The War of the Worlds
 

I'll start this thread on Spielberg's remake of H.G. Wells Classic "The War of the Worlds" - originally filmed by George Pal in 1952(sometimes listed as 1953) - by posting a literal Yahoo "translation" of the only major publication pre-release review I could locate. I think there's something worthwhile here even given the tortured "English"...

If any German-speaker would like to give it a better translation, here's the link:

http://www.filmspiegel.de/previews/p...hp?filmid=2638

............................................
OF was the Worlds, The – (29.06.2005)
R: Steven play mountain

(ed: this is the literal translation of Spielberg's name ... heh heh)

D: Tom Cruise, Dakota fanning, Tim crawl in

There is a beautiful scene in George Pal and Byron Haskins more aufwaendiger "war of the worlds" - filming of 1953: after Dr. Forrester could save its Angebetete from an ugly Marsianer, later succeeds separating it a search eye from its spaceship and to also bring in the laboratory. There scientists close the eye to a usual projector on (, the technology is compatible) and permit to mankind by the eye of the enemy to literally look: one can observe oneself from Marsianer view. Since the Marsianer eye offers, green, blue), arises separate pupils for to three additives the basic colours (red a three-fold, colorshifted picture - a further reference to the substantially more differentiated, in addition, more sensitive perception of the extraterrestial ones, after Dr. Forrester could resist already successfully with a simple flashlight the natures. Characteristically the scientists are interested however not far in the condition of the aggressors and left instead the military to speak: Cannons, rockets, tanks, last the inevitable atom bomb are to take up it with the enemy - unsuccessfully, as turns out. Mankind is hopelessly delivered the Marsianern. Until they are dahingerafft abruptly "simply in such a way" and the Epilog explain that they are susceptible to a certain sort of bacteria and their immune system calculated these "insignificant" earth inhabitants prepared are not.

_ Filmdramaturgisch be a such end against each rule and one may strained be, whether steven mountain the courage have will, Herbert G. Wells collecting main of 1898 here faithful remain. With all Effekthascherei concerned it to Wells already at that time more than a episches adventure, practiced it nevertheless on the one hand criticism at the imperialistic policy of Great Britain and antizipierte on the other hand in certain way the escalation military conflicts like it with first and above all the Second World War still during its lifetimes reality became. In addition, Hoehnisch it makes merry with the rescue by the bacteria over the martial desire of mankind, places themselves the serious question whether mankind can be geeint actually only if it is attacked from the outside - in the case of extraterrestial natures -. Also Haskins version takes up this Subkontext, feeds it however rather dearless in the first two minutes off and does not come later any longer particularly engaged on it back. On play mountain more relying could be, announced it nevertheless on the one hand more loyalty to Wells ' original text and already proved on the other hand with films like "Jurassic park "in thisregard that the social component of a threat unimportant at least not completely to it from the outside.

But during its extraterrestial films "E.T."and"uncanny meeting of the third kind"pleasant to helpful natures of another star present, might thereby in" war of the worlds "conclusion be: the past Artwork works rather martialisch and the extraterrestrial hands with the three suction cups reminds of the Haskins filming, what might point on classically slimy-ugly monsters. The characters will be however completely different one, do not only prove a view of the occupation list, but also in a press release were announced: Tom Cruise will play the family father of the small Dakota fanning ("man underfires ") and Miranda petrol (Eowyn from "master of the rings") its wife. Tim crawl in also still plays with: as an astronomy professor with the strange name Ogilvy it will probably represent the scientific authority of the film and will next come thus to the role of Dr. Forrester from the 53er version.

Essentially two things give cause for the concern: on the one hand the family component of occupation strongly thereupon that not only mankind interprets, but equal the basic values are threatened here Americas from the extraterrestial ones, on the other hand the relatively abrupt project start might ensure in August 2004 and the planned publication date at the end of of June 2005 that here again times under extreme high pressure must be worked. Even now in January play mountain and its crew are still strongly busy with the trick, which does not give now all time of the world to the effect effektschmiede ILM to file at computer effects - from play mountain youngest slope to the overproduction to be silent completely.

To be waiting whether from "war of the worlds" in the long run more will than a "respectable" variant of"IndependenceDay " remains, a tasty Blockbuster might always become it in view of play mountain professionalism.

.......................

The original novel and the film from the '50s are American classics - in any genre. Wells asked - and answered - the big questions. I'm more than curious about the remake.

I, for one, am thoroughly stoked about this movie. One of the few I am looking forward to this summer.

I tried to get my daughter to sit through the original. Didn't go too well. I still love it tho!

ART, man, I don't know what to say. Normally, your threads stir up all of us, but this one is just kind of hanging out there.

I honestly couldn't follow the translation at all; it made no sense to me. The only opinion I have about "War of the Worlds" is that the previews have me excited, and I'm the biggest sucker in the Western world for new release movies.

I'll be there when it opens, and I'll let you know what I think after that. I'm not necessarily a big fan of Spielberg or any of the actors involved, but I'm always a fan of the big screen experience.

This and the Hitchhikers Guide are the two biggies for me so far in 2005.

Awesome! I remember when I posted the preview trailer up a while back. It's good to have more info on it! I'm totally stoked!

Asta!!

The trailer looks good. One positive I've heard so far is that the Martians will be using the tripod walker type vehicles of the novel vice the hovering machines of the original film and TV series (which I really miss, BTW). I can't wait to see what they look like.

-Mikey

warrrreagl, I completely understand. I think it must be a gauge of my level of interest in this story and it's history of adaptations that caused me to actually read the whole darn translation. I'd be thrilled if a German speaker would translate it for us - but alas I can only hope.

Hey, how about the old "Classics Comics" version? Anyone know it? To tell you the truth - the illustrations for that have never - ever - left my memory. Some of my archetypal imagery is contained in those pages...

Here's an image of the Classics Comic version from 1955. Hopefully it will jog a memory or two. Even after the great film version from the early '50s, the illustrations in this mag are the way I envision the scene...

I remember hearing a humorous re-do of WWoW on a PBS radio program, probably in the late 70s or early 80s. All I can recall is that it had breaks for fake advertisements in it, which were reflecting "The end of the world is coming! Quick, buy our stuff now!" Probably a half-hour or hour long.

Anyone remember this, and what it was called.

Love the original George Pal version. Don't know what I think about the remake. I kind of wish they were making it period though, rather than modern day. The story itself seems to lend itself better to a period piece, IMO. But, very seldom has Speilberg made a bad flick, so ... I'm sure it'll be good.

I hope he doesn't screw up this movie, because it should be a good and nothing below a great and epic movie just because the author was H.G. Wells. His legacy only be lifted and not at all tainted.

I remember seeing the Justice League crossover with War of the Worlds... yeah... Speilberg is a great story teller, so lets hope he does a good job with this one. AND I CAN'T BELIEVE HE TURNED DOWN REMAKING THE TIME MACHINE!

i hope it is good. i only saw a portion of the original and it was ok. it really reminded me of Mars Attacks

Wow, just got back from seeing it. I must say, I've been pretty desensitized to these movies being all the same over the past few years that you could seem to throw them into a hat and not actually know the name of the one you pick out. But this one stands out for sure.

Spoiler:
Here's a quick rundown as its late and I'm tired.

- Acting was pretty good, a few people I would have recast, but overall, on par or a little above with these disaster movie types

- GCI: Excellent. Didn't notice anything that I would have changed

- Gore factor? Common, blood spraying everywhere? YES! haha

- Story: What can I say? Its War of the Worlds. They kept enough of the original to keep it true to it.

- Random thoughts: Dakota did WAY too much screaming. The brother reminded me of David Gillenhaal(sp?), where was the guy that took them in from? I've seen him before.

Anyways, thats it.

i just got back from seeing it.

i thought it sucked. balls. the ending was so abrupt.

let me just say the end pissed me off because it was incredibly unbelievable (unbelievable in the story).

I thought it was absolutley awful. I've never read the book, buuuut...

Spoiler: Are you telling me a civilization that buried those things millions of years ago aren't aware that we have bacteria? Are you kidding me? Is this in the book too?

There is no way in HELL his son could have survived. That was absolute bullshit.

In the basement with the crazy guy, why did he go into the room unarmed (where did the shotgun go) when the crazy guy has a shovel?

What in the hell was the purpose of spraying our blood everywhere? Anything? Why in the world did those "tripods" shoot some people and eat others? And did I see like, bloody roots growing? Wtf was that? Someone that read the book must know this.

I really wanted the little girl to get dusted. That would have made the movie 1000% better. She was alright in other movies, but man...

The scene where the son should have died was absolutley retarded. "I HAVE TO SEE THIS!!" What in the world? Why? You already know you can't hit them retard.

EDIT: Oh man, the alien heads and the shield CGI was straight out of independence day. What crap.

Save your money, rent it if you must. Ugh.

I enjoyed it. I didn't walk in expecting to see "Citizen Kane" and I enjoyed it for what it was; a summertime, fluffy, adventure ride.

However, for the best possible experience, you should get Grancey's interpretation of all the birds landing on the tripod. If you ever needed cheering up in your life, that would do it...... :lol: :icare: :crazy: :confused:

The ending was too abrupt, but overall, I enjoyed it.

is it similar to Independent day?

Loved it.

I was on edge the whole time. Creepy.

I have read the book, many years ago, so some of this may not be right.

Be aware that the book was written in 1898, so Hollywood tried to modernize a lot of it.
Spoiler:
The aliens did not have the machines buried underground in the book, the shot them over from mars in canister like objects, the had not been to earth before. The sequence of events in the movie doesn't make any sense: They buried machines over here before we existed so that they could come back over here and fight us for the world?!

Yeah, the son should have died, but they wanted the movie to end on a happy note.

Think about why in the hell he was killing the guy in the first place. TO STOP HIM FROM MAKING SO MUCH NOISE! What would a shotgun blast have done?

Supposedly the blood was a fertilizer for the red stuff, the crazy guy said it. They weren't "eating" them, they were collecting them, carrying them to an appropriate spot, removing them from cage, pinning them to the ground and, well, you saw the rest. They vaporized some people because they didn't need everyone for this purpose. As I recall, they did not do this in the book, they just planted the red stuff and let it grow.

The red plant was brought over from mars, it was H.G. Wells' explination for why mars appeared red(1898, no rover expeditions or satelite photos). They were terraforming the earth to be like a more hospitable mars.

Oh, and as to the little girl screaming to much, the world was being destroyed , people were dying, she has no idea what is going on, what do you expect a little girl to do? Should she have started skipping?

Thanks for your post MageB420666, great to see someone with sense speaking about the movie. I read a few rotten reviews at RottenTomatoes.com and was absolutely appalled witht eh stupidity of some of these guys
"I don't understand why the kids couldn't make there own sandwiches"
"The 747 is definately a throwback to 9/11, this is simply a propaganda movie"

I posted this in another forum, too lazy to write a new piece:

So I saw this last night at The Embassy, I wasn't expecting it to be as serious as it was so it came as quite a shock. The film is relentlessly disturbing. This isn't any ID4, this is brutal Human killing Aliens messing up Earth. Spoiler: There's a scene with hundreds of dead bodies floating down a river, my god that was disturbing

It was great to see that there was actually a story and a theme underlying all the mayhem and some fantastic acting to bring it along. Dakota Fanning is scarily good for someone her age, in fact in Hide and Seek she even outdid Robert DeNiro's performance!

It had barely anything to do with the H.G. Wells novel but that wasn't necessarily a bad thing, it was so vastly different that it was pretty much just another story set during the same timeframe as the novel.

Definately a DVD I'll be ordering from the States if it doesn't come out at the same time here (fingers crossed for a special edition release).

good to see some ppl liked it. and i'm glad to see it's better than ID4. the book i read was something like: aliens atack, then they die from a virus(cold if i'm corect) and ID4 was the same except they used a computer virus. but noone seemed to see the resemblences.

I thought it was one hell of a roller coaster ride.

I did find the one part mentioned earlier to be really annoying:

Spoiler: The son, along with a huge crowd of people, running towards the huge death dealing alien machines just to see what was going on? Uh, no. You run away from the alien death machines, not towards them. At first I thought the problem was dad, with his weird non-sequitors (So it's Boston now?, said with a hateful sneer) and incompetence, but if I had do deal with that sullen, hostile, idiot with a death wish for very long, I'd be ready to throw a baseball at his head, too).

That aside, I thought it was really well done beginning to end.

I read the review in which the critic chastizes Spielberg for exploiting images from 9/11 , and I don't think he's thinking it through. All of his specific complaints are specious. A wall with pictures of missing people? That predates 9/11. Brushing off dust from people who were vaporized? Dude, that's not 9/11, that's Holocaust imagery.

I saw this movie the other day and I have to say that I thought it was good. Then again I seem to compare movies to Cabin Fever, so any movie seems oscar worthy. However it seems people either liked it or thought it was horrible, haven't gotten too many inbetween opinions from people. Not sure how you guys did the spoiler with the white there so im just not gonna comment on parts of the movie until later.

Put the word spoiler enclosed in brackets before and after whatever you want spoilered, like this (but without the space):

[ spoiler]The butler did it![/spoiler]


Spoiler: The butler did it!

I liked it, I didn't pay much attention to the hype and I'm sure it kept me from expecting too much.....the ending was a bit of a letdown but I can get over it.

However, I think my dislike for Tom Cruise kept me from liking it more.

Tom Cruise sucks,but I will go see war of the worlds because it looks good. I just have to pretend is just someone who looks like Tom Cruise!

Just a simple question but:

Spoiler: during the scene when the family in the van arrived in Athens and they were passing by some couples including a girl with her horse. Why did the horse have a phone number on it?? I tried to figure out what's the point since most forms of electronics were destroyed including communications

No, electronics weren't destroyed. Man, I've had to explain this to 9347982379034649028374653 people, so I'm gonna quote myself:

""I can explain the EMP.

It fucks with circuts. If there's a closed circut with electricity running through it, the whole circut fries.

But if there's a opened circut, a camcorder that is in the off position for example, and the EMP hits, you can close the circut and operate the camera again.

So, the guy with the camcorder probably watched the news, instead of turning it off like those damn ass kids, and knew how the EMP worked. Same thing with the car.

This only works for Direct Current(DC), or batteries.

As for Alternating Current, you pretty much have to have everything on your house turned off to avoid an EMP. Unplug EVERYTHING electrical, and turn off all lights. Even then, there's a risk.

Yeah, and I liked the movie."

Thanks for the explanation but that wasn't my question.

I liked it, it was much better than ID4 as an alien movie, there were a few unbelievable scenes (whoa! what a surprise), and the ending was just suddenly...there....but it was a gripping two hours. I'd recommend it.

Yeah, I kinda glazed over the actual question. I didn't happen to notice the number.

Spoiler: Yeah, they buried the machines then rode lightning bolts underground into them. No mention of where the aliens came from that I remember.

He could have used the shotgun as a blunt weapon, or carried something else in there, but yes, I didnt think of that. Good point.

That makes more sense, but I could have swore that the crazy guy said at one point that they were drinking us. A mention of our blood being fertilizer would have made more sense, but I don't mind this part so much. It really made it seem like they were screwed.

No, she shouldn't have started skipping. But couldn't they have put her into shock for at least a little bit before she got captured? Please?

I picked this up for $20 at Borders yesterday (there are two newer editions also sold, with two other covers different from this one which have the exact same text/pictures/CD tracks as the one I picked up; I grabbed the older one since the inside pictures weren't as grainy).

http://sourcebooks.com/images/covers/WOTW-m.gif

"Here's a nifty pairing: H.G. Wells's classic 1897 SF novel, The War of the Worlds, including the original magazine illustrations, together with Howard Koch's radio play adaptation made famous by Orson Welles in his October 30, 1938, broadcast, which fooled thousands of listeners into thinking the East Coast was under Martian attack. In addition to a foreword by Ray Bradbury and an afterword by Ben Bova, Sourcebook editors Holmsten and Lubertozzi supply an absorbing account of the broadcast's impact, which puts the hoax in historical context; an article on Orson Welles and the Mercury Theater; a survey of both imaginary and actual space flights to and from Mars and a succinct profile of H.G. Wells. It is interesting to learn that Wells at first resented the radio broadcast, believing Welles was going to read the novel, not dramatize it. Like other Sourcebook books (We Interrupt This Broadcast; And the Crowd Goes Wild; etc.), the package comes with an audio CD, which is keyed to relevant portions of the text. The CD features not only the original Mercury Theater broadcast but also the press conference Welles gave the next day and the KTSA radio interview of H.G. and Orson from 1940. The many b&w photos are particularly well chosen. (Apr.)Forecast: With a 50,000-copy first printing, this multimedia package should sell well to popular culture fans, not just SF buffs."

Not a bad deal. If you just want a CD of the original broadcast, Borders has one in its audio books section for $5.

Spoiler: Oh, and another thing. How in the world did Boston go untouched? Call me crazy, but I would think these things would go toward big cities first... even Independence Day got this right. What kind of idiot would head toward a major city with lots of people? Gah.

I loved this movie. It was unconventional as far as Spielburg's films usually go, and I think that's why I liked it. It didn't go "A.I." on us at the end, it just ended like it should have. The action was intense, the acting was superb, the film gave me the fucking creeps. That first scene where the aliens just start Spoiler: fucking vaporizing everyone had me scared shitless. Fucking insane. Isn't that what movies are supposed to do? Convey emotion? Entertain? Did both for me!

One guy walked out of the theater mumbling to a group of about 20 people waiting in line that it was "the worst movie out of the last 100 he had seen." Fucking bullshit. I loved the movie. Special effects were incredible.

The movie was straight to the point and I liked that a lot.

Spoiler: When the alien first starting making that particular noise, that's when I started to creep to the edge of my seat

I was supremely disappointed with this movie. I don't think Cruise acted the entire movie, the plot fell apart repeatedly, the ending was so abrupt I actually leaned forward in my seat at the end, and there was a couple making out in the seat next to me and I was getting jealous.

The special effects were good, I'll give you that. But I really felt like that's the only thing this movie had going for it, save a few moments that struggled to redeem, though they failed, the movie as a whole.

Yeah yeah yeah...

I went into this expecting it to suck bigtime, and it didn't...

But it wasn't very good either...

Firstly, thanks to Uncle Steve, we knew that Spoiler: Robby would miraculously survive his sojourn over the ridge of death, despite some kind of napalm strike seconds after he departed. Because as if Speilberg would have a sad ending, not to mention the oh so subtle symbolism of the statue at the end there...

Secondly as everyone's already pointed out the plot had some absolutely ridiculous aspects. The only excuses I can come up with are really stupid ones like Spoiler: the aliens planted the machines there, kind of like combine harvesters, and were waiting for complex life to develop so they could 'farm' us. But frankly, I think a set up like the Matrix would probably be a lot more efficient, and safe. and so on...

Lastly, the aliens I found fairly unimpressive, their weapons were... in inefficient to say the least. The only scenes that made me squirm were the Spoiler: people killing other people in desperation, which is an aspect of the 'end of the world' scenario that I think is the scariest of all. The British version of Threads for instance, scared the crap out of me as a youngster. The dude climbing through the windshield with his bare hands, ugh...

All in all, worth the price of admission, if you're a student or senior... :P

Part of what made the aliens scary was that

Spoiler: We don't know why they planted the machines, or why the activated them now. The motive was, well, alien.

But I completely agree with you about the human element being even scarier:

Spoiler: The scariest part being when the mob attacks the van, and Cruise has to take it back at gunpoint, and then has it taken from him at gunpoint, and then that man is murdered for it. It had a Lord of the Flies quality to the savagery shown.

Napalm strike? Not a chance, kinda dumb move by the military to do that, especially after ordering their men to move the line further down the hill and wound up killing them all. Besides, Hollywood dictate that cool things must be seen including the aircraft that dropped the Napalm bomb which wasn't seen.

Again, as Hollywood would dictate, that wouldn't be as fun as the way it's been done in the movie. Besides, that's the way it was written in the novel, you could argue with HG Wells on that point.

Um...their weapons were in-efficient? Please enlighten us as to what would have been more efficient? I'm sure that weapons that vaporize victims would far be more efficient than guns, otherwise with guns, you need to get rid of the bodies ;) Especially millions of them. Again, that's how it was done in the original novel.

Again, in the original Novel, London was dead but most of the city was still standing including the bridge, although, they were mostly covered in red weed or whatever it was called. Even some people were still heading toward to large cities like London.

I just saw this yesterday. I thought it was just okay the ending and plot irks have alreay been brought up. Was it entertaining? Yes, but I guess I expected more from the movie. I do love that little Dakota Fanning though she's going to be a really good actress as she gets older.

--That threw me too. It just doesn't make sense. Spoiler: Bury advanced fighting machines in the ground for millenia, if not eons, then wait until humans have an advanced society, then move in. Right.
--Spoiler: Somehow they have this super advanced tech, but no biology. Okay...I can't blame Steve S. for that though, it's an old book.
--Spoiler: Son surviving. Given the movie's overall tone of realism, that was a distinct knock against that theme. Why bother to be (overall) a realistic view of an alien invasion, then throw in straight BS happy ending? The kid ran into a firestorm per some unexplained shmarmy internal thing "he had to do." Well, that was just a cheap plot device to put big Tom in the position of choosing his young daughter or his estranged son. It was poor form, especially from Speilburg. Generally speaking, when people run into a battle line that is completely decimated by an overwhelming force, they don't live.


True realizm would be an orbital bombardment or a virus engineered to attack humans. War against technology high enough to travel the stars does not need to include anything landing on earth, period. If you want our land, but not us, at all, there's no reason not to nuke a planet senseless from orbit. Or, use kenetic projectiles big enough to destroy cites but not leave radiation. If one has to fly by a asteroid belt to get to earth, why not snag one or two? Or, you problably have biology skills sufficient enough to exterminate us via disease. Either way, there's simply no reason to come mop us up personally. That whole concept is driven by the need to make a movie where humans have a chance. If you can fly the stars, it's likely you can destroy us from orbit, but that would make a shitty movie.


--This was Independance Day part II, without the plot. Which says a lot. It was more realistic, but I don't generally go see my "Aliens invade the world" movies for a heavy dose of realism.


I'm just going to 2nd that, and move on.
It was not a "bad" movie, but it was far from "good." I think this makes the first time I went to see a Spielburg movie and left it feeling truely let down.

Spoiler: You must've missed the part where Martian's lighting storm was actually an distraction to quickly deploy the machines. Remember the part where a CBS crew were found next to the destroyed aircraft and the reporter showed Tommy boy a frame by frame of the lighting strike hiding a pod of some kind before it struck the ground?

Yeah, I caught that. My point is that I don't understand the point in burying superadvanced fighting machines deep in the earth, then leaving them there for untold (but implied to be) lengths of time. <i>Then</i> come back via lightening storm so much later.

I suppose one can explain that by saying "their motivation is truley alien" so we're not supposed to understand. But, that's lame. Why an alien species could take over the planet, but chose to bury machines and wait 1000 years, is beyond me.

what is ID4?

What point of the movie did the Martian buried machines deep inside the ground? It looked like they simply sent a small pod to quicky pentrate the ground and quickly gather required resources that's available to them within the area, to build the machine within a short period of time before before rising to start killing people.

Independence Day. Link

And how likely is it that there is a unknown large quantity of the neccesary metallic elements located directly under an urban neighborhood?

It was stated in the movie that the machines were buried a long time ago and that the aliens rode the pods down into them so that they could control them and destroy all humans (and cows).

The writers/producers/director could have kept the aliens method of travel from mars to the earth the same as it was in the book, and had the movie make a whole lot more sense. Which for those of you who don't know: The aliens shot over in large cylindrical objects, had the machines unscrew the lid on it (from the inside, the machines and aliens where both inside the cylinders), and proceeded to do what they did best.

Would have fixed so many plot holes. Cause it takes a really, really, really^extremely, powerful telescope to see something the size of a bacteria on another planet.

id4 is independence day... they named it ID4 since Independence day is on july 4th. ID4.

how could it be id4 when it was a remake of a movie that was done IN THE 50's!!!! seriously (btw i know you don't actually think it's a sequel you jsut think it was really alike) ID4 was cheesy and more humerous than WotW. Which i liked more about wotw is it was more serious and dark.

Well my thinking is as follows: Spoiler: As I understand it the aliens were quite literally using humans as 'fertiliser' to grow their disgusting red weeds everywhere. This seems to be fairly implicit in the scene where the suck the blood out of a guy and spray it on the weeds, and Tim Robbins goes nuts. So, one would assume, that having millions of bodies would be a very good thing for the aliens. Moreover, the vapourising rays killed 1 person at a time, some kind of big big vapourising bomb (assuming you wanted to vapourise your fertiliser source for no reason) would be much better. Now, assuming I buried my big machine in the ground and then had millions of years and some goodly number of my alien brethren working on the problem I could probably hook that up. They did imply very clearly that they buried the machines, and that the 'pods' coming down in the lightning were merely pilots who took control of the machines. It's a little difficult to tell exactly how deep these machines were buried, but I also find it rather strange that nobody, anywhere detected or found an uber large pod buried under the ground. Also hilariously they managed to pick the spots where there would be cities. Even more hilariously they picked the spots some time ago, when the geographic and seismologic conditions were entirely different. They are super smart I suppose, but that seems even more of a damning indictment of their poorly thought out plans of world domination, that they could predict with accuracy the distribution of earth's inhabitants, and yet managed to lose the war due to the flu. As for the napalm strike, agreed no planes were seen, but my only concern was that there appeared to be an awful lot of fire in the general vicinity of Robbie's body, or it's implied location, and yet he survived with the customary Spielberg 'small facial cut'.

ok, i'm not reading this thread again until I see the movie. You people need to use the spoilers option. What's the point of answering spoiler questions without a spoiler tag?

I loved the movie, very close to the original text indeed.

I could have done without the whole errant father nonsense, but thought the rest of the film was absolute classic Speilberg fare.

I too was confused as to why they changed the original version of the story and Spoiler: had the machines buried underground long before the aliens turned up to drive them but imagine it was made that way Spoiler: as an excuse to show a block get demolished by an emerging tripod. Also, Spoiler: the TV crew bit was unnesessary, knowing that the aliens rode lightning bolts into the earth didn't add anything, and may have actually detracted from the sense of dark mystery that should exist about an alien invader that's planned man's destruction for millenia - it kind of cheapened it

Anyway, I reccommend you read the text of the story, at some point - it's really incredible to think that such a contemporary idea was conceived over 100 years ago.

Spoiler: I'd assume that everyone realises that we've got it figured out that the aliens come bursting out of the ground, but just in case I'll make this a spoiler. Anyway, my beef is that dropping aliens into pods that have been buried for millenia would be a bit like dropping us into a maggot town (as the analogy goes) with rocks and sticks instead of guns, flame throwers, etc. With ten thousand years of evolution and using our brains the weapons we have now have... uh... progressed a bit.

I'll give this movie 0 stars of 5. I hated it. The first scene happened and I sat there wishing it was over. Probably the scene with the lightning was the scariest, then it was all the same thing over and over again. Now two and a half hours later I'll grateful that I'm not there.

I thought the purpose of this movie was to offer an opposite view of alien encounters from Speilberg's earlier work on Close Encounters and E.T. and in many respects it did. But then we get to see the actual aliens Spoiler: they're cute and chirpy with big doe eyes. It just doesn't match their behavior of frying every human they see.

Tom Cruise was horrible as usual, the man has no business acting. We're supposed to believe he's some kind of gritty longshoreman while he looks like he just stepped out of an abercrombie ad (I supposed to Cruise that would be slumming it). A lot of empathy I might of had for this character was sacrificed at the altar of Cruise's ego, making him look good.

I was unclear on what the hell was going on with the spray and the red fungus. I figured the spray was some kind of anti-bacterial effort and the fungus was nature's response. Kind of like if you boil something it will grow much nastier mold than if you cook it at a lower temperature. You're naturally selecting only the toughest nastiest bacteria to grow and flourish without competition.

The happy ending was ridiculous. With 3/5 of all humans on the planet dead somehow their mom is fine, her new husband is fine, apparently both sets of grandparents make it, and then the snotty teenager who we just saw run into certain death is fine.

I rationalized the "machines buried a million years ago" thing by figuring that machines could be sent through space faster than living creatures. So they sent the machines ahead to wait for their pilots.

Aside from the wrecked plane fusilage (how didn't that burn their house up?) I didn't find it to be exploitive of our 9/11 memories. Speilberg was certainly using things he saw from 9/11, but for the most part these things were not unique to that instance. He was trying to portray life during wartime and I'd say he did a good job, streams of refugees, missing persons boards, panic and chaos in the streets. He's made three of the best war movies of all time (Empire, Saving, Schindler) and I thought he did a good job of tapping that repository of images.

Great action and effects, atrocious acting, zero empathy for the characters, I'll give it two of five stars.

wow... everyone hated it.
i fucking loved it!! who cares if they dont explain it all? it's still fucking great. i'd see it again.

edit: i just reread the book and it follows it prefectly. i mean the church going down? that's in the book, etc... i could name a few more. :thumbsup: :thumbsup: