War of the Worlds
-
Just saw it. <neo>Whoa.</neo> Way, WAY better than I expected. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Just saw it. <neo>Whoa.</neo> Way, WAY better than I expected. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Just saw it. <neo>Whoa.</neo> Way, WAY better than I expected. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
Just saw it. <neo>Whoa.</neo> Way, WAY better than I expected. cheers, Chris Maunder
-
I planed to watch it today, but its raining realy REALY strong all day long, so I decited to stay at home. Should I risk to get wet X| and go to the cinema?
The cinema has roofs, doesn't it? :~ Good music: In my rosary[^]
-
The cinema has roofs, doesn't it? :~ Good music: In my rosary[^]
-
:laugh: of course, but I have to walk about 15min to get there. I decided to go there... now I have to talk to my girlfried..... she don't like such kind of films :(
I got my wife to see it thanks to Tom Cruize and Steven SPielberg. I loved the movie, by the way. My brother tought that Tom's character was too simple, not worthy of his actor's tallents. I disagree! I tought that his character was belivable. What's wrong with a father trying to keep his childrens alive ? I am a science fintion fan, sold to the movie before I even saw it. I must have seen the original over a dozen time. I even bought the DVD 2 or 3 years ago. I think that the new movie stays true to the spirit of the original theme, while innovating just enough to keep my interest. Real good. I'd recomend it in a nanosecond.
-
Just saw it. <neo>Whoa.</neo> Way, WAY better than I expected. cheers, Chris Maunder
I thought it was 'ok' as a film, but it seemed like Independance Day v2 to me. And some pretty big plot holes too, not to mention filming errors... i.e. how could that camcorder work at the start when everything else electrical was dead. Dakota Fanning did the film a total credit though, for an eleven year old she is a really strong actress already, I can't wait to see where she goes in ten years time. The tripods were impressive though. :)
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
Just saw it. <neo>Whoa.</neo> Way, WAY better than I expected. cheers, Chris Maunder
And sooooo much better than that crap "Independence Day" Hollywood spewed last year. Tom Archer Visual C++ MVP
-
And sooooo much better than that crap "Independence Day" Hollywood spewed last year. Tom Archer Visual C++ MVP
Tom Archer wrote: And sooooo much better than that crap "Independence Day" Hollywood spewed last year. Ummmm... did you mean the crap "Independence Day" Hollywood spewed 9 years ago[^]?? :confused: "For a fun 2nd term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase 'contentious but futile protest vote by democrats.' By the time Jeb Bush is elected, you'll be so wasted you won't even notice the war in Syria." Jon Stewart
-
Tom Archer wrote: And sooooo much better than that crap "Independence Day" Hollywood spewed last year. Ummmm... did you mean the crap "Independence Day" Hollywood spewed 9 years ago[^]?? :confused: "For a fun 2nd term drinking game, chug a beer every time you hear the phrase 'contentious but futile protest vote by democrats.' By the time Jeb Bush is elected, you'll be so wasted you won't even notice the war in Syria." Jon Stewart
Yep. I meant "some years ago" as I didn't remember exactly when it came out. Tom Archer Visual C++ MVP
-
I thought it was 'ok' as a film, but it seemed like Independance Day v2 to me. And some pretty big plot holes too, not to mention filming errors... i.e. how could that camcorder work at the start when everything else electrical was dead. Dakota Fanning did the film a total credit though, for an eleven year old she is a really strong actress already, I can't wait to see where she goes in ten years time. The tripods were impressive though. :)
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
WARNING: Spoilers ahead! I must of seen a different film to you - ID4 v2? Eh? WotW blew ID4 away - no shots of the Oval Office, Airforce One, bloody Area 51, no famous monuments getting destroyed, etc. - it showed the invasion through the eyes of a rather shitty Dad who spent the entire film running for his life. All the crowd/refugee scenes were awesome - Americans looting and killing each other in panic - which ID4 wouldn't of dared to show. The ferry scene, the burning train, the appearance of the tripods in Athens - the panic was palpable - I spent most of the film with my mooth open. Even the only overtly gung-ho scene (the basket) was surprisingly restrained. The ending was a little rushed, and could of done with a few more scenes, and yeh, there were plenty of plot holes as there are in most big-budget Hollywood movies (film-footage of the lightning strikes? How did they get that? And where were the bodies from the plane crash?). However, there were some cool nods the the '53 movie and though it was set in modern-day America, instead of Victorian England, it pretty much captured the spirit of the original H. G. Wells novel (my favourite sci-fi novel of all time). So I enjoyed it - best Spielberg movie since Jaws - and, IMHO, nothing at all like ID4. I agree about Dakota Fanning - she was superb - and I even thought Cruise did a good job. Some of the camera-work was amazing - when they were in the minivan fleeing the initial attack, the camera was inside the car then floated outside, around, back in again, etc. Excellent stuff. Other scenes that blew me away: * The initial appearance of the tripod at the intersection. Wow. And *that noise they make* - my heart must of been pumping at 100+ BPM for most of the movie. * The battle "over the hill". A key scene just because Spielberg DIDN'T show what was hapenning over the ridge (no "military battle porn" like ID4). A very brave move and keeping with the aim of the movie - showing the invasion through Rays eyes. A lesser director would of caved in and showed the battle - whereas SS left it to our imagination. * The ferry scene was perfect. The view of Athens from the hill afterwards was fantastic. * Red weed covering the land as far as the eye could see. * The heat-ray and its effect on people. Whoa. * The bodies in the river. And this film has a 12A certificate? That scene alone would give young kids nightmares. * Ray covered in ash. And when he works out what the ash is. Very good Mr Cru
-
WARNING: Spoilers ahead! I must of seen a different film to you - ID4 v2? Eh? WotW blew ID4 away - no shots of the Oval Office, Airforce One, bloody Area 51, no famous monuments getting destroyed, etc. - it showed the invasion through the eyes of a rather shitty Dad who spent the entire film running for his life. All the crowd/refugee scenes were awesome - Americans looting and killing each other in panic - which ID4 wouldn't of dared to show. The ferry scene, the burning train, the appearance of the tripods in Athens - the panic was palpable - I spent most of the film with my mooth open. Even the only overtly gung-ho scene (the basket) was surprisingly restrained. The ending was a little rushed, and could of done with a few more scenes, and yeh, there were plenty of plot holes as there are in most big-budget Hollywood movies (film-footage of the lightning strikes? How did they get that? And where were the bodies from the plane crash?). However, there were some cool nods the the '53 movie and though it was set in modern-day America, instead of Victorian England, it pretty much captured the spirit of the original H. G. Wells novel (my favourite sci-fi novel of all time). So I enjoyed it - best Spielberg movie since Jaws - and, IMHO, nothing at all like ID4. I agree about Dakota Fanning - she was superb - and I even thought Cruise did a good job. Some of the camera-work was amazing - when they were in the minivan fleeing the initial attack, the camera was inside the car then floated outside, around, back in again, etc. Excellent stuff. Other scenes that blew me away: * The initial appearance of the tripod at the intersection. Wow. And *that noise they make* - my heart must of been pumping at 100+ BPM for most of the movie. * The battle "over the hill". A key scene just because Spielberg DIDN'T show what was hapenning over the ridge (no "military battle porn" like ID4). A very brave move and keeping with the aim of the movie - showing the invasion through Rays eyes. A lesser director would of caved in and showed the battle - whereas SS left it to our imagination. * The ferry scene was perfect. The view of Athens from the hill afterwards was fantastic. * Red weed covering the land as far as the eye could see. * The heat-ray and its effect on people. Whoa. * The bodies in the river. And this film has a 12A certificate? That scene alone would give young kids nightmares. * Ray covered in ash. And when he works out what the ash is. Very good Mr Cru
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The battle "over the hill". A key scene just because Spielberg DIDN'T show what was hapenning Totally agree. Finally a movie that asks you to use your imagination a teensy bit. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The blood-sucking scene was too hidden - given the the film was violent and scary, SS could of made more of this unnerving alien trait! Actually again I thought this was a good thing. It could have been needlessly gory but instead was more horrifying than gory. Where did the needle strike? How long was he alive? My face through most of it was: :omg: cheers, Chris Maunder
-
WARNING: Spoilers ahead! I must of seen a different film to you - ID4 v2? Eh? WotW blew ID4 away - no shots of the Oval Office, Airforce One, bloody Area 51, no famous monuments getting destroyed, etc. - it showed the invasion through the eyes of a rather shitty Dad who spent the entire film running for his life. All the crowd/refugee scenes were awesome - Americans looting and killing each other in panic - which ID4 wouldn't of dared to show. The ferry scene, the burning train, the appearance of the tripods in Athens - the panic was palpable - I spent most of the film with my mooth open. Even the only overtly gung-ho scene (the basket) was surprisingly restrained. The ending was a little rushed, and could of done with a few more scenes, and yeh, there were plenty of plot holes as there are in most big-budget Hollywood movies (film-footage of the lightning strikes? How did they get that? And where were the bodies from the plane crash?). However, there were some cool nods the the '53 movie and though it was set in modern-day America, instead of Victorian England, it pretty much captured the spirit of the original H. G. Wells novel (my favourite sci-fi novel of all time). So I enjoyed it - best Spielberg movie since Jaws - and, IMHO, nothing at all like ID4. I agree about Dakota Fanning - she was superb - and I even thought Cruise did a good job. Some of the camera-work was amazing - when they were in the minivan fleeing the initial attack, the camera was inside the car then floated outside, around, back in again, etc. Excellent stuff. Other scenes that blew me away: * The initial appearance of the tripod at the intersection. Wow. And *that noise they make* - my heart must of been pumping at 100+ BPM for most of the movie. * The battle "over the hill". A key scene just because Spielberg DIDN'T show what was hapenning over the ridge (no "military battle porn" like ID4). A very brave move and keeping with the aim of the movie - showing the invasion through Rays eyes. A lesser director would of caved in and showed the battle - whereas SS left it to our imagination. * The ferry scene was perfect. The view of Athens from the hill afterwards was fantastic. * Red weed covering the land as far as the eye could see. * The heat-ray and its effect on people. Whoa. * The bodies in the river. And this film has a 12A certificate? That scene alone would give young kids nightmares. * Ray covered in ash. And when he works out what the ash is. Very good Mr Cru
The main problems I had with an otherwise very good film: 1) I thought the father having to choose between which child to save was great, but then SS screwed that up by having the son magically be ok in the end. UGH!! 2) The ending was waaaaaaaaaaaay too abrupt even with the epilogue. I know ppl get pissed if the movie is too long, but I wish they'd go back to some movies like that where it's a 3 or 4 hour movie with a intermission. It would have allowed the movie to more fully develop the characters and the aliens (their motives & how they died) 3) Dakota. Sorry but I disagree with all the bs about how she "stole" the scenes. I guess I'm older where "great child acting" was personified by Judy Garland and Shirley Temple. All Dakota did was whine and bitch throughout the entire movie alternating between "I want my mommy" and "I'm scared". I guess with today's generation that encompasses Academy Award-winning acting. Despite those issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie Tom Archer Visual C++ MVP
-
Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The battle "over the hill". A key scene just because Spielberg DIDN'T show what was hapenning Totally agree. Finally a movie that asks you to use your imagination a teensy bit. Robert Edward Caldecott wrote: The blood-sucking scene was too hidden - given the the film was violent and scary, SS could of made more of this unnerving alien trait! Actually again I thought this was a good thing. It could have been needlessly gory but instead was more horrifying than gory. Where did the needle strike? How long was he alive? My face through most of it was: :omg: cheers, Chris Maunder
Chris Maunder wrote: Actually again I thought this was a good thing. It could have been needlessly gory but instead was more horrifying than gory. Where did the needle strike? How long was he alive? It was also in the spirit of the original film.
I can imagine the sinking feeling one would have after ordering my book, only to find a laughably ridiculous theory with demented logic once the book arrives - Mark McCutcheon
-
Just saw it. <neo>Whoa.</neo> Way, WAY better than I expected. cheers, Chris Maunder
Just got back, pretty good. I also didn't like the abrupt transfer from walking from the first down tripod and the escape to the city with the one fallen. I think they tried to show a transition, having a cut scene looking at the devistation, but it was too short. I should have waited until the 4th to see it, might have been fewer people. That was a bit distracting from the movie, I think I will try to see it one more time before it leaves so I can catch all the things I missed. That is a compliment in two parts to the movie, its worth watching a second time, and there were still lots of people at the theatre with all the pre-4th partying. _________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
The main problems I had with an otherwise very good film: 1) I thought the father having to choose between which child to save was great, but then SS screwed that up by having the son magically be ok in the end. UGH!! 2) The ending was waaaaaaaaaaaay too abrupt even with the epilogue. I know ppl get pissed if the movie is too long, but I wish they'd go back to some movies like that where it's a 3 or 4 hour movie with a intermission. It would have allowed the movie to more fully develop the characters and the aliens (their motives & how they died) 3) Dakota. Sorry but I disagree with all the bs about how she "stole" the scenes. I guess I'm older where "great child acting" was personified by Judy Garland and Shirley Temple. All Dakota did was whine and bitch throughout the entire movie alternating between "I want my mommy" and "I'm scared". I guess with today's generation that encompasses Academy Award-winning acting. Despite those issues, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie Tom Archer Visual C++ MVP
Yes the son being ok in the end was a bit much. They didn't need to tell us he'd died, but should have just left it as an unknown. I guess being a film made clearly for an American audience that had to tiptoe around the whole 11/Sept/2001 'effect' that still exists in America then they had to throw that bit in to make the audience feel good. Towards the end (the last ten minutes or so) it was getting almost Half-Life 2 ish so I wish they had stuck a bit more with the downfall of the invaders purely from a "I like to see that" pov. It felt too much like "and in the end they woke up and it was all a dream", I can only guess that they made it so abrupt because the majority of the audience wouldn't understand it if they carried it on. Maybe biologists would get a kick out of it but most would probably hold it in negative light. WRT Dakota, well that's always going to be an opinion (hey I don't like Johny Depp, and Jim Carey makes me gag) but if you compare her to many other child actors of her age she has done a lot of very different roles really very well. If an actor/ess doesn't make you notice who they are throughout the whole movie then they've done a good job IMO. A couple of scenes I couldn't get away from the fact that Ray did/said some stereotypical Tom Cruise things, which took away from the story a little bit. Dakota didn't give me any of those. Have you seen Man on Fire? I thorougly enjoyed her character in that too.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
Yes the son being ok in the end was a bit much. They didn't need to tell us he'd died, but should have just left it as an unknown. I guess being a film made clearly for an American audience that had to tiptoe around the whole 11/Sept/2001 'effect' that still exists in America then they had to throw that bit in to make the audience feel good. Towards the end (the last ten minutes or so) it was getting almost Half-Life 2 ish so I wish they had stuck a bit more with the downfall of the invaders purely from a "I like to see that" pov. It felt too much like "and in the end they woke up and it was all a dream", I can only guess that they made it so abrupt because the majority of the audience wouldn't understand it if they carried it on. Maybe biologists would get a kick out of it but most would probably hold it in negative light. WRT Dakota, well that's always going to be an opinion (hey I don't like Johny Depp, and Jim Carey makes me gag) but if you compare her to many other child actors of her age she has done a lot of very different roles really very well. If an actor/ess doesn't make you notice who they are throughout the whole movie then they've done a good job IMO. A couple of scenes I couldn't get away from the fact that Ray did/said some stereotypical Tom Cruise things, which took away from the story a little bit. Dakota didn't give me any of those. Have you seen Man on Fire? I thorougly enjoyed her character in that too.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
Tom Cruise is absolutely a tremendous actor. However, he's running into serious problems that could very negatively impact his career - in terms of legacy. 1) He's got a look that's definitely appropriate for roles in movies where the lead actor is "smart", or "slick" (Eyes Wide Shut, Magnolia, Vanilla Sky, etc.) or futuristic movies (Minority Report). I'm just concerned here that it's more difficult for the masses to see him in more of an every-day role. Take for example, Brad Pitt and Matt Damon. They are equally talented, but can play both the slick, cool roles as well as more of the scruffy, every-day guy roles. 2) [This one is to your point] I could care less about Cruise's personal beliefs, but he's definitely running the risk of his personal life becoming such tabloid fodder that it overshadows the role he's playing. Think about Christian Bale and you can't think of anything at all other than really great roles. That's because Bale has never been in the news for much of anything other than his work. Therefore, when you go into the cinema, you can get lost in his work. Unfortunately, for an increasing number of people they're finding it difficult to watch a Cruise movie and focus on the character due to the offscreen personality. Cheers, Tom Archer - Visual C++ MVP Archer Consulting Group "So look up ahead at times to come, despair is not for us. We have a world and more to see, while this remains behind." - James N. Rowe
-
I got my wife to see it thanks to Tom Cruize and Steven SPielberg. I loved the movie, by the way. My brother tought that Tom's character was too simple, not worthy of his actor's tallents. I disagree! I tought that his character was belivable. What's wrong with a father trying to keep his childrens alive ? I am a science fintion fan, sold to the movie before I even saw it. I must have seen the original over a dozen time. I even bought the DVD 2 or 3 years ago. I think that the new movie stays true to the spirit of the original theme, while innovating just enough to keep my interest. Real good. I'd recomend it in a nanosecond.
Bamaco2 wrote: My brother tought that Tom's character was too simple, not worthy of his actor's tallents. Talents? ;P You are talking about Tom Cruise here aren't you?
"A preoccupation with the next world pretty clearly signals an inability to cope credibly with this one."
-
Just saw it. <neo>Whoa.</neo> Way, WAY better than I expected. cheers, Chris Maunder
We're not planning to see it. I really wish they'd stuck to the original setting rather than trying to make it fit 21st century America. :( Anna :rose: Riverblade Ltd - Software Consultancy Services Anna's Place | Tears and Laughter "Be yourself - not what others think you should be" - Marcia Graesch "Anna's just a sexy-looking lesbian tart" - A friend, trying to wind me up. It didn't work.