War of the Worlds gets the thumbs down

  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around critiques of Steven Spielberg's adaptation of "War of the Worlds," with some expressing disappointment over the film's reliance on modern special effects rather than a faithful representation of the original 1898 novel. Critics question the film's plot coherence and the portrayal of alien technology, particularly the mechanics of three-legged machines. There are also comments on Tom Cruise's public persona and whether it was used to promote the film. Some viewers enjoyed the suspense and detail in Spielberg's direction, despite acknowledging flaws in the screenplay and plot. Others found the film repetitive and lacking depth, criticizing its focus on a single family's survival amidst a global crisis. The conversation also touches on the historical context of the original story, including the infamous 1938 radio broadcast by Orson Welles, which caused public panic. Overall, opinions vary widely, with some appreciating the film's homage to the source material while others deem it a failure.
  • #31
Oh..GOD! This movie is the worst piece of crap I've ever seen.
I didn't like the fact that everything was centered one one person. The whole world is under siege, people are dying everywhere, we're about to lose our planet and existence so the survival of one particular guy didn't got much sentiment from me.

The plot is full of loopholes. The aliens planned this attack for years and hid space shuttles under ground even before mankind existed? Puh-lease.

Not once was there a reference that the aliens came from Mars. Spielberg probably thought that in these days, since we know now that there's no life like THAT on Mars, he didn't make a mention of it. Still, a classic element has been killed.

I missed Jeff Wayne's "Eve of the war".
I`m a fan of Tom Cruise (seriously, he makes good movies: "Last Samurai" anyone?), but he couldn't do much to improve this joke of a film.

...birds landing on a tripod... get serious Steven...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Here's another site with some information about the 1938 broadcast and panic.

http://members.aol.com/jeff1070/wotw.html

the site said:
The next day, newspapers across the country carried stories of terrorized people hiding in basements, panic flight from New Jersey and New York, stampedes in theaters, heart attacks, miscarriages, and even suicides. During the months that followed, these stories were shown to have little if any substance, yet today the myth of War of the Worlds stampedes and suicides persists as part of American folklore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
Are you guys serious? Is it that bad?
Well, I'm seing it on Sunday. I expected it would be good, with Spielberg and all.
Now I'm bumped.
 
  • #34
its like a scifi version of Gigli
 
  • #35
I know this is probably going to sound real stupid to you, but what would 'Gigli' be?

And, well, a movie can be not to good, but still enjoyable. Is it?
 
  • #36
It was this absolutely HORRIBLE movie that received more jokes then ticket sales that starred ben afflick and one of his wives or something that really really really really really really sucked according to just about every human being on earth.
 
  • #37
Really? Never heard of it.
Guess I'm lucky then.
 
  • #38
Palindrom said:
Are you guys serious? Is it that bad?
Well, I'm seing it on Sunday. I expected it would be good, with Spielberg and all.
Now I'm bumped.

I think it depends on what you are expecting. I went in expecting an adaptation of a late 19th century novel, but not nowing how fatihful it would be to the original work (other than the fact that it was of course set in modern times). All in all, I came out pleased with how much of the original flavor of the novel survived.
I've heard people complain here about how the story was centered on just one family, But the novel was written in the first person and told of that persons experiences.
The tripod machines were taken from the novel, and something I, for one, would have missed if they had been left out.

Other elements were taken from the Fifties movie; The placement of the story in present time, The protective force field, Cruise's character attacking the probe with an axe, etc.

The moive was an attempt to pay homage to both these prior works and as such, I guess it is just not everybody's cup of tea.
 
  • #39
Well, I've unfortunately neither read the book, nor seen the first movie. So I guess I might enjoy it anyway.

Stupid question: H.G. Wells, Orson Wells. Are they related, or is it just an amazing coincidence?
 
  • #40
Palindrom said:
Well, I've unfortunately neither read the book, nor seen the first movie. So I guess I might enjoy it anyway.

Stupid question: H.G. Wells, Orson Wells. Are they related, or is it just an amazing coincidence?

It's Orson Welles, so no, they are not related.

If you are going into this movie without having read the book, just bear in mind that it is based on a book written in 1898, and that it was made with those people that had read the book in mind. As such, it is going to take a little bit more "willing suspension of disbelief" than normal.
 
  • #41
I can live with that. It's only more interesting that way.
I just regret not having read the book before going...
 

Similar threads

Three new books to read about expertise vs. democracy
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
The Scientist as Hero - or not
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K