Funny review of "War of the Worlds"

[RandyS]

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.

Actually, George Pal's is the best version in movie form so far. But I agree, nobody's done the book justice. At least, in movie form. Lenoard Nimoy and John De Lancie did a pretty good adaption.

 

[Owain Taggart]

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.

Agreed 100%. Her character is one of the most pointless and annoying characters in movies. She was terrible. I know it intended to show how scary everything was to a kid, hell, to anyone, but it came across as annoying. I kind of wish Spielberg would have taken a page from Jurassic Park. The kids in that were terrified, but they were also quiet and knew their place, even in the face of danger. So, yeah, she was easily one of the worst things about the movie. And I've always found her rather creepy as an actress. Even at a young age, when doing interviews, she'd talk more like an adult rather than a kid making her sound disconcerting.

That Pendagron Pictures version I mentioned earlier is an actual page per page literal translation of the book, which is why it's so long. It's the most accurate to date, but the production values are terrible. Still, despite that, I prefer it to Spielberg's version. And I know it's technically not a period piece, but sometimes things just do so well the way they are. The historical context helps serve contrast to the overall situation. Watching them trying to overcome their odds with canons rather than modern jet fighters and other modern weapons is more entertaining.

Here's an idea. If they wanted to move the story to America, they could have set it during the Civil War, with sides coming together to combat the invasion. The backdrop and technology needed to tell the story is there, much like the technology available in the book. That would have made for a more entertaining version of the story set in America, without it feeling anachronistic.

 

[Servo]

That Pendagron Pictures version I mentioned earlier is an actual page per page literal translation of the book, which is why it's so long. It's the most accurate to date, but the production values are terrible. Still, despite that, I prefer it to Spielberg's version. And I know it's technically not a period piece, but sometimes things just do so well the way they are. The historical context helps serve contrast to the overall situation. Watching them trying to overcome their odds with canons rather than modern jet fighters and other modern weapons is more entertaining.

Here's an idea. If they wanted to move the story to America, they could have set it during the Civil War, with sides coming together to combat the invasion. The backdrop and technology needed to tell the story is there, much like the technology available in the book. That would have made for a more entertaining version of the story set in America, without it feeling anachronistic.

I always thought it would be cool to see a version of WotW that heavily drew upon the designs from Jeff Wayne's musical version. Setting it in the intended Victorian era, with the steampunk inspired design of the martian tripods would look magnificent on the big screen with todays special effects, and would certainly set it apart from all the numerous alien invasion films that are already out there. I suppose the closest we'll get to that is the animated version of the musical, although that has been in development hell since 2004, so god only knows when, or if, we'll ever see that.

 

[Gaith]

If they wanted to move the story to America, they could have set it during the Civil War, with sides coming together to combat the invasion. The backdrop and technology needed to tell the story is there, much like the technology available in the book. That would have made for a more entertaining version of the story set in America, without it feeling anachronistic.

Wow, THIS.

 

[Sephiroth]

the reviewer is right, this movie is about a douchebag trying to palm his 'tarded kids off on his ex-wife and having a damned hard time doing it, I could have enjoyed this movie the way it was if Cruise's character, in the face of a life changing event realized the true value of what he lost and the film was his personal quest to re-unite his broken family, but you never got any sense of that throughout the whole film, he just wanted to get rid of the kids

 

[Owain Taggart]

If they wanted to move the story to America, they could have set it during the Civil War, with sides coming together to combat the invasion. The backdrop and technology needed to tell the story is there, much like the technology available in the book. That would have made for a more entertaining version of the story set in America, without it feeling anachronistic.

Wow, THIS.

Glad you like the idea

Just thought of something else. You know the hill in the story? Going with my Civil War idea, it could easily be the famous hill in Gettysburg. Considering we see that hill near the end of the story, it would make for a great climax scene. And what better way than to have the soldier be from the other side, making his way through enemy lines, and on his way to Gettysburg. This gives the character a purpose, and I think that's another problem the Spielberg movie had. Tom Cruise's character had no sense of purpose whatsoever. I forget if the book's main character was a soldier or just a regular guy trying to survive, but I know he meets a soldier at some point, which the movie replaced with the crazy guy in the bunker. Anyhow, make him a soldier. Soldier meets soldier, and they're from opposite sides.

 

[Servo]

the reviewer is right, this movie is about a douchebag trying to palm his 'tarded kids off on his ex-wife and having a damned hard time doing it, I could have enjoyed this movie the way it was if Cruise's character, in the face of a life changing event realized the true value of what he lost and the film was his personal quest to re-unite his broken family, but you never got any sense of that throughout the whole film, he just wanted to get rid of the kids

I can actually sympathise with that. If Dakota Fanning was my kid, I'd want to get rid of her too.

I forget if the book's main character was a soldier or just a regular guy trying to survive, but I know he meets a soldier at some point, which the movie replaced with the crazy guy in the bunker.

In the book, the narrator is a journalist. But yeah, he does meet an artilleryman along the way. He isn't crazy when the journalist first meets him, but he damn sure is later on. Although he's not as much a crazy survivalist as the Tim Robbins character.

Anyhow, make him a soldier. Soldier meets soldier, and they're from opposite sides.

No offense, but the whole "they're enemies, but they must work together to battle through adversity" thing is almost as contrived and overdone as the "aliens invade America" thing. There's no real need to change the basic premise. Have the main character be a war correspondent, and have him meet soldiers from both sides along the way.

 

[Goji]

The movie is absolutely full of holes and makes no sense. I also absolutely don't care. It's entertaining and succeeds at making the alien invasion genuinely frightening in a way no other modern take on the genre has. Mostly we get glib shoot-'em-ups like Independence Day, and when the '05 War of the Worlds briefly turned into that at the end it admittedly lost me, but in keeping the ending of the original novel it avoided the worst of that kind of thing.

As for the original novel, well, I love it. But I see no need for an ultra faithful adaption of it. Actually, that's true for anything I like. I don't necessarily need to have it ported over exactly into another medium. It works as a book and is a classic. Any movie that uses the title is going to be different, and really ought to be.

Out of all the major productions to carry the title "War of the Worlds", these days I like the 1953 movie the least. I don't know. I liked it as a child. I still love tons of 1950s scifi and horror movies, and count many of them as my favorite movies of all time (like Forbidden Planet, Thing From Another World, Village of the Damned, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers for starters). I even love the other George Pal HG Wells movie, The Time Machine. But the '53 War of the Worlds, despite having the definitive and iconic design of the Martian War Machines, is mostly pretty dull. It comes alive in a few places, like the first appearance of the Martians and the scene in the farmhouse. That's about it, and the finale in the church is so overblown as to be comical. It hasn't stood up, at least to me. I enjoy the book and the '05 remake, flaws and all, much more.

 

[Locutus of Bored]

the reviewer is right, this movie is about a douchebag trying to palm his 'tarded kids off on his ex-wife and having a damned hard time doing it, I could have enjoyed this movie the way it was if Cruise's character, in the face of a life changing event realized the true value of what he lost and the film was his personal quest to re-unite his broken family, but you never got any sense of that throughout the whole film, he just wanted to get rid of the kids

I can actually sympathise with that. If Dakota Fanning was my kid, I'd want to get rid of her too.

At least they made the other kid annoying and unlikeable too for the sake of consistency. And to think, Tom Cruise's character thought he had nothing in common with his kids.

 

[Servo]

As for the original novel, well, I love it. But I see no need for an ultra faithful adaption of it. Actually, that's true for anything I like. I don't necessarily need to have it ported over exactly into another medium. It works as a book and is a classic. Any movie that uses the title is going to be different, and really ought to be.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Alien invasion films are 10-a-penny these days, and they all follow pretty much the exact same formula from beginning to end. No-one is saying word for word, ultra faithful here, but making an adaptation of the book which adhered to the original time period would be a hell of a lot more fresh and original than just another "aliens blow shit up in the US" blockbuster.

Exactly how many alien invasion films can you think of that aren't set in modern day America? Assuming you can actually think of any off the top of your head, weigh that number against how many are set in modern day America. Did we really need another one like the Spielberg adaptation? Did that film bring anything new to the table?

At least they made the other kid annoying and unlikeable too for the sake of consistency. And to think, Tom Cruise's character thought he had nothing in common with his kids.

 

[Goji]

I suppose I don't see how changing the setting would make it automatically better. It'd be different, yeah. But it still wouldn't be the same as the book, and my problems with both of the mainstream adaptations we've got are not the result of there being other works too similar to them already in existence.

As far as Hollywood alien invasion films go, the '05 War of the Worlds is one of the more entertaining in recent memory, though it is still quite seriously flawed. It isn't as HG Wells originally wrote it, no, but speaking for myself only I didn't need it to be. Less Dakota Fanning and a more plausible invasion strategy by the aliens would have been sweet, though.

 

[Servo]

I suppose I don't see how changing the setting would make it automatically better. It'd be different, yeah. But it still wouldn't be the same as the book, and my problems with both of the mainstream adaptations we've got are not the result of there being other works too similar to them already in existence.

As far as Hollywood alien invasion films go, the '05 War of the Worlds is one of the more entertaining in recent memory, though it is still quite seriously flawed. It isn't as HG Wells originally wrote it, no, but speaking for myself only I didn't need it to be. Less Dakota Fanning and a more plausible invasion strategy by the aliens would have been sweet, though.

But that's kind of my point; the '05 version just felt like another alien invasion film. It wasn't The War of the Worlds.

And it's not necessarily the fact that there are too many similar works in existence, it's that this adaptation brought nothing new to the table. What's the point in making a film called War of the Worlds, if you're just going to make a generic alien invasion film? At least try and do something different or interesting with it. Who knows, maybe it would have been better recieved if George Pal hadn't already come up with the idea of giving WotW a contemporary American setting over 50 years earlier. What we ended up with was Spielberg saying "Hey, I know I'm late to the party, but look at what I can do with CGI, Tom Cruise, and a fucking annoying kid!".

 

[Owain Taggart]

In the book, the narrator is a journalist. But yeah, he does meet an artilleryman along the way. He isn't crazy when the journalist first meets him, but he damn sure is later on. Although he's not as much a crazy survivalist as the Tim Robbins character.

Thanks for confirming it. I guess I was remembering the soldier more than I did the actual character.

No offense, but the whole "they're enemies, but they must work together to battle through adversity" thing is almost as contrived and overdone as the "aliens invade America" thing. There's no real need to change the basic premise. Have the main character be a war correspondent, and have him meet soldiers from both sides along the way.

That works. I'd go with that. Gives it a sense of depth, perhaps even moreso than the original story.

 

[TtotheC]

Y'know what really bothered me about the film? No epic show down ala Thunderchild vs the Tripods. Apart from being the best part of the musical version, it was also the indication that even man's best inventions were ultimately useless against the martians. It also made a very subtle point that not many people seem to pick up on - there were other warships waiting in deeper water to escort the steamer to safety. Which indicates that either the Martians couldn't cross the sea, or wouldn't due to fear of losses.

See, even in the book and the musical the Martians weren't invulnerable like they are in the films. The Thunderchild managed to destroy three of them before she was sunk by the heatwave, and even turn of the century artillery managed to claim one or two. But the film depicts them as utterly unstoppable due to shielding. See, with the industrialisation of warfare and the advancement in weapons technology, it becomes ludicrous that unshielded Martians are capable of defeating humanity. Personally it's why I find WotW doesn't work so well in a modern setting.

Especially as the novel was actually a criticism of British imperialism, showing what it was like for the British to have the tables turned on them as being the indigenous population up against a technologically superior foe. It's also why the book never deals with other nations fighting the tripods, or even mentions them as having struck other cities outside of Great Britain.

 

[Owain Taggart]

See, even in the book and the musical the Martians weren't invulnerable like they are in the films. The Thunderchild managed to destroy three of them before she was sunk by the heatwave, and even turn of the century artillery managed to claim one or two. But the film depicts them as utterly unstoppable due to shielding. See, with the industrialisation of warfare and the advancement in weapons technology, it becomes ludicrous that unshielded Martians are capable of defeating humanity. Personally it's why I find WotW doesn't work so well in a modern setting.

Yeah, good point. It's kind of why I prefer the older technology as it shows more of a contrast in the struggle. Too modern, and it loses that impact. Also good point about the win against the technologically superior. The movie really butchered that aspect. It just seemed so mundane the way it ended. Tom Cruise's character seemed to be running away most of the time and sleeping when he wasn't, and there wasn't any real connection between anything or anywhere where he went; basically madly off in all directions. In the book, you had the letters and transmissions and the news people got about the situation tieing events together that painted the overall war over the martians.

 

[Itisnotlogical]

I would watch the movie again if every scene involving those damn kids was removed. I hate them. It's like trying to watch a really cool science fiction movie while your idiotic oldest son whines about how much he wants to join the military, and your neurotic younger daughter complains about whatever she damn well pleases and screams all the while.

 

[Harvey]

I don't mind the kids so much as the completely stupid third act. Suddenly Cruise can take down the aliens with a few grenades? You would think the military would have thought about that one. And don't get me started on the kid who was firebombed appearing in Boston without a scratch, or the fact that Boston appears entirely unscathed. And, of course, the disease ending doesn't worked when it's so far removed from the original novel.