Funny review of "War of the Worlds"

[JacksonArcher]

I stumbled upon this funny review of Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds that hilariously and expertly points out the film's flaws and errors.

Similar to Red Letter Media and their reviews (particularly of the Star Wars prequels), this review features a critic who thoroughly dissects the film and explores all of the film's problems. There are some funny tidbits in there as well that you don't normally see in Red Letter Media's reviews, like animated sequences and other such hilarious additives.

I highly recommend you check it out. I was never a big fan of Spielberg's updating of the story, but this review really does a great job at nitpicking exactly why the film was so flawed and mediocre in the first place.

 

[Gaith]

A very well-done review, though it sagged a bit towards the end, and it seems that his other "Bad Movie Theatre" reviews so far are all of way-too-easy targets (The Island, really? Because Michael Bay keeps getting critical adulation that has to be toned down a notch?). Thanks for the link; overall, I really enjoyed it.

... And what a terrible movie that was! Gah!

 

[Ethros]

Does anyone really need to read a review to point the flaws and nitpicks of that film?
Just watch it. They're fairly obvious.

 

[Davros]

Does anyone really need to read a review to point the flaws and nitpicks of that film?
Just watch it. They're fairly obvious.

But that would involve having to sit through that piece of garbage.

 

[God Magnus]

Wow, that was awesome. I never saw the flick so I had no idea there were so many weak points in it. The clothing/camera thing almost had me in tears, and his "theory" on why the aliens waited to invade was pure win.

 

[Klaus]

Using music from Jeff Wayne's version was a very nice touch.

 

[davejames]

Well I still love it. This just sounds like the same tired complaints about not getting to see some Big, Epic, Bay-style War movie with tons of special effects and War Machines blowing shit up for 2 hours.

Granted, the movie has it's flaws (primarily the ending), but I would have thought scifi fans, of all people, would have completely geeked out at the idea of experiencing an alien invasion entirely from the ground, as if it were really happening (and which, by the way, is the EXACT same, limited perspective we're given in the book), but apparently I'm the only one.

 

[Klaus]

I didn't hate it either, and [sacrilege alert! ] it's no worse than the George Pal cheese-fest imho... no one's done the book justice yet.

 

[Gaith]

Granted, the movie has it's flaws (primarily the ending), but I would have thought scifi fans, of all people, would have completely geeked out at the idea of experiencing an alien invasion entirely from the ground, as if it were really happening (and which, by the way, is the EXACT same, limited perspective we're given in the book), but apparently I'm the only one.

I actually enjoyed that aspect too, and disagreed with the review on that one point. But the execution of that neat idea was unarguably disastrous.

 

[Admiral Shran]

Excellent review - with one exception. What's the problem with Dakota Fanning? As far as I'm concerned, she's the only good thing about the movie. Is his gripe just that she screams a lot? I mean, she's a kid facing aliens who are trying to kill her and her family - of course she's going to scream like a banshee, not sit down and have a philosophical discussion with them on Aristotelian logic.

Very good points about the son though. I remember seeing this movie in the theater and rejoicing when I thought he was dead.

 

[Owain Taggart]

Granted, the movie has it's flaws (primarily the ending), but I would have thought scifi fans, of all people, would have completely geeked out at the idea of experiencing an alien invasion entirely from the ground, as if it were really happening (and which, by the way, is the EXACT same, limited perspective we're given in the book), but apparently I'm the only one.

I actually enjoyed that aspect too, and disagreed with the review on that one point. But the execution of that neat idea was unarguably disastrous.

Yeah, I disliked the movie quite a bit. I think the big problem for me was the location and setting. It felt too, I dunno...disconnected from the original story? While setting it in present day was maybe a good idea on paper, and I admit, the 1953 movie did the same thing, it just felt too far removed from the story it was trying to tell, and I missed seeing the rich period history of the original. I feel the period history of the book adds depth to the underlying conflict.

The tone of the movie was relentless to the point that I felt it was more of a horror movie than a good sci-fi.

 

[davejames]

I don't deny the characters aren't the most charming or likeable ever (although why must they be?), and it's possible there are other kinds of characters that might have worked better. But personally I thought it was kind of refreshing not to have to follow around a scientist or soldier or someone who just magically has an answer to the whole thing at the end.

It's just an everyday guy and his broken family desperately trying to survive an alien invasion. I thought that was a unique thing to see, and kind of a brave choice by Spielberg.

 

[davejames]

The tone of the movie was relentless to the point that I felt it was more of a horror movie than a good sci-fi.

Actually that's kind of the feel I get from the book. It's only the '53 movie that really felt like straight scifi to me.

I DEFINITELY agree it would be cool to see a more period-faithful translation of the book someday though.

 

[TtotheC]

It's actually makes me want to see the film done from the Martians' POV. Those two scenes into the missing half an hour and the alternative introduction were simply borderline comedy genius.

"I don't like where this is going..."

 

[Owain Taggart]

The tone of the movie was relentless to the point that I felt it was more of a horror movie than a good sci-fi.

Actually that's kind of the feel I get from the book. It's only the '53 movie that really felt like straight scifi to me.

I DEFINITELY agree it would be cool to see a more period-faithful translation of the book someday though.

Actually, there is one, but it's rather low-budget, not to mention very long. The special effects are aweful, but I still count it as one of my favourite versions as it's pretty accurate at portraying the book.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/

 

[Gaith]

It's just an everyday guy and his broken family desperately trying to survive an alien invasion. I thought that was a unique thing to see, and kind of a brave choice by Spielberg.

But the thing is, that's a concept, not a story. There's nothing easier than coming up with a cool concept - just think of basic character and a weird situation. Where Spielberg utterly failed was in finding a story worth spending two hours in. Just as Wells' story was a novella, not a novel, this movie could have made a fantastic hour-long short, but by stretching it to nearly two hours, Spielberg the storyteller failed harder than Charlie Sheen at his latest rehab.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

The thing that bothered me about the ending is that, shouldn't there still be an entire fleet of alien ships in orbit with either aliens who haven't been exposed to Earth's bacteria or computers that can still execute an attack or kamikaze mission via remote on the orders of the dying tripod crews?

I seriously doubt they crossed interplanetary (if they stick with them being from Mars) or interstellar distances in those tiny pods, considering they were so curious/stir crazy that they hopped naked out of the tripods and started exploring the first chance they got. Plus, something had to do the storms/lightning poddroppers/EMP around the world.

The only logical conclusion I can draw from the ending is that it's a brief lull while the aliens in orbit take stock of what happened, and then they'll fuck Earth's shit up out of revenge.

 

[Gaith]

thinking about this movie = ur not suppozed to

 

[Locutus of Bored]

thinking about this movie = ur not suppozed to

Considering you seemed to like the review in the OP, which largely focuses on pointing out logical flaws in the film, that's a strange comment.

 

[Stevil2001]

Yeah, I disliked the movie quite a bit. I think the big problem for me was the location and setting. It felt too, I dunno...disconnected from the original story? While setting it in present day was maybe a good idea on paper, and I admit, the 1953 movie did the same thing, it just felt too far removed from the story it was trying to tell, and I missed seeing the rich period history of the original. I feel the period history of the book adds depth to the underlying conflict.

The original novel isn't a "period piece" in the slightest; published in 1897, but actually set in the early 20th century, Wells was trying to write a tale of what would happen if aliens invaded contemporary Britain. He spent a lot of time and effort in getting the "verisimilitude" just right. Why should a modern adaptation do otherwise?

I seriously doubt they crossed interplanetary (if they stick with them being from Mars) or interstellar distances in those tiny pods, considering they were so curious/stir crazy that they hopped naked out of the tripods and started exploring the first chance they got. Plus, something had to do the storms/lightning poddroppers/EMP around the world.

The only logical conclusion I can draw from the ending is that it's a brief lull while the aliens in orbit take stock of what happened, and then they'll fuck Earth's shit up out of revenge.

I think the idea is that the cylinders were underground for a long time, and they suddenly all came up. (Why, I don't know.) But there's not supposed to be a mothership.