War of the Worlds

[PhunkPhorce]

Originally posted by bsp77


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.

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.

[bsp77]

Originally posted by PhunkPhorce


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]

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-.

[deep]

Originally posted by U2@NYC
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-.

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

[U2girl]

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)

[U2@NYC]

Originally posted by U2girl
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)

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]

Originally posted by deep




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

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.

[U2girl]

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. )

[U2girl]

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!

[impy13]

"Dad, I HAVE to see this!"


Riiiiiight

[U2@NYC]

Originally posted by U2girl
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 working 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. )

Good point... I guess there was only one open mechanic...

[TheQuiet1]

I've just got back from seeing this film and it was OK (certainly not terrible) but I think that given this is a Spielberg picture, it could have been better.

Don't get me wrong the special effects were AMAZING and the dramatic set pieces were very well done (the river scene for example) but I just felt that because a lot of the film felt 'plotless' (they're running away from monsters that they can't defeat, they keep on running, then they hide, then they run, you get the picture but intersperse all this with set pieces of people dying) I wasn't responding to the set pieces as powerfully as I should because if Tom Cruise were to die it would be no greater loss to the film's plot than say, the mechanic. I agree that I didn't want Tom to be a 'Tom C saves the world' character but why should I care about him more than anyone else? I know that doesn't make any sense but I know what I mean.

Stuff I disliked:

1. Robbie may be but come on! The whole "dad, I gotta see this" whilst all that stuff's happening with the sister? Please...

2. The idiotic way people behave at points in the film. Eg. I'll just tell my daughter to come and stand out here in a thunderstorm.

3. When they're in the cage thing they let all the other humans get eaten but when it's Tom Cruise's turn they'll all like "NO!!!!! Not Tom with cute daughter, we must save him!!!!!".

4. The ending...I watched all the way to the end for THAT?! A three second explanation that didn't give me any details and I don't wanna spoil the ending for anyone but let's just say I didn't find it particularly likely. (for the same reasons as bsp77 and agree with U2@NYC about the quickness of it)

5. Half of my 95p bag of malteasers melted during the first 10 minutes of the film...

Things I liked:

1. The no-expense spared production.
2. That little girl can act, probably the best performer in the film.
3. The humour (baseball through window etc)

So like I said at the start, it was by no means bad but it could have been so much better. And if I've revealed a crucial plotline and ruined someone's enjoyment of the film then I'm sooooo sorry, please forgive me!

Also agree about the rating, 12A?! A 15 would perhaps have been more appropriate, though kids these days...etc

[Saracene]

Finally saw the movie yesterday. Overall, I really liked it and thought that as a disaster film it was intense as hell. Dakota Fanning was amazing. Tom Cruise was serviceable playing what was basically a "type" rather than a real character. (Has anyone noticed BTW how often Tom Cruise plays a character who achieves some sort of redemption by the end of the film? Jerry Maguire, Last Smaurai etc.) I can't say I was all that touched by all the family going-on though, I especially couldn't care less if the teenage son lived or died.

I agree that the ending is way too abrupt. I don't think that "that's how it went in the book" is much of an excuse - a film has to work by itself as a film and not fall back on the book. If they even gave an inkling of what was to come it would have been much better.