my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » War of the Worlds (plus OT Spielberg's love affair with 1.85) (Page 6)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Author Topic: War of the Worlds (plus OT Spielberg's love affair with 1.85) Scott Norwood Film God Posts: 8146 From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-19-2005 10:40 PM                        I finally saw this. Yawn. It could have been good, but I found it to be totally uninspired and forgettable. The print that I saw didn't look very good, either (physical condition was mint, but the lab work was poor).  |  IP: Logged Andy Summers Master Film Handler Posts: 397 From: Bournemouth Dorset United kingdom Registered: Jun 2005 posted 07-20-2005 05:25 AM                 Second viewing at the ABC Westover Road Bournemouth screen #1 last-night of “War of the Worlds” in Dolby SR-D, this time took along the SPL to check the levels, the range I was from the screen around 35feet, with SPL levels on reel 2 reaching 108dbc weighting and 100dba weighting on glass shattering very realistic, and it was easy to pick the sounds out this time around… Yet still the “Death-ray” was dame scary (WHAM) that sound was totally jaw dropping I Kidd you not, and “John Williams” score was kept low in the mix while “Randy Thom” is going for another Oscar nomination, re-recording mixers “Anna Behlmer” “ James Bolt” have done a splendid sound mix hear keeping the tensions high and the element of total surprise… “Shawn Murphy’s” scoring mix gives “John Williams” score depth and the precision of interments and the placement on the three-screen channels is wide giving the since of liveness. It’s relaxing to listen to the end credits after the world was nearly touched to a crisp, the trumpet playing towards the end giving me a loneliness and emptiness feeling to the end…. Thank goodness this is over, and man once again as triumphed over its new enemy, by the smallest creatures that god as put upon this earth, for neither does man live nor die in vane….  |  IP: Logged Claude S. Ayakawa Film God Posts: 2738 From: Waipahu, Hawaii, USA Registered: Aug 2002 posted 07-23-2005 01:57 AM                        I finally had the opportunity to see "WAR OF THE WORLDS" at Pacific's Kapolei 16 in SRD and I must admit I rather enjoyed the film very much. I have enjoyed the original film and the remake in my opinion is almost as good. As much as I enjoy seeing films presented in the 'Scope' format, I think the flat format worked better for this film because of several factors including Speilber'g's intention of making the very tall alien tripod look more menacing. The CGI and the sound was very well done. -Claude  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 07-30-2005 02:02 PM                        We are finally running this. I liked it. I had made a point of not watching the trailer or reading most of the reviews (I just skimmed over the flat/scope discussion on this thread) and I've never read the book or seen the earlier movie, so the whole thing was fresh to me. I thought the efx were very well done. It made me want to see it again just to watch the efx. There were a few unbelieveable parts. The one that stood out most for me (spoiler) was the fact that Cruise's van was the only one running. We're supposed to believe that of all the millions of people, only one guy had the brains to figure out what to replace to get a vehicle running? Hell, if that happened here, there would be at least a couple of dozen vehicles running within about half an hour (assuming the parts stores didn't get vaporized). The other thing that bugged me was the fact Cruise could always find a path to drive his vehicle through. This hardly ever happens on a busy freeway even when the other cars are all running, never mind if they're all stalled! I liked the sound. It really gave the DTS a workout. I never noticed the crap code in this movie. Maybe I was involved enough in the story that it didn't bother me, because usually it stands out like a sore thumb. (Maybe we got a print with no coding?) I thought the ending was fine, if a little rushed. Thought provoking. I never would have predicted it. I spent most of the third act wondering, how are we (the human race) going to get out of this? Seems like most people these days want their movies to end the way they expect them to. I was glad this had an ending I didn't see coming. As others have said -- not one of Spielberg's finest efforts, but still very good. I'll give it 3.5 out of 5 stars. One star docked for the two unbelieveable bits mentioned above.  |  IP: Logged Robert Harrison Expert Film Handler Posts: 239 From: Harwood Heights, Illinois, USA Registered: Jun 2005 posted 07-31-2005 01:03 PM                     Gee, Mike, You only found TWO unbelieveable bits? How many damn times did Cruise and company just nearly miss getting creamed? And how about the son who magically gets to Boston (the only place in the world the aliens decided to bypass) unscathed? And why were them aliens so concerned about a flippin' farm house when they've got some major world-wide destruction to attend to? To me, it felt like the whole movie was happening off-screen. I knew when I heard they put a star in this film that it would be less than I would want. Now, if Cruise was the obligatory scientist who was continually trying to find ways to stop the invaders, that would have went over better with me. Who needs "character study" in a film with that title? I hate to say it, but, they should have let Roland Emmerich do this one!  |  IP: Logged Christian Appelt Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 505 From: Frankfurt, Germany Registered: Dec 2001 posted 08-03-2005 11:40 AM                     I expected a bad movie, which it was not. But not a good one either. Some scenes were quite good, like the family hiding in the different cellars. The tripods were done quite well, but the alien creatures were not designed with much imagination. I was disappointed by cinematography, most shots had too little depth of field, pans and tilts were done without any care to avoid strobing, and while the color design fits the story, I just hate seeing so many backlight and lens flares. The print was not really sharp, the grain structure was somewhere between Digital Intermediate done wrong and 16mm origination. Maybe I am getting too old to enjoy Spielberg repeating himself, just replacing Warner cartoons with Sponge Bob and miniature golf with baseball and the friendly CE3K tune with the Martian bass notes. This movie in my opinion lacked the epic look. Maybe one day Spielberg will make some movie without Messrs. Cruise and Kaminski.  |  IP: Logged Stephanie M. Brosche Film Handler Posts: 14 From: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA Registered: Oct 2003 posted 08-04-2005 12:03 AM                     Ok, I've been thinking about the reasons Spielberg shot this movie in flat. If anyone has already said this I apologize, I have not read all the pages of this topic (only about half of it). Perhaps the goal was not to make the tripods look taller....perhaps it was to make Tom Cruise look taller.  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-04-2005 12:17 PM                        quote: Robert Harrison Gee, Mike, You only found TWO unbelieveable bits? No, I said there were "a few" unbelievable bits. I just wrote about the two that stood out the most for me. There's a lot of others, but this is a fictional, sci-fi film so you're expected to let a lot of things slide. But: If those things were buried for "millions of years," why weren't they ever detected? If these "creatures" wanted to eat and drink humans, why vaporize them? If the aliens could plan all this out for millions of years, why didn't they think about the germs? How Cruise's kid got to Boston: The army took him there. That one didn't bug me as much, except I do think he should've been killed. The aliens worrying about one freakin' farmhouse didn't bug me as much as why would only one guy (Tom) head for that house, instead of a whole crowd of people? What would have REALLY made the movie for me, would have been if Tom and Tim had sat around comparing scars and singing, "Farewell and adieu to you fair Spanish Ladies." That would have been a real good inside joke that 95% of the audience wouldn't get.  |  IP: Logged Robert Harrison Expert Film Handler Posts: 239 From: Harwood Heights, Illinois, USA Registered: Jun 2005 posted 08-04-2005 03:35 PM                     Now that's more like it. However, I am personally sick of "in-jokes." They are almost as bad as the obligatory cameos from members of previous versions. I reckon you noticed Gene Barry and the woman from the George Pal version at the end?  |  IP: Logged Mike Blakesley Film God Posts: 12767 From: Forsyth, Montana Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-05-2005 01:42 PM                        I did see them but didn't realize they were from the original movie until reading the Roger Ebert "Movie Answer Man" column (I've never seen the George Pal movie).  |  IP: Logged Fred Georges Master Film Handler Posts: 257 From: Lombard, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2000 posted 08-05-2005 03:32 PM                     Saw this last night at the Cascade drive in (West Chicago-IL)It scared the crap out of my jaded 10 yr. old daughter. I liked it too & went in with prejudice that I wouldn't. My lapse of logic came during the initial tripod attack. We see the tripod attacking thru the monitor of a video camera but, wait a minute, everything electronic was wiped out during an EMP. What's up with that?  |  IP: Logged Robert Harrison Expert Film Handler Posts: 239 From: Harwood Heights, Illinois, USA Registered: Jun 2005 posted 08-05-2005 03:50 PM                     Hey, Fred, I'm surprised that you saw ANYTHING at that drive-in. I haven't been there in years because of the dark picture. In the 70's, before the current owner (or should I say "leaser") took over, it was a hell of a nice drive-in.  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 08-05-2005 06:03 PM                     I remember way back when the Cascade had a great picture when running with carbons of course. When I left it was just so-so with a 4kw Christie lamphouse... but then the greeks are a cheap people...... I really disliked W.O.W. and thought it a total waste of time. I had just rebuilt the X-L at the Hy-Art Theatre in Lovell and we decided to run it back in and watch the film.... I think everyone in the theatre was disappointed at W.O.W.! The original version is definately the better version here. So many things left open or unexplained in this version of the film and it had the feel and look of being finished up in a big big hurry. There was very little that was believable in it at all, especially the tripods being burried under the streets of Philly for a million years..... The overall look of it also sucked for the most part. Sound mix was pertty good though if one payed attention to it. Mark  |  IP: Logged Fred Georges Master Film Handler Posts: 257 From: Lombard, IL, USA Registered: Jun 2000 posted 08-05-2005 07:28 PM                     "I'm surprised that you saw ANYTHING at that drive-in." Hi Robert, Yup,Dim n Grim. They still have the Old Christie 4ks' with Centurys. I'm thinking they must have installed Phoenix kits or are burying the current cuz the image this season is almost acceptable. I'm held captive though as I enjoy a Cigar & cocktail under the Stars and their's nothing left in this area as far as Drive-ins go. Hell, Maybe I'll buy it someday as a retirement toy.  |  IP: Logged Jonathan M. Crist Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 531 From: Hershey, PA, USA Registered: Apr 2000 posted 08-19-2005 12:38 PM                     Speilberg's WOW is really two seperate and distinct movies: A standard alien invaders movie and a remake of The Diary of Anne Frank. I am not sure it is necessary to work the holocast into everything. Question: The grandparents in Boston at the end -Was that Gene Barry?  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 7 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.