Kevin's Watch

Just got back, thought it was rather good.
Effects were good, oh and Ray obviously killed the weird basement guy by singing that stupid song so much his head exploded.

onewyteduck wrote: Yeah, like how did someone the size and stature of Tom Cruise manage to physically subdue (kill?) someone the size and stature of Tim Robbins? If I were going to make a bet on that one, my money would go on Robbins!

How is that a plot hole?

That itself isn't a plot hole although I can see where you're coming from. It's just that it was a couple of days after seeing it that it just struck me as being totally ridiculous!

Your opinion, but to me it was a father doing his best to save his daughter. Just because Ogilvy is bigger doesn't mean anything; for all we know, Ray Ferrier may have been a better fighter. Size means nothing.

I for one LOVED this movie. Despiet not really liking Tom in real life (whatever that means) I have to admire his acting (even though he has been taking the same type of role in all his recent movies). Speilberg is a MASTER director. He is the best director still alive today. He proves he is a man firmly in control of story-telling, direction, lighting, FX and everything else that goes in to a movie (Dammit, I even like 'The Terminal' a typical mushy-heart-string movie if there was ever one ... but he just does too good a job to ignore!).

I for one don't mind not getting all the answers. The fact there there are a whole bunch of clues placed around but few concrete answers does not bother me. The fac that the movie was so well done covers a lot of questions; you just trust the film maker. I like that most of the information we do get comes from heresay and unverified sources.
FX were spectacular. I great mix of stuff you see and don't see. The distant shots of alien craft from ground level were spectacular and frightening.
For me, this was the best, scariest, realistic alien invasion movies I have ever seen.

Usivius wrote:I For me, this was the best, scariest, realistic alien invasion movies I have ever seen.

Agreed.

Finally got to see WOTW last night. Long time fan of the book since I was a kid. The film is fantastic. I'm very glad I got to see it at the theater. I hadn't been that tense in quite that way since the first time I saw Jurassic Park. Well executed film, faithful to the source material. Two thumbs and a pinky toe way up.

Great to hear, aTOMiC!

Saw it last night and loved it (though Hannah loathed it beyond description). It was distinctly flawed, but expecting any film to be faultless in unfair.

My main praises:

I liked the devastation at the hands of the tripods - the first attack is just unrelenting, and it's easy to understand the panic.

Though there was a concession to typically Hollywood heroism (the grenade) Ray didn't save the world, or indeed have anything to do with it. He was just a person who survived. This is good.

The only child actor in the history of the world who isn't an annoying little git who desperately needs a kick in the teeth. The screaming began to grate, but the fact that I didn't want to slap her as soon as she appeared on screen is a vast improvement over every other film ever made. Ever.

The tripods themselves were highly alarming, not to mention convincing. It speaks volumes that after leaving the cinema, as I was crossing the square I momentarily expected a tripod head to hove into view above the Council House.


Main criticisms:

Too many people. My only prior experience of WotW is Jeff Wayne's musical, but that had such a sense of desolation that it became quite eerie. In this film, there were people everywhere, with no real sense that an enormous proportion of the human race had been killed.

No Thunder Child Ok, I could cope with the absence of the Thunder Child, but it was exacerbated by the relative inneffectuality of the miltary defeat scene. The bit the gunships and tanks and things zooming in and being obliterated was the equivalent of the Thunder Child scene, but without the emotional impact.

Was staying at home the whole time the best policy for survival? It didn't seem that way to me. So why, in a ruined city, is the family's house still standing there unscathed with all of them sitting inside drinking tea? (ok, I exaggerate...)

The ending was a little clumsy.



Oh, and in response to those who have compared WotW unfavourably to Independence Day: hang your heads in shame! Independence Day was a hackneyed tale of random ordinary people inexplicably triumphing over a far superior foe simply by virtue of being American. Compared to the bleak horror of WotW, Independence Day is a sack of watery porridge. One of the main themes of WotW is we can't fight. If technologically and intellectually advanced aliens attack us, we will lose. Ordinary people do not become superhuman alien-slaying uber-soldiers, they become fast-moving or dead. As Tim Robbins' character said, "This isn't a war, any more than there's a war between men and maggots. This is an extermination." It's a rubbish line, but it gets the point across. Independence Day was like a gang of twenty-five children with slings defeating a thousand armed Marines. WotW was a brutal elimination of a complacent species by one that far surpasses it.

(If you Brits had your own "alien spaceship crashed" myth then maybe YOU guys would have saved the world)

Independance Day was at least plausible.
It's concept of Aliens as locust like beings who strip away a planets natural resources to survive and then move on at least makes some sense.
The aliens in WotW are just plain dumb.
Nothing was explained.
There was no point.
Except for some amazing visual effects this movie was a waste of my $.
Anything showing the tripods and the train going by was outstanding.
The little girl *was* great though.

(I just thought that the Tripods hadn't gotten to that part of Boston (where the kids mother was) yet.

The only child actor in the history of the world who isn't an annoying little git who desperately needs a kick in the teeth. The screaming began to grate, but the fact that I didn't want to slap her as soon as she appeared on screen is a vast improvement over every other film ever made. Ever.

My thought exactly, almost evry child actor - especially on tv programs - are complete rubbish.

The ending was a little clumsy.

Yea, seemed a little rushed.

HLT,
Why should the alien invasion be explained? Anyway, it was if you listened at the start and notice some clues:
It is clearly stated at the start they were envious of our world. They were also terraforming our world (see their planet at the beginning in the speech) as the Red Weed covering the landscape matches their homeplanet.

I honestly am surprised you find ID more plausible. The concept of the locusts does not make any sense at all. Why mine a habitable planet when you can mine asteroids? ID was possibly the dumbest sci-fi film in history.

The point of the movie was a man trying to become a better father to his children during an alien invasion. That's it.

Cov Jr,
I actually loved Robbin's line. But that's me.

Excellent points about ID.

As for the Thunderchild segment, well I would have liked to have seen something similar, though Wells' placed the TC has a metaphor for British power. What would SS have done?

The reason the house was still standing was because the aliens had yet to reach Boston. There were only limited numbers of Tripods - they could only 'do their best'. That's why there are people still running away - because they are. Same in Wells' novel; it wasn't about mass extermination, and many people survived. The aliens were on the way to doing that.

As I posted this I realized that I haven't read this whole thread yet, and right now I'm too tired so I hope I haven't brought up anything already discussed!

Loremaster wrote:HLT,
Why should the alien invasion be explained?

WHAT?

Loremaster wrote:Anyway, it was if you listened at the start and notice some clues:
It is clearly stated at the start they were envious of our world. They were also terraforming our world (see their planet at the beginning in the speech) as the Red Weed covering the landscape matches their homeplanet.

To be honest, I don't remember seeing their homeplanet in the beginning during Freeman's opening speech.

"clearly stated" is open to debate, imho.
Envious and watching was all I got out of it.
Envious of what though?
According to your own post about ID everything the attacking aliens in WotW needed could be found mining asteroids.


And there was no hint or indication about terraforming.
I picked up on it because I'm a sci-fi freak, my wife enjoys sci-fi as well but didn't have a clue about terraforming.
But even then I was guessing.
And don't tell me it was in the book (like others have).
A good movie should never require reading a book to fill in the gaps, imo.
And if it strays SO FAR away from the book in all other aspects why bother?
(I know you didn't mention the book but I'm on a roll. )

And an alien race that has the technology to terraform a planet but missed the bacteria aspect of it?
I'm more forgiving about Jeff Goldblum being able to hook up to an alien computer network with his Apple laptop than that!
At least it could be guessed that they knew what frequency the aliens were using as they used our satellites.

And what was up with the blood extraction and the silly cages under the Tripods?
Were they using blood in some way? (never explained)
So why vaporise all those people?
Isn't that throwing away a valuble resource?

I left the theater thinking that it was a good movie but by the time I got home I thought :"Man, that sucked!"

Same thing happened with "Signs"
When I go to a movie I do not want to leave saying "What happened?"

Loremaster wrote:The point of the movie was a man trying to become a better father to his children during an alien invasion. That's it.

Then why is it called "War of the Worlds"?

"Titanic" was a love story but you always knew exactly what was going on with the ship and why.

HLT wrote:Loremaster wrote:
The point of the movie was a man trying to become a better father to his children during an alien invasion. That's it.


Then why is it called "War of the Worlds"?

Because that's what the writer and spielberg intended - it to be about what I said. They admit it. It is also about an alien invasion, but that is the crucible for the family's relationship.

HLT wrote:And what was up with the blood extraction and the silly cages under the Tripods?
Were they using blood in some way? (never explained)
So why vaporise all those people?
Isn't that throwing away a valuble resource?

You probably missed my response to your previous criticism of this. But I'll repeat it again: they were using the blood to fertilise the red weed. It was explained because you could see the blood being sprayed across the landscape by the tripods and the weed growing off it. SS wanted you to put two and two together.
Why is it a waste to vapourise the humans? It turned them into ash/dust. Maybe that is a form of fertiliser? Bodies are full of phosphate that plants love. Anyway, in the book the martians were killing people with the heat ray or draining the blood, no one criticised that.

HLT wrote:And there was no hint or indication about terraforming.

Alien planet seen with red weed at start. Aliens start to cover Earth with Red Weed. End of debate

HLT wrote:And an alien race that has the technology to terraform a planet but missed the bacteria aspect of it?

A plot hole, agreed. But does not mean the film is dumb.

HLT wrote:"clearly stated" is open to debate, imho.
Envious and watching was all I got out of it.
Envious of what though?

Because it was clearly stated. "And they regarded this Earth with envious eyes . . . " how much clearer do you want?

HLT wrote:According to your own post about ID everything the attacking aliens in WotW needed could be found mining asteroids.

Well, no. Humans cant be found on Earth, and the regarded this Earth with envious eyes. You don't find Earth on asteroids

HLT wrote:Loremaster wrote:
HLT,
Why should the alien invasion be explained?


WHAT?

Where in sci-fi does it state that everything has to be explained? I think the fact that nothing is explained makes the alien invasion terrifying.

I thought I'd add that I'm cool with your points, HLT; you are entitled to criticising the movie. I don't think the movie is perfect, but that some of the criticisms (not necessarily yours) aren't valid. But in the end, it doesn't matter.
Glad to debate with you, friend.

Loremaster wrote:I thought I'd add that I'm cool with your points, HLT; you are entitled to criticising the movie. I don't think the movie is perfect, but that some of the criticisms (not necessarily yours) aren't valid. But in the end, it doesn't matter.
Glad to debate with you, friend.

Yeah, it was fun.
You're totally wrong but I still like you.

KIDDING!!!


LOL, I was so tired last night and just about knocked out from some sinus meds I took that I forgot that we already talked about this!!!
Sorry to beat a dead horse.

But I did manage to finish the latest Potter book before my mind shut down last night, so off to another thread!

So I win?

Loremaster wrote:So I win?

Everyday I come in here, because I am a mod here. Everyday I see a new post, or at least something that appears to be a new post, and every other day it's by you. So, yes, you win. I lose. I can't even go see this film now because I am SO over it just from reading all this!

Loremaster wrote:

HLT wrote:And there was no hint or indication about terraforming.

Alien planet seen with red weed at start. Aliens start to cover Earth with Red Weed. End of debate

In fairness, I didn't notice that either; I just assumed the blood being sprayed on blood-red weed made it fairly plain.

Loremaster wrote:Where in sci-fi does it state that everything has to be explained? I think the fact that nothing is explained makes the alien invasion terrifying.

I agree.