and the tripod legs in the background. As Tom Cruise looks up at the tripod the camera tilts up looking at it while running. They both have to look at something that is not there on set. The camera operator has to look up into a blank refrenceless sky and have sense of the scale of the tripod and how fast it moves. As well as Spielberg has to have the organization to communicate this and keep it consistent between the camera operator and the VFX team. To do this requires skill and vision.

 

I'm not saying the film is 100% perfect, but it had some really good moments.

 

The revealing of the first tripod was great.

 

When Cruise threw the peanut butter bread at the window which slid down. As he stared out into the darkness. That was a moment in which he doesn't know what he is going to do and neither do we know.

 

The crowd of people fitting over the car, and Cruise almost loosing his daughter.

 

The flaming train going by at high speed.

 

I liked the scene where the son is trying to run away and Cruise has to choose between the son and the daughter. It punctuates how bad of a father he's been. How much the son does not respect him, and begins to solidify him to his daughter.

 

I can see how some people found the ending anti climactic. There was no emotional thrill of a final showdown with the aliens. No one found the secret alien signal on their lap top which enabled them to download a virus into the alien mainframe and disable their shields. Which enabled human bombs and missiles to destroy them. Did anyone really want that kind of ending?

 

The point of the story is more cerebral. The point was that humans had no defence against the alien invasion. Left unchecked the aliens would have accomplished their goal.

 

But the aliens were not prepared and had no defence against the smallest creatures on this planet. Single celled organisms. That the hundreds of millions of people who have died before us, died to give us protection and earned us the right to live on this planet.

 

The one part I did not like is the son returning. As Cruise made it home with his daughter, I knew the son was going to pop up. When he did I found it predictable and disappointing.

 

Maybe if Cruise had rescued the son along the way earning his respect and brought them both home at the same time. That would have worked for me better.

[David Mullen ASC]

I found the first half of the movie to be fairly brilliantly directed, up through the ferry sequence. The second half couldn't live up to that and it sort of petered out as it did in the source material.

 

I agree that having the son pop back up was dramatically a bad idea. After all, it's a WAR movie -- albeit a sci-fi one, but with an aura of realism -- so there should be a lingering sense of waste and loss, like at the end of "The Pianist", the understanding that some people simply don't survive until the end.

[Guest Kai.w]

The criticism of this movie is moving into the ridiculous.

 

Reminds me of when I was in film school. Everyone felt they had license to rip into every film they saw. I would tell my classmates to keep things in perspective and take into account you are a student ripping into the work of a professional getting paid to do this.

 

The other points I would make is looking at your meager body of work do you really think you could do any better and would your humble work survive your own criticism? The answer to both are of course not.

 

It's pretty easy to sit on the side lines and throw rocks at the people actually doing something.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sorry but this argument is too easy. So we are not allowed to criticize Spielbergs work if we haven't done something on a similar level? Do I have to be a politician myself to criticize my governments work?

The film is supposed to be done for an audience not for other filmmakers. And as such I'm not at all interested in the amount of work and talent it needs to get something like this done at all....

From a filmmakers perspective one can of course stand in owe for what it took to make something like this but in the end it comes down to the question if is it a good movie or not and everyone even my grandma is totally in the right to tear it apart if it did not work for him/her and though in general I'd say it is a really good movie I share Davids view that the second part somehow lost it. Plus there were a few moments of, in my view, unnecessary hysteria which I felt artificial and got me out of the movie.

 

-k

[Tenolian Bell]

Sorry but this argument is too easy. So we are not allowed to criticize Spielbergs work if we haven't done something on a similar level?

 

Sure anyone can criticize anything. Opinions are like butt holes, everybody's got one.

 

I never said no one should criticize Spielberg's work. I said the criticizm was becoming ridiculous.

 

Criticism is a good concept in general. But criticism should be tempered with knowledge and understanding.

 

Studying the French New Wave, watching all of Kurasawa's film, and throwing around a bunch of film jargon to me does not constitute a well formed opinion

[James Brown]

The criticism of this movie is moving into the ridiculous.

 

Reminds me of when I was in film school. Everyone felt they had license to rip into every film they saw. I would tell my classmates to keep things in perspective and take into account you are a student ripping into the work of a professional getting paid to do this.

Don't you think it's good to be critical of someones work? If we all just went around saying that something is good how would anyone step it up a level. Film can never satisfy the whole audience but we are filmmakers because we can be critical when something doesnt work, we know what we like, we know what we hate and we know what works. But, everyone has different thoughts and it's good that they get to express it here.

 

James

Edited July 29, 2005 by James Brown

[Justin Hayward]

Don't you think it's good to be critical of someones work? 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Certainly, but sometimes people become overly critical of the best stuff out there.

[James Brown]

Certainly, but sometimes people become overly critical of the best stuff out there.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I agree, but do you think War Of The Worlds is in that class?

[Justin Hayward]

I agree, but do you think War Of The Worlds is in that class?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Absolutely.

[James Brown]

Absolutely.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Visually, maybe, but as a whole complete package, no way.

 

Each to their own and ill leave it at that

 

James.

[Jonathan Spear]

I just got back from seeing WOTW.

 

First of all, I had to remind myself that this isn't based on a true story -- so as a story, it works. As a motion picture it works even better thanks to great production design, Steven Speilberg & Co., lighting, etc.

 

The only complaint I have is that if this were a probable scenario, if Earth was indeed invaded by these creatures, I don't think it would go down like this. In real life, when true tragedy happens, is there ever a happy ending? Not in my opinion. There's just an ending. A truthful one.

 

"Are they terrorists?"

 

That's what ruined the film for me. It brought me back to reality. I have more respect for those alien exterminators than I do for some of the "people" on this planet.

 

With that in mind, WOTW makes no sense to me at all, holds no truth and in the long run... is just a story.

 

But maybe that's the point.

[Marty Hamrick]

I thought they did an excellent job establishing a sense of forboding right from the beginning.Drab,almost monochrome look to it.The shot looking through the hole in the window when Tom Cruise and son were playing catch.You know you're going to see that shot again,typical Spielberg signature shot.The camcorder dropped to ground where you see what's on the monitor,another Spielberg signature.

 

I didn't find the ending objectionable at all,not sure what all the complaints were about.It stayed pretty true to the original story.

 

Marty

[Guest filmmakermilan]

One thing that I look back on and get disgusted by is the fact that after the Tripods were destroying everything in sight, they were able to get rid of EVERYTHING except the family van. Cruise and his family sure had some luck on their side. :P

[Robert Glenn]

I thought the best shot was the 'van driving down the parkway' shot that went uncut for a couple of minutes. Sure it was all probably shot on a green screen, but the combination of all the talent, technical elements, camera moves and pacing really worked for me.

 

I was really entertained by this WOTW. It's master filmmaking on all levels. The production design, lighting, music and editing all fit together well.

 

I especially liked all the lighting in Tim Robbins scenes which reminded me of David Lean/Guy Green for some reason.

That parkway sequence also caught my attention. Is there any documentation as to how they did it? The camera rolls around the car as it's in motion, then zooms in to the trio in the car as they have their dialogue, and I think moves away as they swerve around stranded cars and whatnot.