War of the Worlds

Is so very overhyped, it was really not that good at all.

 

WARNING: spoilers follow for those who haven't seen it.

Saw it last night. Quite entertaining and incredible SF but rather too many convenient plot holes:

- the lighting storms (EM pulse) killed all the ignition coils in the cars on the road....but the spare one in the workshop was fine.
- absolutely no one else but Ray's (Tom Cruise) friend mechanic thought to change the ignition coil for a spare to miraculously fix their car.
- the EMPs trashed all electronic equipment everywhere....except the camcorder that one of the victims was using to film the ETs
- A 747 crashes on their house and it's completely destroyed but the Ray and his kids are fine...and the car is also untouched...and miraculously, the crash debris also left a clear path for the car to leave
- No one is able to prevent people being sucked up by the ETs sucker pods....except when it's Tom Cruise who happens to have a couple of grenades ready
- Birds, who are seen migrating away from the ETs decide to suddenly perch all over one of their machines....because how else would Tom Cruise realise that its shields were down



A bit too much of a Hollywood saccharine happy ending too. Interested to read the original HG Wells book or hear the Orson Welles radio version now.

Michael.

 

Not seen this (and in no hurry to either), but surely the EMP thing only takes out chips etc that are in-circuit? Since the spare coil would not be hooked up to a circuit, it would still work, surely? Or am I totally off on this?

 

Well, whatever. But it stars Tom Cruise therefore by definition, it is shit.

 

What about Magnolia and Collateral though ?

Speilberg has the money and the power to make stunning films but always keeps an eye on the $ and makes sure his films have horrible happy endings.

 

An EMP will fry electronic circuits (ICs) whether they're in use or not. A coil sitting on the workbench or mounted on the engine are no different to each other if the engine isn't running. If the EMP affected one it would affect the other. Having said that, I doubt that an EMP would do much to a coil but we're getting into *way* more detail than any technical analysis of this film can handle

Exactly. Both superb films. Collateral is simply stunning. FWIW I actually think Cruise acted pretty well in WOTW taking into account the material he had to work with.

Michael.

 

Quite enjoyed it in "turn off brain and go with the flow mode" but that final reunion scene was a major let down.

 

Very impressive special effects, and the film managed to maintain a real sense of impending doom and menace from the moment the aliens first appeared, which surprised me. The ending was a real let down though I thought, far to abrupt and sugary as mentioned.

One thing that got me, surely the biggest plot hole of them all - these aliens spent millions of years studying our behaviour, yet never noticed our efforts to combat bacteria and disease, or if they did never thought to apply such logic to themselves, and this resulted in their demise....

 

I haven't seen it yet, but to me the really disappointing thing is that nobody has ever filmed it as H.G. Wells wrote it - with the Victorian British Empire, at the height of its power, coming face to face with something against which it is helpless.

 

The nearest we got to that was the musical version on LP/CD - now remastered CD : Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds. Not half bad and good artwork of said Victorian empire and story unfolding, especially in original LP version. I remember listening over and over again when I was at school. Come to think of it, its bloody good. Buy it .

 

It wasnt as bad as I thought it would be and its Spielbergs best film for many years, but yes there were some bad plotholes. The Son should have stayed dead to increase the downbeat atmosphere. Some good ideas ( I really liked the train on fire ) and yes I loved the convinient path out of the 747 crash. Shame about the energy shields which was a bit of a cheat and the aliens faces looked like the ones from ID4.

As for the death by bacteria. Well if you plan your attack thousands of years ago, maybe they didnt take into account new strains of bacteria (anti-biotic resistant super bugs) that have since appeared plus (and I'm surprised certain groups havent mentioned this) certain 'newer' diseases that affect the general public.

What I want to see happen is if Spielberg could still make a great movie for $15 million rather than $150 million.

 

On reflection, apart from the plot holes, upto the point where Tom Cruise suddenly became an action hero the film was actually not that bad at all. Managed to maintain a surprisingly dark atmosphere and the point of view was always centred on the 3 main characters - you never knew more than they did. I also thought that use of familiar 9/11 imagery was quite clever - the way Cruise looked when he returned to his house after the first big alien destruction scene, all covered in dust etc was a spitting image of so many 9/11 shots. Speilberg also avoided (until the last 20 mins or so) falling for action movie cliches and big gung-ho battle scenes with the US of A destroying the invaders. The last 20 mins or so could have been from a different movie though and were a big disappointment.

Michael.

 

Damn straight! I got the LP in MVE, Notting Hill, for £2 a few months back - totally mint. The booklet is fantastic - really good illustrations.

I remember first hearing the music on an old rickety C90 (probably an EMI super - he he!) in 1981 at school - more chew ups than tunes, but that "ooohhhlaaaahhhh" sound always got in my head! Henryt'll remember what I mean!

 

In the movie I listened to the tripod's call and tried to discern "oooh-llaaa" but no, it was more like a big fart played through a fog horn. Effective though. Perhaps I was a bit harsh. There was a sense of foreboding kept in the film.

 

Exactly. Both superb films. Collateral is simply stunning.
Michael.[/QUOTE]


that film is bollocks
________
Vaporizer Reviews

 

care to expand on "bollocks"?

Michael.

 

that film is bollocks[/QUOTE]

I saw it on TV in the US a couple of weeks ago and enjoyed it, apart from the ENORMOUS coincidence that the last intended victim is the taxi driver's previous fare and the contrived ending. First Tom Cruise film I've actually liked.

 

Most great plots are based on unlikely coincidences like this one. Dickens was a master at them - I don't think it detracts from the film.

If you enjoyed Collateral then you'll also like "Heat", also directed by Michael Mann (one of my favourite directors btw). Heat is certainly one of the best films I've ever seen. As with Collateral, it's as much about the photography and the style of the imagery as the actual story.

Michael.

 

quality film, I'm waiting for the special edition to find its way on to one the many DVD sales so I can grab it - I bought it on the original vanilla version (boo).

IMO, the endings on both films are a slight let down but when it somes to style, character and stuff like that both these films are top quality.

 

I saw it on TV in the US a couple of weeks ago and enjoyed it, apart from the ENORMOUS coincidence that the last intended victim is the taxi driver's previous fare and the contrived ending. First Tom Cruise film I've actually liked.[/QUOTE]

Thanks, I havent seen it yet. I'll get me coat.

Heat should be good as few Directors get the chance to do a movie twice!

I love the gun battle in the street, fantastic.