War of the Worlds/movie fx old and new etc.

[Crow Haven]

WOW! If you want to see a good scifi movie and some wonderful fx go see this! Just got back from the theater and thought it worth every cent. Even knowing the story and being a fan of the original film which I have on dvd too, this remake stands on its own as a real nail biter. Story additions work well, acting is great (especially Dakota Fanning = very talented), 2 hours well spent, AWESOME, imo.

[glenngosack]

It's on my list of movies to see (and own once on dvd)

[RTK]

Yes, I enjoyed it! It was a nice ride.

Fantastic visuals... The end was a bit "cheap/short" though... It was almost like you closed your eyes for a second - and "hey, what the heck, happened? It's over? We were having a great time here! More please!" I'm sure the extra-extended - directors cut - version will be out in time for Christmas...

I was however sad to see Spielberg take the cheap way out with Cruise! A no-name actor would have been better. Cruise is like a well-glazed donut - sweet, cute and pretty. As with all donuts - they don't have any substance... You will get your 'fill' with donuts very quickly - and they will make you sick if you have to much of them. He was like a tourist trying to find a bathroom in a foreign city - he was desparate even when he didn't need to be...

There's almost a whole story missing - what the heck happened to "X" (don't want to ruin the movie) - he just went to watch the fireworks?

The little girl was good - and darn cute! Odd to see a 'little one' with so much "presence" on-screen.

Still worth to see it on the big screen though!

[jclements]

Risto,

Many of the reviews I've read are saying the same thing you mentioned above.

[Crow Haven]

I think a lot of people are tired of Cruise, but still the film was very watchable...a pleasant surprise for me anyway as the last fantasy or scifi film I really thought excellent was LOTR.

Yes "X's" whereabouts were mysterious...I thought he's "had it for sure."

The trailers of Peter Jackson's "King Kong" looked like it had potential, and the C.S. Lewis "Chronicals of Narnia" also might be interesting.

[Gare]

I’m sorry I can’t stay OT with regards to this forum, but I have to add my 2¢ to this WOTW thread; I have to agree with Roger Ebert’s review, for the most part. There’s something fundamentally wrong with the story as told on the big screen with ILM effects that I didn’t really mind in the book, the 1953 movie, or Orson Welles’ radio adaptation. Why are the Martians ruining Earth? Do they want invade/dominate it? If so, a well thought-out invasion wouldn’t leave their conquest in debris; ya don’t mess up the place you’re planning on inhabiting. Do they want to eat us, as suggested in various takes? Then why scoop up only a handful of us, and blast the rest of us out of our clothes?

And for a race that looks, technologically, much more advanced than humans, why settle on a tripod design for the machines? Try moving one leg of a tripod, and see what happens to the structure the legs are supporting!

Okay, the idea of a superior, extraterrestrial race conquering Earth is a fine premise; H.G. Welles book used the premise to scare the crap out of his readership at the time. But as a book, we were left to our own imaginations to weave the details into a plausible monstrosity. Same thing with Orson’s radio broadcast—my grandparents hid in the cellar! And the 1953 movie used state-of-the-art (for the time) techniques to scare us. And Spielberg’s revival is indeed scary, but Spielberg has always been known for his storytelling, and this movie proceeds to unravel before us, before a logical premise has been established in our minds. This leaves an awful lot of scenes of crowds running, Tom Cruise running...and special effects. I felt empty, scared, and largely cheated when I left the theater; it was $17 for the two of us plus the obligatory dinner afterwards, and commercials for Hyundai and Skittles really twirk me off before the movie.

I was consoled somewhat by the excellent cinematography and the CG. I was taken aback at the camera/CG work when we panned around the van as Tom shuttled the family to his ex’s house. Increasingly, camera zooms and stuff are computer-enhanced to do the impossible (The Matrix); Spielberg wields this tool to create a mood, and unfortunately music videos have glommed onto the technology to present eye candy. The destruction was all very photorealistic IMO, except for the keypin scene of the soldier poking at the dead alien’s hand—the lighting didn’t match between the hard-lit soldier and the flatly lit machine & alien. The folks getting blown out of their clothes was an innovative touch, the bridge collapsing was breath-taking, and the proximity of the actors to CG autos flipping and buildings collapsing added real tension to the moment. Spielberg never lets the effects tell the story; instead, he uses effects as an integrated part of a scene to draw us emotionally into it.

Em, trivial: did anyone notice that after the E-MP strike, and after the very first machine erupts from the ground and starts firing, a guy in the fleeing crowd is documenting it with his camcorder? If cars’ starters are toast, why not the camcorder’s circuitry?

Other Spielberg trademarks abound, so if you’re a Spielberg fan, you won’t be disappointed. The troubled teenager, the precocious 10 year old, the earthy set designs, subtle traces of humor and irony are all present and accounted for.

This is a movie movie; don’t wait for it to come out on DVD—the big screen is a must.

But better still, this Fourth of July, rent “Independence Day� if you haven’t already seen it. The premise is basically the same as WOTW, but it was more satisfying (for me) because the alien invasion had some roots and motivation, and I can see where Spielberg got his alien design from!

My wife wanted to see “Bewitched�, mostly because it’s “light�, and would prefer to put our money in Nicole Kiddman’s purse over her ex’s (I’m not a Tom Cruise fan; Scientology or not, he was plain rude to Brook Shields on TV).

Well, there’s always Batman and The Fantastic Four to peruse his summer...:

My Best,

Gare

[Crow Haven]

"Bewitched!"
Yes, Cruise is over the top, (imo and I'm no fan of his) in many avenues...but "Bewitched?" lol

Yes, "Independence Day" really has similarities, (the alien design was obviously studied by Spielberg) and it's another fun one, I've seen it.

There's always "things" the filmakers goof on, though...the cgfx are never perfect, I gave up on the idea of any of the scifi/fantasy flicks being "perfect" long ago...now I just enjoy the flick without getting too analytical, the popcorn, the evening out, and am relieved anytime when a film isn't just boring or too stupid these days. I enjoyed this one a lot, I figured they would have some troubles with the story as it was, and what I expected orginally was that the film would tank big time -- but I was wrong about that, and surprised that it turned out so well.

I may go see what they've done with Batman next...

[RTK]

And for a race that looks, technologically, much more advanced than humans, why settle on a tripod design for the machines? Try moving one leg of a tripod, and see what happens to the structure the legs are supporting!

---

Well, Yes! But don't you think aliens THAT advanced would have figured out better ways of moving THOSE tripods around?!

But I think your review is pretty much spot on! John Clements thought that all reviewers agreed with ME in general - which is a bit frightening --- movie critics actually have a brain?

As for Tom "asexual" Cruise giving advice to women about post-partum depression... Why not wait until you turn in to a woman (and give birth) yourself before giving "professional" advice on the subject... All that BS coming from a "man" that bought his (perfectly white scientology-esqeue) kids from a "third-party" supplier...

Having perfect teeth, and the money to spend on a failed sci-fi writers pay-as-you-go pseudo-psychology classes should not make you world's gift to woman - or man...

Only in America... Only in America...

The movie is still fun though!

[Gare]

Raven--

I was very analytical about WotW, but only hours after I'd seen it; I was very caught up in the CG and getting scared while I watched it.

Risto: yep, and I don't understand why Travolta, another Scientologist with a brilliant career behind him flounders in the box office while Cruise flourishes. Last thing I saw him in was Quentin Terrantino's "Pulp Fiction", and any decent actor could have played the sounding board for Sam Jackson's quips.

I just popped for After Effects last week, and for this app to be compared to Photoshop is yet another mystery to me. I think I know Photoshop, I use ULead VStudio with ease, I know how to work a timeline...but After Effects has me bamboozled.

So I bought a book.

OT,

Gare

[a4hire]

I'm not a Cruise fan but this movie is on my list to see, because I am a big Spielberg fan.
Personally I don't care for Tom, He has some good movies, but in person he comes off as arrogant and rude.
Im, still waiting to see ,Star wars 3, Batman Begins and Cinderella Man.
I usually go to the movies with my friend and her 3 young girls so the last 3 movies I saw were, Madagascar, Herbie Fully lodaed, and yesterday we saw Rebound with Martin Lawrence.
I get to see all of the good Kid movies and Girly movies!
I guess I will have to go see the other movies by myself.
I am waiting for the Fantastic 4 too because Iam a big comic book Fan. And Xmen 3 is coming soon too.
John Travolta? Barbarino? He doesn't even come close to Tom, I never liked him or his movies.