Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 12/15/2005 4:11:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 4:37:22 AM EDT by VTHOKIESHOOTER]


This movie was painful to watch. This isn't the movie for those persons contemplating suicide. Bad acting, bad story line- I can't believe that this movie was directed from the same guy who did Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and Shindlers List. I should have known it was going to be bad. Blockbuster was cleaned out of just about every movie but they had about 50 copies of War of the Worlds.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:15:25 AM EDT
I was also not impressed. I thought of it as a bad L Ron Hubbard story, given who was the star. Plus Tim Robbins and a few other scenes made gun owners out to be the stereotypical nut job.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:19:31 AM EDT
so... what kind of revolver did he have?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:19:49 AM EDT
I watched it last night for the first time too.

Things I liked about it: it showed how masses of people would act in SHTF. I liked how you didn't know any more about the invaders than the people in the movie; there was no brainiac scientist that was able to analyze and find out everything about them in an hour. It showed some of the tougher decisions that you may have to make in horrible situations.

One flaw that I saw in the plot, was that these things would vaporize millions of people... then go house to house looking for individuals to keep for later, to drink. With the super shields and apparent invulnerablilty, you would think they would have just corralled massive groups of people rather than thinning the herd first.

I didn't think it was as bad as you say, but that's just IMO.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:20:24 AM EDT

Originally Posted By smokycity:
I was also not impressed. I thought of it as a bad L Ron Hubbard story, given who was the star. Plus Tim Robbins and a few other scenes made gun owners out to be the stereotypical nut job.

No kidding...Here he was carrying around a shotgun then decides to load it AFTER the aliens were in his basement (did you notice that the aliens looked exactly like the ones from Independence Day)
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:22:36 AM EDT

Originally Posted By DDiggler:


Things I liked about it: it showed how masses of people would act in SHTF.


That is the only good mark for the movie.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:23:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:




+Many!
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:52:34 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 4:52:49 AM EDT by VoodooChile]
I did like the sequence near the beginning wear the aliens first made their appearance...I thought it was one of the best disaster sequences in recent memory....After that it gets pretty lame
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 4:58:04 AM EDT
Good special effects. That's about all I can say for it.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 5:31:20 AM EDT
Special effects were good. It looked to me like they shot a 5 hour movie, then chopped it down to fit a 2 hour spot. Lots of holes in the story, and not nearly enough fighting back against the aliens. It does a pretty good job of showing the sheeple in a SHTF situation. Population centers are NOT the place to be. Anyone remember the Justin Heyward(sp?) /Richard Burton musical version of the story back in the late 70's? It was kick ass. For those of us that heard that, and saw the earlier war of the worlds movie(s), this movie was kind of lame, and full of holes.
1 to 10 scale, a weak 3.

Nice 'Stang though..
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 5:43:22 AM EDT
I thought it was good. Tom fag didn't even mess it up.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 5:48:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By smokycity:
I was also not impressed. I thought of it as a bad L Ron Hubbard story, given who was the star. Plus Tim Robbins and a few other scenes made gun owners out to be the stereotypical nut job.

No kidding...Here he was carrying around a shotgun then decides to load it AFTER the aliens were in his basement (did you notice that the aliens looked exactly like the ones from Independence Day)



You need to pay attention to the special features. These aliens were 3 legged, whereas the ones in ID4 were humanoid (2 arms, 2 legs etc...) Also, what do you expect when Mr Nightmare before Christmas redoes an old movie?

The thing that surprises me about the story line is that wouldn't you think that a society so advanced as to have interstellar travel would have some sort of biological hazard shielding? Hell, even kirk had bio filters on the transporter....
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 5:50:25 AM EDT
I thought it was awesome. If it seems as if there isn't much of a plot, it's because you are not given all the answers. You know ONLY what the main character knows, WHEN he knows it. This really brings the viewer into the story.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 5:53:12 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Greenhorn:
I thought it was awesome. If it seems as if there isn't much of a plot, it's because you are not given all the answers. You know ONLY what the main character knows, WHEN he knows it. This really brings the viewer into the story.

That is only a small part of the plot. For example he gets the mini-van going down the highway, how convienent that all other cars somehow pulled off the road before they stopped running. The idea of not having info on the aliens is good, but that doesn't mean everything else has to suck........
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 5:55:01 AM EDT
My sister in law was one of the extras in that movie.....needless to say, I havent seen it yet.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 5:59:07 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PsyWarrior:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By smokycity:
I was also not impressed. I thought of it as a bad L Ron Hubbard story, given who was the star. Plus Tim Robbins and a few other scenes made gun owners out to be the stereotypical nut job.

No kidding...Here he was carrying around a shotgun then decides to load it AFTER the aliens were in his basement (did you notice that the aliens looked exactly like the ones from Independence Day)



You need to pay attention to the special features. These aliens were 3 legged, whereas the ones in ID4 were humanoid (2 arms, 2 legs etc...) Also, what do you expect when Mr Nightmare before Christmas redoes an old movie?

The thing that surprises me about the story line is that wouldn't you think that a society so advanced as to have interstellar travel would have some sort of biological hazard shielding? Hell, even kirk had bio filters on the transporter....

The aliens in ID4 had those bio-mechanical suits....the heads of those aliens looked awfull like those in War of the Worlds.

I know that this movie was based on the origional War of the Worlds, but why does every alien vs. Earth movie have to have aliens that have some sort of invisable shielding?

The worse part of the movie was the lack of flow from scene to scene. As someone said, it looks like they took a 5hr movie and cut it to 2 hours which left gaps here and there and you couldn't follow just what the hell was going on.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:01:50 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:03:34 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tin_Star:
Anyone remember the Justin Heyward(sp?) /Richard Burton musical version of the story back in the late 70's? It was kick ass.



A musical? From the 70s? Ok-tay....
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:06:12 AM EDT
Do the death rays in the new remake sound like the death rays in the 50s(?) original? It must have taken a lot of power to vaporize a 50s automobile! I also liked the ominous ticking of the original Alien craft.

Frankly none of them hold a candle to the book. The thing was written in the late 1800s!! The author was truly a visionary. Too bad Hollywood doesn't have any writers with his talent anymore.

Maybe I just suffer from death ray envy....
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:06:55 AM EDT
Was Xenu in it?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:07:59 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By PsyWarrior:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By smokycity:
I was also not impressed. I thought of it as a bad L Ron Hubbard story, given who was the star. Plus Tim Robbins and a few other scenes made gun owners out to be the stereotypical nut job.

No kidding...Here he was carrying around a shotgun then decides to load it AFTER the aliens were in his basement (did you notice that the aliens looked exactly like the ones from Independence Day)



You need to pay attention to the special features. These aliens were 3 legged, whereas the ones in ID4 were humanoid (2 arms, 2 legs etc...) Also, what do you expect when Mr Nightmare before Christmas redoes an old movie?

The thing that surprises me about the story line is that wouldn't you think that a society so advanced as to have interstellar travel would have some sort of biological hazard shielding? Hell, even kirk had bio filters on the transporter....

The aliens in ID4 had those bio-mechanical suits....the heads of those aliens looked awfull like those in War of the Worlds.

I know that this movie was based on the origional War of the Worlds, but why does every alien vs. Earth movie have to have aliens that have some sort of invisable shielding?

The worse part of the movie was the lack of flow from scene to scene. As someone said, it looks like they took a 5hr movie and cut it to 2 hours which left gaps here and there and you couldn't follow just what the hell was going on.



The head shape may have been slightly similar, but the aliens in WotW had 3 arms and legs and the heads were flared out more to the sides and had a mouth more like a monkey rather than flat. They look a little similar but it's a far cry from "exactly the same."

Supposedly in the book the aliens had wiped out all disease on their home planet and as such weren't prepared for the microorganisms on earth. I'm sure the shielding was part of the book too and not just some "holywood gimmick." There aren't exactly a lot of mainstream alien invasion movies anyway and as far as I can remember, Independence day was the only other one where the aliens had shielding. I'll admit there were some stupid points like Tim Robbins and especially how he loaded the shotgun after the aliens were in the house.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:17:01 AM EDT

I'll admit there were some stupid points like Tim Robbins and especially how he loaded the shotgun after the aliens were in the house.


Yeah, that was dumb. He was swingin' that shotgun around for about ten minutes before he decided to load it.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:21:21 AM EDT
huh. I had high hopes for this movie, too. SFX looked great from the commercials.

Oh well, Batman Begins and Fantastic Four are higher on my list of "to-watch" movies anyway.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:22:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By macman37:
huh. I had high hopes for this movie, too. SFX looked great from the commercials.

Oh well, Batman Begins and Fantastic Four are higher on my list of "to-watch" movies anyway.

Batman Begins was surpisingly entertaining.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:25:07 AM EDT
The book can be read in an afternoon- it really is worth the time. Sure, it takes place in England, but in 1898 or thereabouts that was the center of power in the world. In the book Wells takes in all the scientfic advances of his age and then pushes them out to the "next step". Descriptions of the aliens using tanks, hovercraft, particle beam weapons, forcefields. Then they overstep their bounds and fail to take into account the germs on Earth. The Germ theory of disease was in it's infancy when Wells wrote the book! Microscopes that could see "germs" were only roughly available only in 1860 or so if memory serves.


Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:30:55 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Tin_Star:
Special effects were good. It looked to me like they shot a 5 hour movie, then chopped it down to fit a 2 hour spot. Lots of holes in the story, and not nearly enough fighting back against the aliens. It does a pretty good job of showing the sheeple in a SHTF situation. Population centers are NOT the place to be. Anyone remember the Justin Heyward(sp?) /Richard Burton musical version of the story back in the late 70's? It was kick ass. For those of us that heard that, and saw the earlier war of the worlds movie(s), this movie was kind of lame, and full of holes.
1 to 10 scale, a weak 3.

Nice 'Stang though..



I remember my Dad having that on records, now I have it on CD--awesome story and music.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:31:40 AM EDT
The dumbest part of the movie, to me, was the fact that with all that incredible technology, the aliens resort to.... a really big fog horn for communication. WTF?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:32:50 AM EDT
There hasn't been a better alien invansion movie made since "Mars Attacks!"

Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:34:31 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PsyWarrior:
Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:
Originally Posted By smokycity:
The thing that surprises me about the story line is that wouldn't you think that a society so advanced as to have interstellar travel would have some sort of biological hazard shielding? Hell, even kirk had bio filters on the transporter....



Of course they had those in Star Trek, in Gene Rodenberry's future, the company that developed the Transporters(Trandport-O-Matic 4000) had read the original war of the worlds and had learned from mistakes of the invaders
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:40:59 AM EDT
The kids needed a beatdown and some duct tape.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 6:43:53 AM EDT

It was the common Cold germ that felled the Martians in the book.

This latest version was vague on what it was that killed them Since they were harvesting blood, I like to think the AIDS got 'em.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:02:19 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/15/2005 7:02:40 AM EDT by warlord]
My son saw the Tom Cruise version of War of the Worlds (2005) and he definitely thinks that original The War of the Worlds (1953) version was the better movie.

BTW: Ann Robinson who played Sylvia Van Buren in the original 1853 movie, was also cast into the new movie as the grandmother.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:07:19 AM EDT

Originally Posted By warlord:
BTW: Ann Robinson who played Sylvia Van Buren in the original 1853 movie, was also cast into the new movie as the grandmother.



1853!?!?

Grandmother!?!­?


DAMN....She could play the Crypt Keeper if they ever make another Tales From the Crypt Movie.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:10:51 AM EDT
Shrug. I liked it. You guys basically sound as if you were searching for reasons to hate it before you even watched it.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:14:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ShortMikeB:

Originally Posted By warlord:
BTW: Ann Robinson who played Sylvia Van Buren in the original 1853 movie, was also cast into the new movie as the grandmother.



1853!?!?

Grandmother!?!­?


DAMN....She could play the Crypt Keeper if they ever make another Tales From the Crypt Movie.


Sorry that is typo s/b 1953

Gene Barry who play Dr. Clayton Forrester in the 1953 movie also play the grandfather in the 2005 version..
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:16:30 AM EDT
One thing that annoyed me was how freaking lucky Cruise's character got. Every ten minutes hundreds of people all around him and his family were getting vaporized and yet they always got away.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:18:22 AM EDT
germ warfair allowed the spanish to conquer the mayans and the aztec. Not so far fetched. Likewise germ warefair was routinly used in the middle ages were rotting corpses were catipulted into fortfications.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:18:52 AM EDT

Supposedly in the book the aliens had wiped out all disease on their home planet and as such weren't prepared for the microorganisms on earth. I'm sure the shielding was part of the book too and not just some "holywood gimmick."


In the book there were no shields, which is not surprising since it was written in 1898. The tripods are powerful but not indestructible in the book.

Microorganisms had just been discovered when Welles wrote the story, so it was conceivable back then that the aliens would be overlook the threat from disease.

The 1953 version was far better than the 2005 movie, even with all its 50's cheesiness.

The book is fantastic.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:21:39 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Richard-ar15:
It was the common Cold germ that felled the Martians in the book.

This latest version was vague on what it was that killed them Since they were harvesting blood, I like to think the AIDS got 'em.



You mean druggies and gays saved the earth?
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:33:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:


This movie was painful to watch. This isn't the movie for those persons contemplating suicide. Bad acting, bad story line- I can't believe that this movie was directed from the same guy who did Saving Private Ryan, Band of Brothers, and Shindlers List. I should have known it was going to be bad. Blockbuster was cleaned out of just about every movie but they had about 50 copies of War of the Worlds.




Sounds to me like VTHOKIESHOOTER is just a little bit cranky from his last nicotine fit.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:37:05 AM EDT
I liked it, but you cant compare it to the orginal.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:37:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By mmx1:

You mean druggies and gays saved the earth?



Yes, the perfect Hollywood rainbow diversity happy ending.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:38:54 AM EDT

Originally Posted By smokycity:
...made gun owners out to be the stereotypical nut job.



Well, aren't we?
~Dg84
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:40:37 AM EDT

Originally Posted By TruePunisher:

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:




+Many!



+ Many more
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:42:27 AM EDT
Ubersucke!
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:44:40 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Silver_Surfer:
I liked it, but you cant compare it to the orginal.



It was alright. I liked the 50's story better. I liked the 2005 effects better.

Of course if I listened to ARFCOM I'd have only the following titles.

Saving Private Ryan.
Blackhawk Down.
HEAT.
Red Dawn.

Everything else is crap.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:45:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By PBIR:
One thing that annoyed me was how freaking lucky Cruise's character got. Every ten minutes hundreds of people all around him and his family were getting vaporized and yet they always got away.



THink of it this way: This movie is about an average joe, and is told solely from his point of view. Therefore, you could easily say that this particular average joe was picked to be the main character because he did happen to survive.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:47:24 AM EDT
I liked it.



Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:53:00 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Cypher214:
The dumbest part of the movie, to me, was the fact that with all that incredible technology, the aliens resort to.... a really big fog horn for communication. WTF?




Hell, the fog horn sound kinda creeped me out, that's really the only thing I remember about the movie.
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 7:58:18 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VTHOKIESHOOTER:

Originally Posted By macman37:
huh. I had high hopes for this movie, too. SFX looked great from the commercials.

Oh well, Batman Begins and Fantastic Four are higher on my list of "to-watch" movies anyway.

Batman Begins was surpisingly entertaining.



I liked Batman Begins and can't wait for the sequel. They didn't mess up the story by having some well known actor play "The Bat".
Link Posted: 12/15/2005 8:03:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Steve_T_M:
The 1953 version was far better than the 2005 movie, even with all its 50's cheesiness.


Th 1953 movie was the SotA of special effects at the time. Some of today's movies spend way too much effort on special effects rather than story line. I think it is better to have a good story line rather than spectacular special effects.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top