War of the Worlds - Page 4

U2Girl1978 · 07-01-2005, 12:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by deep

yes, very wrong

maybe h. g . wells did

This movie is very close to

This "War of the Worlds"

Am I the only one that has seen this movie?

Honestly, I've never seen the original.

deep · 07-01-2005, 12:09 PM

the story is h. g. wells

all the TC bashing is just piling on people

i wonder about their motivation

skjuls · 07-01-2005, 12:43 PM

There were some good moments but I expected more.

deep · 07-02-2005, 10:23 AM

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

phanan · 07-03-2005, 08:49 PM

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.

discothequeLP · 07-03-2005, 10:49 PM

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!

Basstrap · 07-03-2005, 10:58 PM

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)

MrsSpringsteen · 07-04-2005, 07:02 AM

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.

BrownEyedBoy · 07-04-2005, 10:14 AM

Movies with aliens are so retarded. On pard with ficticious figures like Barney and the Flinstones. Not interested.

deep · 07-04-2005, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Basstrap
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?

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 · 07-04-2005, 12:10 PM

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.

Blue Room · 07-04-2005, 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by PhunkPhorce
I haven't seen War of the Worlds yet, but have a question about Spielberg. I think his greatest achievemnts were Jaws and Indiana Jones trilogy. After that (meaning since 1989) all his movies are just OK at best. "A.I." is an exception, but mostly thanks to Stanley Kubrick's "spirit".

What do you think?

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 · 07-04-2005, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by discothequeLP
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.

bsp77 · 07-08-2005, 06:59 AM

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.

corianderstem · 07-10-2005, 02:54 PM

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.

bsp77 · 07-10-2005, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by corianderstem

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.

Yeah, terrifying movie and very well made. So close to a classic.

Irishteen · 07-10-2005, 04:41 PM

Brillant movie, could have had a better ending but still brillant.

PhunkPhorce · 07-11-2005, 03:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Blue Room

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.

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.

bsp77 · 07-11-2005, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by PhunkPhorce

The cast: Tom Hanks? He can bore ANYONE to death. He is the same in every role since Philadelfia.

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 · 07-11-2005, 11:26 AM

you forgot road to perdition

07-01-2005, 12:09 PM	#62
deep Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A far distance down. Posts: 28,600 Local Time: 05:02 PM	the story is h. g. wells all the TC bashing is just piling on people i wonder about their motivation __________________

07-11-2005, 11:26 AM	#80
elevation2u Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: May 2002 Location: corner of Badlands & Magnolia Mountain Posts: 5,371 Local Time: 05:02 PM	you forgot road to perdition __________________

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

07-01-2005, 12:43 PM	#63
skjuls Refugee Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Learning to Bowl with Daniel Plainview Posts: 1,943 Local Time: 08:02 PM	There were some good moments but I expected more.

07-02-2005, 10:23 AM	#64
deep Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: A far distance down. Posts: 28,600 Local Time: 05:02 PM	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

07-03-2005, 08:49 PM	#65
phanan Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: in the darkness on the edge of town Posts: 25,657 Local Time: 08:02 PM	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.

07-03-2005, 10:49 PM	#66
discothequeLP Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 8,095 Local Time: 06:02 PM	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!

07-03-2005, 10:58 PM	#67
Basstrap ONE love, blood, life Join Date: Jul 2000 Posts: 10,726 Local Time: 10:32 PM	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)

07-04-2005, 07:02 AM	#68
MrsSpringsteen Blue Crack Addict Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 27,760 Local Time: 08:02 PM	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.

07-04-2005, 10:14 AM	#69
BrownEyedBoy Rock n' Roll Doggie Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: San Pedro Sula, Honduras Posts: 3,510 Local Time: 07:02 PM	Movies with aliens are so retarded. On pard with ficticious figures like Barney and the Flinstones. Not interested.

07-04-2005, 12:10 PM	#71
miss becky Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 6,107 Local Time: 09:02 PM	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.

07-08-2005, 06:59 AM	#74
bsp77 Refugee Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 1,956 Local Time: 07:02 PM	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.

07-10-2005, 02:54 PM	#75
corianderstem Blue Crack Distributor Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Seattle Posts: 64,498 Local Time: 06:02 PM	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.

07-10-2005, 04:41 PM	#77
Irishteen Blue Crack Addict Join Date: May 2005 Location: Dublin, Ireland Posts: 29,624 Local Time: 02:02 AM	Brillant movie, could have had a better ending but still brillant.