I am SPEECHLESS! War of the Worlds!!!!!!

John Casler · « **on:** 30 Jun 2005, 10:45 pm »

I couldn't put it off and even paid $7 for parking.

I hit the first showing today at the MANN Village in Westwood and my head is reeling!

While I have always thought Speilberg a master of his craft, this is hands down the best Science Fiction Movie in the history of Cinema.

Incredible adaption to modernize the script, flawless special effects, great acting, and the sound effects and music were in the same class.

Blows films like Independence Day in the weeds (IMHO).

It is well paced and edited.

The DVD will rule.

While I haven't seen Batman Returns, this should be the BlockBuster of the summer. I could see it again with no trouble.

Go to the best theater, with the best SoundSystem you know of. The Mann Village (and Bruin across the street) is one of the best in the country.

All I can say is WOW!!!

I am speechless.

I'm just trying to un-wind, it is one WILD ride, and well worth the wait to have Speilberg do the honors to one of the greatest SciFi Classics ever.

And call me anal, but I was 10th row center and the sound was "stunning".

Strangely enough the rows are staggered so you don't look into the back of someone's head and since I was the first person in the theater, I was able to get what I thought was "dead center".

During the previews I leaned a little to the left and BAM the center image absolutly jumped out at me, so I got up and move a row back where "then" it was perfect.

Go see this film. If you like SCI-FI, it WILL NOT dissapoint.

Bingenito · « **Reply #1 on:** 30 Jun 2005, 10:50 pm »

Good deal...

I am going to catch the 10pm show tonight. I never go to the movies but this one will make me watch a movie with the public. I hate not being able to hit pause to take a bio break

John Casler · « **Reply #2 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 12:34 am »

Well, I should say that I am no Movie Critic, but I know what moves me in a film and this one blew my hair back like a Hurricane.

I think the big problem with many Sci Fi flicks is that they try to inject a bit of "self deprication" or humor into the movies so you get the idea it is a spoof.

Shoot, even Star Wars had Harrison Ford almost talking to the Audience in a scene or two.

But this one is a "serious" attempt to convey the reality and the terror of this kind of scenario. It can and might even scare you, if you get into it deeply enough and allow the film to take you with it.

It works on many levels. If there is a slight let down, some might say the "happy ending" might be a little syrupy, but it isn't as bad as it could have been.

In fact in the theater I was in, a specific "event" in the ending drew applause (I won't spoil it by telling you), so it wasn't that bad.

Now all they need to do is Forbidden Planet, and The Day the Earth Stood Still and all the classics will have been updated

Carlman · « **Reply #3 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 01:42 am »

Quote from: John Casler

Now all they need to do is Forbidden Planet, and The Day the Earth Stood Still and all the classics will have been updated ...

Well you know they've got the new Willy Wonka coming out...

Bingenito · « **Reply #4 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 04:23 am »

2 of my friends and I just got back from War of the Worlds. I have to say I had high expectations but I left disappointed.

There were a few flaws in the movie and not enough War IMO. I would say more but people need to see the movie and form their own opinion.

jeffreybehr · « **Reply #5 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 07:48 am »

I'm with John. Have seen it twice in 2 days. It is VERY well done. I love everything but Dakota's Fanning's character, who simpy screamed too much for me.

BTW she was PERFECT in 'Taken', the 10-part miniseries that Spielberg executive-produced and that starts with the alien landings in Roswell in 1947.

Mathew_M · « **Reply #6 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 08:37 am »

I walked into the theater pretty hyped up about it but left dissapointed also. Really you have to admit the ending sucked. It was terrible. I won't give anything away except that one of the main characters makes a decision that he would of never lived through yet....

It had some good scenes. The CGI was seamless with the live action and in a few cases I fully believed what I was seeing.

If Spielberg would of kept to the straight on no prisoners taken approach and left the rediculous family drama out then it would of been a pretty decent monster flick.

tull skull · « **Reply #7 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 10:34 am »

Matthew M wrote;

"If Spielberg would of kept to the straight on no prisoners taken approach and left the rediculous family drama out then it would of been a pretty decent monster flick."

Matthew,
I have to say with seemingly so many politicised cheap shots lately, I fully expected that it would all somehow be GW's fault.

I had some disappointments as well, but would say it was well above average. Some scenes were simply spectacular.

I take the screaming of a scared little girl over her trying to go to her "happy place" any day.

Isn't that a discipline advocated by psychs? How did Tom Cruise let that get in there?

nickspicks · « **Reply #8 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 11:30 am »

i've read nothing but poor reviews that suggest it was rushed to production.

it better be good. this is one of my all time favorite SCIFI movies (the origanal).

and when it comes to remaking the classics from the 50s.....I have a high expectation.
Remember John Capenters "the thing" ? that was well done.

PhilNYC · « **Reply #9 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 12:40 pm »

Quote from: nickspicks

i've read nothing but poor reviews that suggest it was rushed to production.

There have been poor reviews, and the two friends that have seen it have come away disappointed. Some say that media blitz of Tom Cruise is an indication that the producers were worried it would suck.

That said, based on some comments here, it's on my list to see....after Fantastic Four, tho...

woodsyi · « **Reply #10 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 01:17 pm »

I am curious enough to see the movie as I loved the book. BUT I can't get myself to get up and go see Tom Cruise. Not only is he a bad actor but he is also a pitifully misguided yet self rightous zealot. Does anybody else refuse to go see a movie on account of his/her personal aversion to a particular actor?

PhilNYC · « **Reply #11 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 01:54 pm »

Quote from: woodsyi

I am curious enough to see the movie as I loved the book. BUT I can't get myself to get up and go see Tom Cruise. Not only is he a bad actor but he is also a pitifully misguided yet self rightous zealot. Does anybody else refuse to go see a movie on account of his/her personal aversion to a particular actor?

I don't think he's a bad actor. He was brilliant in movies like Born on the 4th of July and some other lesser known films. But yeah, I think his exposure for WOTW has been over the top, and his zealousness is definitely making me think twice about seeing this movie..

nathanm · « **Reply #12 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 02:24 pm »

Refusing to see a movie if you've read the based on\inspired by book material; or if you loved the original movie seem like good rules. In my case I never read the book nor saw the original movie, so I guess I won't have any emotional baggage if I see this one. Re-reading the Lord of the Rings books a month before seeing the movie was probably a bad idea for example.

What's the ratio of 'cover movies' vs. original material produced in the average movie season I wonder? Has Hollywood run out of ideas? Are all the good stories taken?

mcrespo71 · « **Reply #13 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 02:25 pm »

Quote from: PhilNYC

Quote from: woodsyi
I am curious enough to see the movie as I loved the book. BUT I can't get myself to get up and go see Tom Cruise. Not only is he a bad actor but he is also a pitifully misguided yet self rightous zealot. Does anybody else refuse to go see a movie on account of his/her personal aversion to a particular actor?

I don't think he's a bad actor. He was brilliant in movies like Born on the 4th of July and some other lesser known films. But yeah, I think his exposure for WOTW has be ...

I think he can be an excellent actor- 4th of July, Eyes Wide Shut, and Magnolia were great performances IMO.

John Ashman · « **Reply #14 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 02:28 pm »

My feeling is that if someone makes a big deal out of themselves in public and especially if they're throwing a stink about some social or political issue, it makes it 5-10 times as difficult to immerse myself in the movie. It just becomes too obvious that they're simply playing a role, especially if it's a serious movie. I much prefer little known or unknown actors. It's why I never saw "Eyes Wide Shut". I just didn't want to see those two pretending to be become unnoticeable in a Kubrick film. Have no idea why he didn't get some unknown actors for that one. It just gets distracting at a point.

John Ashman · « **Reply #15 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 02:45 pm »

Quote from: nathanm

What's the ratio of 'cover movies' vs. original material produced in the average movie season I wonder? Has Hollywood run out of ideas? Are all the good stories taken?

25:1. Yes. Probably.

I like that new "Stealth" movie as an example. Cocky engineers build a machine that will replace humans. Machine *naturally* becomes self-aware and decides to kill all humans requiring the replaced humans to redeem themselves by killing said machine. I wonder if they'll destroy it using the tried and true (but trite) "logical contradiction meltdown" or with a clever, deceptive trick only a human could conceive combined with passionate teamwork only humans understand. Hmmmmmm. It's a tough one, but I'll go for #2. You may also insert "genetic experiment" for machine.

Of course, the variation on that one is - Cocky military types push compassionate engineers to build intelligent machines to use for warfare. Machine *naturally* becomes self-aware and doesn't want to kill. Compassionate engineer(s) help machine escape and it is, of course hunted until it martyrs itself in order to save a human(s) thereby showing that military people are evil and machines are good. You can also insert "genetic experiment" for machine.

ss397 · « **Reply #16 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 03:06 pm »

i think tom cruise is a good actor. he may be a misguided person, but i will basically ignore his spewing on subjects other than film. i want to see the movie this weekend with my wife, her sister and the 2 nieces, but my wife and her sister are mad at tom cruise. so i don't know if i can get buy in or not. if not i'll go myself next week. there is so much emotion about this movie i have to see it for myself.

nathanm · « **Reply #17 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 03:18 pm »

Will I get yelled at for not "googling" if I ask what "issues" Tom Cruise is on about?

lonewolfny42 · « **Reply #18 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 03:26 pm »

Quote from: nathanm

Will I get yelled at for not "googling" if I ask what "issues" Tom Cruise is on about?

Say the magic word.... google......

Bingenito · « **Reply #19 on:** 1 Jul 2005, 03:55 pm »

Regarding that interview with Tom Cruise:

I am not siding with the comments made it is just that he has a point that people tend to take the easy way out. If you are depressed or lack energy get your lazy butt out there on a bike with a few friends or go running. Hit the gym 3 times a week. Eat a well balanced diet and address your problems head on before going to see your doctor and ask for some drug.

These days there is a drug for everything and people tend to find excuses for their behavior that are linked to something that happened 20 yrs ago.

Everyone wants a quick fix in the form of a pill. No one bothers to look at their diet and exercise as to why they might feel or look a certain way.

The main stream mentality is that if I can get a pill to fix all my problems just tell me where to get it. The drug companies know this and that is why you can't watch 30 minutes of TV without seeing 5 minutes of drug commercials (ask your doctor about XYZ drug, may cause....)

Kids these days even have issues and maybe that is because their parents feed them a bunch of crap and let them sit in front of the TV all day.