Ahh well, I watched the remake of War of the Worlds with Tom Cruise in it on HBO over the weekend..

What can I say, it just didn't do it for me. I say this for it.
It was more realistic and was more from the perspective as the original novel, but I found it to be more boring than the George Pal version. There were a few good scenes with the walkers mowing down civilians but that was it. It left many questions hanging in my mind. There was drama but too much in the area of family arguing for me.

All in all, I wished it had brought more of the novel into the film such as seeing the battle between the walker(s) and the battleship and more of the walkers themselves in that last major battle.

Never could understand why the martians blew a tuba right before their massacre. Seems it only served to "scatter" everyone instead of them staying together as an easier target.

I gotta give my vote to the original. Maybe the special effects weren't as good but I enjoyed it over and over.

Saw WOW in the theater and recorded it Saturday night on HBO so I could fast forward to all the "good stuff". I made it about halfway through and erased it. "War of The Worlds" is sort of a "Speilberg's Greatest Hits" showcase in the way that he sets up the different sequences - this scene reminds me of Close Encounters, that scene reminds me of Jurassic Park - but the movie itself just doesn't have much "heart".

I didn't mind the remake so much.

But I have to say the original George pal flic is downright scary.

Huzz

i thought the remake was great except for one thing.........


DAKOTA FANNING!

WHAT AN ANNOYING GIRL!!!!!!!!!!

when she was screaming or crying, either muted it or changed the channel!

That's actually the only movie I've LIKED Dakota Fanning in...

I loved the movie, Tom Cruise notwithstanding--both Spielberg's and Pal's suffer from the lack of a spectacular ending but that's part of the structure of Wells' novel so I can't really blame the filmmakers for that. There was at least one tripod scene they cut out of the new version and I really wish they'd put the damn thing back in; there's a still of it in the Cinefex issue on the movie...

no wonder Tom Cruise's character was always in danger, THAT KID ALWAYS TOLD THE MARTIANS WHERE HE WAS BY CRYING AND SCREAMING!!!

That's pretty much what a kid would do. I think she's an amazing little actress. Sort of spooky, though.

she ruined the movie.
not all kids are screamers!
only ones with bad parenting.

I'm another of those who enjoyed the Speilberg version of WotW. I actually like it better than the Pal version, but that's mostly 'cause I appreciate that it follows the novel much more closely than the 1950 version. Not saying that Pal's version was bad, just that I don't like it as much as the Speilberg. Blasphemy, I know, but that's just how it is. Deal with it. ;)


That's actually the only movie I've LIKED Dakota Fanning in...
Same here, for the most part. I hated the constant screaming, but I've known kids like that myself, so it was at least realistic.
I loved the movie, Tom Cruise notwithstanding--both Spielberg's and Pal's suffer from the lack of a spectacular ending but that's part of the structure of Wells' novel so I can't really blame the filmmakers for that. There was at least one tripod scene they cut out of the new version and I really wish they'd put the damn thing back in; there's a still of it in the Cinefex issue on the movie...
And that scene would be...? :)

I think we've had this debate before but, in light of the pathetic list of movies this summer, I thought I'd mention it again.

It's the same old stuff, boys and girls! Let's see how many big stars and explosions we can cram into one movie and let's see just what we can do with all that CGI stuff. Who needs a story?

WotW is a terrific story. Pal almost gets it. Speilberg misses it by light years. Both saw it as an allegory of modern times.

What's wrong with doing a Victorian adventure story the way Wells wrote it. Man against alien machine in a steam powered world. Now that's science fiction.

Jim

The Pendragon Films version of WotW does a pretty decent job of capturing that feeling, but falls short in the acting and VFX department. Still, it actually follows the novelization much better than anything else I've seen so far.

By the end I was rootin' for the Martians, I was really hoping they'd get Tom and both his obnoxious kids. It really should have been better, and Zorro is dead on about Spielberg reusing most of his stock favorite shots.

he also lifted some lines from the G Pal flim.

Most likely meant as an homage. Of course, I guess the definition of "rip off" and "homage" are in the mind of the beholder, neh...?

It's the same old stuff, boys and girls! Let's see how many big stars and explosions we can cram into one movie and let's see just what we can do with all that CGI stuff. Who needs a story?
That certainly doesn't describe the movie I saw.

Let's be honest with ourselves here. Just because we see some of these movies through the filter of the undiscriminating child who first saw it, doesn't make it a better film.

George Pal should certainly be honored for being one of the first producers to take science fiction seriously, but his WAR OF THE WORLDS and THE TIME MACHINE are basically Classics Illustrated versions of the books. Simplified for the average twelve year old.

And before anyone accuses me using modern standards to judge older movies, most of my favorite films were made from the '30s through the '60s. I've seen enough movies to know what the state of the art was in the early '50s. In fact, just this weekend I saw THE BRIDGES OF TOKO-RI which was made about the same time as Pal's WOTW. It is just as much a popular, commercial production. It has just as many dated techniques and attitudes, yet in terms of acting, writing, directing, even special effects it is superior to Pal's WOTW. And we're not even talking about a top tier classic.

That said. If next year WAR OF THE WORLDS was playing opposite THE BRIDGES OF TOKO-RI on television, I'd probably watch WOTW, but I'd have no illusions about which was the better movie.

As for the new version of WOTW, it is a serious, respectable effort by top-flight filmmakers. The major problems with the film have to do with being too faithful with the novel. Wells's book simply has an plot that is unworkable dramatically. When you have a main character who is nothing but an observer and is irrelevant to the development the story, you do not have drama.

My Father watched the movie, then asked me if it was a black, and white film. I told him no, they were just trying to be arty, by bleaching all the color out.

The scene that had me laughing, was how everyone watched the flaming train go by without any reaction. In real life people would have scattered like roaches when the light is turned on. Also how he murdered the guy in the cellar, but the Martians found them anyway. OOPS!

I know it is wrong, but my one thought when the kid got snatched was, ALLRIGHT! ABOUT TIME!

David.

, ALLRIGHT! ABOUT TIME!

David.

Heartless , just heartless. :tongue:

When you have a main character who is nothing but an observer and is irrelevant to the development the story, you do not have drama.

You've certainly got a point there.

Really enjoyed the film as a WotW fan. I just loved how he maintained the tripods instead of opting for something more modern than a walking machine like Pal's version. Yes indeed, both film-makers played on the current fears to accentuate the terror. But hasn't sci-fi been doing that...forever?

As to screaming kids being a product of bad parenting, what in the film leads you to believe that Cruise is anything but a bad parent? Only when it becomes life and death does he stand up and show some involvement.

I actually sat through the Pendragon film. Wow, that was bad. Plodding, boring, repetitive, bad acting, silly FX, and the worst performance by a fake mustache in history. :tongue:

When you have a main character who is nothing but an observer and is irrelevant to the development the story, you do not have drama.

While this is usually the case there are notable exceptions.

Consider Oliver Twist; one of the most beloved protagonists ever created, and he does virtually nothing to advance the plot in the traditional sense.

Say what you will about the requirements for good drama; from where I sat (i.e. a big-screened theater) the Spielberg version of "W.O.T.W." really delivered the goods.

The classic 1953 movie was far superior then what garbage that Speilberg produced. This remake was just awfull and far too much gore. The whole premis of the aliens was very weak. The ships were great but the whole they were buried on earth for thousands of years angle was too lame. You would think in the modern day building revolution of deep digging for buildings a few would have been un earthed sheees back to the drawing board Speilberg. Just my opinion

Spielbergs take on the "death ray" was worth the price of admission alone.

I love the Spielberg version. I found it scary as hell! Now when it thunders I think we are being invaded.

I love the Spielberg version. I found it scary as hell! Now when it thunders I think we are being invaded.

What about when the birds are flying around?

I haven't been interested in seeing it due to the way Cruise was acting at the time in public when promoting the movie (strange!) and due to the fact that I really wanted to see a period piece set in the original time of the novel.

BTW: I'm not anti-Tom Cruise. I thought he was fantastic in MI:3 as was the movie.

I'll probably watch it on Encore when it shows up there but I doubt I'll care for it.

I enjoyed the hell out of it, despite Cruise and Fanning. Speilberg was in top form. What everyone is criticizing as him "hitting the same old notes" I just put down to "Speilberg's style." Hitchcock and Kubrik and, oh, Bob Fosse, did it too. Hey look, Van Gogh is using impasto again! Having a style isn't a bad thing.

The tuba-sound was scarey as hell. It was obviously a scare tactic, like the screaming sirens the Germans attached to the Stukas. People tried to scatter back then too - it didn't help them either.

The flaming train - AMAZING image! Frightening as hell! Of COURSE everyone stood there transfixed, stunned into immobility. Then it was gone before they could react. And they HAD to cross that track to te away, right?

I love the original a LOT. This was a very capable updating, and a really good film in its genre.

I put it in the plus column as well, but it is an "almost" film for me. There were scenes that annoyed me, such as Tom Cruise tap-dancing his way across the fissure, the struggle with his son at the battle scene, the whole series of coincendences concerning the van (the fact that it drove, and how he was able to drive on a highway filled with stopped cars, and drive his way through the airplane wreck) and especially the happy ending at the undamaged brownstone.

Visually, stunning. Spielberg's approach of staying with Cruise throughout the whole movie was interesting - if Cruise didn't see it, we didn't see it. May have made the story advancement suffer, maybe not. I thought Cruise did a commendable job acting. His reaction to the mayhem was on the money - scared s***less and just wanting to get AWAY!

My reaction to this movie is very similar to my reaction to Tim Burton's "Sleepy Hollow". I loved the look and feel to both of them, and enjoyed the story - there are just elements in both that keep them from getting the high mark.

The scene that had me laughing, was how everyone watched the flaming train go by without any reaction. In real life people would have scattered like roaches when the light is turned onExcised from everything else up to that point, perhaps. But these are people who have seen far worse and are tired. At that point in the story, you'd likely save your scattering for something that is a genuine threat, as opposed to something eerie and horrific but which poses no immediate threat.

Now, if one of the tripods had been riding on top of the train, yelling "Yee-haaa!" like a deranged interstellar cowboy -- then you might scatter.

Qapla'

SSB

I thought the movie was OK. Just OK.

I actually bought the DVD because it is a great film for a home theater with surround. Great job on the surround track.

Unfortunately, according to Roger Ebert, it is the law in Hollywood that Dakota Fanning must appear in 25% of all movies currently being made :).

But the one thing that REALLY bugged me was the hackneyed disfunctional family. Man, that cliche is getting real old, real fast (it ruined the Lost in Space movie). I know Hollywood HATES a normal family. They are constantly disparaging the 1950's style depictions but my childhood was a lot close to LEAVE It TO BEAVER or OZZIE AND HARRIET than what I see today.

But the one thing that REALLY bugged me was the hackneyed disfunctional family. Man, that cliche is getting real old, real fast (it ruined the Lost in Space movie). I know Hollywood HATES a normal family. They are constantly disparaging the 1950's style depictions but my childhood was a lot close to LEAVE It TO BEAVER or OZZIE AND HARRIET than what I see today.

I agree the dysfunctional family thing has been done to death, but the single parent coping with kids is not exactly a new Hollywood convention, they did the same thing even pre-OZZIE and HARRIET, the only difference was since divorce was taboo it was always a Widower, Widow, "uncle", Governess, etc that got stuck with the little house apes.

I know Hollywood HATES a normal family. They are constantly disparaging the 1950's style depictions but my childhood was a lot close to LEAVE It TO BEAVER or OZZIE AND HARRIET than what I see today.
That's right. And Disney hates parents. That's why they keep killing them off in their cartoons.

It isn't that Hollywood hates normal families. It's that writers like dysfunctional ones. Why? Because it makes for better stories.

I think a good example of the difference between drama and melodrama is this:

Melodrama - My family is under attack and I must save them.

Drama - My family is under attack and I must become a better person to save them.

In other words, melodrama = external conflict, drama = internal conflict.

And I don't want to even think about the familial implications in "The Wizard of Oz".

It isn't that Hollywood hates normal families. It's that writers like dysfunctional ones.

Besides, where do ya think "Ozzie and Harriet" and "Leave it to Beaver" came from? It wasn't Omaha...

I agree the dysfunctional family thing has been done to death...

I blame Shakespeare, whose "King Lear" and "Romeo & Juliet" paved the way for contemporary Hollywood family haters like Steven Spielberg.

It's common knowledge Spielberg is the product of a broken home, and it should come as no surprise when the theme crops up in his pictures. It's part of what makes him tick as a filmmaker.

I for one thought the estranged father angle worked quite nicely within the context of the "W.O.T.W." remake.

I particularly blame "Citizen Kane" (1941) and "The Best Years of Our Lives" (1946) for indoctrinating Hollywoodites toward the hatred of normal families.

Wait a minute you're on to something here. "Citizen Kane"....Orson Welles...1939 radio broadcast...H.G. Wells. It all becomes clear now. :p

Now, if one of the tripods had been riding on top of the train, yelling "Yee-haaa!" like a deranged interstellar cowboy -- then you might scatter.

Qapla'

SSB

Well, it would have certainly made that borefest more interesting, and entertaining.

The people may have been tired, but it was an entire train engulfed in flames! I really think that, no matter what, it would have gotten their attention. Plus there had to have been a lot of heat radiating from the train, people would have moved.

My understanding is that Pal wanted tripods, but the only way to do them in the 50s was by stop-motion animation, and the studio didn't want to go that way.

David.

David.

Wait a minute you're on to something here. "Citizen Kane"....Orson Welles...1939 radio broadcast...H.G. Wells. It all becomes clear now. :p

Where've you been? Buckaroo Banzai connected those dots years ago ;).

Well, it would have certainly made that borefest more interesting, and entertaining.

The people may have been tired, but it was an entire train engulfed in flames! I really think that, no matter what, it would have gotten their attention. Plus there had to have been a lot of heat radiating from the train, people would have moved.
Dude, those people were in shock. They lived in a war zone, after all, where Alien Creatures were wiping out their planet. People in shock don't react like they normally would if they were out for a casual evening stroll and a burning train screamed past them at the crossing.

Plus, the train took all of, what, five seconds to cross the screen? Those folks didn't really have a chance to full react before the train was gone. Once it was gone they were back on course for surviving - and running around screaming like an idiot isn't about surviving.

Where've you been? Buckaroo Banzai connected those dots years ago ;).

"Laugh while you can monkey boy!"
:p

Dude, those people were in shock. They lived in a war zone, after all, where Alien Creatures were wiping out their planet. People in shock don't react like they normally would if they were out for a casual evening stroll and a burning train screamed past them at the crossing.

Plus, the train took all of, what, five seconds to cross the screen? Those folks didn't really have a chance to full react before the train was gone. Once it was gone they were back on course for surviving - and running around screaming like an idiot isn't about surviving.

Ezzakly. The average thought in that crowd was, "Hm. Flaming train between me and running for my life. Wow, that looks wierd. Oh wait, it'll pass by in a miniute. Okay, it's gone, let's go."

I read somewhere in this thread that some films today look black and white because of the 'art' of bleaching color. I, for one, hate this. I think it's more of an excuse to better blend together computer graphic artifacts onto the real film.

After decades of finally getting color tv and films and perfecting it to what we have today, we regress back to entertainment of low or no color. What a waste.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipMarlowe
I agree the dysfunctional family thing has been done to death...

I blame Shakespeare, whose "King Lear" and "Romeo & Juliet" paved the way for contemporary Hollywood family haters like Steven Spielberg.

I see your point, I probably wasn't clear enough. I was referring more to the TV and Hollywood convention that all parents (especially dads) are idiots and/or dysfunctional, and incapable of even the simplest family task. How many movies or TV shows have the scene where a over thirty-guy has to change a diaper and hilarity ensues? Even in best picture winner Kramer Vs Kramer, Dustin Hoffman is supposed to be a successful college-educated ad exec, yet french toast is just too complex for him to figure out.

Even in best picture winner Kramer Vs Kramer, Dustin Hoffman is supposed to be a successful college-educated ad exec, yet french toast is just too complex for him to figure out.

Those French make everything complicated.....even kissing.

Dude, those people were in shock. They lived in a war zone, after all, where Alien Creatures were wiping out their planet. People in shock don't react like they normally would if they were out for a casual evening stroll and a burning train screamed past them at the crossing.

Plus, the train took all of, what, five seconds to cross the screen? Those folks didn't really have a chance to full react before the train was gone. Once it was gone they were back on course for surviving - and running around screaming like an idiot isn't about surviving.

There's also the director's intent to consider. The whole tableau of train and spectators was surreal. I saw it more as a nightmare image.

By the way, MY take on Spielberg's WOTW is that it's a huge analogy for Wal-Mart taking over the country. Think about it - a large unstoppable force taking on communities around the country, destroying small business and infrastructure along the way. Even the "horn of death" the Martians sound before an attack echoes the name,
"WWWWWAAAALLLLLMMMMMAAARRRRTTTTTT!!!!!!"

Now, if my local Walmart rears up on a tripod...

The new(ish) process of color grading is just another tool that can be used or misused. Peter Jackson did great things with it in LOTR. Just like CG. Sometimes you get breathtaking, sometimes you get embarassing.

Now, if my local Walmart rears up on a tripod...

The new(ish) process of color grading is just another tool that can be used or misused. Peter Jackson did great things with it in LOTR. Just like CG. Sometimes you get breathtaking, sometimes you get embarassing.

Well, to give Spielberg credit, it did look pretty spectacular on the big screen the first time I saw it, the fx, pace, and photography made it seem like an ok popcorn movie, albeit a hokey one with some flaws. But it seemed like a really well made popcorn movie as well.

But without the big screen effect, on home video it plays really bad imho. And it's harder to ignore the flaws.

After decades of finally getting color tv and films and perfecting it to what we have today, we regress back to entertainment of low or no color. What a waste.Muted or desaturated color can be as effective as any other visual tool in the filmmaker's palette; it can also just as easily be overused or misused. It was used to great effect in Michael Radford's version of Nineteen Eighty-Four, for example.

IMHO, color films reached a technical state of perfection with the three-strip Technicolor process, which was in use from 1932 to 1955. Today's film and television may record more "realistic" color, but the old Technicolor looked better than reality. Life should only look like Technicolor!

IMHO, color films reached a technical state of perfection with the three-strip Technicolor process, which was in use from 1932 to 1955. Today's film and television may record more "realistic" color, but the old Technicolor looked better than reality. Life should only look like Technicolor!

Saturday night I watched "Bend of The River" (1952) which was produced in Technicolor. That movie downright glows!