[nathanm]

Thanks lonewolf, you saved me some mouse clicks! Looks like none of that celebrity blather has affected my willingness to see yet another piece of Hollwood rehash tonight, to the tune of $9.75.  Who knows, maybe before the movie I PAID to see I'll be treated to some commericals.  Usually they're for Pepsi or how you should shut the hell up and turn off your cell phone, but maybe this time I'll get to see some exciting new drugs to Ask My Doctor About! Woo!  Maybe they should have ads for anti-motion sickness drugs, cause that's what always happens to me in theaters.  Those damn juddery camera pans at 24fps, bleech!

[PhilNYC]

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

Ew...Eyes Wide Shut was IMHO one of the worst movies I've ever seen, and I actually think Cruise was downright awful in it.  I expected so much more from Stanley Kubrick...

[PhilNYC]

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

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

Brooke Shields went on the offensive today in the Op-Ed section of the NY Times today in response to Cruise's bashing her for using anti-depressants to overcome her post-partum depression.  Personally, I think she rips him a new one and makes him look ridiculous:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/01/opinion/01shields.html?

(you may need to register for NYTimes.com to read this one)

[Mathew_M]

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.    

Actually Tim Robbins sneaks one in if you didn't notice.  Something about history proving how occupancy never works.  His character is deranged so I'm not sure if we're supposed to take it seriously though I bet that's how Mr. Robbins really thinks    

Whenever someone says 'occupancy doesn't work' I sorta roll my eyes because I wouldn't exist if the U.S. didn't occupy Germany after WW2 since that is how my Grandfather met my Grandmother.

[tull skull]

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.    

Actually Tim Robbins sneaks one in if you didn't notice.  Something about history proving how occupancy never works.  His character is deranged so I'm not sure if we're supposed to take it seriously though I bet that's how Mr. Robbins really thinks    

Whenever someone says 'occupancy doesn't work' I sorta roll my eyes be ...

Good one Matthew. Yes I did miss that. My wife and I both made comments that the tone of the opening monologue was the perfect place and I really did expect something, but I'm sure Spielberg is much too clever...

[Rocket]

Hi,

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 can't understand why so many attractive/nice women keep falling for Tom Cruise and he keeps leaving them when he gets bored.  Look at what he did to Nicole Kidman.

Regards

Rod

[PhilNYC]

I can't understand why so many attractive/nice women keep falling for Tom Cruise and he keeps leaving them when he gets bored.  Look at what he did to Nicole Kidman.

I think with Nicole Kidman, it was a case of her becoming a bigger star than him...

...and there's always that rumor/gossip that Tom Cruise is gay, and that all of his marriages/dates have been fixed by Hollywood...

[chadh]

Hi,

I can't understand why so many attractive/nice women keep falling for Tom Cruise and he keeps leaving them when he gets bored.  Look at what he did to Nicole Kidman.

How the mighty have fallen.  I can remember the days when Tom Cruise was visiting all the talk shows in Australia, greeted by ecstatic crowds.  Every tabloid heralded him as "Australia's favourite son-in-law."  And now...

Well, Australians are very protective of "Our Nicole."

Chad

[nathanm]

Well, thanks for the tip John Casler, you were right on!  Holy shit, that was a helluva ride! Yikes!    It should certainly get an award for sound design if anything.  The theater I went to must've had it at "reference level" because it was ear piercing.  Really made me appreciate the sheer SPLs those theater systems can put out.  (Horns, right?)  

I wouldn't say Tom Cruise really helped or hurt the film.  I'm sure any actor could've done as well.  Basically as there is to do is be scared shitless and go into survival mode for two hours.  

I didn't notice any cheekiness, lame humor or anything that pulled me out of the film.  Didn't even find Robbins' comments at all political, unlike the most recent Star Wars.  Basically it's just an edge-of-your-seat Hell's Breakin' Loose kind of thing.

The ending...*meh*.  So let's see, so god only loves earthlings and protects them with microrganisms, not the aliens?  Ahh I see...  He didn't create aliens too?  Well no matter, just one eyeroll moment in 2 hours ain't all that bad these days.

Anyway, I recommend it if for nothing else than to get your eardrums blown out with that amazing sound design.

[ss397]

can't wait to see russell crowe's new movie, "going upside your head with a telephone". now there's a real man.

[Carlman]

Well, thanks for the tip John Casler, you were right on!  Holy shit, that was a helluva ride! Yikes!    It should certainly get an award for sound design if anything.  The theater I went to must've had it at "reference level" because it was ear piercing.  Really made me appreciate the sheer SPLs those theater systems can put out.  (Horns, right?)  

I wouldn't say Tom Cruise really helped or hurt the film.  I'm sure any actor could've done as well.  Basically as there is to do is be scared shitless and ...

My thoughts exactly.. Just saw it last night and was most impressed.  Very immersed and scared shitless during the insanely loud attacks.  It was as 'there' as I'd ever want to be.  It got my wife and I talking about how we'd react in a 'survival mode' instead of picking apart the movie as we were walking to our car... Very good sign.  

I've never read the book but heard the original radio broadcast gag years ago... when it was very old... and I must say this is likely today's equivalent of that feeling people had when they first heard it read to them.

-C

[ehider]

I am going to probably get slammed here but I'd only give this movie 3 out of four stars at best, here is why IMHO:

- I found this movie more of a curiosity than an immersion of the viewer within any sort of plotline.

- Regarding plotline, there wasn't any to speak of; you just were on the backs of the actors along for the ride. I have no problem with that sort of direction in movie making mind you, but it can take away from the viewer's immersion potential IMHO (see my point two more paragraphs down as to why).

- Spielberg has chosen to use his new signature look of a tad dull colorization very similar to what he used in Minority Report but even more subtle than that movie. I doubt that the masses will even notice it. (It's sort of like turning the color down 1 to 2 bars on your TV set). It did take me a bit to get over it since it was a distraction for someone like myself who notices correct color saturation. (Analogy: NO different to me than if the treble was slightly rolled off on a pair of otherwise excellent sounding speakers.)

- Of course the acting, special effects and some Spielberg touches were there. This really brings the movie to an A level if you just judge it on that and that alone and don't ask for anything else. I particularly liked the Tim Robbins part of the movie. Those type of scenes are what we needed more of IMHO. If you ever have watched Saving Private Ryan for instance, you understand how well Spielberg can ebb and flow "human interlude" scenes with the onslaught of action, followed by another A rated "human interlude" scene with world class dialog then again by another ramp up of action and carnage. Note: Since Saving Private Ryan is what I'd consider a true 4 out of 4 stars movie, I could NEVER EVER rate War of the Worlds nearly as high comparatively!

- From an analytical perspective; if you start to use your brain while you are watching this film, you may just ask yourself questions like: Why the hell would they really seriously consider going to Boston? (I'm not going to spoil any reader of my views to why Cruises character decided to go to Boston).  It's very obvious that the aliens are exterminating everything in mass proportions. You'd want to run for the hills! The areas where there are NOT masses of people! That's pure logic that any person half a brain would follow. Of course you can just not think while you watch this movie....

- I guess overall I was expecting more from Spielberg and crew. I too, like many of the movie reviewers felt this film seemed rushed. Edited as a run, run, run from the aliens movie. That's O.K. for a decent 3 out of 4 stars rated movie mind you, but Spielberg has the ability to do even better! Anyone who has seen S.P.R. for instance knows exactly what I am talking about.

[Bingenito]

I could be much more critical of the movie but this would ruin it for others.

Special effects were great but this should go without saying on a film in 2005 with a huge budget. Other then that I was very disappointed in the plot and ending.

People will disagree with this but to be honest if the movie came on cable TV tomorrow I would not bother to watch it again for free.

[Carlman]

Looks like either you get into it or you don't... I found it very easy to put myself into the main character's shoes... Considering the kind of guy he is, I found it quite plausible that he couldn't use even half of his brain to react in a logical way when put into panic/survival mode with the other people and new situations/responsibilities (to him) involved.

I found the character development adequate to make rationalizations for their decisions and results of them.  I found one part of the end a bit weak which didn't make sense to me but so what?... one minor issue at the end didn't ruin it.  It was a good movie... and no, the plot wasn't the rich tapestry of drama like Pride and Prejudice but I thought it was appropriate for sci-fi and for the story it did tell.

-C

edited for clarity

[John Casler]

All the comments are interesting and certainly show the various levels or "connections" a film must acheive to be liked.

I know that I am somewhat familiar with the the story (having read the story many ears ago, having the original movie, and also having the Jeff Wayne Musical Version), and this allowed me to connect on that level of familiarity.

The "Primary Plot" is what it is and is, and isn't radically altered in the film (Superior Aliens come to Earth to conquer defensless humans yet are conquered themselves by something they didn't forsee)

While this is not totally without fault, you have to accept that it was written some time ago, and changing it too much would make it a different story.

The "Secondary Plot" was changed to make it more commercially viable, but the main charachter in the original penning, "did" travel to London to try to find his Loved Ones, which then translates to Boston in this film.

In fact, the bulk of the story is this journey.

The charachter development of Cruise and his Kids and Ex, is up for criticism, but if there were "not" some kind of plot like this, then there would be critical accusations of "all Special Effects" and no charachter/plot development.

If you look at the original movie version, and call it a classic, (which I think it is) you might want to watch it again, and see just how weak it was on all fronts, as well as ignoring a great portion of the original storyline.

As far as the "look" of the film, I think that is "artistic choice".  I mean Sin City, the Second Batman, and many films have a "look" which the Director/Producers choose because they want it to look that way.  This "look" worked for me, but might not for others.

So, it is interesting what causes some to "enjoy" a film and others to either like it less, or not like it at all.

I have to admit, I was "looking forward" to this film, because I liked the story, and thought it could be done with todays cinematics, and be done well.

I easily could have been dissapointed, but instead, (in my case) all my expectations were met, and then exceeded, by a large margin, in most all areas.

If it is judged against "serious" productions of it's Genre (SCI-FI) it would be hard for me to think of a film that apporaches it on as many levels.

OK, so maybe one extra (nameless) person should not have survived, but this doesn't ruin it for me.

But then, as I said earlier, I'm not a film critic.  I just know what I like, and most of the time, why I like it.

I will probably see this film at least "one" more time in the same theater, and will certainly have the DVD as soon as it is available, but then I recently bought a re-mastered version of the CD, (Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds) that came out back in the late 70's, because it too, is very good.

[SWG255]

I just saw WTW today with my wife and daughter and enjoyed it very much. It's interesting to read the comments in this thread in retrospect. It seems like most of the people who didn't like the plot didn't read the original H.G. Wells book. This movie, far more than its 1953 predecessor, stuck pretty much to the original story line. There is one seemingly pointless change, but the main character in both the novel and this movie attempts to find his loved ones in a major city rather than running away.

I think it's also important to remember that the original novel was written in 1898. Such a story placed in that timeframe is truly remarkable. the understanding that bacteria are the cause of disease was a fairly new idea, and H.G. Wells provided a very prescient glimpse into the horrors of modern war, predicting technologies like heat rays and biological warfare.

To sum up, this is one hell of a summer movie, a very good sci-fi flick, and as has already been pointed out, not up to the level of "Saving Private Ryan". But for sci-fi to be at that level, as a visual medium, it probably would take longer than 2 hours to present.

[nathanm]

I'd agree that this movie has no plot.  There's no story "arc", it's a straight line!  Just near-constant horror and trauma from the get go!  The main characters don't even like each other very much!  It's all negative.

And hey, if one's distaste for Tom Cruise would prevent you from seeing this, you can at least see him get some poetic justice in the film; he gets sucked up into a giant asshole!

[lonewolfny42]

nathanm :

And hey, if one's distaste for Tom Cruise would prevent you from seeing this, you can at least see him get some poetic justice in the film; he gets sucked up into a giant asshole!

[/list:u]

Oh, a giant asshole....poor Tom.... [/list:u]
But....be nice to TC today....it's his birthday....almost born on the 4th. of July..... [/list:u]

[orthobiz]

WOTW is a gripping remake. I was in suspense the whole time. So what if the plot was weak? I just didn't understand how they drove so far with all those other cars stalled on the road. Usually on the East Coast you'd get about 4 car lengths before total gridlock...

biz

[DeadFish]

Another $.02 opinion here, mostly agreeing with some of y'all, in no particular order.
Have to agree with you SWG, and I think there are two major frames of refrence for the audiences.  The folks that were *never* exposed to Well's original and just looking for another 'wow' movie, and then those of us with a more long-standing relationship to it that went out of curiosity more than anything else.
My Dad was a s/f head all of his life.  He used to tell me how even in our little town, how the Orson Welles radiobroadcast went down.
I learned to read from his old books  like Wells and Verne.  After I had read the novel, he turned me onto the first movie, and for its time it was pretty 'state of the art' and incredible.
Well, for me, the 'visualizations' that current state-of-the-art made possible did a really fine job capturing the kinds of images I had in my head as a kid, writ down over a hundred years ago.  For that, it was worth my time.  
For me, it was a plethora of "tip-o'-the-hat' kinda stuff referring to the book, film and radiobroadcast that was the big fun, along with those images.
Was that an Orson Welles imatator that read the openning voice-over?
I didn't know that Gene Barry was still alive!
and finally, I almost HOPED that that little girl's screaming would have the same effects as Slim Whitman's yoddling in "Mars Attacks.'
I kinda don't care about Tom Cruise either direction, his character could have been played by anyone, and I don't think that it was crafted to be as revelatory about the 'human condition' as the novel might have posed, but after all, the film action took the place of a lot of his descriptions.
All-in-all, good summer fare, no better nor worse than most.  Personal fun for me, though the wife was bored a good part of the time, and she is fairly open-minded.
I will say once again, the idea that Spielberg did such a good job of capturing what was in *my* mind's eye, is probably the foremost of my good impression.  
The only other director to be able to do that so well so far was in Jackson's LOTR films.
I musta forgot and left my brain open...
Thanks for the good chat on this, folks!

Regards,
DeadFish