OP
OP
U2Girl1978
Blue Crack Addict
deep said:
Honestly, I've never seen the original.
War of the Worlds
- Thread starter U2Girl1978
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Honestly, I've never seen the original.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
the story is h. g. wells
all the TC bashing is just piling on people
i wonder about their motivation
all the TC bashing is just piling on people
i wonder about their motivation
skjuls
Refugee
There were some good moments but I expected more.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
this will be number one at the box office this w/e
so perhaps some others will have lowered expectations
and enjoy it a bit
so perhaps some others will have lowered expectations
and enjoy it a bit
phanan
Blue Crack Addict
It will be #1 at the box office because it's a new big-budget movie and a holiday weekend. Doesn't mean it's really good.
We'll see how much of a drop off there is next weekend and whether it has any lasting power.
We'll see how much of a drop off there is next weekend and whether it has any lasting power.
discothequeLP
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
i liked the movie. it wasn't the greatest movie i've seen, but it was fun to watch, dramatic and all that. i give it a 
and isn't Dakota Fanning just the cutest little girl ever!
and isn't Dakota Fanning just the cutest little girl ever!
Basstrap
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2000
- Messages
- 10,726
so I saw it tonight
it was good...for the most part, and, yes, probably the best "disaster movie" ever...though what's it up against? Day After Tomorrow? Dante's fucking Peak?
The good parts:
- it's often genuinely suspenseful and frightening. This is mostly due to the incredible audio in this movie.
- tom cruise manages to a decent job of not being Tom Cruise TM
- There are really great scenes concerning human behavior in times of extreme crisis
The not so good:
- Bad pacing around the middle with a horribly bad scene starring Tim Robbins. Why would the aliens take the time to send a "flashlight" arm down to inspect the building. It's not like they've been trying to preserve human architecture earlier in the film. Why not just rip the foundations apart??
- That whole bringing grenades into the bowels of the thing was a bad cheesy scene
- Too many things that take you out of the movie. Unrealistic things. Like when the machines first rise and everybody is just fucking standing around idiots. Don't tell me that everybody wouldn'y have bolted first when the fucking ground started ripping apart. But nooooo, they had to fucking stick around for the party. Then the machines start killing people, but when he lets up again everybody turns around again like, "I wonder what he'll do now"...probably start killing you all again
- Spoiler!:
robbie should have died
They were close to having a really good movie. The scene when he makes them sandwiches is the best, most well acted scene in the whole movie. I don't know, it just seemed so sad or pathetic, it made me nauseous for some reason. It was also one of the most realistic scenes, how it portrayed what one might do when faced with such a ridiculous situation. Also, the scene leading up to the ferry was great. I would have liked to seen more of this and less of the stupid scenes like the Robbins one and the fucking human lunch basket scene (also known as the stupid grenade scene)
it was good...for the most part, and, yes, probably the best "disaster movie" ever...though what's it up against? Day After Tomorrow? Dante's fucking Peak?
The good parts:
- it's often genuinely suspenseful and frightening. This is mostly due to the incredible audio in this movie.
- tom cruise manages to a decent job of not being Tom Cruise TM
- There are really great scenes concerning human behavior in times of extreme crisis
The not so good:
- Bad pacing around the middle with a horribly bad scene starring Tim Robbins. Why would the aliens take the time to send a "flashlight" arm down to inspect the building. It's not like they've been trying to preserve human architecture earlier in the film. Why not just rip the foundations apart??
- That whole bringing grenades into the bowels of the thing was a bad cheesy scene
- Too many things that take you out of the movie. Unrealistic things. Like when the machines first rise and everybody is just fucking standing around idiots. Don't tell me that everybody wouldn'y have bolted first when the fucking ground started ripping apart. But nooooo, they had to fucking stick around for the party. Then the machines start killing people, but when he lets up again everybody turns around again like, "I wonder what he'll do now"...probably start killing you all again
- Spoiler!:
robbie should have died
They were close to having a really good movie. The scene when he makes them sandwiches is the best, most well acted scene in the whole movie. I don't know, it just seemed so sad or pathetic, it made me nauseous for some reason. It was also one of the most realistic scenes, how it portrayed what one might do when faced with such a ridiculous situation. Also, the scene leading up to the ferry was great. I would have liked to seen more of this and less of the stupid scenes like the Robbins one and the fucking human lunch basket scene (also known as the stupid grenade scene)
MrsSpringsteen
Blue Crack Addict
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Tom Cruise celebrated his 43rd birthday on Sunday atop the worldwide box office with "War of the Worlds," the costly alien-invasion thriller directed by Steven Spielberg.
The impressive $204.2 million global tally, reported on Sunday by distributor Paramount Pictures, includes $101.7 million from its first five days of release in North America, where business is getting a much-needed boost from Monday's July 4 holiday in the United States.
While solid, the North American haul falls short of the record $152 million that "Spider-Man 2" earned in its first five days during the July 4 span last year, when the holiday fell on Sunday.
"War of the Worlds" did, however, beat the opening mark of incumbent box office champion "Batman Begins," which earned $72.9 million during its first five days two weeks ago, albeit without the benefit of a holiday crowd.
Internationally, "War of the Worlds" has earned $102.5 million from 78 countries, including $15 million in the United Kingdom and $15.5 million in Japan, a Paramount spokeswoman said.
"War of the Worlds," budgeted at about $135 million, began its campaign on Wednesday with $21.3 million, topping the $15 million Wednesday start of "Batman Begins," but not the $40 million bow of "Spider-Man 2."
Saturday's sales of $22.7 million represent the biggest single-day haul for both Paramount and Cruise, said the studio, a unit of Viacom Inc.
For the "traditional" three-day period beginning Friday, the film earned $66 million, the second-highest number for 2005, behind the $108.4 million weekend for "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith." That film opened on a Thursday with midnight screenings, making comparisons with "War" difficult.
Some Hollywood commentators have speculated that the movie's prospects could be hurt by Cruise's unorthodox publicity campaign. The usually strait-laced actor has raised eyebrows by giddily professing his love for fiancee Katie Holmes, and defiantly extolling the superiority of Scientology over psychiatry.
But the critics liked the movie, which is based on the novel by Victorian writer H.G. Wells. Cruise plays a blue-collar worker who flees with his two children from aliens who are destroying everything in their path. Paramount partnered on the project with closely held DreamWorks SKG, of which Spielberg is a founding partner.
Because the year-ago period set a record for the July 4 holiday, overall sales this time are expected to fall for a 19th consecutive weekend. A clearer picture will emerge on Monday, because most studios did not report figures on Sunday. "Batman Begins" led the field last weekend with $27.6 million.
The impressive $204.2 million global tally, reported on Sunday by distributor Paramount Pictures, includes $101.7 million from its first five days of release in North America, where business is getting a much-needed boost from Monday's July 4 holiday in the United States.
While solid, the North American haul falls short of the record $152 million that "Spider-Man 2" earned in its first five days during the July 4 span last year, when the holiday fell on Sunday.
"War of the Worlds" did, however, beat the opening mark of incumbent box office champion "Batman Begins," which earned $72.9 million during its first five days two weeks ago, albeit without the benefit of a holiday crowd.
Internationally, "War of the Worlds" has earned $102.5 million from 78 countries, including $15 million in the United Kingdom and $15.5 million in Japan, a Paramount spokeswoman said.
"War of the Worlds," budgeted at about $135 million, began its campaign on Wednesday with $21.3 million, topping the $15 million Wednesday start of "Batman Begins," but not the $40 million bow of "Spider-Man 2."
Saturday's sales of $22.7 million represent the biggest single-day haul for both Paramount and Cruise, said the studio, a unit of Viacom Inc.
For the "traditional" three-day period beginning Friday, the film earned $66 million, the second-highest number for 2005, behind the $108.4 million weekend for "Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge of the Sith." That film opened on a Thursday with midnight screenings, making comparisons with "War" difficult.
Some Hollywood commentators have speculated that the movie's prospects could be hurt by Cruise's unorthodox publicity campaign. The usually strait-laced actor has raised eyebrows by giddily professing his love for fiancee Katie Holmes, and defiantly extolling the superiority of Scientology over psychiatry.
But the critics liked the movie, which is based on the novel by Victorian writer H.G. Wells. Cruise plays a blue-collar worker who flees with his two children from aliens who are destroying everything in their path. Paramount partnered on the project with closely held DreamWorks SKG, of which Spielberg is a founding partner.
Because the year-ago period set a record for the July 4 holiday, overall sales this time are expected to fall for a 19th consecutive weekend. A clearer picture will emerge on Monday, because most studios did not report figures on Sunday. "Batman Begins" led the field last weekend with $27.6 million.
BrownEyedBoy
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Movies with aliens are so retarded. On pard with ficticious figures like Barney and the Flinstones. Not interested. 
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Basstrap said:
I pretty much agree with you here.
I agree about the spoiler ending completely
if someone died, let them stay dead
The bullshit Hollywood happy ending always diminishes a movie.
miss becky
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Just got back from seeing this movie. I really liked it. I liked the fact that Tom Cruise and the other people were ignorant of what was really going on. It wasn't like in Independence Day when you were with the people in authority. I loved when that train went speeding past, on fire, with absolutely no explanation.
I didn't expect it to be as scary as it was, though. There were several places where I was gripping my hands, ready to cover my eyes if need be. (I don't do scary movies.)
All in all, a very good movie.
I didn't expect it to be as scary as it was, though. There were several places where I was gripping my hands, ready to cover my eyes if need be. (I don't do scary movies.)
All in all, a very good movie.
Blue Room
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
PhunkPhorce said:
I would add Schindlers List and Saving Private Ryan to the list, and I think A.I. was just OK. Otherwise I would probebly agree.
I dont think the entire theater moved for the first 25 minutes of Saving Private Ryan during the Normandy beach landing scene back when I saw that in the theater. Not many movies do that to an entire audience.
the rockin edge
Blue Crack Addict
discothequeLP said:i liked the movie. it wasn't the greatest movie i've seen, but it was fun to watch, dramatic and all that. i give it a
I saw it last night and agree with that.
Just saw this last night so felt like bumping it up. I liked it quite a bit but there are too many little problems that prevent it from being classic, most of which have already been mentioned.
MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD
My biggest problem though would be the family reuniting at the end. The movie is obviously one huge calamity and the entire world has been laid to waste. I am assuming that most major cities are in awful shape. However, the way it is filmed, we do not care about all of these people, we really only care for this one family. They are all alive at the end and actually have an untouched house! This just diminshes the overall destruction because the people we have been forced to care about are in much better shape than the rest of the world. Would have been much better to have Ray and Rachel (Cruise and Dakota) find the house in ruins and maybe find the mom hiding out in the basement. Return Rachel to her mom, who would then ask about Robbie, and Ray would shake his head and everyone would be sad. One child lives, one dies. That would be better balance. I would keep her new husband alive just so we don't think that Ray and his ex-wife will be reunited.
MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD
My biggest problem though would be the family reuniting at the end. The movie is obviously one huge calamity and the entire world has been laid to waste. I am assuming that most major cities are in awful shape. However, the way it is filmed, we do not care about all of these people, we really only care for this one family. They are all alive at the end and actually have an untouched house! This just diminshes the overall destruction because the people we have been forced to care about are in much better shape than the rest of the world. Would have been much better to have Ray and Rachel (Cruise and Dakota) find the house in ruins and maybe find the mom hiding out in the basement. Return Rachel to her mom, who would then ask about Robbie, and Ray would shake his head and everyone would be sad. One child lives, one dies. That would be better balance. I would keep her new husband alive just so we don't think that Ray and his ex-wife will be reunited.
corianderstem
Blue Crack Distributor
bsp77, I completely agree with that.
I just got back from seeing it, and it was great up until the last 3 minutes. What, was the family just sitting around in their Boston townhouse drinking tea? They weren't even dirty or anything!
Other than that, I loved it. It was much more intense than I'd anticipated - it seriously freaked my shit out. Yeah, the latter half wasn't as good as the first, but it wasn't as bad as I'd been led to believe.
Color me impressed.
I just got back from seeing it, and it was great up until the last 3 minutes. What, was the family just sitting around in their Boston townhouse drinking tea? They weren't even dirty or anything!
Other than that, I loved it. It was much more intense than I'd anticipated - it seriously freaked my shit out. Yeah, the latter half wasn't as good as the first, but it wasn't as bad as I'd been led to believe.
Color me impressed.
Irishteen
Blue Crack Addict
Brillant movie, could have had a better ending but still brillant.
PhunkPhorce
The Fly
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 171
Blue Room said:
As for "Saving..." - I think there is a difference between directing 2 great battle scenes (Normandy landing and final battle) and directing a good movie. Take out those 2 scenes and what do we have left?
The cast: Tom Hanks? He can bore ANYONE to death. He is the same in every role since Philadelfia. The rest of the cast are just talking heads.
The script: a little side note here. Does the name Zhukov ring any bells? He was the Marshall in the Russian (Red) Army responsible for number of great and important victories during WW2. He is a national hero and believed to be one of the greatest military strtegists of all time. He was commanding the operation to takedown Berlin and succeeded. The price were the lives of 300000 soldier and officers. The main purpose of this operation was to enter and secure Berlin ahead of the Allies (Americans mostly). This is just one of many examples of unwise and unneccessary waste of lives.
Another side note: there were special squads in the Red Army whose orders were to shoot soldiers (yes, their own, Russian soldiers) who were running away from the battle field.
Now I hope you understand why the plot where 6 men were sent to bring back 1 (and die in the process) just doesnt seem believable to me.
Oh and those episodes with old Ryan at the beginning and the end of the movie just made me sick.
PhunkPhorce said:
What? Idiotic. Explain how his roles in movies as diverse as Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, Castaway, Ladykillers, The Terminal, and Catch Me If You Can bear any resemblance to one another. Not necessarily saying they are all great roles, but completely different.
elevation2u
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
you forgot road to perdition
PhunkPhorce
The Fly
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 171
bsp77 said:
Movies are diverse, yes. He is the same. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on The Ladykillers (haven't watched it yet), but his approach to portraying his characters in Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, Castaway, The Terminal, Road to Perdition and Catch Me If You Can stays the same. Same acting techniques, same expressions, same body language. And if you look a bit deeper into characters - are they really THAT different??
Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump: An IDIOT trying to deal with it.
Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan: An IDIOT leading his squad to death in an attemt to save one miserable jerk.
Tom Hanks in Castaway: An IDIOT talking to painted volley ball
Tom Hanks in The Terminal: An IDIOT from Castsway but not on a deserted island, but in the international airport.
Tom Hanks in Road to Perdition: An IDIOT hitman. Hitmans should not have families in the first place.
Tom Hanks in Catch me if you can: An IDIOT who can't catch Leo DiCaprio untill he calls him and gives him a clue.
PhunkPhorce said:
Movies are diverse, yes. He is the same. Unfortunately, I cannot comment on The Ladykillers (haven't watched it yet), but his approach to portraying his characters in Forrest Gump, Saving Private Ryan, Castaway, The Terminal, Road to Perdition and Catch Me If You Can stays the same. Same acting techniques, same expressions, same body language. And if you look a bit deeper into characters - are they really THAT different??
Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump: An IDIOT trying to deal with it.
Tom Hanks in Saving Private Ryan: An IDIOT leading his squad to death in an attemt to save one miserable jerk.
Tom Hanks in Castaway: An IDIOT talking to painted volley ball
Tom Hanks in The Terminal: An IDIOT from Castsway but not on a deserted island, but in the international airport.
Tom Hanks in Road to Perdition: An IDIOT hitman. Hitmans should not have families in the first place.
Tom Hanks in Catch me if you can: An IDIOT who can't catch Leo DiCaprio untill he calls him and gives him a clue.
I think I found the IDIOT.
U2@NYC
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
I saw the movie this weekend. It was ok, not too good. While I seem to agree with everyone that the first 90 minutes are good, the latter half literally sucks.
SPOILER
Spielberg did not manage a transition between the aliens ruling the world and them dying. It happens way too quickly, up to the point that we cannot figure out what is going on. Also, I agree with the previous references made to the kids' family being completely 'untouched'. What does this mean? That everything happened in NYC but nothing in Boston? This does not make sense, as we seen an alien when they get to Boston towards the end. The ending, being so quick and seemingly 'compressed' left me leaving the theater with a bitter taste. In my opinion, I would give this movie no more than a B-.
SPOILER
Spielberg did not manage a transition between the aliens ruling the world and them dying. It happens way too quickly, up to the point that we cannot figure out what is going on. Also, I agree with the previous references made to the kids' family being completely 'untouched'. What does this mean? That everything happened in NYC but nothing in Boston? This does not make sense, as we seen an alien when they get to Boston towards the end. The ending, being so quick and seemingly 'compressed' left me leaving the theater with a bitter taste. In my opinion, I would give this movie no more than a B-.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
U2@NYC said:
that is pretty much how h g wells wrote the story
the first movie made in the 50s abruptly ends when it starts to rain
apparently the aliens could not handle H2O in the fifties
i give it a B+, because I do not hold them responsible for the ending
-except the cornball, resurrection
Saw this movie yesterday. Very intense, and it doesn't let up right until almost the end when the aliens start dying. I liked how we see exactly what the Ferrier family does, and it's really not your typical "hero saves the day from aliens" movie.
Good acting from Tom Cruise, awesome Dakota Fanning and Tim Robbins almost stole the show from everyone else.
Two things that I minded: 1) how come their car is working and no one elses? 2) the typical sugary Hollywood ending. (I mean all of them reuniting - I guess aliens didn't ruin all of Boston before they started dying)
Good acting from Tom Cruise, awesome Dakota Fanning and Tim Robbins almost stole the show from everyone else.
Two things that I minded: 1) how come their car is working and no one elses? 2) the typical sugary Hollywood ending. (I mean all of them reuniting - I guess aliens didn't ruin all of Boston before they started dying)
U2@NYC
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
U2girl said:
Hey Maja,
1. Their car is working because earlier in the picture, TC tells the mechanic to 'check the solenoid' or something like that. He apparently does and gets the car to work. My question then is, how come the car never needs any fuel?
2. Yup, ending is pretty bad.
U2@NYC
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
deep said:
Hmmm, I guess I should not blame Spielberg then, but HG Wells for not being able to transition from domination to debacle in a better way... he could have figured it out somehow to make it look better, though.
Hey Pablo 
I know he does, but in a multi-million city is he the only one to come up with that idea?
(No cars to compete with so they just got fuel at gas stations? Or, they would have run out of fuel but they lost the car in that big fight too soon. )
I know he does, but in a multi-million city is he the only one to come up with that idea?
(No cars to compete with so they just got fuel at gas stations? Or, they would have run out of fuel but they lost the car in that big fight too soon. )
Last edited:
Favorite scenes:
- the start of the invasion; flashes, ground opening etc..
- any indoor scenes with the tentacles/Tim Robbins scenes
- when Cruise can't sing a lullaby to Dakota Fanning and when he breaks down in that restaurant after they lose the car and starts crying
- when he separates from his son and goes to get his daughter
- the river scene with all the bodies
- "Get in the car". "Get in the car or you will die." ZAP!
- the start of the invasion; flashes, ground opening etc..
- any indoor scenes with the tentacles/Tim Robbins scenes
- when Cruise can't sing a lullaby to Dakota Fanning and when he breaks down in that restaurant after they lose the car and starts crying
- when he separates from his son and goes to get his daughter
- the river scene with all the bodies
- "Get in the car". "Get in the car or you will die." ZAP!
Last edited:
