Film Score Monthly
FSM HOME MESSAGE BOARD FSM CDs FSM ONLINE RESOURCES FUN STUFF ABOUT US  SEARCH FSM   
Search Terms: 
Search Within:   search tips 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
 Posted:   May 29, 2014 - 8:35 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

I wouldn't say I disliked WOTW. It's just that Spielberg uprooted the story and transplanted it to home turf in the wake of Lockerbie and 9-11. I think I can understand the underlying reasons for it. But that's not the story as it was written even though he worked very hard to cleverly underpin it with structural elements left over from the original.

Personal opinion following, watch your step: I agree with your assessment here. I do think you could make a great WOTW without it being in Victorian London like the original book: obviously it just requires talent to transpose the material and update it. (And hopefully the original material "survives" said updating! Often times it doesn't: look at that horrible remake of The Omen!)

And in light of America's paranoia and obsession with post-9/11 things, WOTW could make an great, timely analogy of what the common people are going through. Unfortunately, its all but ignored aside from the daughter screeching "IS IT THE TERRORISTS?!" during the initial attack. It should've had "more" (though without clanging hammer to anvil in obviousness) and it seemed to want to skirt the issue while also painting the walls with it. Ex: A plane crashes because of alien forces but... thats it. Completely arbitrary in terms of storytelling.

Unfortunately, its a lot of missed opportunity.

 
 Posted:   May 29, 2014 - 8:54 AM   
 By:   Ron Pulliam   (Member)

There was nothing remotely missed in WOTW, LeHah. The terrorists line was for a laugh, nothing more.

Anyone who thought "terrorists" might have been a viable ploy for the story arc (even as a red herring) would totally have missed the rising-from-the-ground of the alien machines.

If those are terrorists -- and what war-making -mongering hordes aren't -- then so be it. But they're ALIENS first and foremost.

What was MOST refreshing about WOTW was the lack of some scientific nerd or preachy official speculating upon what might be happening and who was responsible. We saw the events unfolding as in real life...and without everyone running to the TV or internet to validate what is right outside their doors.

It's a race for life vs. death. Who is going to be speculating about whether it's terrorists or not when one sees people dusted?

 
 
 Posted:   May 29, 2014 - 9:11 AM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)


War of the Worlds looks terrible, similar to Minority Report, terrible. Kaminski later proved himself capable of something other than washed out grey and brown and overexposed light sources, War Horse was gorgeously shot.

The last scene is War Horse is pure music and image poetry.



 
 
 Posted:   May 29, 2014 - 10:57 AM   
 By:   dan the man   (Member)

TO RON PULLIAM- Good point- ALIENS FIRST.

 
 Posted:   May 29, 2014 - 1:38 PM   
 By:   Grecchus   (Member)

This notion of not needing WOTW to be set in an Edwardian/Victorian period is fine. They can push us into the ground as they please. Spielberg's vision is chock-full of the notion that no matter how bad they are, we are just as bad in our treatment of each other, if not worse. The unhuman martians are almost a side-show to indicate man's inhumanity to man. I count at least two allusions to Kristallnacht in the film, where it's not the martians themselves who are the immediate danger. For instance, in the scene where the martians are in the basement, the foremost problem is of two men not being on the same page even when their mutual survival is at stake! By contrast, the martians are seen to act co-operatively with one another at all times. It makes us look worse in the light of the third-party ET occupation on our own planet. The martians may be the ultimate enemy but they have greater interactive purity than we do. The message I read is we are unworthy because we can do a lot better, but don't when the need to do so reaches criticality because of this utterly encrusted selfish inner trait. It's almost a shame they lost.

In the original WOTW it is strictly us versus them with no blurring of the lines as in the original 'transplanted' movie. Maybe Spielberg's offering of War Horse was as an apology to offset the time and place from WOTW by the correct placement of all things and settings - english. wink And yes, I loved the opening to WH with that flight over the rolling hills of Devon.

 
 Posted:   May 29, 2014 - 1:49 PM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)


What was MOST refreshing about WOTW was the lack of some scientific nerd or preachy official speculating upon what might be happening and who was responsible. We saw the events unfolding as in real life...and without everyone running to the TV or internet to validate what is right outside their doors.


Good point. And it would have been more refreshing if it didn't have the typical dysfunctional family, slacker father, a-hole son and screaming little sister. wink

 
 
 Posted:   May 29, 2014 - 1:55 PM   
 By:   Ado   (Member)


What was MOST refreshing about WOTW was the lack of some scientific nerd or preachy official speculating upon what might be happening and who was responsible. We saw the events unfolding as in real life...and without everyone running to the TV or internet to validate what is right outside their doors.


Good point. And it would have been more refreshing if it didn't have the typical dysfunctional family, slacker father, a-hole son and screaming little sister. wink


Yeah, I recall the son being especially debbie-downer self pitying annoying jerk, which of course we have to see redeemed to a decent son in the end.

 
 Posted:   May 30, 2014 - 5:22 AM   
 By:   Warlok   (Member)

I agree with Thomas - Amistad. The lawyer for the government and J. Q. Adams particularly were brilliant. Everyone in that film did exceptionally. As good as Lincoln.

Munich? Eeehhh... interesting, sure, realistic, sure. Very entertaining? Perhaps not so much.

 
 
 Posted:   May 30, 2014 - 5:36 AM   
 By:   Tall Guy   (Member)


Good point. And it would have been more refreshing if it didn't have the typical dysfunctional family, slacker father, a-hole son and screaming little sister. wink



I thought Tom Cruise was actually very good in this. I liked his portrayal of Ray very much. Unfortunately, as soon as he turns up in the extras as himself I can't stand him again. I suppose that makes him a good actor.

 
 Posted:   May 30, 2014 - 5:45 AM   
 By:   Warlok   (Member)


Good point. And it would have been more refreshing if it didn't have the typical dysfunctional family, slacker father, a-hole son and screaming little sister. wink



I thought Tom Cruise was actually very good in this. I liked his portrayal of Ray very much. Unfortunately, as soon as he turns up in the extras as himself I can't stand him again. I suppose that makes him a good actor.


Yes, very good. The son character was agonizingly, annoyingly stupid. He *should* have died. I would have cheered. Happy ending. The End.

 
 Posted:   May 30, 2014 - 8:39 AM   
 By:   LeHah   (Member)

There was nothing remotely missed in WOTW, LeHah. The terrorists line was for a laugh, nothing more.

Anyone who thought "terrorists" might have been a viable ploy for the story arc (even as a red herring) would totally have missed the rising-from-the-ground of the alien machines.

If those are terrorists -- and what war-making -mongering hordes aren't -- then so be it. But they're ALIENS first and foremost.


Oh I'm not implying that the PLOT involve terrortists - I'm saying as a functional analogy of post-9/11 America's paranoia.

The message I read is we are unworthy because we can do a lot better, but don't when the need to do so reaches criticality because of this utterly encrusted selfish inner trait. It's almost a shame they lost.

This is a very interesting notion. I'll have to rewatch the film with that in mind...

 
 Posted:   May 30, 2014 - 8:49 AM   
 By:   Solium   (Member)


Good point. And it would have been more refreshing if it didn't have the typical dysfunctional family, slacker father, a-hole son and screaming little sister. wink



I thought Tom Cruise was actually very good in this. I liked his portrayal of Ray very much. Unfortunately, as soon as he turns up in the extras as himself I can't stand him again. I suppose that makes him a good actor.


Yes, very good. The son character was agonizingly, annoyingly stupid. He *should* have died. I would have cheered. Happy ending. The End.


Apart from the annoying family I actually liked the film. SFX were used for dramatic effect and not over used. The camera stayed on the effects shots, and when they were shown they were magnificent. No shaky cam. Awesome sound design. The morbid feeling of dread from an alien invasion was far more convincing and consistent than the morbid feeling of dread from a monster invasion in the latest Zilla movie.

 
 Posted:   May 30, 2014 - 12:45 PM   
 By:   Accidental Genius   (Member)

War Of The Worlds. The film sadly got chewed up in the wake of ... idiotic complaints about how "the son should have died!"

Much as I loved the film, the complaints about how the son should have died are absolutely not idiotic in any way. The character runs off rather suddenly into a no-win/no-survive situation and we see him alive at the end. We've invested absolutely 0% in whether or not he lives or dies after this point and he just pops up at the end. No build-up, no tension, no explanation. If we had followed any of his struggles after he enters the battle--even a build-up of tension as to whether or not he lives or dies at some point, coupled with at least a bit of plausibility or belief that the character does (or has the ability to do) something to warrant our confidence in him possibly living--then the reveal of him being alive at the end of the film wouldn't have been so laughable. And by laughable, I mean literally almost everyone in a packed theatre laughed when they saw him alive at the end - not, I'd reckon, the reaction Spielberg was looking for. At best it was a clumsy piece of storytelling in, for me, an otherwise wonderfully told story.

You can deem these complaints idiotic, but when they are shared by the majority of critically thinking filmgoers who love to wax poetic about their favourite movies, perhaps "idiotic" isn't the right word. You may disagree with that view, but it is not necessarily idiotic because you do. razz

 
 
 Posted:   May 30, 2014 - 8:15 PM   
 By:   dan the man   (Member)

Night galley-69- one tale with Joan Crawford from that feature length film

 
 Posted:   Jun 1, 2014 - 6:18 PM   
 By:   Ron Hardcastle   (Member)

Mr. Jack: Re your War Of The Worlds. The film sadly got chewed up in the wake of Tom Cruise's couch-jumping antics and idiotic complaints about how "the son should have died!", and yet it's filled with spellbinding passages, genuine terror and some of the best sound design of the last decade. And Cruise delivers one of his best performances. Watch it again...it's a lot better than people give it credit for.

I totally agree and was going to post something, until I saw that you had already covered this one. It's always been a great showpiece for my widescreen and surround system, and I didn't hesitate to upgrade my DVD to Blu-ray when they brought it out -- usually turn the volume way up when the machines are emerging from beneath the street and it really shakes the room. And I've always been surprised by the many people who seem to hate it. But not some of us! (One quibble: Justin Chatwin as Cruise's insolent son -- I often fast forward through some of his scenes. I liked Chatwin in the sometimes annoying "Shameless" on Showtime, but wanted the aliens to get him in this one! And Dakota Fanning as the screeching daughter is ALSO very annoying!)

 
 Posted:   Jun 1, 2014 - 6:21 PM   
 By:   Octoberman   (Member)

... usually turn the volume way up when the machines are emerging from beneath the street and it really shakes the room.


TREMENDOUS sound design on that entire sequence.

 
 Posted:   Jun 1, 2014 - 6:22 PM   
 By:   Ron Hardcastle   (Member)

Octoberman: Glad I'm not the only one who notices it!!! I've played the movie through the small speakers of my 55" Samsung and it's not at all the same! With my big Klipsch towers and subwoofer, the sound is amazing! People who watch that movie with small speakers probably don't know what they're missing!

Accidental Genius: Interesting point about the son, and, as I wrote, I was rooting for them to get him! But having him live added a satisfying emotional coda, with the family intact -- you could see the respect the adults in the family had for this black sheep who has been given a bad rap by them. It worked for me, however much I couldn't stand the son.

 
 Posted:   Jun 1, 2014 - 8:04 PM   
 By:   Mr. Jack   (Member)

And Dakota Fanning as the screeching daughter is ALSO very annoying!

I'd estimate that 99% of young children put through what Fanning goes through in that film would also be screaming their heads off through most of it...I have never understood this complaint. If it were an adult actress, then yeah, it'd be annoying (Tea Leoni in Jurassic Park III comes to mind).

 
 Posted:   Jun 1, 2014 - 9:29 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

Let it be known that Tea Leoni's role in Jurassic Park III is one of the most unfortunate performances with which a female performer has ever been tasked with. Everyone involved with that production should be tried and sentenced. Stan Winston and crew, as well as the animators at ILM provided excellent work, as always, though. They can be on the jury.

 
 Posted:   Jun 1, 2014 - 9:40 PM   
 By:   nuts_score   (Member)

Accidental Genius: Interesting point about the son, and, as I wrote, I was rooting for them to get him! But having him live added a satisfying emotional coda, with the family intact -- you could see the respect the adults in the family had for this black sheep who has been given a bad rap by them. It worked for me, however much I couldn't stand the son.

I think you raise a very pertinent point here, Ron! This ending showcases the betrayal of the material in the hands of people who essentially rushed this production. I do not claim to know the schedule that this film took but it feels so lazy and also expeditious, despite having so many perfect elements (and another KUDOS to the sound design team from me).

Cruise's ineptness is underplayed, instead replaced with his usual charismatic mugging -- which works more often than not in his other films. I don't ever buy into him as a failure, though he has given many of this type of character an interesting perspective (reaching back to his odd turn as Lestat). So his son, given the opportunity to survive his fateful war-cry against the alien menace, lives and Cruise seemed redeemed. But we still have no story getting us to this point of redemption!

It feels by the end of this movie they have exhausted themselves of another gripping set piece in favor of lazy screenwriting. It doesn't help that the actor portraying the son is as wooden as my desk with the charisma and chemistry of a rusty fork. Of course the audience wants him to die! They don't even remember who he is!

 
You must log in or register to post.
  Go to page:    
© 2024 Film Score Monthly. All Rights Reserved.
Website maintained and powered by Veraprise and Matrimont.