Well I hadn't read the book, and before I went to see it there was a lot of hype, so in some respects the film was a let down, but in other areas I really liked it. I assume they stayed very true to the book, but I don't know. I wrote a little more in 'the last film you watched' thread.
I think Steven Speilberg (sp?) did a fantastic job of directing the movie.
Yeah that's one thing I don't get about the movie, bacteria or something kills off the aliens? The end was very bad....but I loved the middle part of the story.
I haven't seen the new verson, but the ending sounds right. It is one of hallmarks of the story. Man and all of his wonderful technology can't save the world, but one of mother natures smallest creatures can. Kind of a kick to the modern view that our technology can solve anything. Our technology is great indeed, but we are still subject to the whims of nature (we are a part of nature and tend to forget that).
Not every ending has to be litterally explosive. Some times an explosive idea is powerful too.
The entire book was symbolic. The War of the Worlds meant the war of Earth and Mars, but HG Wells meant it as a criticism on Western colonial tendencies. Just as the aliens with their unstoppable machines came, so did the Westerners arrive in the relatively more primitive parts of the world with horses, gunpowder and other modern tools which to the natives seemed near-magical, and took over with ease. The westerners too, were afflicted by the bugs they had never encountered before: malaria, cholera, dysentery, yellow fever, though not to the extent the aliens took the hit.
The concept of 'the littlest things' beating back the alien invasion seemed a little more plausible in Well's original novel : Maybe because it was a gentler, more lyrical work than Spielberg's blockbuster spin on things.
I agree with someone who posted above that the notion of Spielberg's martials being beaten back by microorganisms is a little rich, given the level of technology they appear to have access to, and the time frame we are led to believe they are working in.
If these guys have the technological licks to bury war-machines under the earths surface in anticipation of the time they rise up against us, then are they really going to have a problem preparing over that long span of time for whatever biological threats they are going to face?
We see two defeats for the aliens in Spielberg's movie, in a biological sense: Their attempt at terraforming earth fails, and hand in hand with this is the death of the aliens themselves.
Now suppose for a second we can accept that they've overlooked something in their calculations in relation to the terraforming ... I can just about accept that the earth's ecosystems prove unexpectedly resilient, and beat back their first attempt.
But I find it pretty hard to believe that the aliens are running around mingling freely with this highly unstable environment they haven't secured yet. I mean: Wouldn't they take the kind of basic precautions we would, and have a totally seperate atmosphere and environment for the first wave of invaders in case of an outcome like we saw in the movie?
Aw hell, though ... Would they even bury these dumb tripods under the earth in the first place if they have this kind of technology?
If they were doing that however long ago ... why wait this long? Why not conquer five hundred years ago, or ten thousand?
Or why not wait until they were sure they could cope with the earths ecosystem?
Anyway ... For those that are interested, I believe the Sci-fi channel have a more accurate adaption of HG Well's original novel coming out comparatively soon. Victorian trappings and all.
You mean the Timothy Hines version? It's laughably bad.
I thought Spielbergs WotW was one of the finest action movies I've seen, if not the finest. I really enjoyed the first person POV and the idea of not knowing a single thing - every "fact" that a character says about the aliens is merely speculation. Too bad most of the audience couldn't figure that out - I've been involved in more "if the aliens had 1 million years to prepare, then why..." arguments than I care to remember. Before we get into it here, let me ask: How the freak does Tim Robbins know it was a million years? A: He doesn't.
And people who complain that Robbie lived, thereby removing some of the "emotional impact" that the final scene should've contained* - that's not the point. Despite what many think, Spielberg is far too subtle to go for the obvious spiritual crisis ("Oh, my poor boy is dead!") and instead offers up a scenario asking the audience "What would it take for you to murder a man in cold blood?"
Everybody misses it though, just as they don't get that Tim Robbins character has no more clue about the aliens plans/intentions than Tom Cruise. Or Dakota Fanning. Or me.
*
If the moral crisis did involve his children surviving, my favorite ending then would've had Robbie running off, Dakota Fanning dying, and then, in a pathetic effort to make this disaster as 'right' as he could, Cruise makes it to his wifes home to tell her that their children are dead... only to have Robbie show up at the door, making the point that the children were safer w/o Dad than with Dad. Broken, his little girl dead, his son not needing or wanting him anymore, and his entire self-image shattered, Cruise turns away... fade to black.
Wasn't sure if I needed to spoiler tag this as most of the posts in this thread contain spoilers, but I just got told off by Leiali, so I've added in the spoilers tags.
Saw this back when it first came out...and was very disappointed.
The film could never decide what it wanted to be - a fun, campy, cheesy (in a good way) action-adventure romp, or a gritty, realistic survival thriller/horror.
The opening and closing narration (especially with the world on the leaf etc) implied it was going to be a lot of fun. Not comedy of course, but it looked like it was going to have a gleeful lightness of touch - which you can still have while retaining dramatic weight.
However, the rest of the film was incredibly serious and 'gritty'. Which also would have been fine, if it had stuck with that. But the narration sat at odds, as did Cruise's ludicrous grenade attack. And some of the staging of scenes, like the abduction of the girl - brilliant cinematography, looked amazing, but so stylised it didn't fit amongst the realism. And don't even get me STARTED on the survival of the older kid. I'm amazed by how many people are glossing over that fact. The rest of the flaws I was willing to accept and move on, but when the kid reappeared it utterly, totally and completely killed the film for me.
Firstly, there is no way he could possibly have survived. Rationalise it however you like - it is simply impossible, given the logic presented by the rest of the film. If this had been a fun adventure romp, they could have got away with it, it would have been fun and made me cheer. But you can't pretend to be realistic and serious and gritty and then insert something gobsmackingly cheesy and terrible like that in the end.
The survival of the kid introduced another massive problem. They all got away scot-free. Sure, lots of randoms died who we never knew. Boo hoo. That's like losing red shirt people in Star Trek.
The kid's death had leant the film a bit of emotional weight, despite the tonal problems and other things I'll go into below. Bringing him back alive at the end - in a totally ridiculous manner - undermined the only genuine emotional beat the film had going for it.
Think, for a moment, about rewatching this film. If the kid had died, as he should have, the parting scene would still resonate, as would all those before it, and the ending would have weight and a sense of loss. Without it, all the stuff with the kid is pointless. All it does is remove a central character, thusly destroying what was shaping up to be quite an interesting character dynamic between him and Cruise. It makes that whole character arc utterly irrelevant. It also makes the whole struggle against the aliens too easy - there's no fallout, no sacrifice, no genuine loss. If you're portraying a 'realistic' struggle for survival, you can't have all your main characters get away unscathed.
I've never been sure about the original WotW story. Sure, it's considered a classic, and considering when it was written it's pretty amazing. And set in its proper time period I imagine it would work superbly.
However, set modern day, the flaws show up. You're telling me that aliens this advanced didn't do a basic check of the environment for hazardous materials? Right. You don't get into outer space, create that level of tech and have the ability to travel between planets without developing enough intelligence to check for dangerous bacteria. If a complete non-scientist like myself is aware of that, then they really should be too!
Despite all that, there are many good things to say about it. It's a masterclass in suspense, use of visual effects, action etc. The first reveal of a tripod is astounding. In fact, the tripods were beautiful, they were exactly how I'd always wanted them to look.
In fact, the curious thing is that every single scene in the film is absolute fried gold. The first arrival of the tripod and the destruction of the town and Cruise's utter panicked escape. The army attack. The boat sequence. The hide-and-seek in the basement with the eye stalk. The genius conversation in the car with the camera sweeping around and about. The terrifying attack by the people trying to get the car (probably the best scene in the film).
If you walked in halfway through this film, having not seen it before, you would be astounded by almost any sequence. If you left again at the end of that particular sequence, you'd still be impressed. However, take it all as a whole and it falls apart in a rather tragic manner.
It's incredibly frustrating because there is so much potential there, and so much filmmaking skill clearly involved on every level, but it's a perfect examples of how important a cohesive screenplay is. Without foundations, you can have the best filmmaker in the world at work and it won't work as a whole.
I get the feeling I might have just got a bit carried away and written far too much, so apologies for that.
Firstly, there is no way he could possibly have survived. Rationalise it however you like - it is simply impossible, given the logic presented by the rest of the film. If this had been a fun adventure romp, they could have got away with it, it would have been fun and made me cheer. But you can't pretend to be realistic and serious and gritty and then insert something gobsmackingly cheesy and terrible like that in the end.
The survival of the kid introduced another massive problem. They all got away scot-free. Sure, lots of randoms died who we never knew. Boo hoo. That's like losing red shirt people in Star Trek.
The kid's death had leant the film a bit of emotional weight, despite the tonal problems and other things I'll go into below. Bringing him back alive at the end - in a totally ridiculous manner - undermined the only genuine emotional beat the film had going for it.
I will rationalize it however I want - thanks for the offer.
Look, not everybody dies. On a battlefield, in car wrecks, whatever. Not Everybody Dies. So it is not "impossible" that he would've lived, just unlikely. Hundreds of other people were able to flee the battlefield - why is it so impossible to believe that Robbie did too?
Again, the moral core of the movie is not whether Robbie lives or dies, it's what Cruise has to do, the moral choices he has to make, in order to save his family. It is irrelevant what happens to Robbie, what's important is that Cruise had to make a decision about which kid he was going to save, implying that he also had to decide which kid was going to die.
I don't know if you have kids, but as a parent I can tell you that having to make a decision that would almost inevitably result in the death of one or the other of my children would be devastating, easily the most difficult choice ever offered.
That's what I meant by "subtle" - that Spielberg purposely turned away from the cop-out emotional cheap-shot (Robbie's death) in order to present a far more mature and emotionally resonant film.
Oh, and btw, in the original book, the protagonists family lives through the invasion as well.
I agree completely about the awful decision Cruise's character had to make on that hillside. The scene itself was quite captivating and the dilemma was horrible to have to watch. However, the setup didn't quite work for me - I didn't quite understand why Cruise didn't just grab Robbie and drag him back down (or maybe punch him and try to knock him out or something), or quickly running to go fetch the girl then returning to Robbie. There seemed to be more obvious solutions rather than letting your son go to his death.
The ending aside, I think it was the removal of the Robbie-Cruise relationship that annoyed me about that whole segment. It was the primary relationship in the movie, and halfway through it got sucked out. It was the high emotional and character development point of the movie, but it happened halfway through rather than at the end. For me, it left the second half a little empty - plus, as I said, I didn't buy Cruise's decision to leave Robbie so easily.
I agree completely about the awful decision Cruise's character had to make on that hillside. The scene itself was quite captivating and the dilemma was horrible to have to watch. However, the setup didn't quite work for me - I didn't quite understand why Cruise didn't just grab Robbie and drag him back down (or maybe punch him and try to knock him out or something), or quickly running to go fetch the girl then returning to Robbie. There seemed to be more obvious solutions rather than letting your son go to his death.
The ending aside, I think it was the removal of the Robbie-Cruise relationship that annoyed me about that whole segment. It was the primary relationship in the movie, and halfway through it got sucked out. It was the high emotional and character development point of the movie, but it happened halfway through rather than at the end. For me, it left the second half a little empty - plus, as I said, I didn't buy Cruise's decision to leave Robbie so easily.
Robbie was almost, not quite, but almost an adult. Almost old enough to make his decisions, probably old enough to whale (wail?) on Dad if Dad gets too uppity.
Dakota, however, was not capable of surviving by herself. It wasn't an "easy" decision - they were on a battlefield, one kid was insistent upon leaving and the other was being kidnapped. A choice had to be made and now.
It's the Oprah thing. And the Scientology thing. And the "Oh, that poor lovely girl" thing. And the "oh, what a shock - he playing a cocky man who just lives outside of the rules" thing. And the "I truly didn't get that movie. Millions of years? Viruses?" thing.
I thought it was tremendous. Very faithful to the book in many respects. The aliens wiping us out like ants was horrific in it's casual brutality, the overturning of an ant hill.
I also felt that Spielberg was echoing the horror and bravery of marching into a relentless situation knowing you're probably going to die, but willing to do so to at least to slow the tide. The military throwing themselves hoplessly against the invaders was quite gutting and believable, echoes of WW1 and the Somme, and 9/11 as the firefighters walked into the smoke.
As for the other remake of the War of the Worlds "Independence Day", pure mindless bubblegum, you never felt their was any prospect of the wisecracking humans losing.
Catch the 1950's version; it has a good number of 1950s cheesy moments, but it does transmit a feeling of doom. The special effects are excellent for the time, and the noise made by the aliens' weapons is truly frightening, and has been used in other movies and TV shows.
Perhaps its a case of lowered expectations, but I liked War of the Worlds and I am considering making it a rare DVD purchase. I know it's a special effects-driven summer blockbuster, however, I thought there was something entertaining and interesting under the marketing and the big name director/star. I haven't read the book or seen the 1953 film adaptation, but I remember being terrified by the musical when I was a kid. I actually think it's more Independence Day and less Signs. I think Spielberg is one of the few directors in Hollywood who knows how to use special effects and this film is full of awe-inspiring moments that would have been over-the-top in the hands of another director. I really felt drawn into the film, as if I was experiencing everything through Ferrier's eyes.
I liked the way the film starts slowly, taking its time to develop the family relationships. I also like how Ferrier remains a helpless, passive observer, struggling to keep his family alive during the invasion. I thought there was a lot of tension in the film. But I hated the way the aliens erupt from under the ground in the film, as it is a huge logical gaffe. If the aliens had previously visited Earth a million years ago to bury their tripods, wouldn't they have discovered that the planet had microorganisms that were lethal to them? And why didn't they just conquer Earth back then when there was nobody to resist them? I don't really see why the aliens in the film could not have crashed down to Earth as they do in the book. I also disliked the ending, which was typical Spielberg family feel-good.
I really liked the way the film integrated themes addressing American colonisation and post-9/11 issues. The early scenes suggest an American ignorance about the rest of the world (no offence intended of course, I don't think Australians are any better, though we like to think we are). For example, Ferrier apathetically changes the channel, uninterested by news reports about strange weather experienced in other countries; he cannot identify the capital of Australia; and when he says that the invaders are from "some place else," Robbie asks, "You mean, like Europe?" Obviously, the plot hinges on people trying to survive against a technologically superior invader, but there are first confused with terrorists, and the shots of the dust covered survivors very much evoke 9/11 imagery. There’s also some commentary on the insignificance of humanity, such as Ogilvy’s conviction that the invasion is an extermination of maggots.
The end was very bad....but I loved the middle part of the story.
