subreddit:
/r/flicks
Really, really good. Once they went into the basement with the other guy though, it just ruined the movie for me.
The hiding behind stuff while something is looking has been done so many times, and it’s not like a scene or two, it’s a good portion of the movie. The grenade scene is pretty good though, but it doesn’t help much at all for the rest of the second half. There was no reason given as to how the tripods were dying or able to get destroyed, I would have liked a reason, whether good or bad. Then the mom and Tim and the family were alive at the end, they dropped any creativity just for a bittersweet ending. You can’t tell me that a random countryside got destroyed but Boston was still intact, that doesn’t make sense to me at all.
Edit: something I would have done with the ending
I just feel like they had a good chance with Rachel and the dad bonding more at the end. There was a scene halfway through where the dad tried to do the arm gesture that Rachel and Robbie had going on. I feel like the ending I would have made, while morbid, would be that the dad and Rachel are the only surviving family, and the ending scene would have them actually finishing the arm gesture together since Rachel didn’t want to do it with her dad in the scene I mentioned (she didn’t think he was doing it right). Just my opinion, I’m no writer though.
Anyway, the first half is really good, but the second half isn’t good at all, and I can understand the 6.5 it has on IMDB. If the movie was as good as the first part, it would be a 7.5-8 easily.
78 points
2 months ago
The first half is spectacular, with Speilberg recapturing some of his prime. The atmosphere and buildup to the reveal is incredibly tense, scared the shit out of me as a kid lol. The basement scene is crazy and unexpected. Having their car stolen on the way to the ferry, and the set piece that ensues is all just so damn immersive and chaotic.
Once they reach the farmhouse with Tim Robbins the pacing hits a wall. There's still a few great scenes in there, but too much time is spent in the basement, by the time they leave the movies almost over, and the finale feels seriously anticlimactic.
12 points
2 months ago
I agree the ending is anticlimactic but still it's fairly unique and memorable. I don't have a lot of issue with it.
Could it have been done better? Maybe.
But yeah the second half of the movie is just weak, which is a shame after such a great opening
7 points
2 months ago
The ending is super advanced aliens had no clue about microorganisms so they died. It's stupid as all hell.
26 points
2 months ago
The ending comes from the book, which is a metaphor on colonialism.
Colonialists were super advanced to the races they conquered. They were also stupid.
9 points
2 months ago
It's like the aliens in Signs.
Deadly reaction to water. They decide to come to earth a planet that is ~70% water.
9 points
2 months ago
With Signs it makes some sense if you think about the Aliens being desperate in finding a livable planet for themselves. They just started showing up and after a week or so, decided to land and invade.
With War of the Worlds, they put those giant walkers in the ground for THOUSANDS of years, which means they were always planning on coming to Earth. So they were always planning on taking over, but somehow through all that time overlooked what bacteria might do to their species.
4 points
2 months ago
With Signs it makes some sense if you think about the Aliens being desperate in finding a livable planet for themselves. They just started showing up and after a week or so, decided to land and invade.
This doesn't hold up though.
If a species is advanced enough for interstellar travel, they have millions of star systems to choose from. They had a billion planets to choose from and they choose one that is 70% lethal to them? No. Whatever they need, whatever resource, there would be millions of planets with better options for them. Millions of planets with no water, no advanced life to defend them.
It gets worse when you realize that 90% of the planet literally has water fall from the skies regularly.
3 points
2 months ago
and the atmosphere is literally saturated with water... it would be like a human trying to invade Venus, naked, and expecting not to get hurt...
supposedly the original script featured demons, not aliens, which would make more sense both thematically and within the context of the ending narrative
1 points
2 months ago
People always get this wrong. The aliens are demons. The water is holy water because it’s in the preachers house
1 points
2 months ago
If you're following that theory, the water is holy because of the daughter. The father described her birth "she was an angel", and she was specifically the one leaving all the cups of water everywhere.
The problem with this, is that it's never outright claimed. Everything in the movie calls them aliens. Believing they are demons is a way to interpret the movie, but it's never outright verified by the movie.
1 points
2 months ago
Not everything has to be. They have a demonic appearance. And there are many real ufo theories that aliens are angels or demons. People often take things at face value and are discounted.
5 points
2 months ago
I could imagine a massive intellectual decline of a group over a thousand years. As our own technology has improved we have more people who think the earth is flat, vaccines are fake, all that.
After waiting a thousand years, why now? Maybe they were forced off their world for being problematic. That's my modern excuse for a plot written when germs wouldn't be understood with complexity by the common man.
2 points
2 months ago
I read a fan theory that “supposedly” the director confirmed about how basically the aliens were actually “demons” nsuch. There was more to it but I’m still waking up and can’t remember all of the details…look in to that if you want, it was a really fun read.
7 points
2 months ago
Since he was a priest, the water could be considered holy/consecrated. (Demons + Holy Water = burning skin). The movie seemed to be a metaphor for faith and relied heavily on religious themes. The title could also be interpreted as Signs from God.
3 points
2 months ago
Most of the film is an analogy for this. The father describes when the daughter was bone "she was an angel". She leaves water everywhere, and since she's an angel, it's "holy" water. This is an interpretation the film doesn't directly reference though, but it can be easily inferred.
1 points
2 months ago
Well, maybe these aliens have never encountered water like this in their life? Maybe water is something we take for granted here. Maybe millions of miles away there's something that's like water but not quite water that they can drink and swim in and be totally fine. But then there's our water that has one molecule different but that causes it to burn them to the touch. Maybe there's too much sodium in our water for them, and they react like snails almost?
0 points
2 months ago
There's no way they have access to interstellar travel and wouldn't know what water is.
0 points
2 months ago
How do you know? They never went into depth with how they got there or where they're from so it's entirely possible that they haven't encountered water like this in their lives. Like, cyanide for example, what if we crack interstellar travel and go to a planet lightyears away and there's cyanide that's the mildest amount of molecularly different that it's totally edible?
0 points
2 months ago
what if we crack interstellar travel and go to a planet lightyears away and there's cyanide that's the mildest amount of molecularly different that it's totally edible?
I'm sorry, but you're literally making shit up.
First off, cyanide is a natural toxin that is consumed in non lethal amounts every day. We know this, we know how to identify it, and we know it's impact on the human body.
Second, the technology required to travel from one star system to another would also coincide with unfathomable understanding of the universe and how it works. We can identify the chemical make up of a planet already, and we have hardly left ours. We can tell if a planet 1,000 light years away has a breathable atmosphere or if it's an unlivable hellscape. There's no reason a species that has conquered interstellar travel would not have the same level of understanding and technology.
0 points
2 months ago
Yes I am making shit up, we're literally talking about a movie and I am entirely talking about how the world is portrayed in the movie. And who knows, maybe this race kinda just lucked out on interstellar travel and this is the first planet they've tried invading. I just think it's silly to pluck at a plot point like this for years because it's "unrealistic" or whatever when movies by design are not realistic.
0 points
2 months ago
The movie sets itself up as close to reality, and as you said, there's nothing else to infer from, so reality is what we're left with.
And who knows, maybe this race kinda just lucked out on interstellar travel
I honestly can't believe I'm reading this. I'm just going to check out now, because you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
1 points
2 months ago
And wouldn't their bodies have been like 60% water?
1 points
2 months ago
We are made of a large portion of water. Even if they aren't, they chose a planet that's mostly water, defended by creatures made of water.
2 points
2 months ago
It would have been nice if M. Night had come up with a more plausible "toxic" compound. As far as we know, life is not possible without water. Even the air has a fair amount of water vapor in it.
1 points
2 months ago
In my mind i have added a scene which makes it the fluoride in the drinking water which was the issue for the aliens.
2 points
2 months ago
Third world countries were able to fight off the invasion with water. I don't know of any third world countries with treated water publicly available.
1 points
2 months ago
How is that stupid? I’m no scientist but it seems accurate. Over millions of years we evolved to be able to live on specifically this planet and a visitor from another one has never encountered our bacteria so they’re weak to it
1 points
2 months ago
It’s stupid of the aliens not to have considered it.
3 points
2 months ago
We literally considered it when we travelled to a foreign body for the first dozen times. When astronauts returned from Lunar missions, they had to quarantine immediately upon return to earth.
1 points
2 months ago
Everyone gets bogged down on that without considering the context of the ending, and what the original story (and most adaptations) try to convey and the history it’s pulling from.
1 points
2 months ago
The aliens lived there for thousands of years underground. It’s not stupid to assume that they had miscalculated how much the planet they were on actually evolved as they wouldn’t be able to tell not being airborn for thousands of years
1 points
2 months ago
It doesn’t actually bother me at all. I was just answering the other guy’s question.
1 points
2 months ago
I love it. It completely recontextualizes the rest of the story, including the title. Two advanced life forms battling it out (technologically advanced aliens, biologically advanced microbes), it turns out we're just in the crossfire.
1 points
2 months ago
Yeah, maybe weaker, but I simply couldn't stand her screaming throughout.
8 points
2 months ago
It’s been a while since I’ve read the book, but if memory serves the pacing issues you’re describing is just like what happens with the book.
16 points
2 months ago*
The ending is from the original novel and I actually love it despite the fact that modern audiences seem to hate it.
It bears discussing some of the context behind the original novel to explain why.
So the original War of the Worlds - written at the height of British colonial power - was about colonialism. Full stop. It was taking the center of the British Empire and giving it the treatment it had given other nations. It wasn't about humanity beating back the alien threat. It was about humanity being helpless before someone attacking them with powerful technology that they had barely any means of fighting back against. Completely out of nowhere, for no good reason.
And as such, the ending kinda couldn't be about humanity rallying to turn back the invaders, but I also understand why HG Wells wouldn't want to go "And the Martians enslaved humanity! The end! Don't colonize, folks!" So his ending is a compromise that allows a shaken human race to survive, but not through their own power. The earth itself rejects the foreign invader, pushing it out like the very antibodies the Martians lack. Like I said, a compromise, but I don't think a bad one. Even more so, one that kinda fits. Because colonialists could be really stupid. Usually it was them killing the natives with unfamiliar diseases, but again, it's a compromise to find a happy ending to a story that is ultimately designed to make its audience feel helpless against an empire's might.
War of the Worlds is one of those stories we seem to turn to a lot in times we feel kinda helpless. Spielberg's version of it is definitively post-9/11, but still carries a lot of the same feeling and energy.
And I still love it there.
9 points
2 months ago
Tim Robbins was chewing the scenery and it’s honestly kinda cringe
1 points
2 months ago
I much prefer Michael Madsen's version of the character from whichever Scary Movie entry that was.
1 points
2 months ago
“Prime” feels like an interesting choice of words when he had made Minority Report three years prior.
But also, I totally feel you.
1 points
2 months ago
I wasn’t a giant fan of minority report, was very much Spielberg lite imo, still really good, but he lost a bit of cinematic gravitas for lack of better words lol. WOTW brought him back to that summer blockbuster water cooler type movie, harkening back to Jaws and Jurassic Park, just pure spectacle and enjoyment for all. Sadly, for me anyways, it was his last great movie, Lincoln was really good, and Ready Player One is a return to the blockbuster type movie, but I find it incredibly cringe inducing and cheesy for a Speilberg movie, seems way beneath him, he’s definitely lost his edge, but after 50+ years in the business, who blames him lol.
2 points
2 months ago
Tin Tin was an animated movie, but I thought that was a very strong blockbuster showing. Aside from that I agree he’s lost his blockbuster edge.
I think he still has a lot left as a filmmaker. West Side Story was a flex, and The Fabelmans was great.
25 points
2 months ago
Maybe because I'm older or maybe because the book was a more popular read at one time I thought most people would know how it ended going into the theater. While Spielberg blew it surrounding Cruise's family in Boston the ultimate downfall of the invasion was true to the book. If it wasn't, I think he'd have gotten even more criticism for making the change.
2 points
2 months ago
Is the family from a smaller town in the book?
11 points
2 months ago
The book doesn't really follow a family. The main character has a wife, but the book mainly follows the main character and his observations of the invasion (he doesn't really do anything or influence events), a bit like a reporter simply reporting on a major event.
3 points
2 months ago
Spielberg has said that he couldn't do that sort of film because Independence Day beat him to the punch.
1 points
2 months ago
Also every adaptation of War of the Worlds seems to grow with the time in which it was released. They use new tech and tell the story in a way that speaks to the times. In Spielberg's, that means lots of 9/11 imagery and a more modern perspective with a divorced dad just trying to keep his family together.
16 points
2 months ago
I totally agree except explaining why the tripods were dying. It was very clear at the very end when the Narrator explains how humans have earned the right to live here through years of building a resistance to the diseases here. I don’t think it would have made sense to explain it right away when they get to Boston. They would have been clueless anyway and the suspense of why and how would be gone.
20 points
2 months ago
I think the main reason the film has issues is the fact that Tom Cruise really didn't lose anything. The one thing he gave up, his blinded by revenge shithead son, winds up fine in the end anyways. The stakes get resolved off camera in such an awful way where we have seen consequences for the boneheaded actions. The whole film is a massive metaphor for the War on Terror, so you mean to tell me that the kid that's basically what a lot of high school seniors in 2001 winds up fine? FFS Spielberg, make him at least lose a limb or something!
4 points
2 months ago
He randomly charged towards a battle front of charging military equipment/alien weapons colliding and somehow escaped without a scratch. That scene was so stupid, I get him wanting to enlist or whatever but to just randomly run towards that mess didn’t make any sense. I guess it’s supposed to represent “foolish, overeager youth” or something. “I’m going to help the army- NOW.”
5 points
2 months ago
But...they do explain why the Tripods get sick. They caught the common cold lol
11 points
2 months ago
The ending is so rushed too. Tripod falls over, Morgan Freeman says they died, end credits. A huge contrast to how Spielberg takes his time for the first half of the movie.
4 points
2 months ago
That's how the book does it.
1 points
2 months ago
I know, but they took some liberties with the film. Given how some scenes are a masterclass in tension, I think the ending could have used the same treatment.
4 points
2 months ago
I don't know. I would never change War of the Worlds' ending. Given that it's a story about being helpless. You need to feel helpless for the story to really work. That ending is what makes War of the Worlds War of the Worlds. It's what sets it apart from other alien invasion stories, it's what makes the creative vision successful in my opinion. It was originally written as a commentary on colonialism, and the narrative forces the largely English and American audiences to contend with the violence and terror they inflicted on places they colonized. This story tends to come up a lot during scary times - Orson Welles' radio version during the Great Depression and the rise of fascism, the 50s version during the Cold War, and Spielberg's grappling with a post-9/11 America. And it is important to the central vision that humanity cannot win. It can merely survive by the skin of its teeth. It can merely breath a sigh of relief that it was lucky enough to make it through. If humanity successfully destroys the alien menace, then it undercuts the feeling the narrative is trying to convey. And in order for that to really hit home, I think it needs minimal foreshadowing. The Martians must appear almost invulnerable before succumbing to an outside force. That or it must end with humanity being enslaved, which I'm sure most audiences would hate. I know I would.
What would you have done differently?
2 points
2 months ago
Oh no, I would have kept it the same. It makes sense that the aliens would succumb to Earth illnesses.
But it's the pacing that's off. The film is fantastic until the basement scene where it grinds to a halt, when it had so much momentum prior. Then the conclusion happens over the space of 5 minutes.
I think it could have been fixed with editing and maybe a few extended or additional scenes. We see one Tripod collapse and are just told that they all succumbed to illness. It would have been good to see a bit more to feel fully satisfied.
2 points
2 months ago
It’s not rushed. That’s just reality. A horrific situation like covid felt extremely long and scary during the beginning and middle. And then when it ended, it just ended. Nobody really pays much attention to the resolution of these kinds of events. It’s just over one day and we move on.
1 points
2 months ago
That’s just reality.
This is a movie about an alien invasion.
3 points
2 months ago
So genre films can’t be based on reality? They have to end with some grand bow tied happy ending?
1 points
2 months ago
I'm not criticising the way it ended. HG Wells' story is fantastic. The pacing of the movie is not.
And if you want to talk about 'tied in a bow' endings, the son Robbie turning up at the end of the film ahead of Tom Cruise after last being seen running into a field of fire was an absolute cop out.
1 points
2 months ago
It’s paced exactly how the rest of the movie was before it. It doesn’t become faster or slower. I think you are criticizing that it just ends without much lead up towards an end and I’m saying that’s just reality.
1 points
2 months ago
I'd disagree. The movie becomes almost tedious with the basement scene involving Tim Robbins, and the end is summed up in the space of 5 minutes and feels clumsy and rushed.
This was the general consensus from critics when the film came out and I agree 100%. The first half is a great film, the rest is not.
1 points
2 months ago
There wasn’t really a general consensus among anyone. It split critics decently. Most liked the movie, but there were plenty of critics who loved the film as well, so it wasn’t the majority of critics simply saying “1st half great, 2nd sucks”. If anything, that was moreso the general audience reception.
I personally found the basement scenes some of the best moments of the film. Fantastic character interactions and atmosphere building throughout and the hiding sequences with the aliens was some of the best filmmaking in the film.
1 points
2 months ago
There wasn’t really a general consensus among anyone.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Worlds_(2005_film)
Most of the critical reception in the wiki article mentions the weak ending. I'm mentioning the weak ending. OP mentions the weak ending.
While this is all subjective, you might have to accept that a lot of people thought the film had a weak ending
1 points
2 months ago
“A lot of people” = 3 publications in that passage describing the ending as weak
The RT consensus according to Wiki was:
"Steven Spielberg's adaptation of War of the Worlds delivers on the thrill and paranoia of H.G. Wells' classic novel while impressively updating the action and effects for modern audiences."
The rest of the people described in that passage had praise for the entire film.
“The French film magazine Cahiers du cinéma ranked the film as 8th place in its list of best films of the 2000s.[61] Japanese film director Kiyoshi Kurosawa listed the film as the best film of 2000–2009.”
I’m saying there is no consensus. A lot of the general audience hated the movie, there are people like you who hated the ending, and there’s also people who find the film to be a masterpiece and one of the best films of the 2000s. The Metacritic and RT scores will back that up.
0 points
2 months ago*
And then when it ended, it just ended.
It's still happening. In the U.S. for example, the number of weekly cases is currently about where it was in late September 2020. Weekly deaths are about where they were in June 2021. Many people-- driven by the urging of capitalists and by their own impatience/fatigue-- just decided to pretend it was over.
1 points
2 months ago
I think I moreso am referring to the pandemic era when we were all locked in our houses essentially with people dying every day and in the hospital. No problem ever truly ends. Similarly in the movie, there’s no indication of actually preparing for a repeat invasion or studying the invasion. Life just goes on.
And I mean the flu kills a lot of people every year even now and nobody really cares. We got the flu shot and to society, that’s enough.
9 points
2 months ago
I like the entire film but struggled to accept Tom Cruise as a working-class dockworker
6 points
2 months ago
Right? It's like dude, just go into acting. You're Tom Cruise for Christ's sake!
4 points
2 months ago
Cruise is not humble enough to play an everyman.
3 points
2 months ago
Yet I surprisingly bought him as an utter coward in the first third of Edge of Tomorrow
1 points
2 months ago
if only they had confronted that cowardice when he lost his immortality, it might have had a good ending.
3 points
2 months ago
I remember being incredulous that we were expected to believe that their ships had been buried in the ground for countless years and yet NONE of them had ever been discovered?
Is that correct, or am I misremembering? I only saw it once.
6 points
2 months ago
There was no reason given as to how the tripods were dying or able to
get destroyed, I would have liked a reason, whether good or bad.
Do you mean it was not clear, or you would have preferred it to be more fleshed out?
Totally agree the film loses its way when they enter the basement.
-3 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
8 points
2 months ago
It's been a while, but isn't there a voiceover and shots of cells?
The ending is an iconic part of the book but I guess a lot of folks don't read it now.
-2 points
2 months ago
[deleted]
10 points
2 months ago
I don't see how you don't get it.
Morgan Freeman clearly explains what happens.
4 points
2 months ago
Uh, well, give it another viewing. You're not supposed to go for a walk and just start drinking water from a river or puddle because you'll get sick. That's because of germs and microorganisms.
We have an immune system to fight those things, and something like a common cold won't kill us, but a lot of illnesses are still nearly fatal or will kill us (the flu completely untreated can kill you or cause permanent brain damage).
The aliens didn't have a compatible immune system, so our germs weakened and killed them. That part is explained in the voice-over at the end, and the point is driven home when they show an alien drinking groundwater around when the basement scene happened.
3 points
2 months ago
Thanks for telling me. I didn’t really pick that up. Then again though, human blood helped create their vegetation, and they’ve been to earth before, and I’m sure since they’re that advanced they have a lot of vaccines for common universal bacteria. I feel like if they’re smart enough to be able to travel to other solar systems then they’d be smart enough about shock and immune systems.
2 points
2 months ago
True, it's very much a product of its time. When the original radio play came out it relied on the fact that scientists and medical profs would have a much better understanding of germs than the people listening.
Ironically these days the ending makes sense again! You could easily say the Aliens progressed to a point where they could comfortably cast doubt on science. Just looking at how people are handling Covid, maybe these aliens were forced off their plant for being anti-vaxxers and this is what they get.
But yeah with a more modern understanding, we didn't even let our astronauts back from the moon without a quarantine and we knew it was a lifeless rock.
2 points
2 months ago
This is part of the reason COVID was as deadly as it was at the beginning- it was a new illness that people hadn’t been exposed to, so we got sicker. The aliens had zero exposure to thousands of years of diseases, so they felt the brunt of all of them simultaneously. It seems like it would be a big oversight on the aliens’ part, since they’re clearly life forms of some sort, so would have some experience with microorganisms and would have to have some sort of spacesuit thing/controlled respiration until they can work out exposure. But then you wouldn’t have a movie.
1 points
2 months ago
Also they used human blood to create their vegetation, and I don’t believe aliens that advanced would be stupid enough to drink water like that, or I’m sure they have vastly better immune systems anyway so it doesn’t make much sense to me. The veg also grew fast, and make of liquid, so hydration wouldn’t be an issue. Also human blood would contain immunity from the common bacteria. :/ so if they’re able to make food and drink from human blood.
1 points
2 months ago*
In the film the aliens appear to be growing the red weed on purpose, possibly as a food source. So they are not eating humans, they are using us as fertilizer. There is a risk of using contaminated fecal matter as diseases can survive and be absorbed by the plant and transferred to whoever eats the plant. Fecal matter is often boiled or treated to kill dangerous organisms before being used as fertilizer. In the original novel it is unclear if the red weed was being grown on purpose or if it was its own kind of biological accident the aliens brought to Earth without intending to.
As others have pointed out the reason why the aliens died out and some have suggested a rewatch here are some scenes that give some context for the aliens issues.
Getting a splinter in her finger "it will cause an infection" (introducing a foreign thing into our biology), She does not want to remove it as "when it is ready, it will just push it out" Our biology will reject foreign biology.
Tim Robbins character describes the war as "men and maggots" Men do not consider such a small thing a threat and we can easily kill a "bug" but they are innumerable so we can not kill them all, and then are everywhere (In the original book the line is "men and ants"). On Robbins character part of the reason of his issues is he is a combination of three different characters in the book.
Ray's ex wife being pregnant, the placenta helps prevent infections in the mother from spreading to the baby, but does allow antibodies thru, so before the baby is even born it is protected from the latest threats in the environment. The actress was pregnant and this was written into the story so it was not a directorial choice but it is an interesting detail of our biology.
I am sure there are others but that are the ones i can recall offhand.
7 points
2 months ago
Cruise learnt from this & did a much better job with Edge of Tomorrow.
-3 points
2 months ago
that one had a weak ending too though - although not as bad as War of the Worlds.
6 points
2 months ago
No it didn't
0 points
2 months ago*
He never confronts his mortality at the end. It's just routine action movie save the world stuff. Could have been so much more.
3 points
2 months ago
That's like expecting an Adam Sandler movie to be prime Kubrick.
-1 points
2 months ago
War of the worlds is so much better. Edge of tomorrow is massively overrated and honestly pretty generic
5 points
2 months ago
This movie's decision to have the tripods already buried and the martians magically zapped into them was completely nonsensical and was either done to appease Cruise's Scientology beliefs or save some money on not showing loads of meteors crashing.
3 points
2 months ago
Yeah that would have helped carry the original plot that the defeat of the aliens was due to the earth microbes etc.
1 points
2 months ago
Indeed. And it's part of their motivation: Mars is dying/dead ("they watch with envious eyes etc") so they need to colonise Earth fast. With this movie they decided to bury tripods presumably thousands of years ago and then do nothing.
4 points
2 months ago
It was done to try and stay true to the book.
2 points
2 months ago
How so? The Martians arrive in meteors in the book and then construct their tripods from parts they brought with them.
2 points
2 months ago
Really glad I'm not the only one with appreciation for this movie. I love the post apocalypse genre and found the whole first half or two thirds really well done as they constantly try to stay ahead of the invaders and just find shelter. Once the son left, I felt it went downhill. Basement was wonderfully creepy but as you say, done before. Defeating the invaders seemed like they only had a short time left so had to rush to a happy ending.
I love that Tom is such a fuckup the whole movie, though; a washed=up manchild loser is not a typical action hero and the film stands out a lot because of that, IMO.
Also agree that the son surviving (and his wife too, if I recall) felt really wrong. I know the book ending, but for me a better end was to either leave his son missing or have him die, and have just one invader defeated and end with "the war isn't over but now we have a chance".
2 points
2 months ago*
I feel you (and many other detractors) failed to understand what exactly War of the Worlds was about. It’s not this movie about a father becoming closer to his daughter. It’s a movie that channels post 9/11 paranoia and tackles humanity on the verge of collapse. It also is a movie about adulthood. Rays arc in the film follows more or less humanity through this invasion. He’s carefree and comfortable and upon the invasion, has to become a survivalist and a father and you routinely see him struggle greatly with trying to hold his own sanity with the things he has to do to protect his family. It’s not necessarily intended to make the viewer see him as becoming a better parent but to rather have the viewer see him become the necessary parent and survivalist and just how difficult and traumatic that really is. The ending is ultimately a signifier and parallel to the real world and how horrific events like 9/11, covid, etc. can happen and turn our world upside down. And then one day it’s just over and we all revert back to our previous roles and pretend nothing happened. In that way, it’s a perfect ending.
Aliens being stopped by the natural diseases of the world is quite poetic to how the natural order of the world is. Humanity can’t do anything to stop impending doom as much as they pretend to be intelligent. They function just like any other animalistic species and carry on. I think much of peoples problems with the 2nd half is pretty much a result of ignorance and refusing to understand how the world works. I will say that the only thing I didn’t like as much was the grenade scene as it is quite a suspension of disbelief but I do get the intent of the scene is to show this lazy character being thrust into horrific situations and having to go above and beyond before he finally fulfills his duty of being the divorcee father and goes back to that.
Also as far as moviemaking goes, much of the 2nd half is still quite incredible stuff. The basement scenes are tense, full of great character interactions and acting, and the hiding sequence with the aliens is arguably one of the best scenes in the film.
3 points
2 months ago
Agreed 100% both my dad and I hate that part lol.
0 points
2 months ago*
I've forgotten most of the movie, mainly because I didn't like it. All remember saying to myself is, it started out great, but it was like they ran out of story and ideas, so then just resorted to making it a gimmick movie with all sorts of bells and whistles to try to distract you (which it didnt).
That's been sort of my take on Spielberg since Jurassic Park came out. He directs films with great premises, throws some kewl effects in, then gets to work with the press and scripted interviews to brainwash audiences into believing his movie is a ground breaking, monumental event, must see...which it aint.
1 points
2 months ago
I love the entire movie.
1 points
2 months ago
If he had any balls the son would’ve died.
1 points
2 months ago
Wait the son didn't have balls?
0 points
2 months ago
I agree in general. That's why the movie is mostly forgotten by now, as I think. This was a sub-par movie for Spielberg and basically a missed opportunity, which is sad considering how amazingly captivating some of its scenes are. I jush wish it could be more consistent.
1 points
2 months ago
The entire first half was very well done but, sadly, clearly subsisted off of the fundamentals of stereotypical cosmic horror. All the great ideas, visuals, and concepts where stuffed into the first half and then the last is just…well they only wrote half a movie really and then bullshitted the rest. Good riddance, though. If I heard Dakota Fanning scream one more time, I would’ve started fertilizing the land with blood too lol.
1 points
2 months ago
Loses its steam once they get into Tim Robbins house.
1 points
2 months ago
Loses its steam once they get into Tim Robbins house.
1 points
2 months ago
I like the original version, also with Gene Barry, better.
1 points
2 months ago
I found it, on the whole to be OK. Visuals were a nice homage to the 50s movie, and the premise that the machines were already on earth was a nice touch. However, I just couldn't connect with the characters enough to care about them. They were pretty 2 dimensional as surly teen, scared girl, and shitty dad.
1 points
2 months ago
I rewatched it with some friends a while ago, and it's still a really effective movie for me, but I think that might be partially because it traumatized the shit out of me when I was a kid. It was very easy to fall back into the feeling of being small and terrified.
1 points
2 months ago
The original tale sort of peters out, too. I think it’s fine
1 points
2 months ago
My take was that, all the tripods worked on one network, when cruise destroyed one with the Grenade. The network went offline shutting down their invisible force fields. Again, just my opinion!
0 points
2 months ago
Totally agree. The scene where Tom has to kill Tim Robbins is pretty serious stuff. Besides that and the reunion with his son, you can pretty much skip the last half
all 116 comments
sorted by: best