War of the Worlds - review

im just back from seeing this film, and cant help but feel that the ending really let the movie down. it just seems to end all of a sudden. other than the ending its is a great film and the special effects are great, only steven spielberg seems to be able to pull of special effects this good.

but that ending, just think it holRAB the movie back
 
i've read the book, love jeff waynes "operatic" version, so had to see the film.
after the first 5-10 mins i decided to forget what i knew about it and try to enjoy the film (hard i know with tom cruise). Then i liked it.

it was a slightly different take on the story- one mans fight blah blah blah, but it got me going and kept me interested, and there was almost a Dr who moment where i felt the need to get behind a sofa (if there was one there i probably would have)

i agree with other postes though, the end did come rather abruptly and was an anti climax. saying that thoug i will be buying this version when it comes out on dvd and will watch it several times more. (skipping the cruise singing/crying bit though)
 
Did anyone catch the 1953 movie on C5 Saturday?

Having seen the Spielberg last Thursday it was an interesting comparison.

The major difference I saw in the two storylines was that in Spielberg's version it is true to the novel in that the aliens (martians?) died after drinking human blood and injecting it into themselves whereas in the 1953 version, with equally good special effects (for the time), the martians died from breathing our atmosphere (no blood-lusting scenes).
 
Ah thanks for clearing that up Peej, I just thought it was some, well he's the hero of this film, so let's save him, type rubbish. Still found it annoying though.
 
I thought it was just a better version of AI. More traditional in structure and rather like his early movies. Other than that, it was what I expected.Which can only be a good thing.
 
I saw bits of it but not much.
Didnt get in tonight. They only had the front 3 rows which are rubbish seats.
Got the back for tomorrow night though :)
 
Well if the ending is what the books ending was, then you can't have a go at Speilberg for it?!! He didn't write the book! But yeah the ending is pretty rubbish!
 
Having just returned from the 1st screening in Woking, where the original martian landing took place, I have to say I went with the idea that it would probably have brilliant Spielberg effects but that the story would lose something being transferred to modern-day America (just like the 1953 version). But I needn't have worried as the film took me in and I became thoroughly engrossed. I don't actually think it matters if it was in 19th Century London - perhaps HG Wells was just saying that the Martians were far superior than our best technology / weaponry, no matter what time period.

But, on reflection, I have to agree that the ending was a bit of an anti-climax. Maybe it should have shown man's first Mars landing, unless of course that comes after the credits have finished!

Having said that, the ending is only a couple of minutes and I thoroughly recommend the film to anyone.
 
Very clever film technically, but again, having not read the book yet, ending was completely confusing! Plot totally confusing and poor in that way.

Didn't help that I was worried about my car (the ticket machines were broken, but I was worried that they'd still fine me). LOL

Not bad. Food was good.
 
!


My criticism was not regarding the 'twist' more that it was thrown away in order to facilitate the other 'shock-that-wasnt' and the final scenes were rather puke-making!...I am aware that none of this makes much sense but I don't want to spoil the ending! :D
 
I actually hate Tom Cruise films with a passion.

However I watched Collateral and really enjoyed it (oh yeah and Rainman!!) and when I heard this was coming out I was made up but then a tad disappointed when I saw his name attached. However I saw it neverthe less and its brilliant IMHO.

I like the way it flits between the story and the way it adRAB artistic licence (most notably by attempting to explain why the red weed is red which the book never did).

My only disappointment was the fact that the machines even thought they were mega advanced seemed to have a bloody foghorn as their call!!!!

whatever happened to UUUULLLLLLAAAAAAA!!!!!!


????????????????????

9/10 for me!
 
What was the film's explanation for the weed being red? I must have missed that bit :confused:
I thought the book explained the red weed as being the vegetation on Mars that made the planet appear red from a distance. Certainly the musical version of WOTW explained it in that way.
 
I've just been to see the movie, and in my opinion it was a huge disappointment and a complete waste of money :( I didn't mind the movie being different to the original story, but they turned it into a Walt Disney production :mad: 0/10
 
I saw it last night and I wasn't that impressed.
Special Effects were great but I just felt like I was watching Independence Day again.
Shame as I was really looking forward to seeing it. :(

I'm waiting for the Jeff Wayne version out next year. With his film more true to the book, fingers crossed i'll be more impressed.
 
Back
Top