Cruise is superb in this, the tension is palpable and effects are majestic.
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — War of the Worlds
brianwhite5 — 10 years ago(August 07, 2015 11:16 PM)
Cruise is superb in this, the tension is palpable and effects are majestic.
Yes, the ending could have been done better but despite this it's one of the few films better than it's original. -
movieliker1 — 10 years ago(April 02, 2016 02:13 PM)
Yes, the ending could have been done better but despite this it's one of the few films better than it's original.
I don't think that is fair to say Brian. When we consider how old the original was. That was the state of the art back then. Also, people were not as familiar with science fiction as they are today. The original "War of the Worlds" was an introduction into sci/fi and outer space.
This movie in my opinion was worse because, in spite of all the technical advances, it is stupid compared to what people know now about science and space. They aren't buying stupid logic. It is not as easy to put one over on them anymore. -
bmw9521 — 10 years ago(August 10, 2015 06:57 AM)
Also have not read the novel or watched the original movie. I enjoyed this movie when I first watched it back in 2005 or 2006. Rewatched it on TV yesterday. Liked it a lot less. I liked the sound effects and the actors did well with what they were given (particularly liked Tom's performance). Also did not realize that Tim Robbins was in this.
The story felt old. Considering it's an old story, it's understandable but I wished they would have done a more modern take. Suspending belief can be fun. Biggest plot hole for me was when the military is fighting the tripods throughout all these battles. The military is constantly defeated because of the shields. They only figure out that the top part of the tripod has no shields when Tom Cruise tells them. He has to spell it out for them at that. Ending also felt very rushed.
Movie is ok. Not horrible, but not great either. -
coolaree — 10 years ago(August 18, 2015 01:09 AM)
Seems to be many of the same reason now as it was a decade ago: the annoying kids being the main culprit lol. I didn't mind them but I can certainly understand why ppl hate them.
I think its still a decent movie, the special effects still mostly look good today (like Minority Report), there are many good, visually striking and well directed scenes imo, the acting is OK, it just seems like a very simple plot that after the 1 hour mark has nowhere interesting to go and no more impressive set pieces to offer. Haven't read the book yet. 6/10. Can't believe its been a decade already heh. -
kaskait — 10 years ago(August 26, 2015 06:57 AM)
This movie was horrible. Tom Cruise however was great in it.
It is just a shame they saddled him with the most annoying children ever put on film. I swear if I didn't know Spielberg was married and had a couple of kids, I would think that this was a director who never had children.
The little girl screaming all the time. WHY? Little girls are, in general, tough little terrors. I've never been around young girls who screamed like that. The teenage boy was borderline mentally disabled. Then he inexplicably survived at the end! WHY?
All the hackneyed exploitation of 9/11. That wasn't respectful to the magnitude of that real event. Plus it made no damn sense in the film. If the aliens are all over, eating everyone, how would anyone have time to make a wall of missing people? WTF! You are an asshat Spielberg.
Somehow the ex-wife, her new husband and her parents manage to live in the only house that survived in Boston. F U Spielberg. -
ojleslie — 10 years ago(October 29, 2015 07:17 PM)
Burying the tripods under Bayonne was a stretch, only done so Speil could put his own stamp on the story. It worked though.
But the aliens zapping down into the ground by lightning bolt was just awful WTF sci-fi (as opposed to science fiction). -
ojleslie — 9 years ago(July 26, 2016 12:01 PM)
OK, after remembering the novel, the '38 show, and the George Pal film, burying the tripods was Spiel's ego at work.
The alien landings before the reveal in the earlier versions were huge in creating suspense. The connection with Mars did need to be left out, but seeing large flaming objects bury themselves was the story. -
vkorchnoifan — 10 years ago(March 11, 2016 05:51 PM)
Who's ideal to make the alien tripods come out of the ground. With a lot of excavations going on there wasn't one that hit the tripods ? Stupid ideal. The writer should have been prevented from writing the script.
-
thecalhouns — 10 years ago(March 29, 2016 09:34 PM)
I never understood why it got so much hate either, I mean it's not a GREAT movie, but it's a perfectly solid thriller and did an effective job updating the old alien invasion story for the post 9/11 era.
I think part of why it didn't get a warmer reception was this was around the start of the backlash against Tom Cruise (remember dancing on Oprah's couch)
But also people were in a bit of a weird mood in 2005, no one was really in the mood for big blockbuster spectacle that year for whatever reason, the summer of 2005 was when The Island, Michael Bay's only flop, came out, as well as an action movie called Stealth that was a flop.
War of the Worlds may not have been a financial flop, but given the attitude of the era it's no surprise people didn't like it much. -
TheSonomaDude_Returns — 9 years ago(May 08, 2016 10:22 AM)
The movie is good but there are some pretty obvious issues.
-Every side character is either annoying, pointless, or stupidor a combination.
-I get what they were trying to do with Tim Robbin's character, but instead of making him creepy and very off putting, they just made him annoying and stupid.
-The movie comes to a complete halt when they enter the house with Tim Robbins.
-The ending is so abrupt and jarring, almost as if Spielberg suddenly remembered the film had to end NOW! So instead of coasting into an ending with solid pacing, we find ourselves suddenly in the resolution and the film just ends.
-How does Newark, NJ (a city of nearly 300,000 people and a suburb of NYC) not notice a towering metal behemoth rampaging through town? I know the power and phone lines are out so there is no news on and no cell calls, but holy beep you'd expect people to at least hear the giant explosions going on in the town center or the alien war horns of death echoing through the city. But no, some people, like the car mechanic guy, are just like "Yo Ray, what's the matter with you, you look awful? Why you going somewhere all packed up?" as if he's oblivious to half of the town getting flattened.
-These giant metal monstrosities that must weigh several thousand tons seem to sneak up on people. How? The scene where Ray and the mechanic argue whilst explosions go on in the backgrounddo they not hear either the tripods or the explosions? When they are trying to get on the boat and the only one to notice is the little girl. How do they not hear that thing coming?
-The kids are irritating. The son is a moron ("you mean like Europe?") and his urge to suddenly enlist in the army after not having any sort of reason to is even more annoying. Dakota Fanning, as we all know, is also extremely annoying. I get that she's a little girl in a terrifying situation, but I don't think real little girls would scream or whine as much as she did in this movie, I honestly don't.
-I know it's in the original novel, but I still find it hard to believe that super advanced aliens don't know what clothes are and are killed by bacteria. Really? They could build equipment that vastly surpasses ours MILLIONS of years ago and they have mastered deep space travel, but they cant look through a microscope?
-Ray Ferrier is an unlikable prick and the movie tries to make us root for him.
Overall, the film is very well made. The special effects easily should've won the Oscar, and it's an excellent movie on a technical aspect. John Williams wrote a very chilling and suspenseful score that goes perfectly with the film, and the film overall captures a very real sense of terror, mainly in thanks to the awesomely scary tripods. -
Trax-3 — 9 years ago(November 06, 2016 07:06 PM)
-I know it's in the original novel, but I still find it hard to believe that super advanced aliens don't know what clothes are and are killed by bacteria. Really? They could build equipment that vastly surpasses ours MILLIONS of years ago and they have mastered deep space travel, but they cant look through a microscope?
This complaint mystifies me. If you adapt
War of the Worlds
you must have tripods and germ ending. After all, that's what it's famous for. Now, the whole thing might have been better as a strict period piece, taking place at the same time as the novel (Independence Day as a Merchant-Ivory production), but even now it's a stylish movie, that, while not in the top league of blockbusters, stands comfortably above most of them (which are usually horrible mind numbing nonsense without any artistic merit). -
!!!deleted!!! (49761343) — 9 years ago(May 08, 2016 02:17 PM)
Why did a lot of people hate this movie?
Probably because it took so many liberties with the story. The main character was not an angry, working class, deadbeat Dad with two bratty kids in tow. He was just one guy trying to survive. This made the book even more terrifying, because he had to live through this horrifying scenario all by himself, with no shoulder to cry on or anyone to help him.
Also, the movie relied on Spielberg's biggest crutch as a director, and that's relying on schmaltz and "tug at your heartstrings" emotional manipulation to get the audience to connect with the main characters. I personally don't "hate" the movie but I can understand why people would for this very reason. People don't like to be manipulated.
Emojis=
Emoticons= -
Monk_Drunk — 9 years ago(May 15, 2016 09:40 AM)
I enjoyed the film, though I'm definitely in the "couldn't stand Dakota Fanning" club. (The son was bad too.)
Otherwise, my main complaints (none of them really major) would be:
1)
Though I don't really blame them, I was kind of disappointed they went with shields again for the Martians (an obvious homage to the 1950's movie). I think that was more necessary in the original movie since an A-bomb was dropped on them, and to a 1950's audience, it was a good way to get across how unstoppable the Martians were in the face of human technology, given that nuclear bombs were really seen by people at the time as doomsday weapons that could easily destroy the world.
It would have been more interesting if they'd tried something new in the Spielberg film, like PD lasers, or electronic warfare, or something else entirely. But shields are the most straightforward and recognizable way of depicting how the Martians can utterly blunt modern human military technology, so of course that's what they went with.
2)
The hoo-rah USA! bit at the end where a team of soldiers/marines take down a weakened tripod was pretty eye-rolling and gratuitous, and against the spirit of the story imho. Humans were done. The military was done. Bacteria killed the Martians and that should have been it. But they had to have at least one popcorn shot of US troops kicking ass I guess.
3)
The idea that the tripods had been put under the ground for millions of years or whatever to wait for the day humans came about so they could feast on them was an incredibly dumb premise. The way the Martians beamed down into them with lightning strikes was pretty stupid too. Admittedly that was based on the ravings of Tim Robbin's crazed character, so maybe he was just full of sh!t. -
crissttigaldames — 9 years ago(May 28, 2016 09:56 PM)
This movie's great. A lot of fun, and with a good element of horror as well.
The acting is awesome, from both Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning.
Why would anyone have a problem with her acting or character btw?. And how is she a brat?. -
crouss — 9 years ago(June 09, 2016 07:45 PM)
Whenever this movie is on tv, I get sucked in. The tripod scenes are scary and thrilling every time.
But there are flaws, namely the kids. I hated Robby more than Dakota Fanning. The whole "I need to see!" scene made no sense to me at all. Running straight into a battle? Seemed like just a device for Cruise to "let go" of him as a boy, but didn't make sense in the larger scope.
And yep, the ending was abrupt.
All in all though, it's the sort of movie I can't stop watching once I start. -
BrickNash — 9 years ago(October 21, 2016 05:45 AM)
It was a run of the mill and slightly boring film by a talented director which once again ignored the original story in favour of another "set in modern America" theme and so was generally viewed as a huge wasted opportunity and disappointment.
The 1953 version, while ignoring the original Victorian London setting too, was infinitely superior in both pace, story, characters and effects (if you account for the era). -
Str74 — 9 years ago(October 29, 2016 10:50 AM)
Old thread but I have just watched it again. To me the children are super annoying and there are a lot of plot holes. People also probably voted it down because they expected some final great battle like Independence Day but got the ending from the original book.