• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Funny review of "War of the Worlds"

Unless you're talking about the novel and not the movie (which is what I'm talking about)...

The tripods themselves were underground for a million years, but the crews were inserted into the tripods via tiny capsules hidden within the lightning bolts, which came from stationary and temporary storms hovering over the tripod burial sites.

The implication to me was that there were ships hidden within the storm dropping the aliens off, and then presumably returning to orbit as the storm faded away.
 
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?


Well, wether that's true or not, a large part of what made the story for me was how everybody and the world around them reacted to the invasion. It just so happens that the technology and the way people lived at the time made for a more entertaining story. The period and the setting actually help in showing that they're against impossible odds due to the contrast in available technology of the aliens vs the people. So wether or not that's what he intended, it surely came across that way to me. It helped give the thing a rooted context. Spielberg's version of the story doesn't have much context, and comes across feeling rather bland as a result.
 
And, as the review shows, what context it does have is nearly always totally absurd or wildly inconsistent.
 
thinking about this movie = ur not suppozed to :p

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. :p;)
I was speaking in character as Spielberg. Your question is entirely legitimate. :bolian:

Ah, gotcha. :)


This topic reminds me that the most unintentionally funny review I ever read of the film came from a nut on my forum who thought the whole movie was an allegory by an ultra-conservative Spielberg (his words) to excuse the invasion of Iraq. I wish it hadn't been pruned, 'cause I can't recall everything, but the guy was making bizarre connections like the fact that there's a liberty bell on the logo of Tom Cruise's Pennzoil box, so that's Spielberg signaling his support for spreading liberty through invasion.

How he wrapped his head around the idea of the aliens being genocidal blood-harvesting idiots as a positive depiction of an invading force is beyond me.
 
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..." :guffaw:
This. Hysterical review. :lol:
 
Unless you're talking about the novel and not the movie (which is what I'm talking about)...

The tripods themselves were underground for a million years, but the crews were inserted into the tripods via tiny capsules hidden within the lightning bolts, which came from stationary and temporary storms hovering over the tripod burial sites.

The implication to me was that there were ships hidden within the storm dropping the aliens off, and then presumably returning to orbit as the storm faded away.

I was talking about the movie, and I forgot that the lightning was shown as inserting the crew. Which makes you quite right.
 
This topic reminds me that the most unintentionally funny review I ever read of the film came from a nut on my forum who thought the whole movie was an allegory by an ultra-conservative Spielberg (his words) to excuse the invasion of Iraq. I wish it hadn't been pruned, 'cause I can't recall everything, but the guy was making bizarre connections like the fact that there's a liberty bell on the logo of Tom Cruise's Pennzoil box, so that's Spielberg signaling his support for spreading liberty through invasion.

How he wrapped his head around the idea of the aliens being genocidal blood-harvesting idiots as a positive depiction of an invading force is beyond me.
Well, as far as all that goes, there's only one thing the movie is "about", and that's 9/11. Al-Qaeda turned Hollywood action movies into reality by attacking our buildings, and Spielberg, for whatever reason, decided to respond by turning that reality into a Hollywood movie. Maybe he wanted to make an emotional time capsule of the experience that future audiences could access without getting bogged down in the historical/political ramifications of the attacks themselves. Maybe it was personal therapy on a mass-media scale. Maybe he didn't have anything else to do and thought it'd be an easy paycheck gig to cook up with his favorite Operating Thetan buddy. Who knows? As a movie, it sucks, but as an emotional depiction of 9/11, with all the confusion and non-consistency we experienced on that day, it's pretty effective - until they get into the cellar, that is, whereupon it becomes total hackwork without purpose or poetry.

The movie should probably have ended with Cruise's son's presumptive death by fire. Had it done so, all the continuity fails could have been ascribed to purposeful authorial subtlety - the old "unreliable narrator" trick. But there's nothing to be made of Cruise's grenade-powered adventure ride... unless, I guess, you count that as Spielby's "America, FUCK YEAH!" moment, which in the context of a 9/11 reflection becomes even more juvenile than usual. :rolleyes:
 
The implication to me was that there were ships hidden within the storm dropping the aliens off, and then presumably returning to orbit as the storm faded away.

The impression I got wasn't that there were ships in the clouds, but that the aliens were transporting through some kind of inter-dimensional wormhole type of thing opening up within the clouds.

Whatever the case, I thought that and the tripod emerging from the street made for a nicely strange and disorienting start for the movie (not to mention a damn cool effect). Much better than the cliche "giant alien ships coming down from the skies" thing once again.

As a movie, it sucks, but as an emotional depiction of 9/11, with all the confusion and non-consistency we experienced on that day, it's pretty effective - until they get into the cellar, that is, whereupon it becomes total hackwork without purpose or poetry.

Still don't understand why people have such a problem with the cellar scene. There may have been some familiar elements to it, but I still found it suspenseful as hell. It sounds to me again like just frustration over being stuck in one room and the audience not being able to see all the "cool action" outside.

Personally I loved that feeling of wondering what the hell's going on outside, and worrying that the crazy guy was going to get them all killed at any moment.
 
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?

Because back when Wells wrote the book, it was a relatively new and fresh idea. These days, the "aliens invade modern day America" film has been done to death, so setting the film in early 20th Century England and staying true to the book would have been more original. As it was, Spielberg played it safe, and we ended up with a weak excuse for a film which brought nothing new to the table and, aside from a few decent special effects, is largely forgettable.
 
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?

Because back when Wells wrote the book, it was a relatively new and fresh idea. These days, the "aliens invade modern day America" film has been done to death, so setting the film in early 20th Century England and staying true to the book would have been more original. As it was, Spielberg played it safe, and we ended up with a weak excuse for a film which brought nothing new to the table and, aside from a few decent special effects, is largely forgettable.


Well said. And maybe I'm being too harsh on the movie, but it ended up feeling ironically enough as being anachronistic compared to the original story as like I said earlier, it seemed largely removed from it, something which I don't feel about the 1953 movie. I think Spielberg's version is that it just feels too different and it loses something for it. There were familiar elements here and there, but the rest was hardly recognizable from the War of the Worlds story.

As for the cellar scene, that was actually one of the recognizable moments from the book. The other was finding his son on the hill, or something to that effect.
 
the ending of the film and book are similar.
in the book the narrator thought his wife dead.. he goes home and finds her.

as for alien ships in orbit..
heck wouldnt they also be wanting the food specialty...
so i suspect they also sickened..

and they may not have a lot of arms..
if so why go and did up the old war machines planted aeons ago??
 
Whatever the case, I thought that and the tripod emerging from the street made for a nicely strange and disorienting start for the movie (not to mention a damn cool effect). Much better than the cliche "giant alien ships coming down from the skies" thing once again.

It's cliché because it makes sense that aliens would attack from outside our planet, which is why it's used repeatedly. Having the tripods be buried underground for a million years, while perhaps cool and unique, doesn't make a damn bit of sense.

Who were the tripods meant to conquer when they were planted a million years ago? Ground sloths? Homo antecessor? Why were they placed in North America when not even proto-humans lived here? Did the aliens see the future, and just not the part where they all die from an infection? Why not just try to inhabit Earth then when there would be a lush planet with untapped resources and no competing intelligent technological species in need of eradication? How did they know where future human population centers would be when they placed the tripods underground (since they were attacking cities immediately, not walking to them and giving advanced warning)? What are the odds of one being placed where it can come up right in the middle of an intersection in Bayonne, New Jersey? How were none of the countless tripods discovered through erosion, tectonic activity, human excavation/infrastructure building, or ground penetrating sensors?

The location of the tripods wouldn't have moved a large distance over the past million years, but certainly enough that the aliens would need homing beacons to so precisely target them as they did. Were those always on (in which case, why couldn't we detect some kind of EM emission?), or did they activate only when the crews were ready to be inserted? If they only activated right then, how do you target wormholes as you suggested above to those precise coordinates without knowing where they were first? You'd likely need a ship to hover over the general area until it triggered the homing beacon and then precise targeting with the whole lightning pod-inserting thingie could happen.

What kind of species fights with million year old technology? Were they in hibernation that whole time or are they really that technologically stagnant? How is it aliens who had that kind of tech so long ago can't detect microbes hostile to their physiology in our ecosystem?

I'll grant that there were some cool and creepy scenes if you turn your brain off and just enjoy the ride, but usually Spielberg is a bit beyond that kind of Michael Bay-level requirement (well, sometimes). The whole movie is composed of scenes crafted to look cool and be menacing that don't make an ounce of sense, like the heat rays that destroy everything but clothes, or the train that was incinerated by the beams that impart heat and force, yet still remains on the tracks.
 
i have to admit the whole tripods left in the ground makes no sense at all.
and yeah at some point some of them should have been discovered.

it would be nice to someday have someone with money sense and style actually do the book.

would love to see the thunderchild battle.
 
And maybe I'm being too harsh on the movie, but it ended up feeling ironically enough as being anachronistic compared to the original story as like I said earlier, it seemed largely removed from it, something which I don't feel about the 1953 movie. I think Spielberg's version is that it just feels too different and it loses something for it. There were familiar elements here and there, but the rest was hardly recognizable from the War of the Worlds story.

If Spielberg wanted to set the story in the present-day, I'm fine with that. Here's my problem - why the need to set in the United States? Did Spielberg honestly believe that American audiences simply would not accept a movie with main characters who are British and a setting in Britain itself? The exact same thing was done with the latest film version of The Time Machine - they set it in New York for no particular reason. I just do not understand this.

Look at what District 9 did. I have my problems with that movie, but one thing it did EXTRAORDINARILY well is that it was set in South Africa. What a refreshing change that was to have an "aliens on Earth" movie that didn't have the mother-ship hovering over New York City or Washington D.C.
 
^^ Spielberg probably just wanted to do the movie with Cruise, so that meant either an American setting or Cruise doing a Cockney accent...
 
And maybe I'm being too harsh on the movie, but it ended up feeling ironically enough as being anachronistic compared to the original story as like I said earlier, it seemed largely removed from it, something which I don't feel about the 1953 movie. I think Spielberg's version is that it just feels too different and it loses something for it. There were familiar elements here and there, but the rest was hardly recognizable from the War of the Worlds story.

If Spielberg wanted to set the story in the present-day, I'm fine with that. Here's my problem - why the need to set in the United States? Did Spielberg honestly believe that American audiences simply would not accept a movie with main characters who are British and a setting in Britain itself? The exact same thing was done with the latest film version of The Time Machine - they set it in New York for no particular reason. I just do not understand this.

Look at what District 9 did. I have my problems with that movie, but one thing it did EXTRAORDINARILY well is that it was set in South Africa. What a refreshing change that was to have an "aliens on Earth" movie that didn't have the mother-ship hovering over New York City or Washington D.C.


Yeah, that's a very good point. I don't have a problem with the movie having been set in present day, but rather, I think we can all agree that the movie lost a lot in translation somewhere down the road, so I think it's more a problem of the presentation and the adaptation of the story than it being set in present day. And maybe like you point out, part of it has something to do with the change in location? I know it shouldn't, but somehow it does.

And yeah, I loved District 19 because of that. It's what made the movie really interesting.
 
Just to expand on one of the points Locutus made; where the bacteria aspect of the film falls apart is in the notion that the invaders had been here before.

In the original book, the invaders had remained isolated from Earth, and had only been able to see and study our planet from across space. This gave them a limited understanding of our planet and how it worked. That, coupled with the fact that they had eliminated harmful bacteria from their planet so long ago that it wasn't even something that entered into their minds, made it somewhat more plausible that they wouldn't have any way of dealing with our bacteria once they were exposed to it.
With Spielberg's film, they'd already visited this planet before, which means they would have encountered Earth bacteria and had the same problems then. So why didn't they find a way to counter it?

Also, I wanted to add that, for me, Dakota Fanning makes this film largely unwatchable. I'd never advocate harming a kid, but when I saw this film, every time she opened her mouth to speak or scream, I wanted to bust through the screen and kick her in the face. Especially during that tantrum scene in the car when she wants her mum.

Spielberg dropped the ball on this one. Big time. Given his level of skill, and the money and resources at his disposal, he could have made a fantastic period piece that was true to the book and would probably be talked about (positively) for many years to come. Unfortunately, he went for the safe option and we ended up with a boring, by-the-numbers, poorly thought out invasion film, set yet again in the US, because no self-respecting alien bothers trying to conquer those other insignificant land masses on the planet. :rolleyes:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top