This is topic War of the Worlds (plus OT Spielberg's love affair with 1.85) in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000946

---

Posted by Mark Pierce (Member # 3196) on 06-28-2005, 11:05 AM:
 
Oy! What can I say, it was pretty terrible. the visuals were really good but the story line was absolutely horrible. Nothing in the movie was explained and it ended so quickly that it diddn't make any sense.

Unfortunately, the movie slump is going to continue... Here's to hoping The Fantastic Four is good!
 

---

Posted by Christopher Seo (Member # 7) on 06-28-2005, 01:06 PM:
 
I had the same impression. See it for the visual effects, not for the story (though it's better than "Signs"... ). Maybe I missed some narration at the beginning which would have made the narration at the end less abrupt. The ending is a deus ex machina if I've ever seen one, and unfailingly happy in the hands of Spielberg.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-29-2005, 01:20 AM:
 
Gosh. I actually kinda liked it. Summer movies aren't supposed to have plots, are they? And I'm wondering if you guys saw the original... it also ended pretty abruptly - as did the radio drama.

Tom Cruise was himself, Dakota Fanning was marvelous as always, and I thought this movie was a pretty good summer time popcorn flick.


 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 06-29-2005, 04:15 AM:
 
This one is a nice stinky turd of a summer movie, and probably the worst film Spielberg has ever directed.

The CGI effects are ok I suppose, but again just like with most movies of the last few years, when not used sparingly (as in this movie), they become "blah" and have less of an effect, and are often just funny.

The sound mix on this was pretty good, but that's about all I have to say positive about this film. Everything from the boring script to the bad pacing and the "I don't care which of the cast lives or dies" to the Vaseline-covered lenses and bleached colors not forgetting the "eyepatch-over-one-eye FLAT FORMAT" to the incredibly shaky image from the printers, the Ed Wood narration by Morgan Freeman and the entire ending scene...this one's just a steamy turd.

1.5 out of 5 stars


SPOILER ALERT - yes it's true the son somehow didn't die and is reunited in the end with the entire family who all miraculously survived, even though damn near the entire rest of the planet is dead. Did you actually expect anything less? LAME!!!!
 

---

Posted by Paul Konen (Member # 41) on 06-29-2005, 10:31 AM:
 
It was somewhat exciting at times. I saw the shakiness too.
Anyone could have probably done Toms' job. Dakota was good. (I wonder how she is going to be mentally when she older doing all these freaky movies)

Somethings don't make sense. How did the video camera work when all the vehicles / electrical appliances were dead. Only that van would work.

I do think that the visuals were good. Especially the camera work involved when the family was trying to escape through the perfectly placed cars on the road so he could drive around each and every one. Do you think that this was done with green screen and filled in?
 

---

Posted by Michael Barry (Member # 237) on 06-29-2005, 11:48 AM:
 
What Brad said about the photography/print of the movie really stood out for me to the point of distraction.

I can't understand why it looked so soft and unsteady either (and the preceeding trailers were pin sharp). To add to this, the print I saw had a vertical scratch all the way through reel 2 and cap code all the way through the entire movie. This is on the second day of a new movie - the theatre should really have the print replaced.

I should really be reviewing the movie here, I know. When I finally get the chance to see the movie properly, I will do just that.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 06-29-2005, 12:01 PM:
 
This was nothing special, along with Brad I would have to say this is not Spielbergs shining moment. But it wasn't beyond watching. Cruise was very flat.

I think its worth seeing in the theater if for nothing more then for the Tripods at first before it gets old...and for the boat scenes.

Paul the van worked because the guy fixed something in the engine that was fried and it worked. The mass panic when they got to the dock, kinda reminded me of a zombie movie the way they were all trying to get the van.

All in all

out of
 

---

Posted by Allison Parsons (Member # 2728) on 06-29-2005, 02:38 PM:
 
First off, tripods in general scare me. Anyone remember the old PBS series called 'Tripods'? I doubt it, but it spooked me when I was a kid. Also, the oringial WOWorlds scared me when I was a tyke as well. So, alien invasions + tripods = a big no no to Allison.

So I watched this last night and the first hour or so (start laughing at me now..) scared the living crap out of me. I don't know why, probably going back to the childhood Tripod trama thing. Seriously, watching these huge mechanical machines destroying everything and people being totally helpless really got to me.

Then came the introduction of Tim Robins. After that, the movie totally fell apart and I was bored till the end. Nothing like a good rush to the ending to ruin a film! I was hoping for at least a good homage at the end when the alien's hand comes 'crawling' out of the space ship. That was even bad!

first hour: 4 out of 5 stars
last half: 1 out of 5 stars
 

---

Posted by Dan Suomi (Member # 2585) on 06-29-2005, 03:49 PM:
 
I kinda liked this movie. I do agree though it's not one of Speilberg's best. I don't think that Spielberg needed to direct this film, anyone could have done it and gotten the same result. Tom Cruise's acting sucked, no wonder why he has gone all crazy lately. The more I think about it, the more I think that Speilberg was bored and needed something to do and that's why we decided to make this film.
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-29-2005, 07:48 PM:
 
I thought it was more like a collection of scenes than a movie. No flow to it and most of it made very little sense.

Possible Spoilers......

The entire Tim Robbins sequence was pointless and boring and I think I already saw the scene of the tenticle chasing them around (only it was a kitchen with Velociraptors in Jurassic Park, reflection and all).

How does the son not only survive but somehow beat them to Boston?

Why do the tripods vaporize everything excep Tom Cruise when he is near everybody getting vaporized?

How does a plane crash leaving a huge debris field yet their van is unscathed and there is a clear path to drive out?

This script made Episode III look like it should win best screenplay. Dakota Fanning made me keep checking my ticket to make sure I wasn't watching "Hide and Seek" again. She played her part the exact same way in both movies.

2/5 - Watchable and good visual effects (although I agree with Brad they were overused). Sound mix was good.
 

---

Posted by Tracy Bellar (Member # 3049) on 06-29-2005, 10:25 PM:
 
I liked it. Not like I thought I would. I was expecting the big action movie where the star comes in and saves the earth. I think this was a good role for Tom Cruise. Not what you expect out of him. The only complaint is the quikee ending and the sons return without any explaination. What did the tri-pods find distastfull about Boston? Devastation everywhere but in Boston. I think that the feeling of being overwhelmed came accross very good. This made the whole situation believable. I like that Tom Cruise was a dead beat dad and not some superhero. He played a real person with problems for a change.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 06-29-2005, 10:27 PM:
 
I wish I could be a deadbeat dad. Hopefully someday I can be.
 

---

Posted by Robert John Jeromson (Member # 2559) on 06-29-2005, 10:40 PM:
 

quote: Lyle Romer

---

How does the son not only survive but somehow beat them to Boston?

Why do the tripods vaporize everything excep Tom Cruise when he is near everybody getting vaporized?

---

The miraculousness of the lead characters survival in the face of certain death is pretty much the same in the book, ultimately concluding with him deciding that he doesn't want to be alive if the rest of the world is dead, he decides to give his life to the Martians only to find, low and behold,

CAUTION SPOLILERS AHEAD
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

that the bugs (micro-organisms) have wiped them out.

In a lot of other ways this film follows the book very closely,

The curiousness of the humans at the aliens arrival, the devastation of the first encounter, him moving his family to what he believes is safety

(although in the book it is his wife, whom incidently he is seperated from and belives to be dead, only to find her at the end)

the exodus of survivors, the attack on the river

(in the film this scene is a composite of two in the book)

the imprisonment in the house with the "Curate"

(An Ambulance driver in the film, "Ogilvy" is the Astonomer in the book, but charater in the film is a composite of the "Curate" who thinks the Martians are demons, and "The Artilleryman" who wants to build a civilisation under ground)

The subsequent death of the the "Curate"

(Altough in the book the lead character doesn't kill him)

and "The Red Weed".

Yeah, Keopp has taken a lot of licence with the material but in general it is as faithfull to Wells' story as a modern version could be. I am certainly prepared to forgive most of its shortcomings.

It isn't ID4, a fact for which I am quietly greatful.

4 out of 5 stars.
 

---

Posted by Mark J. Marshall (Member # 1409) on 06-30-2005, 12:20 AM:
 
After reading Brad's review, I realized that I forgot to mention the stupidity of making this movie FLAT. Freakin Honey Mooners and Sisterhood Of The Traveling Pants are both SCOPE... but War Of The Worlds? Nope, Flat. WTF, Spielberg???
 

---

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 06-30-2005, 02:04 AM:
 
Apparantly most of Spielbergs crap is flat.

I enjoyed it for the most part. It was a little lacking in something good to grab onto. Mostly just a big blur of effects and such.
I thought they aliens were funny lookin' though.
And I did have a good time heckling it...Not as much fun as The Ring, but fun.

3.5/5

P.S. - *beware of spoiler*
In the scene where Rachel asks her dad (Ray) to sing her a lullaby and he couldn't think of any it's fun to start singing "It's the end of the world as we know!"
Good effect, I thought
 

---

Posted by Lyle Romer (Member # 1266) on 06-30-2005, 09:16 AM:
 
I assume Spielberg shot this flat for the same reason he shot Jurassic Park flat. In that one he said he wanted the flat ratio so the dinosaurs would look taller. I can only assume he wanted the tripods to look taller.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 06-30-2005, 09:36 AM:
 
I only saw 5 minutes of it the other night, but of those 5 minutes, I give it 4.5 out of 5 stars.
 

---

Posted by Stephanie M. Brosche (Member # 1982) on 06-30-2005, 02:17 PM:
 
I agree with the general consensus that this was disappointing. This isn't as bad as Speilberg's AI...though Ms. Fanning's constant shrieking almost pushed it there. Two things bothered me that nobody as mentioned thus far. I haven't read the novel, so perhaps this makes sense to everyone but me. If this is so, someone please explain it to me.

***Potential Spoilers***

1. Why did the aliens vaporize people at the begining if they wanted to eat/drink them, which is the case by the end? This seems a little inefficient to me. If I was planning a mass attack on earth for millions of years, I sure wouldn't waste by time screwing around.

2. How come there was a tongue/mouth on the SPACE SHIP that the aliens were driving. It's like the entire crowd forgot that those tripods are not the actual aliens. We are reminded of this later when an alien comes sliding out of a craft, but by then every one seems to have forgotten that they tried to pass off a mouth on the damn things.

These two things have annoyed me tremendously since my viewing last night. Any enlightenment would be appreciated.

Oh, and did that foghorn sound come from another Spielberg flick or not? That's an argument I'm having with a co-worker.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Sisemore (Member # 145) on 06-30-2005, 04:34 PM:
 

quote: Stephanie M. Brosche

---

Oh, and did that foghorn sound come from another Spielberg flick or not? That's an argument I'm having with a co-worker.

---

It does sound an awful lot like the 'foghorn' blast (which later became 'musical') from the mothership in Close Encounters of the Third Kind.

Maybe it was a little 'homage' to CE3K...



-Aaron
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 06-30-2005, 05:49 PM:
 

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Why do the tripods vaporize everything excep Tom Cruise when he is near everybody getting vaporized?

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

I assume Spielberg shot this flat for the same reason he shot Jurassic Park flat. In that one he said he wanted the flat ratio so the dinosaurs would look taller. I can only assume he wanted the tripods to look taller.

---

Spielberg needs to stop watching his movies in shitty multiplex auditoriums with top masking!

Any director who shoots movies in flat is KNOWINGLY going to get a worse presentation regardless of the theater too. I don't know of ANY theater where the brightness of a flat picture is better than scope. Same goes for resolution and picture steadiness. These are simple facts of the 35mm format. Come on Spielberg, wake up!
 

---

Posted by Mike Olpin (Member # 1115) on 06-30-2005, 10:55 PM:
 
SPOILERS AHOY!

quote:

---

P.S. - *beware of spoiler*
In the scene where Rachel asks her dad (Ray) to sing her a lullaby and he couldn't think of any it's fun to start singing "It's the end of the world as we know!"

---

quote:

---

Any director who shoots movies in flat is KNOWINGLY going to get a worse presentation regardless of the theater too. I don't know of ANY theater where the brightness of a flat picture is better than scope. Same goes for resolution and picture steadiness. These are simple facts of the 35mm format. Come on Spielberg, wake up!

---

quote: Stephanie M. Brosche

---

Oh, and did that foghorn sound come from another Spielberg flick or not? That's an argument I'm having with a co-worker.

---

I think it's more of a coincidence. It sounds similar at first, but if you listen closely the timing is all wrong and the pitch is different.
Oh well, it'll be a mystery for a while
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-01-2005, 04:51 AM:
 
Aaron, I would ask what you've been smoking, but then I noticed it in your member pic.

Seriously, you must work at one of those suck-o-matic "top masking" multiplexes. Properly set up, the scope image is exactly the same height as flat. You just get extra width (and resolution, and brightness, and steadiness, etc, etc, etc). Shooting in flat just makes it as if you have your hands up against the sides of your eyes, blocking out all peripheral vision. Artistic intent my ass. It's just being stupid.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 07-01-2005, 05:13 AM:
 
So, Brad, you would be opposed to intentionally shooting in Academy 1.33 (err, 1.37) as well? It should have nearly all the light efficiency advantages as scope and the format can be shown full-frame on television without butchering the original framing.

I agree that 1.85 is a sucky format, however.
 

---

Posted by Joe Redifer (Member # 3) on 07-01-2005, 05:25 AM:
 
If Spielberg REALLY wanted to make the tripods look tall, he should have shot it in the 1.33 aspect ratio like Scott suggests. What an ass (Spielberg, not Scott). To me the tripods seem tiny and short because 1.85 is just too god damned wide. But 1.33... oh man Spielberg's artistic vision would be truly realized!
 

---

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 07-01-2005, 09:21 AM:
 

quote:

---

Any director who shoots movies in flat is KNOWINGLY going to get a worse presentation regardless of the theater too. I don't know of ANY theater where the brightness of a flat picture is better than scope. Same goes for resolution and picture steadiness. These are simple facts of the 35mm format. Come on Spielberg, wake up!

---

quote: Aaron Garman

---

It'd be nice to see, however, a format develop for 35mm that used anamorphic lenses for flat films too. That way, we could have the best of both worlds. Isn't DLP using something similar and not unlike the 16:9 format on DVD?

---

quote:

---

Scope and Flat Apertures
In the previous issue of this publication, we discussed the advantages of the
"scope" format. Compared to the nonanamorphic 1.85: 1 aspect ratio "flat"
format, the "scope" format is usually brighter, sharper, and less grainy.

---

quote: Scott Norwood

---

So, Brad, you would be opposed to intentionally shooting in Academy 1.33 (err, 1.37) as well? It should have nearly all the light efficiency advantages as scope and the format can be shown full-frame on television without butchering the original framing.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

I thought it was more like a collection of scenes than a movie.

---

I came away with the same impression. It's very disjoint. Still, the first hour or so was amazingly well done. I'm glad I saw it.

[SPOILERS!]

The first attack scene and the following getaway are terrific. I was particularly impressed by the use of long, unbroken shots:

1. The first shot of the tripod, looking over Tom Cruise's shoulder. First the ground breaks, and he and several other people run for cover. The shot continues without cutting away. Then a car comes flying out of the hole in the groud, obviously thrown by something BIG. The camera still doesn't look away. Then the tripod comes rising up out of the ground. You can see its huge shape, partially shrouded in smoke. It looked amazingly real and gave a great impression of size and scale. And the camera still hasn't cut away during all of this! It really immerses you in the scene, especially since it is all filmed from the eye-level of people on the street.

2. Another shot where Tom Cruise is running away, and people around him are getting zapped by the heat ray. The camera follows him into a building, a car crashes through the window, and he keeps running onto the next block. The whole thing is done in one unbroken steadicam shot.

3. During the getaway, there was an incredible shot which followed the van with Cruise and his kids in it, speeding down the highway as it moved through all the stalled cars blocking the road. The camera circled the van multiple times, moving in and out of windows, following it as it traveled. It was all so smoothly integrated I wonder if a lot of viewers didn't notice it. All the reflections, light, and shadows changed as they should, matching the camera movement and the movement of the van. I've seen movies attempt shots like this before, but this one was much more complex and so well done it looked utterly convincing. It was an amazing variation on the standard shot of characters conversing in a moving car. This one let you hear their conversation while still keeping you aware of the pandemonium around them. Again, this is the sort of thing that really immerses you in the movie.

However, all the above felt like a set-up. There was never really a payoff. I was expecting to see sequences of the tripods leveling cities and decimating human armies. Instead, we got tantalizing glimpses of massive numbers of tripods via a television monitor in the news van, and hints of a huge battle taking place just over a hill (but we never quite got to see what's going on up there). The film instead turned into a personal survival tale for its second half, and not a very good one at that. The scene with Tim Robbins, for example, goes on way too long. I did enjoy the bit with the grenades, but then the sappy ending came along (the stupid son should have died ) and brought it back down.

Overall, it was worth seeing, but the second half does not live up to the expectations raised by the first half. It should have gone more in the direction of the George Pal predecessor, and shown us events on a more global scale.
 

---

Posted by Aaron Garman (Member # 1653) on 07-02-2005, 01:29 AM:
 

quote: Brad Miller

---

Seriously, you must work at one of those suck-o-matic "top masking" multiplexes. Properly set up, the scope image is exactly the same height as flat. You just get extra width (and resolution, and brightness, and steadiness, etc, etc, etc). Shooting in flat just makes it as if you have your hands up against the sides of your eyes, blocking out all peripheral vision. Artistic intent my ass. It's just being stupid.

---

Actually, 6 of our 14 houses are set up for constant height, so I do understand the advantages. We're running WOW on 3 screens now, all with side masking, and each screen looks wonderful. I just don't always buy into scope equals better mantra. I do not disagree at all that flat is a lesser format, but rather believe that a film maker should be able to shoot a film the way he/she wants. Is Spielberg stupid? I highly doubt that. Just looking at his resume of films, he definitely has had some great stories, art, and just overall entertainment. I also have seen cases were flat looks absolutely fine. Finding Nemo was amazing, as was Sin City.

As for artistic intent, any artist likes to work within a specific space. Sure, it may not be as technically sound as the next guy, but they feel comfortable in that space and wish to convey their ideas in a way they feel right doing. It's Spielberg's movie, his piece of art. Calling him stupid for shooting it a specific away isn't fair criticism. He aims, along with any artist, to achieve a specific effect with his work, and he uses the flat ratio to do it.

AJG
 

---

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 07-02-2005, 01:53 AM:
 
How much of the 134 million budget was Tom Cruise's salary???? This movie sucked ass, give it 3 months and it will be on every video stores "new release" shelf.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-02-2005, 02:09 AM:
 

quote: Aaron Garman

---

Calling him stupid for shooting it a specific away isn't fair criticism. He aims, along with any artist, to achieve a specific effect with his work, and he uses the flat ratio to do it.

---

quote: Stephanie M. Brosche

---

2. How come there was a tongue/mouth on the SPACE SHIP that the aliens were driving. It's like the entire crowd forgot that those tripods are not the actual aliens. We are reminded of this later when an alien comes sliding out of a craft, but by then every one seems to have forgotten that they tried to pass off a mouth on the damn things.

---

quote: Lyle Romer

---

Why do the tripods vaporize everything excep Tom Cruise when he is near everybody getting vaporized?

---

Well, obviously some amount of people survived the attacks. If the story had followed somebody who was the first to die, it would have been a bit shorter

I do agree about the whole scope thing, though, it really would have added to the movie.

All in all, it wasn't without problems, but in terms of being a summer Spielberg spectacle, I was pleased.
 

---

Posted by Sam Graham (Member # 2889) on 07-03-2005, 01:43 AM:
 
CINEMA: Valle Drive-In Theatre, Newton, IA
AUDITORIUM: 1
PRESENTATION: DTS Digital 1.1 via in-car speaker and some neighboring cars with great big subwoofers
PRESENTATION PROBLEMS: Flat? Try side-masking a DRIVE-IN screen sometime
RATING: Two stars (out of four)

WARNING: Spoilers are a part of a healthy nutritious breakfast.

Okay, let's see here. Giant three-legged mechanical spiders with fricking laser beams roam the planet and vaporize people. That's all fine and dandy. But Cruise's character was the most unlikeable I've seen in some time. He's this self-loathing putz in a 1980's "Members Only" jacket. He has no skills. He has two kids and an ex-wife who looks at him like "God you're cute, but what the hell's wrong with you?" And he's running around acting like a weiner. There's attempts at humor in the dialogue between Cruise's Ray Ferrier and kids in Spielberg fashion, but it isn't funny because who cares about Ray Ferrier? They should have cast Joe Don Baker in the lead. He could play the big dopey loser dad much better...and he'd still kick ass through the movie.

I did enjoy the lightning scenes up through the introduction of the tripods, and the mechanical snake probe thingie with the adorably inquisitive look on its face. That's about it. Otherwise I asked myself questions like "Why is everybody desperate to get on the ferry? Are they WANTING to be sitting ducks for the tripods?" Then the ending just kind of happens and it's so throwaway that a narrator has to explain it. Although the narration gave me the idea that this would have been a good vehicle for Hitchcock back in the 60's.

Ah, what could have been...
 

---

Posted by Jon Morgan (Member # 3059) on 07-03-2005, 11:24 AM:
 
SPOILERS!!!

For what it's worth, the ending is from the story the film is based upon, which I would imagine most people going into the film would know beforehand anyway.
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-04-2005, 11:16 AM:
 
Spielberg and his DoP never cared about what ended up on the screen. Both CATCH ME IF YOU CAN and MINORITY REPORT had the worst prints I have seen during the last years.

Good DPs and directors create a look and mood through proper lighting. Sloppy DPs and directors always grab for devices which degrade the image - like push processing, bleach bypass done wrong, anything you can imagine that will degrade sharpness, details and pleasant color rendition. They forgot there's a difference between "control" and "degradation", which is why we have to see hundreds of movies with decaying flesh tones and burned out skies.
What makes me really mad is that some of these "untouchable" directors (Spielberg is one of them) rave about classics like the films of David Lean, Powell+Pressburger, John Ford - all great artists who did not need to make their audience seasick by shaking the camera and destroying all colors.

It's not a technical question, it's a creative problem.
Brad said in the JJ/70mm thread that even a shitty movie like WAR OF THE WORLDS would look better in 70mm, but I disagree.
All the mediocrity and stupidity of this type of cinematography would stand out painfully even more than in 35mm! More fine-grained, I agree, although they surely would find a way to degrade 5-perf 65mm sharpness to "give the movie a look".
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-04-2005, 05:51 PM:
 
So the following films were made by a sloppy director, who, because he's sloppy, hires sloppy DPs:

• Close Encounters (winner Best Cinematography 1977)
• 1941 (nominated 1979)
• Raiders of the Lost Ark (nominated 1981)
• ET (nominated 1982)
• The Color Purple (nominated 1985)
• Empire of the Sun (nominated 1987 and should have won)
• Hook
• Jurassic Park
• Schindler's List (winner 1993)
• Amistad (nominated 1997)
• Saving Private Ryan (winner 1998)
• AI (should have been nominated)
• Minority Report (worked for me)

Do you think he's always been sloppy and all those awards were flukes? I mean, come on, Schindler's List, Best Cinematography??!! It's not even in color!

Or is this sloppiness a more recent "development" (ha ha, bleach process, I made a little joke).
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 07-04-2005, 06:07 PM:
 
You're perfectly right, I should have specified that I was talking about the last few years of Spielberg's career.

I started to wonder in the mid-eighties why so many Spielberg-produced movies suddenly were shot spherical - I even remember people coming to ask the projectionist whether he had forgotten to open the masking because they were used to seeing Spielberg/Lucas-type entertainment on a really wide screen.

Things started to get funny when S. announced that 1.85 was better because the T-Rex was walking upright. Since then, I have seen a lot of sloppiness in each film except SCHINDLER'S LIST and PRIVATE RYAN.

Personally, I enjoy the look of films like RAIDERS, 1941 and CE3K (each one shot in a different style). Maybe Spielberg believes that type of cinematography would be regarded old fashioned today - I think the bleach bypass/Super 35/DI twiddling-look of today will look pathetic in a few years.

But I was speaking about cinematography only - and although I do not care about Spielberg's film any more, he certainly knows how to tell a story and keep his audience on the edge. Was it Harry Cohn who said that film business is about putting asses into theatre seats?
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-04-2005, 06:32 PM:
 
Spielberg can do anything he wants and hire anyone he wants. So what's on the screen isn't an accident or a result of carelessness. Granted, sometimes he hits, sometimes he misses. Anyway, it's one thing to not like the bleach bypass "look", but that look is a conscious artistic decision and not the result of not caring.

Now, the part about shooting flat, I agree with. I don't get that at all.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-04-2005, 08:01 PM:
 
Color is not mandatory for good photography. Besides, it's only been his last couple of movies that started to look like ass.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-04-2005, 08:57 PM:
 
I know -- I was just being obnoxious to make a point. Schindler's List is a work of art. Color would have been "wrong" for it.

And I completely agree that his apparent stubborn stand about shooting so many of his films flat seems ridiculous.

I did like the bleach process look of Minority Report, even if I wouldn't necessarily want to see more films that copy that look.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 07-04-2005, 11:42 PM:
 
I dunno David...I actually have for a long time stated that Spielberg isn't the Director that people make him out to be and his films vary in quality based on DP more than Steven himself.

His styles seem to be used as gimmicks like 3-D as much as for effect. Shooting in B&W is fine but I thought the cinematography was absolutely horrible on Schindler's List. I don't care who nominated him or what he or his DP won for it...compare it to other people's B&W photography and it was very much amature hour.

Steven's films seem to have almost gotten worse, technically over time. For me, his best peaked with Raider's of the Lost Ark. Most everything was dialed in on that one.

I have a theory that Steven Spielberg can't really compose his frames very well and prefers the 1.85 ratio because it is smaller.

Compare Steven to a team like David Lean with Freddie Young (DP) and you will see what I mean. David could really compose his frame. Stanley Kubrik could also really compose his frames...any ratio...shoot in B&W or color and regardless of what you thought of the story, the films could be watched a dozen times and still not get it all.

In fact, Steven should shoot in 3-D...it would just be another gimmick for him. Now then he could use B&W, 3-D, shaky cam with gauze filters to really make it special (and 1.85:1, of course). The one gimmick I wish he would try is to shoot in 65mm.

The one thing that I will give Steven Spielberg is that he has made a lot of popular films. It is good that he has made films that people like (that is the point, to some degree) and I like many of them too.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-05-2005, 11:41 AM:
 
Many (not all) of the Spielberg films I listed left lasting visual impressions on me. That can't be said for a lot of movies. I thought Schindler's List looked the way it needed to look for the story it was telling. Empire of the Sun is another work of art. Many (all?) of Spielberg's early films were shot in real scope (Sugarland Express, Jaws Close Encounters, Raiders) and he seemed to know how to compose the shots. I guess somewhere along the way he decided (or someone convinced him) to shoot with video in mind as the primary market. This business about "making the [whatevers] look taller" by shooting flat seems like a crock to me. Bah.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-05-2005, 04:57 PM:
 
Everyone get out your video of Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade in letterbox. Now put some tape on your tv to mask what would be 1.33 ratio in the middle of the scope image and watch the ENTIRE first scene with River Phoenix. Save for 2 shots of River hanging on the sides of the boxcars, the entire thing works!!!

Good composition? Hardly. Better than shooting in 1.85? Oh hell yeah. He still gets his "tunnelvision" by keeping the action centered on screen, yet he gets all of the technical quality increases by the anamorphic format AND those of us who actually HAVE peripheral vision, it brings us more into the movie, even if the stuff to the side is just wasted space.
 

---

Posted by Wolff King Morrow (Member # 2226) on 07-05-2005, 05:12 PM:
 
The solution is simple:

All good movies should be in scope.
All bad movies should be in flat.


 

---

Posted by William Valdes (Member # 2690) on 07-05-2005, 06:38 PM:
 
Just my opinion,
Spielberg has made many great entertaining films over the years that have made a whole lotta money. If the man wants to shoot his films in FLAT, he's earned his right to do so.
AND... War Of The Worlds wasn't too bad. It was a nice entertaining popcorn summer blockbuster movie.
NOW, White Chicks, From Justin To Kelly, You Got Served, Gigli, THOSE are examples of BIG FAT TURDS!
 

---

Posted by John Anastasio (Member # 607) on 07-05-2005, 09:40 PM:
 
Having spent some of the scarier moments of my life in Newark, I was pleased to see what Spielberg did to it. The little girl's screaming really put the tweeters to the test...but isn't that what Sci-Fi is all about anyway? Little girls screaming?
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 07-06-2005, 12:33 AM:
 
Mr. Spielberg shoots in 1.85 most of the time because he believes that "the human eye sees in a frame closer to 1.85 than to 2.35, so it makes the film more natural to look at if the screen more closely matches that of what the natural eye can see".

Ciao

ps... loved the movie, big fan of the book and original film, felt it was quite good, but not really for a second look. Too dark and dreary, needed better and brighter colors and a real actor.

Ciao again
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 07-06-2005, 12:41 AM:
 
Steve needs to open his other eye.
 

---

Posted by William Valdes (Member # 2690) on 07-06-2005, 01:38 AM:
 
Personally, I've never had a problem watching films in flat. As a matter of fact, I find I'm able to watch it easier from closer up which is definitely a plus for those sold-out situations where patrons are left with only the first couple of rows of seating in an auditorium.
 

---

Posted by Adam Martin (Member # 641) on 07-06-2005, 01:52 AM:
 

quote: John Anastasio

---

but isn't that what Sci-Fi is all about anyway? Little girls screaming?

---

No, those are slasher flicks ... and the girls are supposed to be topless.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-08-2005, 08:23 PM:
 
I've been unable to find any general consensus on whether "War of the Worlds" is good or not. Comments here at Film-Tech have been decidedly negative. But Rotten Tomatoes' tomato-meter score on this movie is 73% -close to "certified fresh." So I figured I just needed to check it out to form my own opinion. I did just that last night at the Carmike 8 in Lawton.

Movie Review
Overall, I liked "War of the Worlds" and give it a positive review -three stars out of four (barely). My positive judgment comes in part over not having high expectations when entering the theater. The show delivered what I expected and I thought it did it well -for the most part.

I'm familiar with the H.G. Wells novel. So I expected most of the events in the third act (which so many others disliked). Spielberg was pretty much stuck ending it the way he did, otherwise it would be a huge betrayal to the book and even the older movie version. The ending does fail an aspect of character arc and development you would learn in screenwriting 101. The protagonist (or "hero") needs to defeat the bad guys through his own efforts. If an external factor defeats the bad guys that turns the protagonist into merely a bystander. Characters need to affect the plot line of a story, not just run away from shit that happens.

The first two-thirds of the movie was really good. The carnage unleashed by the first tripod seen in the movie reminded me a little of the D-Day beach landing in "Saving Private Ryan." I got a pretty creepy feeling watching the Bayonne Bridge get exploded. I drove over that bridge a good number of times when I lived on Staten Island.

This isn't to say the movie didn't come close a few times to making me hate it. One of my coworkers loves the performances of Dakota Fanning, including the one in this movie. I didn't feel the same way. I found her character irritating for a list of reasons. I was expecting Tom Cruise to toss the irrational, tantrum throwing girl out of the SUV onto the West Shore Expressway. The son wasn't much better, with his motivation to run where the danger is to get stupidly cooked rather than travel the more logical direction. I've seen worse, audience angering levels of stupidity in characters -such as the last wench alive in the recent "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake.

To me, the most glaring act of character stupidity in "War of the Worlds" is all those people clamoring to get on board a ferry traveling over very chilly, deep water. Real smart move with three tripods moving into town toward the ferry terminal. To paraphrase Tom Sizemore from "Saving Private Ryan,": one man is a waste of ammo, a ferry full of stupid humans is a juicy target.

Although I went into detail more about complaints rather than positives, I still liked the movie; I'm not too sure I'll buy the DVD though. If so, we'll just have to turn the stupid parts into a drinking game. When a character does or says something stupid, take a drink.

Sound Quality
The show was playing on two screens; I picked #4 (THX-DTS). The sound mix was really very good. I should note this auditorium was retuned during the past week. So my experience is likely skewed to a more noticeably positive degree than what others will experience on average. With all the sub-par experiences I've had at a lot of other venues, I really appreciate it when a movie has a good mix and its playing in a good auditorium with all the settings well set.

CAP Code
CAP Code was a problem in this movie. The chicken pox shit popped up on flash edits within the first tripod sequence. Someone needs a slap across the face for that. Really, this stuff should not be used at all on 35mm prints. But if it is used, pick a freaking boring spot to place it. There's a chance I might be in the restroom and will be able to miss seeing it.

Cinematography
Yeah, the cinematography could have been better. The color was greatly washed out of the frame for much of the show. Some shots were out of focus and blurry. Others, like the bodies floating in the river, looked like it had been badly underexposed on 16mm. Maybe it was for artistic intent. But I argue that whole grunge, home movie, documentary look has turned into really bad schtique. It reminds me of all those shitty looking music videos of the late 1980's that vomited out the home movie look over and over and over and over again. Damn!!

It would be nice if a director or cinematographer could make the artistic statement of shooting a movie in as high a level of quality as possible. Maybe we'll have to dig Nestor Almendros out of his grave and re-animate him.

The Flat versus 'Scope Issue
I didn't have any problem with "War of the Worlds" being shot flat. It had the loose composition and higher amount of headroom typical of a flat film. Sure, it might have been nice if the movie had been in 'scope. And that would have demanded a pretty different look for the film (which may not have been a bad thing either). Nevertheless, the 1.85:1 ratio didn't spoil the movie for me.

Now, here's the axe I have to grind regarding the 'scope versus flat thing: lots of movies are released with 'scope prints when they really should have been released flat.

There is a LOT of bullshit widescreen being vomited into theaters. This is aimed squarely at a lot of the Super 1.85/Super35 crowd. A bunch of these movies are basically composed as if they're being produced as a flat film or even for square TV sets. They just get cropped at the top and bottom a bit further. It takes more than that to produce a real widescreen movie. The director and DP need to design shots specifically for that frame. The production designer and set decorator also must make adjustments as well. It's a whole different animal.

It is a rare thing for someone to shoot in Super35 format and actually compose for the 2.39:1 frame. David Fincher and James Cameron are the only directors I can immediately name who do this. Most others who want to do widescreen right are going to shoot anamorphic.

Sure, there's examples of bad anamorphic cinematography. I hate the trend of recent decades to crop in way the hell too tight and chop off foreheads and chins just to use up more negative space on the sides. Still, I see more problems with a 1.85:1 produced movie trying to bullshit its way onto a scope print. I think its equally as bad as those movies shot on video, thrown through a film step and released onto DVD in that manner. The video looks like ass that way. If a director wants to shoot a movie on video he should have some balls and stand behind that video look. The same rule should be applied to filming with spherical lenses. It's called, "hey DP, choose a fucking format!" Either frame and release for 1.85:1 or frame and release for 2.39:1. Enough with so much of this halfway bullshit.
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-09-2005, 04:47 PM:
 
Today, 12:00 noon, Regal Cinema World 8 in Eugene. House #4, SR-D. Attendance about 25.

Not a shining moment for presentation there - Too many flecks of dirt; light horizontal scratches intermittently appearing in the vertical centerline of the frame (though only noticeable on bright scenes). One reel was badly fogged for a couple seconds, so bad that both the digital and analog sound dropped out (reel 4 I think). Shame on someone for not getting a replacement reel.

I bought this 100% -- It worked for me. Roger Ebert may be getting senile - he missed the boat on this one entirely. I wasn't bothered by the 1.85 "look" - Maybe they made the right choice on that after all. The sound mix is noteworthy, very well done. Very involving and scary. All in all I give it a high recommendation.
 

---

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 07-10-2005, 10:21 PM:
 
Except for the ridiculous "feel-good" ending that was totally out of place, this was one wild ride. I happened to think the cinematography was appropriate in this case, as it portrayed the level of confusion that the characters were going through, and had the rough-edged feel that the action portrayed.

The sound was truly extroadinary, with deep bass that filled the huge theatre with no clipping. And even though the screen was huge, the 1.85 image was well-lit, with perfect corner-to-corner brightness and focus. Only disappointment: The Chinese has finally sold out and started showing Screenvision video ads before the movie. The brand-new curtains duplicating the original design did close between previews and main attraction, but still!!! Boo, Hiss!!!
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 07-10-2005, 10:41 PM:
 
may contain Spoilers

This is something I've been meaning to post for a while. I really don't think the ending was a "Feel Good" ending at all. Look at it like this, Ray (TC) thinks his son is dead, now he has to move on with his life with his daughter. They get to Boston and find out that his ex wife and her entire family is ok, and then that his son is still alive. the last thing we see is Ray standing in the street with the ENTIRE family staring at him.

Ray had finally gotten close to his daughter and she looked at him as a father figure now. Now hes all alone again and will have to go on re building his life with out them...but every other weekend if hes lucky. Really sad actually. Thats just my view.

Opinions?!
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-11-2005, 09:32 AM:
 
Kurt, that's the same read I have on the ending. They connected through this horrific shared experience, then it's gonna be back to visits every other weekend.
 

---

Posted by Michael Coate (Member # 757) on 07-12-2005, 10:53 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

I actually have for a long time stated that Spielberg isn't the Director that people make him out to be and his films vary in quality based on DP more than Steven himself.

---

Spielberg's DPs and the number of times working together
Janusz Kaminski (9)
Allen Daviau (3 1/4)
Douglas Slocombe (3)
Dean Cundey (2)
Vilmos Zsigmond (2)
Bill Butler (1)
William Fraker (1)
Mikael Salomon (1)

Spielberg's Feature Films as Director
The Sugarland Express (1974, scope, DP: Zsigmond)
Jaws (1975, scope, Butler)
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977, scope, Zsigmond)
1941 (1979, scope, Fraker)
Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981, scope, Slocombe)
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982, flat, Daviau)
Twilight Zone: The Movie (one segment, 1983, flat, Daviau)
Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (1984, scope, Slocombe)
The Color Purple (1985, flat, Daviau)
Empire Of The Sun (1987, flat, Daviau)
Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade (1989, scope, Slocombe)
Always (1989, flat, Salomon)
Hook (1991, scope, Cundey)
Jurassic Park (1993, flat, Cundey)
Schindler's List (1993, flat, Kaminski)
The Lost World (1997, flat, Kaminski)
Amistad (1997, flat, Kaminski)
Saving Private Ryan (1998, flat, Kaminski)
A.I. (2001, flat, Kaminski)
Minority Report (2002, scope [super-35], Kaminski)
Catch Me If You Can (2002, flat, Kaminski)
The Terminal (2004, flat, Kaminski)
War Of The Worlds (2005, flat, Kaminski)

Since much of this thread has focused on image quality and scope vs. flat issues, I thought I'd mention that Allen Daviau told me a few years ago that they came very close to shooting "Empire Of The Sun" in 65mm. Now how coooooool would that've been?!
 

---

Posted by David Stambaugh (Member # 1102) on 07-12-2005, 11:36 AM:
 
As it is, "Empire" is a visual masterpiece. One can only imagine what it would look like if it'd been shot in 65mm. If any film in recent memory deserved the 65mm treatment, that's the one. Not that POS "Far and Away".

Nice list Mike.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 07-12-2005, 03:36 PM:
 
*+spoilers+*

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

The ending does fail an aspect of character arc and development you would learn in screenwriting 101. The protagonist (or "hero") needs to defeat the bad guys through his own efforts. If an external factor defeats the bad guys that turns the protagonist into merely a bystander. Characters need to affect the plot line of a story, not just run away from shit that happens.

---

I disagree. For proper "screenwriting 101" character development: the protagonist has a want or a need, something keeps him/her from that want/need... this is generally a flaw or shortcoming of the protagonist. To develop, the protagonist will have to recognize this shortcoming and ultimately make a decision about (or act upon) it (the shortcoming). If the decision or action finally made is very different from how that character would've acted in the beginning of the film, then the character has developed.

So, re: WOTW. I think the character development is fine... granted IF you contend that Ray Ferrier's want/need is to destroy the tripods and kill all the aliens, then bringing in germs to eliminate the aliens does cheat the audience. I don't think that is Ray's want, but Earth's want (one of the titular "worlds" and, our world, Earth, succeeds) ... but I contend that the specific wants/needs of Ray Ferrier are more on the lines of say ... he want to just get through the weekend with the kids, half-assed as usual & drop them off at their mother's place (beginning of the film). Some events bring a conflict to this want (the whole alien invasion thing, then the "bad father" stuff, then being forced to chose between protecting the son or the daughter ... etc). He fails, midway through, by losing his son. He begins to realize that he is not the father figure he thought he was, and his actions change now that he feels he has only his daughter left (singing to her, eliminating a possible threat ...). He does indeed succeed, with his daughter anyway, in his initial goal of getting through the weekend & dropping her off with her mom. But the character development is that whereas before he would have been happy to drop the kids off & be alone again, he now realizes that he hadn't been the best father & we, the audience, get the impression (as was mentioned above by Kurt & David) that being alone isn't going to be as "fun" for him as it was before.

Just my opinion, dunno what David Koepp or Josh Friedman would think of it though.
 

---

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 07-13-2005, 11:05 AM:
 
I like to see a comeback with 65mm films with its higher imaging and colour satiation, as there doesn’t seam to be enough DLP cinema presentations going on and if there is it’s like the 70mm road show movie eventful days now almost lost, with only a few cinemas showing the re-runs.

Sure it’s great for a new technology like DLP, but I don’t see it taking off in the grandness of what 70mm did all those decades ago, and I miss the look of it and the sound of 70mm is cool.

As for super 35 I’m 50/50 on that I hate the format and though I have seen so many films from the mid 1980’s which is when it came about, films like “Top Gun”1986 thinking it was anamorphic lenses, and then reading about it real depressed me, though I like the film it really bugs me that more and more directors are turning cheep.

“Martin Scorsese” said that widescreen TV’s are not the right shape and raving about anamorphic lenses, films like “Cape Fear”1991 which looked fantastic at the “Empire Leicester Square #1” “Dolby SR” sound and the “Lucasfilm THX” and the rocker chairs front row and centre was kicking fun.

And though I didn’t see “The Aviator” in the cinema and when buying this on DVD the major downside was it was super 35 and boy did I feel robed by him, there is a 95% chance that the new films today are going to be in super 35, just don’t tell the majority of the public that like going to the cinema, the rate of suicides will be on a major increase.

Conclusion super 35 sucks, Anamorphic Lenses rule OK.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-13-2005, 12:58 PM:
 
Jeremy, my criticism is pretty simple. A character isn't very impressive if stuff is just happening to him throughout a movie. If he isn't personally affecting and changing the plot through his own actions it gets boring.

The only "arc" I watched get satified with Ray's (Tom Cruise) character in "War of the Worlds" is him making up with his son. But that's not what the movie is about. That's not the attraction. With most traditional action movies (and this is an action flick), we expect to see the protagonist do something.

For instance, "Die Hard" is one of the most popular action movies of the last 20 years because the John McClaine character was some ordinary guy who sprang into action when locked into a skyscraper with a bunch of robbers posing as international terrorists. There's lots of crowd pleasing moments in it. Now that kind of thing is formulaic since so many other movies have copied it to death ("Speed" being really the only movie that was effective in duplicating the formula).

I liked "War of the Worlds" but it would have been better if it could have had more moments in it like Ray actually defeating a tripod.
 

---

Posted by Pravin Ratnam (Member # 1417) on 07-13-2005, 07:26 PM:
 
I was underwhelmed by this OK movie. I hated the decision to film flat which was made worse by Regal Perimeter Point overmasking the movie to what I assume is 1.7:1 or near to it. There was image bleed on the masking areas. The movie had the same old tired washed out look spielberg has been giving us for a while now. That dreamy look worked only during the river floating bodies scene.

SPOILERS GALORE
By the way, just because something's in a book doesnt mean you cant improve upon it. I didnt hate the ending. I was disappointed not because because of the choice of germs killing people. I think it's a wonderful statement how many generations of humans have passed on immunity to successive generations giving some kind of importance to every death in a way not many would think of. However it really had no cathartic or ironic effect on this story arc other than bring the story to an end because there was no good buildup in the final act. Why not kill off the son or at least have the son be injured and realize he would have been better off waiting it out and letting the aliens die. Or have him die and teach cruise a lesson on sacrifice. I also did not like the way Spielberg kept showing Cruise just running randomly and seemingly escaping death or even injury by enormous shards of glass blowing by him or other flying debris. I know a lot of movies use this to provide tension and a dynamic visual, but they overdid it in this movie. Almost every single scene with an explosion, Cruise should have been dead. And the germ killing happens after Cruise finally gets some breathing room with that grenade attack anyway. So it's not like Cruise was on his last legs and was contemplating something desperate to do and the germs just came in time.

What was disappointing was this movie wasnt boring, but wasn't memorable in any way. Tripods didn't scare me. Some of the early scenes were good to look at but was the surprise any more effective than the scene in the intentionally cheesy Mars Attacks where the aliens go batshit on the legislators with their cartoony beams? What about the basement scene in the eventually disappointing Signs. Much better way of building tension by Shyamalan(too bad his ending sucked).

The probe scene was silly. Such a clunky probe was selectively deaf. THe tension was nothing compared to Spielberg's own earlier efforts like the crawlers in Minority Report or the kitchen scene in Jurassic Park. The ferry scene was quite silly. Why everyone would want to be a sitting duck on a ferry was beyond reason.

The opening scenes to me werent any more effective than the opening Corolla scenes in the Dawn of the Dead remake. You expect more from an event movie like War of the Worlds if all they have going in the thrills department is that opening scene.

Then, there are problems with the book concept itself. While an invading army can encounter plagues and other problems since it is tough to anticipate everything, this scenario was supposed to be about aliens who supposedly buried these things under the earth before mankind existed. And all this time, they didnt bother finetuning their plans? No waves of invaders? They just send everyone in one wave not trying to see what happens with the first wave? Even Predator 2 had better logic where they showed the hunters on a competitive safari of sorts.

OK so if we dont find anything about the aliens throughout the whole movie, then we should consider this movie to be about the family and nothing else because the alien invasion is just a sidebar and are just background material. How does Cruise feel killing Robbins considering what he feared would happen because of Robbins happens anyway. He and his daughter get caught easily right after that. How is Cruise much different at the end compared to the beginning? sure , he grows closer to his kids. It is an obvious change. But is that it? Does he really do anything where he finds something in himself during the journey? All he does is dive on his daughter when both are captured. Thats something he would have done at the very beginning ofthe movie too. Was he ingenious helping his daughter escape? A collapsing tripod into a tree would have killed almost everyone in that cage. Everything he does during the movie is nothing great. He just runs in the direction of boston because his ex lives there. He gets on the ferry just because.

The only big moment was when he realizes his son could be a better man than he is. Once he lets go of his son. there is no character progression. I dont consider it acquired wisdom or even great survival instincts , but just lucky, when they scamper around that basement hiding from that probe.

For a movie with the title War of the Worlds, a lot of the destruction seemed to center near Tom Cruise. Nothing happens in Boston to his ex wife's house? Possible, i guess, but another unlikely event favoring the Cruise character.

Review getting long. Will end it here abruptly like the movie.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Jorgenson (Member # 2989) on 07-14-2005, 11:16 PM:
 
Bobby: nod... I get what you're saying... I saw it as more of a "disaster" flick where we observe the main character(s) endure the disaster, without really any hope of averting it ... I mean Die Hard & Speed... those were cops thrown into situations with bad guys... stuff they were trained to do (at least on a very basic level). This film, he's a crane operator, to imagine he'd go up against aliens? Granted he did a bit with the grenade, but to stop the entire attack, to me, would've been very out there... but I DO certainly understand your criticism, and it's quite valid... I just didn't see it that way.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 07-15-2005, 12:21 AM:
 
I'm not saying that the guy should single handedly beat the aliens. That would be laughably hokey bullcrap. All I'm suggesting is that the character would overcome some specific situations in a tough or clever (and therefore more entertaining) fashion.

Ordinary people in real life do heroic things. It isn't all just cops, doctors and lawyers (the only three occupations TV series writers think exists). The occupation doesn't make the hero, the actions do.

quote: Pravin Ratnam

---

I also did not like the way Spielberg kept showing Cruise just running randomly and seemingly escaping death or even injury by enormous shards of glass blowing by him or other flying debris. I know a lot of movies use this to provide tension and a dynamic visual, but they overdid it in this movie.

---

Actually, when you examine the story mechanics of it, there really isn't much tension delivered in a character running away from an adversary -such as some oversized tripods in this movie. A single human being might be insignificant or easily overlooked by them.

It's more scary for a character to hatch a seemingly practical plan that has only a slim chance of working and then using that plan to confront a deadly adversary.

Since we're dealing with Spielberg films here, I'll bring "Saving Private Ryan" as another example. There's a lot of tension in the scene where the group confronts the German machine gun nest at the radar tower. Some suggest sneaking around the tower to avoid the very real danger, but Captain Miller decides to attack anyway. And you just know someone is going to get killed in the process.

Of course there's lots of examples in movies where this kind of story mechanism doesn't work worth a damn. A lot of it is in the way you sell it. And that mainly involves characters getting things accomplished throughout the film in a steady, consistent, character building fashion.
 

---

Posted by Mark Lensenmayer (Member # 134) on 07-15-2005, 09:22 AM:
 
I did not like this movie. I did not get involved with the characters, and the situations all seemed like things we've seen before.

I noticed that animal growls were mixed in with some of the alien sounds, much like they were mixed with the storm sounds in TWISTER.

That scene in the basement sure looked like JURASSIC PARK mixed with the water tentacle from ABYSS. (The water tentacle is still my favorite all time "effect")

I think the end happened too abruptly. Not much of a climax.

Effects were very good, but nothing that hasn't been done before.

Earlier this summer, I saw MAD MAD WORLD during a summer film series. It was really enjoyable to see REAL effects, with no computer enhancement. They really had to knock the gas station down! Ah, the good old days.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 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).
 

---

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 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….
 

---

Posted by Claude S. Ayakawa (Member # 1401) on 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
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 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!
 

---

Posted by Christian Appelt (Member # 1067) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Stephanie M. Brosche (Member # 1982) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 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?
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 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).
 

---

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 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?
 

---

Posted by Robert Harrison (Member # 3202) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 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
 

---

Posted by Fred Georges (Member # 505) on 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.
 

---

Posted by Jonathan M. Crist (Member # 413) on 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?
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 08-19-2005, 01:15 PM:
 
To answer your question yes it was along with the other one from the original.
 

---

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 09-19-2005, 05:53 AM:
 
This movie really sucked.

My daughter saw this turkey at a local multiplex (make that the local suckplex, just one example of their work in the you suck thread) and they sucked some more by having the lens turret programmed up wrong, by the sound of her description of Cruise's on screen dimensions at the start of the presentation. Sadly they fixed it a few minutes in, so she got to watch the rest of this waste of stock as it was supposed to be.
 

---

Posted by Andy Summers (Member # 3207) on 09-19-2005, 04:08 PM:
 
“WAR OF THE WORLDS”

At the ABC ODEON Westover Road Bournemouth Screen #1

WOW was it a turkey, I didn’t know that, WOW I thought it looked good and sounded good, and even though the cinema was kinder not “THX” but sub standard Dolby process and fitted with the JBL 4675-A five-screen with a totally damaged JBL 4645 sub bass, JBL 8330 surrounds Dolby CP-200 with the Dolby DA-20 “Phillips” dual projection DP-70 and not even Surround-EX cheep (donkeys) the cinema had a good sound around 5 years ago before the damaged the SUB BASS, turned the fader up and beyond “7” Donkeys
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 09-19-2005, 07:22 PM:
 
Don't you actually have to see the movie to review it? Not some one in the family?
 

---

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 09-21-2005, 01:24 AM:
 
My review of the movie I saw, and the anecdote of the daughters experience at the suckplex are two different events. Perhaps I could have made it clearer.
 

---

Posted by Kurt Zupin (Member # 2751) on 09-21-2005, 07:47 AM:
 
What is it with people on here who can't take a joke, i would think the wink gave away to sarcasam but I guess not....oh well
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 09-21-2005, 04:31 PM:
 
I have been seeing lots of criticisms and a few questions on the movie.. I can't address the criticisms, because if I do I will make people cry and then they will think I am a jerk, and god forbid that anyone get thier feelers hurt... but...

On to a few questions I saw that I can answer...

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

If those things were buried for "millions of years," why weren't they ever detected?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

If these "creatures" wanted to eat and drink humans, why vaporize them?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

If the aliens could plan all this out for millions of years, why didn't they think about the germs?

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

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?

---