War Of The Worlds

[The Wrath]

It was so-so. I give it two and a half stars. Great special effects, good storyline, but subpar acting. It also didn't quite convey the sense of "Oh the humanity!" that an alien invasion movie is supposed to convey, and there was no clue as to why the aliens wanted to destroy us. At least in Independence Day, we knew that they wanted to use our planet for resources. I'm not sure how accurate it was to Wells' novel, because I've never read it, but a guy I went with said it was pretty close. It was better than Independence Day, but not as good as Signs.

I also loved how Tim Robbins was able to work in a little quip about his misbegotten pacifism: "Occupations always fail. History has shown that."

...damn hippie.

EDIT: Someone move this to the appropriate forum, please.

Edited July 6, 2005 by Moose

[elk4586]

I would say that I was disappointed, but I had really low expectations. The story in all mediums has an awful ending and I totally agree about the "why" questions it creates. Totaly right about the acting, but In my opinion the little girl, I think her name is Dakota Fanning - not sure - is one of the best child actors around. Ever see Man on Fire? She's awesome.

And really Moose? Signs? Come on..."We're aliens that are literally burned by water, so let's invade this planet that is 70 odd some percent water, not to mention the natural humidity or rain heaven forbid!" -- I'm way to finicky and analytical about movies to have liked that one I suppose.

[The Wrath]

Yeah, I noticed that too. But it's good other than that.

[RationalEgoistSG]

 

It was so-so.  I give it two and a half stars.  Great special effects, good storyline, but subpar acting.  It also didn't quite convey the sense of "Oh the humanity!" that an alien invasion movie is supposed to convey, and there was no clue as to why the aliens wanted to destroy us.   

I agree with the assessment of subpar acting, but I must disagree with the idea that the movie did not convey the sense of "Oh the humanity."

****Spoilers****

The scene when the first tripod rises out of the ground and starts vaporizing everything is truly terrifying. Traditional alien invasion movies have ships descending from above, but the fact that the tripods are already buried in the ground, activated by the lightning storms, is quite a dramatic twist. Everyone (probably even the "people existing" in the scene of the movie) would expect that an alien invasion would come from above, and then all of a sudden there is this massive machine rising from the ground destroying everything in sight.

There are many other similar scenes throughout the movie where the complete and utter destruction the aliens inflict is intense and powerful. For example, in the original 50's movie rendition there was no mention of the aliens literally consuming human blood for their invasion effort, and certainly not in the detail involved in this movie. There is one particular scene when Cruise and Robbins are hiding in the basement, and the tripods are spraying the landscape with the human blood they have collected, and Cruise and Robbins are splashed with it. If that doesn't make you think to yourself, "Oh the humanity", I don't know what will!

The story does have a terrible ending, but that is the fault not of Spielberg's rendition but the story which it is based off of. In fact, I would say that Spielberg slightly improved upon the ending that the original movie from the 50's has. In that version, the two main characters had been separated in the chaos of fleeing the city they were in and were not able to make it out in time. The people who were stuck in the city flee to a church, praying desperately to survive. Just as the alien ships are about to destroy the church and it seems that all is lost, a miracle happens. The ships start to waver and crash. Apparently, they have succumbed to an earthly virus. The message, as I interpret it, is that God answered the prayers of those who proclaimed their devotion to him. So it wasn't the mind of man that devised a solution to this incredible crisis, but him shutting off his mind and looking to God. In Spielberg's version the church element is completely removed, but there is still a narrative at the end that states that God judged us worthy to live on this Earth and it was his creation (a virus) that dispatched the invaders. THAT is why the ending of War of the Worlds is ultimately flawed.

****end spoilers****

That is also why, as far as alien invasion movies go, Independence Day is far superior. Clearly the special effects of War of the Worlds are incredibly impressive, and the sense of awe and horror at the destructive power of the aliens is better than Independence Day. However, with Independence Day it is the mind of man that devises a solution and is defiant and proud until the very end. The speech of The President, played by Bill Pullman, is the very antithesis of the message of the ending of War of the Worlds. His speech upholds our right to exist and is extremely uplifting. Also, it is a very patriotic movie. When asked if the movie was a little patriotic, producer/writer Dean Devlin responded by saying no, it is really patriotic.

I love alien invasion movies and Spielberg's War of the Worlds is a decent addition to the genre despite the lack of a good story because of the details of the alien invasion.

As for Signs, I agree that the water thing is pretty ridiculous, but you have to understand that that is not really the important element of the movie at all. In fact, it's easy to say that the entire plot of aliens invading is just secondary backstory. It's an intense situation meant specifically to restore the faith of the character played by Mel Gibson. The particular intense situation could have been replaced by just about anything else, but Shamalyan chose an alien invasion.

Despite the fact that the alien invasion is secondary to the movie however, it is done really well. Depriving us of massive alien ships and explosions a la War of the Worlds and Independence Day adds an impressive amount of suspense. The scene in which the main characters are watching a news story on television, and an alien is seen for the first time is one of, if not the best introduction to the invading aliens in a movie.

[FaSheezy]

I really enjoyed War of the Worlds. I read the book when I was in 4th grade, and the movie stayed very close to the book. The ending did come from the book, I didn't think it was a bad ending, but actually pretty clever.

***Spoilers***

As for not being able to say "Oh the humanity!" I do not understand that. The scenes where the aliens basically vaporized everyone in sight as they ran away and then to see their clothes floating from the sky was terrifying! The fact that we never got an explanation for their arrival intensifies the terror. It all just seems like cruel, inexplicable destruction, it scares you to your toes where you're so scared you can barely think to run. Even the noise they made before they started killing was horrible. It's just a total nightmare. And at the end when man has tried everything they can think of, guns, missles, bombs, everything, it's our immune system that saves us. It's something minor I would never have thought of, and because something small like that defeats the aliens I thought it provided a powerful punch to the end of the movie. (I liked it when I read the book, I knew what the end would be in the movie so it kind of took away the surprise.) I had my hands to my mouth the entire movie.... it was definitely scary.

I hated the son and the daughter in the beginning, but they were supposed to be portrayed that way. I thought Tom Cruise did an excellent job acting, especially towards the end when he hugs his children after the aliens died, you can see in his face how much he realizes he loves them and values them. You can tell from that moment on he will actually be a father.

***end spoilers***

[The Wrath]

Well, I guess I'm the only one that thought that...it just didn't do it for me.

Did anyone else catch that little quip from Tim Robbins?

[RationalEgoistSG]

I did catch that little quote from Robbins as a matter of fact. I actually thought it was very funny however, because this leftist thought was coming from a character that had gone insane and was frantically trying to dig a tunnel system to defeat the alien invaders.

[Captain Nate]

I liked the film. Didn't like some of the messages -- that you don't have to fight to survive.

[Strangelove]

and there was no clue as to why the aliens wanted to destroy us.

Thats the point, humanity is completely and unterly unable to stop intelligences greater then our own and we could never fully understand their intentions, or for that matter, stop them ourselves (hence the ending)

The novel was written as somewhat of a critique of European Colonialism/Imperialism during the late 19th century. The novel portrays for the Europeans, what it would be like if invaders were to come suddenly that they could not stop.

Now some Objectivists may say that is anti-life/anti-progress message and that it is a pessimistic view of Humanity. Others may say that in such a situation, it becomes obvious that one must root for the aliens.

[HaloNoble6]

This analogy doesn't fly, because the moral basis for Colonialism/Imperialism is that the land they colonized was, for the most part, unowned--the tribespeople, for the most part, hadn't built anything of value on these lands. Earth, on the other hand, obviously has vast quantities of value created by man, thus the aliens can't just move in and destroy the value that's there.

The tribespeople of colonial times were for the most part nomadic, moving around the place, never building anything of value on the lands they passed through. This is obviously not the case with humans and Earth.

[Hal]

moral basis for Colonialism/Imperialism

are you serious?

[HaloNoble6]

Well, I'm working on the premise that colonializing did not entail forcebly taking land from people who had built value upon it. If it did, all bets are off.

[Hal]

I doubt any of the colonial powers would have cared whether there was value built on the land. Much like the aliens.

[HaloNoble6]

Given the context within which Colonializm occured, I weigh the ability to cross the high seas and build/trade/extract value in distant lands much heavier than whether or not they indeed took over lands or didn't really care whether the land had value or not. It's like condemning the cave man that beat his mate, ignoring his discovery of fire and his building of tools.

[softwareNerd]

There was an earlier thread on Colonialism in the forum

[Hal]

Given the context within which Colonializm occured, I weigh the ability to cross the high seas and build/trade/extract value in distant lands much heavier than whether or not they indeed took over lands or didn't really care whether the land had value or not.  It's like condemning the cave man that beat his mate, ignoring his discovery of fire and his building of tools.

Just like, given the context of War of the Worlds, you'd weigh the ability to cross galaxies and build spaceships much heavier than whether they exterminated a species of furless apes when they reached some primitive planet, right?

[Strangelove]

Felipe, I should have been more direct and just said "19th Century Imperialism". I do believe H.G. Wells was making similarities to the situation in Africa particularly, which was being divided among the European powers.

[AisA]

I doubt any of the colonial powers would have cared whether there was value built on the land. Much like the aliens.

What colonial powers are you talking about and what land did they take?

[AisA]

I thought War of the Worlds was a great movie in the same sense that I admire many of Salvador Dali's paintings. The theme may be terrible, but the execution is incredible -- one simply cannot stop looking. (Yes, it would be better to have both.)

Speilberg's stated goal was to show the horror of an alien invasion through the eyes of one ordinary citizen -- we saw only what he saw, and that made it all the more terrifying.

I look forward to seeing the movie again. Now that I know what happens, I can relax and enjoy it visually.

[source]

I was really looking forward to seing this movie. I would think that something like that would have a great climax. I was more wrong than I could imagine.

This movie has the biggest anticlimax I have ever seen in my whole life, and I wouldn't suggest it to those who are not interested in learning the meaning of that word.

During the most part of the movie, I was waiting for something to happen (other than the human race being "exterminated"). Then something happened, and in the next five minutes, the movie was over, surprisingly with a happy ending.

This movie is a total waste of time and money. You have been warned.

Edited July 8, 2005 by source

[Strangelove]

If you have not done so already, it is possible to go read the book to judge which is the prefered telling of the story.

[Scott_Connery]

I thought the acting and writing was terrible. I got so sick of the little girl screaming. It may have been realisitic, but it sure didn't add anything to the movie.

[source]

If you have not done so already, it is possible to go read the book to judge which is the prefered telling of the story.

* Spoiler warning *

(That is spoilers if this movie could be more spoiled than it already is)

Is this to say that in the book, the aliens aren't defeated by the bacteria, but by men?

* End of spoilers - if any are possible *

I doubt that this is the case.

Anyway, have you read Ayn Rand's article (I think it was in "The Art of Fiction"), where she is talking about anticlimaxes? I don't have the book here with me so I can't tell you where it is, but I think you should read it.

[Strangelove]

* Spoiler warning *

(That is spoilers if this movie could be more spoiled than it already is)

Is this to say that in the book, the aliens aren't defeated by the bacteria, but by men?

* End of spoilers - if any are possible *

I doubt that this is the case.

Anyway, have you read Ayn Rand's article (I think it was in "The Art of Fiction"), where she is talking about anticlimaxes? I don't have the book here with me so I can't tell you where it is, but I think you should read it.

I was talking about reading the novel, less for getting a better appreciation the message about the story (no need to plug it), more about the appreciation of the technique of how the story was told in novel form as opposed to movie form.

[source]

And I was talking about the anticlimax. An anticlimax is an anticlimax, no matter how well it was presented.