War of the Worlds

[EV Rider]

Art imitating life is the best way of describing the latest Spielberg film, War of the Worlds.

When huge spider-like 'Tripods' stalk the American landscape in search of more blood to suck out of the terrified masses who run in vain to escape, we become witness to a CGI special effects extravaganza of mass destruction being meted out by aliens intent on world domination. --and they are apparently unstoppable. H.G. Wells' classic sci-fi novel (written in 1898), terrifies us to this day with its horrific tale about invaders from another world whose planned harvesting of the earth is carried out with cruel precision as they mobilize their machines into action.

The terror and chaos that follows in the wake of the devestating power and command that these invaders are capable of, reminds us of another kind of domination attempt taking place in this country and elsewhere throughout the world. More at Glass Onion (http://sott.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_sott_archive.html)

[mono]

I have heard so much of the film (mostly good things), but have yet to see it. I loved the H.G. Wells novel years ago, though often have a fear of seeing movies made after books. :p
Welcome to the forum, EV Rider.

[mingdamerciless]

In my opinion the film is horrendous, particularly if you've read the book. The film producers seem to think that just adding tom cruise to a film is the recipe for a huge hit. Well i can tell them now - it's not. I love HG Wells novel but the film really really dissapointed me to be honest.

[Logos]

Yes the film was garbage, over done on the fake-o effects and Cruise is as unemotive as ever. There was too much emphasis on the "cutesy" little girl, and the son going-off-to-fight scene was laughable. The people being "pooped" out of the alien was great too :lol:

[Zippy]

It was the best film I saw last year by a mile.

Yes, the syrup is thick in places (like most Spielberg films) and I’d cheerfully strangle the child actors, but for sheer spectacle it can’t be beaten. The scenes with the tripods stalking the landscape are amazing, but for me the real terror comes when the humans start fighting one another for possession of the car. This was one of the most chilling scenes I’ve seen in any film; it literally had me on the edge of my seat.

Yes, by all means go and see the latest ‘arty’ film – some black and white subtitled, one man’s search for his lost soul, independent, foreign, Palme D’ Orr movie made on a shoe string – but for me it’s gotta’ have explosions in it or I ain’t watchin’.

Zippy.

[Scheherazade]

I watched War of the Worlds only two weeks ago. I liked the movie; it gives you all one can expect from a sci-fi/fantasy action movie (I liked the fact that there were no superheros or 'I'll be back!'s). However, apart from the title, there is very little similarity to the book it is based on. I loved the book and Wells, as always, left me in awe when I read it because he was able to come up with these ideas more than 100 years ago. I would like to consider the movie and the book seperately, which leads less disappointment :)

Zippy> In the book, the panic scenes are so affectively narrated (and realistically as well, unfortunately) that they leave you with a cold chill. Highly recommend it if you haven't read it already.

[Zippy]

It's been a number of years since I read the book and I loved it, Scheherazade. One of the things that I found disappointing about the film was that they cut the scene with the Thunderchild. I thought it was one of the strongest scenes in the book - the warship going up against a tripod and winning.

On the other hand I'm glad they kept the opening narration, as I think War of the Worlds has one of the strongest and most memorable openings of any book I've read (along with Moby Dick and 1984).

In all seriousness I do like the odd, 'arty' introspective film myself, but if you go to see a summer blockbuster you expect a bit of action. It was a daunting task filming War of the Worlds; Spielberg was never going to please the devotees of the book. However, I think he did a good job and I really can't see how another director could have done better.

It's saddening in a way that he didn't choose to keep the original setting and timeline (tears in my eye as I think of our dear departed British Empire *sniff*), but I totally understand why that would not have been possible. The book, when it first appeared, must have seemed incredibly fresh (it still does to an extent) set in contemporary (Victorian) England. To have that setting now would be stale - the reader or viewer would find it harder to empathize with the characters.

I’m not arguing that the film is better than the book – I don’t believe it’s possible (with the exception of Trainspotting – great film, bad book). Just that it’s an entertaining way to kill an hour and a half.

Zippy.

[bluevictim]

My favorite part was Morgan Freeman narrating. I think I'd even enjoy a documentary on flightless birds if Morgan Freeman was the narrator. Oh wait.