Just got back from seeing this:

SPOILERS:

Overall, a C+ movie.
Special effects were well done.

1953 Vs. 2005

Machines came from outer space with Martians	Machines already here- Martians came via lightning transporter beam
Martian creatures very menacing	Martian creatures not very menacing
Acid torpedoes	no acid torpedoes
Electronic tripod	mechanical tripod
3 colored electronic eye	one HUGE electronic eye- complete with flashlights
Showed military casualties up front	Did not show military casualties up front- only the aftermath. (Burning jeeps...etc)
Spark-like heat ray-burns people to death	laser-like heat ray--kills people instantly
Military uses atom bomb	no atom bomb

DUMB LINE: "I gotta go to the bathroom." Little girl. A multi-million dollar movie & Spielberg resorts to BATHROOM JOKES?!?!

BEST LINE: "Once those tripods begin to move, no more news comes out of that area" CBS woman.
(General Mann said something similar to this in the 1953 version)

1953 SALUTES in 2005 movie:

Transparent umbrella protecting machines

Electronic eye returns. Complete with eye staring someone in the face & the hatchet scene.

Mob scene stealing the hero's car

Martians get out of ships and walk around

End of movie- Martian door opens with 3 fingered hand comes out

BEST MOMENT: GENE BARRY'S AND ANN ROBINSON'S CAMEO APPEARANCE AS THE GRANDPARENTS!

MAN! IT WAS SO GOOD SEEING THEM AGAIN!!!!

"HUH?" MOMENTS:

There was NO EXPLANATION what the red seedweed stuff was.

There was NO EXPLANATION as to where the invaders came from. Also- NO MENTION of a "mother ship". If these aliens came from Mars- does the Martian "lightning transporter" REACH ALL THE WAY from Mars to Earth? A bit of a stretch- but somewhat believable.

There was NO EXPLANATION as to what that big "foghorn-like" noise was.

B MOVIE MOMENT: Tom Cruise has the ONLY WORKING CAR IN TOWN. Typical B Movie stuff!

Haven't yet seen the new film, so I don't know when the "foghorn-like" noise occurred. In the original 1898 novel, the machines called/wailed to each other (presumably via what we would now call a megaphone or some similar device). Could it have been that?
The red weed's also from the novel, though in that, the main character speculated about what it was. Didn't anyone say "What is that stuff?" or something in the new film?
Can't wait to see Gene Barry & Ann Robinson!

Gene and Ann appear at the tail end of the movie.

No lines...but DANG, THEY LOOK GOOD!

BTW...No one said, "What is this stuff?" about the weeds.

I agree with your POV on the foghorn noise.

It's been YEARS since I read the novel.

Also, John Williams score rocks....as always.

The film has recieved mixed reviews. One critic blasted the film for having a typical Spielberg sentimental ending. I doubt if it is as sappy as the sentimental ending of A.I.; that was almost nauseating.

Isn't that how the 1953 version ended? (I don't know about the book or radio) Didn't Forrester think that Sylvia was dead at one point but ends up finding her alive?

Anyway, I've been seeing mostly positive reviews for the movie. I didn't think that it was anything special, though.

The 53 version had a sappy uplifting all god's creatures saved teh earth kinda ending....

Summary: W.O.W. is WOW!

It's been estimated that because of Cruise's and Spielberg's back end deals, this film has to gross $500 million just to break even. (Did those two waive their salaries in exchange for a larger gross profit participation?)

I was very disappointed by the film. Not as disappointed as Roger Ebert, but the film just didn't live up to it's hype. It's reportedly the most expensive movie of the summer, but it sure doesn't look it. The film seems to be more of 'intimate' film about one man's reactions to the invasion. The film lacks an epic feel. For some, that's fine, but it just doesn't have the spectacle of Independence Day, for example.

Spielberg attempts to portray more vicious aliens in this film. He still can't resist the opportunity to include 'cutesy' scenes of the aliens looking at an Earth family's photos. The film's equivalent of Pal's farmhouse scene, taking place in a cellar, is really no improvement over the earlier film. The special effects are impressive, but so are every other film's effects this summer. In interviews, the makers of this film emphasised that they were taking a different approach than Independence Day. Not exactly 100% honest, as the aliens depicted are virtually CGI versions of the aliens in Independence Day.

To put it mildly, the ending of the film is a cheat. Sorry, but it's ridiculous that the son survived the firestorms that consumed everyone else. It's even more far-fetched that the wife's home was the one-in-a-billion place where a airliner would crash. It's also rather bizarre watching the highest paid actor in Hollywood playing a struggling working class man.

Still haven't seen the new film, but I have some comments, both general & specific...
How much of this new film is a "remake," how much is inspired by the original novel, and how much is new? Shouldn't the new film be considered its own thing, rather than compared to the 1953 film so much? (I'll be able to answer that better when I finally get a day off and can go see it for myself!)

I keep hearing comparisons to ID4... Why is ID4 considered the high-water mark of sf alien invasion films? It "ripped off" many different sf scenes from the past (including the 1953 War of the Worlds a-bomb scene with the flying wing). I use "ripped off" in quotes, because I remember reading an article about ID4 stating that the creators wanted to use their favorite sf scenes in one film... it was a conscious choice. But that hardly makes ID4 a very original pic. In my opinion, its ending (humanity just happens to unite and have enough coordination-and equipment-to make a comeback and kick the aliens collective behinds) was more of a cheat than The War of the Worlds having the invaders killed by bacteria.

In the case of the son surviving firestorms in which everyone else perished, the original H.G. Wells novel had the main character do just that, by simply ducking under water.

And finally, I can contain myself no longer regarding the near-universal (not just here at NitC) lambasting of Tom Cruise because "he's Tom Cruise, and in real life he's rich and famous, so I can't believe him in a role as a non-rich, non-famous person. And just look at his love life!" (OK, I'm not really quoting anyone in particular, but it seems to be a prevelant attitude among movie-goers lately. Maybe I'm just reading all the wrong reviews & hearing only the wrong comments, but a trend seems to be there.) So, should Tom Cruise stop acting, because he's so famous? Sure, I also recognize who Tom Cruise is, but generally can overlook that while watching a movie (same for any actor, really). I don't care about any actor's "real life" and so can watch a movie for the character an actor is playing. Hmm. Maybe Cruise is too famous for his own good, but then so are a lot of actors. Most of them, in fact.

Sorry if this post seemed a little off-topic, and as a final note, I just want to point out that I'm not ripping on Treklon nor Treklon's opinion; some of my points may seem to be responding directly to those made in Treklon's last post, but I'm not attacking them. I'm just in a hurry, and may have come off as more blunt than I intended.

You sound a bit like the president of the Tom Cruise fan club. Cruise has also gained publicity for his mean-spirited attack on fellow actor Brooke Shields. He went on further to attack the profession of Psychiatry on the Today Show. Medical doctors have called him "wreckless and irresponsible" for some of the medical claims Cruise has been making lately. Cruise IS using the media to further the beliefs of the L. Ron Hubbard cult he's a member of. Not for one second do I feel criticism of him is unjustified. I think it's important to speak out against crackpots. If I wanted to be mean, I could just repeat all the jokes around about Katie Holmes being his latest "beard". I don't care what he does sexually.

SPOILERS:


After seeing this movie, I had mixed emotions about the film. But the major nit I have about the film almost ruins the entire premise: If the Martians/aliens had the foresight to bury their machines on our planet many many years ago, knowing that the planet would become desirable to own one day, why didn't they take it over back then? Sure would have saved a lot of work, like killing off all those humans and planting their redweed or whatever. Why wait until humans have had time to build major cities and roadways, pollute the air and use up non-renewable resources? For all we know the aliens fell due to a human plague or bacteria. At least with the invaders coming from the sky (like in the book or first movie)it is more believable that they would fall to a microrganisim that was on this planet.

Another nit: who is to say that when they buried the machines that they weren't already exposed?

Next: So, the aliens have such advanced technology that they can 'sneak up' on our planet, 'beam' pilots to their craft, grow their redweed, and yet do not understand basic microbiology? I understand that this is the classic ending for all versions of WOTW, but it still doesn't make sense.

And another flaw: The method of the aliens to use humans would be one I would exploit to kill them all. Just have them vaccum up a human with 2 armed grenades and you have them beat everywhere. Why didn't the military try this? (If they did, we didn't see it.)

As for the movie, if you took out all the problems, you are left with a thrill ride / 2hr. chase. The desparation / helplessness of humanity is depicted, but little else. Worth a trip to the movies for the Special effects, but not a DVD purchase for me in the future.

CONTRASTS:

In the 1953 version, the churches in town were barely touched.

In this version, the church in the middle of town is destroyed.

-------------------------------------------------

In the 1953 version, only one Martian comes out of the ship

In this version, at least three come out.

-------------------------------------------------

OK, I see my point was not made well, as I feared. Um, let's see if I can clarify things a little...
I don't know what the president of the Tom Cruise fan club has said about anything, so if I sound like him/her, it's a coincidence. I'm not a fan of Tom Cruise, and I totally don't believe in scientology (crackpots, indeed). My point was that I can see a movie he's in without distracting myself with knowledge about the actor. (Or, as I said, about any actor.) I frankly don't know about all the negative publicity about Cruise because I haven't followed any of it... I simply don't care. (I didn't care about the Michael Jackson trial, but every news headline seemed to think it was pretty darned important. I ignored it and listened to other news about the world... but I digress.)
I like some celebrities' acting abilities (including Cruise's to some degree), but that doesn't mean that I like those particular celebrities; I respect their talent. The more talented the actor, the easier it is for me to look beyond the actor and get involved in the character. Call it suspension of disbelief; it's what everyone has to do for any movie, though most people usually think they only have to do so for plot points and special effects. But it also applies to the actors.
I do understand how an actor's notoriety can taint one's view of a film starring that actor, but I just get frustrated that that becomes the focus point. Speaking strictly for myself, I watch fictional movies precisely because they take me away from the real world (including "celebrity news") for a little bit, and hopefully keep me entertained in the process.
I hope that helps clarify my position. If I need to discuss this further, I'm not sure that this is the proper board, but I'm certainly willing to discuss things.

Hopefully, I'll be seeing this movie sometime next week, so I can post about it!

hear here ccr. Well put.

Interesting grammar & punctuation, R. (Hey, it's a nitpicker's site! I probably shouldn't kid around like this right now, I suppose.) In all seriousness, though, thanks. I'm glad I make sense to at least one person besides myself!

Oh, and Treklon, I hope there are no hard feelings; I hope nothing I said came off as some strike against you or your points. Maybe I'm inferring something that isn't even on your (nor anyone else's) mind, but I just want to be clear about it, just in case.

John A. Lang, regarding your point about churches getting damaged in this film versus the 1953 version... the last church in the 1953 version was destroyed while the lead characters clung to each other unharmed amid the falling rubble... love conquers all, I guess! Seriously, though, the church destruction in this film probably has its roots in the novel, where some of the first human structures destroyed were house rooftops & chimneys and the town church steeple. A second church was later destroyed by a damaged tripod stumbling into it. I suspect that a lot of elements from the novel worked their way into the new film, though updated and/or altered slightly.

I'm shooting for a Monday viewing of this, but if any of you are betting on it, well, don't... I'm notorious for having something come up that gets in the way of my plans.

The worst Spielberg film since Jurassic Park II. What were they thinking?

It’s possible that there are certain inherent limitations to the source material. Since the resolutions comes about as a result of something the humans have nothing to do with, and have no control over, there is an unavoidable feeling that the main characters are too passive and ineffectual in terms of the plot and climax.

But I tend to be an optimist when it comes to the problem-solving needed in art, particularly storytelling, and I believe that there are things that could’ve been done with WotW to have made it better. For example, you can give the main characters a character arc in which they experience some type of change. Or one in which the alien threat presents to them an opportunity to act against type, and exceed his apparent limitations. Or you just plain make those characters interesting. But the movie doesn’t do this. All we know about Cruise is that he’s a divorce and a lousy father to his kids. He loves his kids, though, and goes on the run with them when the aliens show up. And then he delivers them to their mother. And that’s it. Yeah, his teenage son thinks he’s an a—hole, and then they’re relationship is softened by the end of their arc. Whoopee.

Mind you, the first half of the movie is very frightening as humanity is subjected to a horrific and near-inescapable genocidal Holocaust, and we feel for Tom Cruise’s character and his kids as they do what they have to in order to survive. But there are just way too many contrivances and plot holes in the film, and what little power the film has all goes downhill during the second half, starting with the scene in which Cruise is trying to make his son flee from the scene of the tripods engaging the military.

Why, for example, does this little idiot say that he has to be there, that he “wants to see” the destruction? Why, during the trio’s earlier bathroom stop, did he try to join the military, as if they need him? What was the reason for this? If I were Cruise, I’d have punched the little idiot in the face and told him to get his ass moving. What purpose did Tim Robbins’ character serve, or Cruise’s confrontation with him? And how was that one car that Cruise stole still functioning? The mechanic said something to him that got past me. Was he saying that switching the starter, or something, worked? How’s this? Wouldn’t the component he switched have also been fried by the E.M.P., even if it wasn’t installed or turned on? Yeah, I’ve seen it alleged that circuits don’t get fried by E.M.P.’s when they’re not being used (as in Broken Arrow, but then wouldn’t all those cars on Cruise’s block still be working, since they’re weren’t being used at the time?

The most ridiculous aspect of the film is the behavior of the aliens. For one thing, how does a living being “ride lightning”, and penetrate the ground with it? And if this is how they entered the tripods, then where were they prior to this? If they approached Earth from outer space, wouldn’t NORAD have been alerted to their presence? And why did they bury the tripods underground? Why didn’t they just take them with them when they came for Earth today? What exactly did they want with humans? Their energy weapons seemed to simply incinerate the humans. But why? What was their problem humans? And if they were harvesting our biological material, as some have suggested, is zapping each one the best way to do it? Also, why did they have to tip over that ferry in the second half of the film? Is there something about boats that prevents them from zapping them where they are? The only reason for this seems to be that it was scary to the humans and the viewer. And why do they zap some humans, but trap others in those mesh prisons underneath the tripods’ main bodies? And when those imprisoned are sucked into that red orifice, why is it so easier to escape? All you have to do to defeat these idiot aliens is to have a few people pull you back out, and make sure the sucking device takes a belt full of grenades? Just how incompetent are these aliens? These retards are so advanced that they can build these tripods, and travel (presumably) through outer space, but they’re too dumb to understand the dangers of foreign germs? They send a tentacle probe into Tim Robbins’ basement (for reasons I didn’t even understand), and they can be evaded by hiding behind a friggin MIRROR?????? What, don’t they have non-optical sensors, like infrared, night vision, heat imaging, etc.? And instead of being composed of some superstrong material, they can be chopped off with an axe? Just what the hell is the matter with this alien technology? Hell, when the tripods’ main bodies were viewed up close, they didn’t even look like something of an exotic-looking extraterrestrial design, but like something engineered on Earth.

I don’t know what Spielberg or Cruise or screenwriters David Koepp & Josh Friedman were thinking, but this movie looks like they phone it in this time.

Good thing I was friendly with the theater manager, so I didn’t have to pay for the phone call.

Oh, and what the hell were those red "vein vines" growing all over the place in the vicinity of Tim Robbins' home? Why was this not explained?

Humph! I didn't get to see it tonight. Grr.

Reading other people's comments (here & elsewhere), I'm getting the impression that the movie producers assumed everyone had seen the 1953 film and had read the original novel, and would figure out a lot of this new film's unexplained stuff based upon that. Of course, maybe they didn't want to spoon-feed every little detail to the audience, either, but it sounds like they were a little too vague. (Kind of like a Space: 1999 episode! )

I don’t know what Spielberg or Cruise or screenwriters David Koepp & Josh Friedman were thinking, but this movie looks like they phone it in this time. --Luigi
Umm... huh?

Yet another comment:

I think Spielberg's version of W.O.W. paid a great deal of homage to the 1953 version. That's why I like it. (Because that's the way it should have been---IMO)

George Pal's version STILL rules!

The red vines seemed to be the Martians terraforming....um... Marsforming Earth.

I wonder why the humans have to be taken outside of the tripods to have their blood drained. Too messy to keep them inside?

JAM: Another nit: who is to say that when they buried the machines that they weren't already exposed?
Haven't there been strains of bacteria and viruses that have only just apppeared recently (i.e. in the last million years)?

Luigi Novi: For one thing, how does a living being “ride lightning”, and penetrate the ground with it?
I don't think that it was actually lightning, just an alien beam that looked remarkably similar to lightning. They were in pods that flew into the ground, shot their by these energy beams.

Luigi Novi: And if this is how they entered the tripods, then where were they prior to this? If they approached Earth from outer space, wouldn’t NORAD have been alerted to their presence?
I assumed that they came from space. It's not like this is the first movie where an alien race comes to Earth undetected. If they have the technology to "ride lightning" into the ground, why can't they have tech to fool our equipment?

Luigi Novi: What exactly did they want with humans? Their energy weapons seemed to simply incinerate the humans. But why? What was their problem humans?
You wanted the aliens' motivations explained? They wanted out planet and appparently they didn't want to share it.

Luigi Novi: And if they were harvesting our biological material, as some have suggested, is zapping each one the best way to do it?
They didn't zap everyone. They zapped some (the majority it seems) and captured others. It appears they don't need all of us the "fertilize" the planet.

Fans of alien invasion movies might want to check out "Watch the Skies", a new documentary on scifi films airing Sunday at 5pm on TCM (Turner Classic Movies). It includes interviews with Lucas and Spielberg. I missed it the first time it aired, but I'll be watching tommorrow.

JAM: Another nit: who is to say that when they buried the machines that they weren't already exposed?
Josh M: Haven't there been strains of bacteria and viruses that have only just apppeared recently (i.e. in the last million years)?

Of course, this nit contains a nit, that is, Just when exactly did they bury these machines? My nit was if the possibility existed, the machines / aliens could have been exposed to a bacteria / virus beforehand.

I tend to agree with Luigi, in that there are possible inherent limitations of the source material. After reading the book, one gets the impression that the story is really about aliens that were from Mars, and were suseptible to the same kind of diseases we had. And removing all political analogies aside, for its time, the novel was radically different stuff. Today, this interpretation just comes off more as a horror / thriller than a Science Fiction movie. (Of course, we could call it a "Sci-fi-horror" film, like we have "Science Fantasy" films.)

Being buried so deep underground (as to never have been detected), wouldn't the craft have had to been buried so deep that the pressure per square inch would have crushed them?

Why did the crowds of refugees (in the NY fields) go towards the explosions and battle? Wouldn't common sense make them head in the opposite direction? At first, the people were headed towards the destruction. Only when it became nearer did they flee in the opposite direction.

In a more realistic context, the aliens traveling in "lightning" stuck out as improbable. Then again, since Star Trek (transporters) we've all accepted improbable transportation devices too readily in science fiction films and tv.

I think what Spielberg was trying to say with the ships being underground is: the ships were the meteorites that crashed into the Earth billions of years ago and caused the Ice Age.

I saw this over the weekend. As a war of the worlds movie I didnt like it, the 53 version was much superior storywise. This one was just too ummmm fluffy and light on story heavy on boom for me. Though it worked as another aliens invade the earth story. Neat special effects, and some nicely executed startles. I dont wanna say scares as nothign ever really got scary just too much telegraphing of things.

Now as for some observations and all.
That really was a cool mustang Cruise had and another in the garage that he apparently was rebuilding. Just wanted to say that.

As for the van. The solenoid on a 90-94 plymouth voyager is built into the starter so repplacing the starter replaces the solenoid and if that was the problem then it would have started after bubba replaced the starter the first time. Also from what i understand about EMP if anyone had a car that had manual engine controls (ie pre1980 models) they would be ok as well.

Further about the van. I noticed as they where escaping the city that the left rearmost window was missing on the vehicle. This was probably done to let the camera get inside as those windows do not retract into the body but pop outward. And the window was there later. Also they must have had the v6 model as the i4 doesnt have the guts to run that hard that long.

Now about the aliens, what is with the weapons that vaporize the people but not their clothes? How exactly was that supposed to work? Also did the aliens watch robotech as their mechs looked kinda like a zentradi officer's pod from certain angles especially with the front weapon arms. either that or they got design cues from the computers of the matrix. With all the tentacles and the swirling lighted sensor eyes thingies.

And the aliens themselves reminded me of the id4 aliens in looks but also kinda reminded me of a chimpanzee or ape in their actions and facial expressions.

Also tech moves forward at an astonishing rate so why would the aliens bury their machines a million years ago and then come back for them. Wouldn't the current crop of war machines be even better than the clunkers they buried?(and hope they still run. I cant get a car battery to stay running over the winter if i dont take precautions)
Also on the tech side of things, didnt the aliens have doctors? I mean you go to mexico and your doctor has a list of shots as long as your arm they wanna give you not to mention the handy advice of not to drink the water.

Now the kids mother and tim. Why did they stay in Boston? From the looks of things it looked like boston had been sprayed and crop dusted all over and should be a flattened smoking ruin, covered in alien gooplants. (sort of like what tombo sees after climbing out of the house) So why did they stay there (much less how did they stay there?) Wouldnt the mother want to try and get back to find her kids seeing as how she apparently didnt trust/like tombo? I expected tim to be dead by the end of the movie too and her and tombo to reconcile in the face of the danger/rebuild humanity etc......

Anyhow an ok scifi flik to kill 2 hours with but not a great movie or especially memorable.

"Now about the aliens, what is with the weapons that vaporize the people but not their clothes? How exactly was that supposed to work?"-R

Probably supposed to only vaporize biological matter. No explanation as to why they burned and demolished other stuff, though.

Nit list tomorrow.

Yeah I was confused a bit by how it sometimes blows people to talc without even burnign or mussing their clothes. And then the next time they turn it on a building its a pile of matchsticks beyond even extreme makover ability to fix. I think it was from the BILC weapon manufacturing company. A division of Acme Arms.

Okey Dokey, let's see here. Actually, my overall impression of the movie was pretty well summed up by Luigi. But for my specifics:

I had a hard time focusing after the opening narration, actually. I was really bugged by the narrator's line about "infinite complacency."
I understand that it may not be engaged in what the narrator would consider 'productive,' but what about the invention of electricity, and later, nuclear power? World War 2? Exploration of the Moon? Were those just us sitting around being complacent?
For the rest of the movie, I was constantly leaning over to a friend making observations about this. "Look, there goes Tom Cruise, racing down the road with infinite complacency." "Oh look, there goes the military firing every missile in their payloads. That looks infinitely complacent to me."

I liked the conclusion of the game of catch.

Now then, after the lightning storm, everyone gathers around the point of impact, and Tom gets the first of many "he shouldn't have been able to get that close and not die... everyone else did" moments that totalled at least four or five and stretched credibility past the breaking point.
Anyhow, one of the crowd we see is the man that would probably be me, standing there with his camcorder. Soon, he's vaporized and the camcorder falls to the ground, where we see it's perspective as people are vaporized.

WAIT A MINUTE? Didn't we just get a full minute of jerky pan visual exposition demonstrating that NOTHING ELECTRICAL in Tom's house or neighborhood worked? How is this camcorder functioning? And howcome the LCD looks so nice and perfect, and has no display to speak of? Also, doesn't the Vaporizer ray have any electronic interference in it?

Whoops. That opens up a whole new can of worms... what's up with these rays? We seem to have three different functions for identical looking rays- a "vaporize biological matter but don't harm inorganic substances" ray, a "Blow stuff up" ray, and a "Burn the countryside" ray.
What's the deal here? Why the 3 different rays, or the strange behavior of a single ray?
If you want to destroy humans but leave their stuff intact, why bother with a blowey-up ray or fire-ray?
If you want to destroy all humans, why bother with a disintigrator rays? The heat or explosive ray would kill 'em just as dead!
If you want to capture them for your fertilizer, why ray 'em at all?
If you want the planet for it's resources, why burn or blow up everything?
If you want to just spread red weed on everything, why bother with vaporizing people and leaving some structures intact? In fact, why bother with this planet at all? Get your heads in the game, Martians!! (Though technicaly, it's never established that they're from Mars.)

As convenient as it was to have the only working car, how the heck did it survive that plane crash? And without a dent, no less! Speilberg should know better- I mean, it looked like debris even slid under the wheeels or something, but the car didn't look like it was in the same city when the crash happened!

What was the foghorn noise? Perhaps a "We start vaporizing in 5 minutes... anyone not on the tripod by then may get let behind or exploded" siren?

Also, during the ferry attack, why did the tripods bother with searchlights? If they were going to kill, the rays would give off plenty of light, and if they were going to capture, why would they make themselves that much easier to flee from? Or, as Luigi suggested, do they have visual scanners only?

In the grenade scene (oh, where to begin- I won't even bother except for: His arm should've been ripped from it's socket!) it was very clever to have the CG fluid "Splatter the lens." Nice touch.

Finally, though it was superfluous and unecessary, it was nice to see the military blast the crud out of a tripod at the end, and the birds thing was kind of clever.
However, in reality, the scene would have ended like this: The hatch opens and pointless orange goo spills out. (What was it for? Not breathing, apparently, as they had little trouble with that- and there didn't seem to be enough for the volume of the ship...) An alien slides out with it's arm hanging limply.
The Military opens fire.
The creature shudders and leans forward in a death cry.
The soldiers tear it's face appart with AK-47s.
With a groan, the aliens eyes (what's left of them) cloud over.
The soldiers empty their clips, and, once they're out of ammo, run up and start hitting the Martian with the butts of their rifles. If those break, they start punching it.


Seriously, does anyone believe that they would just stand there and let it have it's death moment? I don't think so... they would have still been shooting it long after it was dead.


Well, that's all that comes to mind right now... at least it was a cheap theater, so I only wasted 2 dollars...

One thing I forgot: I did like the "unpacking the box of food" scene. That was funny.

Well the van was a chrysler product. One of the best minivans ever. ;-)

But seriously it goes with another disaster movie cliche. The hero's vehicle will be able to do all sort of things and survive all kinds of disasters until the plot requires him to be on foot.

I was disturbed by a review I read of the film. The reviewer made the observation that the Martian craft had "vagina-like orifices". At first, this comment seemed inappropriate. If this was the film designer's intention, I thought he was in dire need of anatomy lessons. Then I realised, that the designer may have been clever in attempting to hide what was really intended. Indeed, the Martian craft do rather ominously resemble female bodies with the anthropomorphic walking "legs and vaginas". Do the Martian ships represent a fear of female sexuality? That is one of the obvious questions. This film glorifies some rather conservative ideologies. An antagonistic view of females and feminism would be in line with such views. The film even goes to the length of glorifying an Iraqi invasion. As with Bush urging youths to sacrifice themselves and join the military (his daughters excepted, of course), the son in the film irrationally and eagerly joins the hopeless battle. The unforgiving attitude of the sexist mentality is even portrayed in the main protagonist. The divorced father is the one raising the children, against the fact that it is the men who usually abandon their children. Women do most of the child-rearing. Why the deception?

I recently read a book om Psychoanalysis. I'm now even more aware of the need to look below the surface and explore what things really mean. We really do need to examine the messages that today's films are sending out.

Re:last comment
A possible alternative explanation could be that the designer has been re-reading some of H.R Giger's artbooks, & has designed to go "Techno-Organic", or to paraphrase Giger himself, go "Bio-Mechanical" with regards to the design of the Martian vehicles...
Mind you, the stylistic design for the Martian vehicles has changed over the years, from the "Manta-like" design of the George Pal Movie, via the designs for the Jeff Wayne musical version/war game, to the Biomechanical design of the present movie...

Rona could you please share whatever drugs you are taking? I am not even sure you saw the same movie.

Rona: The film even goes to the length of glorifying an Iraqi invasion.
Luigi Novi: Where in the movie was this? I don't recall seeing any reference to Iraq at all.

Rona: The divorced father is the one raising the children, against the fact that it is the men who usually abandon their children. Women do most of the child-rearing. Why the deception?
Luigi Novi: Let me guess: You didn't actually see the film, right?

If you did, you'd have seen that the kids' mother and her new husband (their stepfather) was the one raising them, that Cruise's character only gets them on the weekends, that they sought refuge at the mother's house after the invasion began, and that Cruise took them to thier grandparents' home in Boston at the very end of the movie, where they were reunited with their mother, who had also gone there. Where you get the idea that Cruise is "the one raising" them, I don't know.

Rona... what the heck? I think your reviewer, whoever they may be, needs to take a nice, long, vacation.

The design of the tripods? Did not suggest female to me. Antagonistic view of females? Where?
Conservative values? Um... okay, if you say so. (Besides being vaguely pro-family and pro-not-standing-by-and-being-exterminated, I didn't really catch much in the way of values for this movie anyway... and Tom Cruise the deadbeat dad and murderer isn't exactly a Conservative role model, thank you very much.)As for the Pro-Iraq messages, I found none. In fact, I percieved a 'subtle' over-the-shoulder political message when the insane hospital driver starts rambling about how "this is an occupation, and an occupation always fails." Certainly nothing that could be considered pro-Iraq, unless you count the military defending humanity against attack as pro-Iraq.
Speaking of 'subtle' underhanded attacks, what the heck do Bush's daughters have to do with anything? This seems to be some bizzare Liberal concept forwarded ludicrously by Michael Moore in Farenheight 9/11: "Will you sign your child up to go to war?" Hello? It's called Free Will, people! Individuals decide whether to join the army; their parents don't decide for them! Sheesh!
As for Cruise's kid, I don't know what was up with that- he just seemed to be an angry teenager that wanted to react to the destruction around him. That would be a common teenage value, not a pro-war message. As I recall, the kid didn't exactly seem like the hero for his actions either, did he? So what would the message here be, if there was one?
And, as Luigi said, your statements about the father raising the children are incorrect- he is shown to be a pretty inept parent who only sees his kids sometimes, though to his credit he does try sometimes and truly cares about his kids. Also, I agree that statistically, "dead-beat moms" are almost non-existant compared to the tragic number of dead-beat dads out there.
But if Tom Cruise had been portraying a good, hard-working father, how would that be sexist?!? In other words, if a man's shown taking responsibility for his family, he's anti-woman? How the heck does that work?


My advice: Apply the psychoanalysis book to it's own author, and then go read H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds... it will be a better use of your time than your current reading material, or this movie.

We do need to watch the messages our movies send... but when you have to dig this deep to percieve potential messages that no one else can see... they're probably not there in the first place.

Dang... Martians stole my indenting. Sorry.

Tim Robbins was in the movie, for crying out loud. Doesn't that give it some Liberal Points to cancel out the heinous conservative values of military service and fathers raising children?

If one performs a more thorough Freudian analysis on the film, it becomes even more disturbing. The Martian machines are seen to bleed all over the Earth. The Martian ships are, in effect, contaminating the Earth. This is a clear allusion to references in the Torah/Bible to menstruating women being "unclean" and thus being a danger for contamination. Thus, it can be said that the "female" invaders are contaminating the Earth by bleeding on it. This is a message that will really strike a chord with extreme right-wing males. They have been so indoctrinated with anti-female ideas that they are no longer consciuosly aware of it. They accept it as natural. I'm just trying to raise awareness.

Maybe the reason why the famale invaders were invading the Earth was to get some tampons.

Sometimes a spaceship is just a spaceship...

Rona, in all honesty, from what I know of psychoanalysis, you have to know something about the one(s) being analyzed. Freud himself (who's been largely discredited, I believe) once said, "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." It strikes me that the analysis you have reached of the film's creators is more a reflection of your own psyche and belief system rather than theirs. The conclusions you've reached are more consistent with your liberal pro-feminist stance and are not substantiated by anything known about the producers of War of the Worlds.

"I like to watch." - Chauncy Gardner

Rona I didnt see anythign feminine or female in the design of the alien mecha. I saw designs that looked like a zentradi officer's pod coupled with farm equipment all filtered through some mad scientist's bad lsd trip. Which your review sounds like you might have been having when watching this movie. You might wanna check your supply before the grim creeper settles in.

Just one man's opinion, but some of the comments being directed towards Rona are getting a bit close to being out of line. Might want to tone it down a bit.

"I like to watch." - Chance the Gardener

BTW, is there a link to some pictures of these Martian crafts? I haven't seen the movie and I'd like to take a look at the craft to see for myself what the fuss is all about.

Thanks in advance!

"I like to watch." - Chauncy Gardner

"This is a message that will really strike a chord with extreme right-wing males."-Rona

(Opening rewriten several times- no way to use the English language to express the shock and confusion being experienced at this moment!)

Rona, have you ever even MET a 'right-wing male?' I'm sorry, but a Fruedian analysis of this movie seems to be out of step with reality, and bizzare suggestions which cross the line into slurs on all things Conservative, Christian, and Male are deeply insulting and even further disconected to reality.

Neither the Bible, nor Christianity, nor the 'Right-wing' in general is anti-women, unless perhaps we have been deemed so by another vaunted 'Freudian Analysis' that seems to be so valuable to society. So I would appreciate an end to the slurring, seriously.

(If you'll read the Bible, by the way, you'll note that a number of different situations involving blood or bodily functions which would pose a sanitary problem to the ancient Isrealites were declared unclean- this is no way an attack against women.)


"Just one man's opinion, but some of the comments being directed towards Rona are getting a bit close to being out of line."-Benn

I'd say some of Rona's comments are geting out of line, as well.

But seriously Rona, I don't mean to attack you in any way shape or form, here... you're just wierding me out, here. :-)

I'd say some of Rona's comments are geting out of line, as well. - Zarm Rkeeg

That might be, Zarm. But it doesn't warrant the comments being made to her.

Rona,

I recently read a book on Psychoanalysis..

What school? I'm asking because a lot of Freud's theories have been discounted today by scientists in psychology, and those that still practise his theories have modified, reinterpreted and dropped parts of his theories. (One main problem which makes Freud's basis scientifically unprovable: If a therapist tells a patient his diagnosis/interpretation of e.g. a dream, and the patient disagrees, it's because the patient is repressing that's it's true. The therapist can therefore never be wrong.).

Have you tried Paul Watzlawick? He works at Palo Alto, and has written several books - both for layman, like "How to make yourself unhappy" (Anleitung zum Unglücklichsein - he means the opposite, of course), and for scientifically interested, like "How real is reality (Wie wirklich ist die Wirklichkeit?), or the "Short Therapy" approach that was developed at Palo Alto.

It's interesting about how strongly our individual views color our perceptions, sometimes even restrict what humans are able to perceive at all.

There's the story of when a short film clip of life in western civilisation was shown to natives of some primitive tribe, and they were later asked about the content, they all mentioned the chicken, and little else. The white researchers were baffled, since they didn't even remember a chicken in the film. Going through frame by frame, they noticed a shot of a farm or such, with a chicken in the background. It was visible only the fraction of a second, and considered not important from the white's point of view; but for the natives, it was the only thing in the film they recognized, everything else shown was of an alien world, so they couldn't comprehend it enough to even remember the images.

here's an article about the Martians and Bacteria. (Spoiler: it probably wouldn't work. But I guess it would be too depressing at the moment to have humanity loose a battle against alien invaders - esp. since they won against all other invasion attempts )

Rona: The film even goes to the length of glorifying an Iraqi invasion.

Actually Spielberg and several others have said that the film has an anti-Iraq tone since it's about a superior force who invades a less advanced civilization to take their natural resources.

As for Freudian Psychoanalysis, most actual psychologists and the like do not use it any more. Freud is still given credit for being one of the first to deal with sexuality as something normal, not deviant but most of his theories on it are pretty dated and not much in use any more. Kind of like when scientists started thinking that the entire universe revolved around the sun, now we know that's not true but it was still a big step above thinking everything revolved around the Earth.

About the only people who still use Freudian Psychoanalysis are film theorists, other artistic theorists & people involved in women's studies. Since the criticism and analizing of art is not a hard and fast science (or even a science at all) it doesn't have the same kind of peer review process that something like mental health has these days. If a theorist can justify a theory about a piece of work someone will accept it. My film theory teacher even said that film theorists probably hung onto Freudian Psychoanalysis because it's always a lot more interesting than a lot of other film theories, even though it might not be the best model. Feminist theory makes lots of use of it too probably because it tends to reduce everything to guys obsessing over our penises. Probably the same reason that the women's studies types like to use it as well. It lends itself well to theories of male domination, since anything and everything can be considered phallic in nature.

Of before someone tries to tell me that I am just talking out of my @$$ I do hold a degree in film.

On a lighter side, Rona using the Freudian model wouldn't a tripod be more of an exagerated male, phallic dominance symbol; think of the old joke (spoken by a guy) "yea, they used to call me tripod back in the day."

"I'd say some of Rona's comments are geting out of line, as well. - Zarm Rkeeg

That might be, Zarm. But it doesn't warrant the comments being made to her."-Benn

True, this is why I used the next line to appologize for any offense. I think the bizzare arguments just sort of caught everyone off-guard- I'm sure that all of the 'LSD' jokes were intended in a good-natured light; it's hard to convey tone on the internet, unfortunately. So once again, Rona, no offense intended.

BTW, something in Constanze's link reminded me of another good moment I forgot to mention: the burning train. That was pretty darn effective- and cool, too.

Okay, gotcha, Zarm.

True I gotta admit that Rona's vision of the movie does lend itself to comparing to an LSD trip. I wasn't trying to be insulting its just I have an uncanny knack for doing just that sometimes. No harm was meant just some stoner banter.

Brian don't forget about all the tentacles writhing around and the giant eye/scanner in the basement when documenting the phallic symbols of the tripods. And yes that was my nickname in college. :-)

Rona: If one performs a more thorough Freudian analysis on the film, it becomes even more disturbing.
Luigi Novi: Given that Freud’s theories have been debunked as pseudoscientific, why would a Freudian analysis be of any merit?

Rona: The Martian machines are seen to bleed all over the Earth. The Martian ships are, in effect, contaminating the Earth. This is a clear allusion to references in the Torah/Bible to menstruating women being "unclean" and thus being a danger for contamination. Thus, it can be said that the "female" invaders are contaminating the Earth by bleeding on it.
Luigi Novi: The problem with this comparison being that menstruating women aren’t the only people that bleed. Boxers bleed. People undergoing surgery bleed. Hemophiliacs bleed.

R: I saw designs that looked like a zentradi officer's pod coupled with farm equipment all filtered through some mad scientist's bad lsd trip. Which your review sounds like you might have been having when watching this movie. You might wanna check your supply before the grim creeper settles in.
Luigi Novi: Refuting another poster’s statements should not be done with allusions to drug use, R. That is clearly a violation of the good cheer rule.

Zarm Rkeeg: I'd say some of Rona's comments are geting out of line, as well.
Luigi Novi: True, and the other here have responded by refuting them. But R’s alluding to her using illegal drugs is not a legitimate method to do so on this site.

Other symbolic imagery in the film require examination. Early in the film, there is a sequence with a fixation on the steeple of a church. What does it mean? It's a instrument for revealing today's culture wars in America. The sequence evokes the clash between red-state and blue-state America (the script was finalized in 2004). The church is a literal representation of Evangelical America which see itself as under attack from liberalism/feminism. The invaders are clearly feminized to emphasize the point. One scene is almost too literal. The church tower is severed . It's clearly a metaphor for castration. Red-state America sees itself as being "emasculated" by liberalism and feminists. Stripped of its mystical meanings, why should the secularists in the community bow down to the oppressive phallic presense (the psychoanalytical form of the steeple) loomimg over their community. It's not the Middle Ages anymore. Does the Right mourn for the decline in the power of the Church? Why is that a good thing?

The end of the film is the true revelation of the underlying politics. As if to make up for the earlier attack on the church, Boston is destroyed. Why Boston, and not Houston? Boston is at the forefront of today's culture wars. It houses the legislative body which legalized same-sex marriage. The Religious Right has made Boston their new Sodom and Gommorah. Rick Santorum even announced that it was Boston's liberalism that caused the Church pedophilia scandal there (strange how liberalism is to blame in a conservative religion). So right-wingers can cheer at the thought of Harvard, Ted Kennedy, and lesbian couples being incinerated by the Martian ships.

It can't be denied that there is a hostile attitude towards liberals in films today. In last year's Team America, prominent liberal actors were brutally and sadistically murdered. For the self-admitted Repubican makers of the film, Sean Penn deserves death for speaking out against the Iraq War. Truth be damned. The right-wing is always right.

OK luigi I'll chill on the stoner jokes. Its just two thigns. One the people I hang with are used to and use this sort of joking in good cheer among ourselves,(actually if you spent a day at work with me you might think we hated each other by the way we talk to each other) and two Rona's imageery that she is seeing is a bit....out there. Kinda like she isnt seeing the same movie as everyone else.

I saw designs that looked like a zentradi officer's pod coupled with farm equipment all filtered through some mad scientist's bad lsd trip. Which your review sounds like you might have been having when watching this movie. You might wanna check your supply before the grim creeper settles in.
Luigi Novi: Refuting another poster’s statements should not be done with allusions to drug use, R. That is clearly a violation of the good cheer rule.
The part where I said the battle pod was filtered through LSD was referring to it or whoever designed it. Ie they took all these gizmos and through the magic of hallucinations managed to combine them. The grim creeper was for Rona.

Rona, are you aware that Steven Spielberg (The producer/director of this film) is in fact a big supporter of the Democratic party, and even resigned his advisory position with the Boy Scouts of America because they engage in discrimination aginst gays?

Rona, this is getting tiresome. Will you please cease and desist with what I can only call "polite flaming?" The insults and slanders generously served up within this mishmash of a psychological review are untrue, unkind, completely outside of the spirit of good cheer, and are getting to be just plain ridiculous.

Could Boston have been a target rather than Houston because, hmmmm... perhaps because the movie was set on the East Coast?
And please don't tell me you really think that right-wingers would cheer at the thought of Harvard, Ted Kennedy, and lesbian couples being incinerated by the Martian ships... well, okay. Maybe Ted Kennedy. But still... :-)

Suggesting that there is an anti-left bias and citing Team America film today is like suggesting that Arizona is biased against the sun because of the one day in winter that it actually rains. Liberalism is by far and large not only accepted, but embraced by Hollywood- and they'll be the first to admit it! So please, don't try to suggest that War of the Worlds (directed by Steven Spielberg, for heaven's sake!) is an anti-Liberal, anti-woman, or anti-Boston movie... it just doesn't fly.


In completely unrelated news... I've been reflecting back on this movie allot more than I usually do, due to our prolonged conversation, and one thing continues to bug me about it... the movie is full of tributes from start to finnish- but the aliens have changed almost completely. The part I mourn the most is the loss of the RGB eye- why couldn't they have put that in?- but is there a reason that the aliens had to be some sort of Independance Day/Predator remix?

Don't try to claim that Spielberg's films don't reflect the politics of the times. During the Carter administration, a film about kind aliens (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) was made. During the Bush administration, it was thought that a film about violence and war was appropriate.

Constanze, your posts are always most thoughtful and helpful. You inquired about the psychoanalysis book I read. It's called "Bush on the Couch, Inside the Mind of the President" by Justin Frank M.D. It's a recent book, so it really can't be considered a dated work (from the 20s by Freud). If you want to see what I consider the highlights of the book, look in the Kitchen Sink board under the "They Don't have a board yet" section titled "The Book Club".

Benn, I try to maintain a strict objectivity in my analysis. It's doesn't reflect a liberal or feminist bias.

Brian, it's not feminists that have a fixation on phallic imagery. Surely, you don't think Prince's "Little Red Corvette" is merely a song about an automobile. Didn't Hitler exploit the phallic presense of the Hindenburg as intimidating propaganda?

As for Zarm, please don't take things personally when I'm not refering to you personally. Republicans contol the White House, the Senate, and the Congress. Democrats are the picked on minority, not right-wingers.

Rona, I understand that you are not trying to attack me personaly. But I am a Religious, Right-wing male, and so are many of my friends and family, and your statements are gross mischaracterizations and insulting stereotypes- so it's kind of hard not to take it personaly.
I'd much prefer it if you stopped making psychological characterizations of propagandic charactures- it really is quite insulting.

Also, while Republicans contol the White House, the Senate, and the Congress, that does not mean that they control Hollywood any more than a Monopoly on Boardwalk and Park Place equals a Monopoly on, say, Kentucky Avenue. (That's eeeevil capatilistic Republican-speak, in case you were wondering. :-) )
With a few exceptions, such as Mel Gibson, Hollywood remains a fairly left-oriented, Liberal-dominated institution. Speilberg would deffinetly be counted among that number. (Not that I don't like most of his films, mind you...)

Actually I dont think Hollywood has a direction except whichever way the money is blowing.

Benn, I try to maintain a strict objectivity in my analysis. It's doesn't reflect a liberal or feminist bias. - Rona

I'd love to believe you, Rona. Really, I would. But I'm too cynical to do so. Especially given how your analyses have fallen in line with what I know of your liberal, feminist beliefs. I'd be tempted to say that you're looking for these things, but I'm not sure that's quite what's going on. I'm more of the opinion that you've just discovered psychoanalysis like it's a new toy and are playing around with it.

And while you may feel that you are being neutral in your analysis, an analyst's bias often still shows up regardless.

Moreover, I would suspect that when analyzing, as you are, a director's work, one should take into account the director's previous works and look for patterns in them. As it is, you are, to me, analyzing Spielberg's War of the World out of context with the rest of works.

Also, please keep in mind that I'm not trying to be insulting. Just offering my assessment. For what it's worth.

Don't try to claim that Spielberg's films don't reflect the politics of the times. During the Carter administration, a film about kind aliens (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) was made. During the Bush administration, it was thought that a film about violence and war was appropriate.

*************Spoiler Warning***************

But I don't think that this film reflected the Bush line on things. This wasn't "Independance Day", where the brave Americans come to the rescue and blow up the aliens real good to make the world safe for truth, justice and the American way. This was a film where they spend 2 hours running like scared little animals and the aliens are finally done in by their own mistake. In fact many of the young people I've talked to about the film though that the ending sucked since the humans didn't win by fighting back, they just survived by running scared long enough to get saved by chance.

Rona: Other symbolic imagery in the film require examination. Early in the film, there is a sequence with a fixation on the steeple of a church. What does it mean? It's a instrument for revealing today's culture wars in America. The sequence evokes the clash between red-state and blue-state America (the script was finalized in 2004). The church is a literal representation of Evangelical America which see itself as under attack from liberalism/feminism. The invaders are clearly feminized to emphasize the point. One scene is almost too literal. The church tower is severed . It's clearly a metaphor for castration.
Luigi Novi: No, that’s your interpretation, and a completely subjective one and inconsistent one.

For one thing, if destruction of a given person or thing in a film is seen as the filmmaker’s stance against that person or thing (as with the liberals you describe being killed in Team America), then to be consistent, the destruction of a church would be seen as a liberal image rather than a right-wing one, since the right wing is more heavily associated with religious conservatism. You can’t have it both ways, Rona. It makes no sense to say that killing liberal actors in one film is anti-liberal, but destroying an object more properly associated with conservatives is still anti-liberal.

As for the castration metaphor, in order for this to be “clear,” you have to exclude other possibilities, like the possibility that there is no metaphor intended at all. The problem with the phalluses that people such as yourself see in pop culture imagery is that phalluses are basic geometric shapes, and thus, will show up everywhere. There is no objective proof, therefore, that the destruction of a steeple is intended as a castration metaphor. It could just as easily be a metaphor for the fact that religious freedom often suffers under the regimes of genocidal dictators. In order to assert that the castration metaphor is “clear,” you have to prove that it isn’t a different metaphor, or even none at all.

The bottom line is, just because you can make certain images fit your preconceived ideas (which is what you’re really doing) doesn’t mean that you know Spielberg’s intent.

Rona: As if to make up for the earlier attack on the church, Boston is destroyed. Why Boston, and not Houston? Boston is at the forefront of today's culture wars.
Luigi Novi: As are New York, Los Angeles, Washington DC, Paris, etc. Unless the filmmakers use a fictional city, you’re going to end up using some city, and you could make an argument that those are stand-ins for points in a culture war, or any other flimsily-argued metaphor.

Rona: It can't be denied that there is a hostile attitude towards liberals in films today. In last year's Team America, prominent liberal actors were brutally and sadistically murdered.
Luigi Novi: This comment requires one to ignore the reality that Hollywood is predominantly liberal, and that Parker and Stone are an exception in that they make fun of both liberals and right-wing conservatives in their work, including in Team America, which in addition to lambasting Hollywood liberals, also poked fun at the stereotypical gung-ho attitude perceived in our invasions of other countries, as seen in the depiction of the titular group in that film.

Rona: For the self-admitted Repubican makers of the film, Sean Penn deserves death for speaking out against the Iraq War. Truth be damned. The right-wing is always right.
Luigi Novi: Or, they were irritated at Penn’s inexpicably pro-Hussein comments that followed his visit to Iraq, and were simply making fun of him. Showing someone being killed in a film doesn’t necessarily mean you literally want them killed.

R: OK luigi I'll chill on the stoner jokes. Its just two thigns. One the people I hang with are used to and use this sort of joking in good cheer among ourselves….
Luigi Novi: And I myself use plenty of salty language when talking privately with friends or via email or AIM. But I don’t do so here.

Zarm Rkeeg: Will you please cease and desist with what I can only call "polite flaming?"
Luigi Novi: I’m not sure her comments, despite being pejorative to Republicans and conservatives as a group, constitute “flaming.” I think it’s more apt to refute her comments on the basis of their shoddy reasoning and argumentation.

Rona: Don't try to claim that Spielberg's films don't reflect the politics of the times.
Luigi Novi: Ah, but what does that mean, exactly? Reflecting the politics of the times is not the same thing as saying that they reflect his politics. “The politics of the times” is often a phrase used to denote an atmosphere to which Spielberg may be rebelling, not one that he embraces.

Rona: During the Carter administration, a film about kind aliens (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) was made. During the Bush administration, it was thought that a film about violence and war was appropriate.
Luigi Novi: What film are you referring to? Also, you employ a false either/or fallacy with this statement. You make it sound as if movies of one genre can only be made during one time, and movies of another only made in another. In fact, movies with kind aliens have been made throughout film history, as have movies with violence. Since when are violent movies confined to the Bush administration. And since when is a movie with violent content supposed “about” violence?

Rona: Benn, I try to maintain a strict objectivity in my analysis. It's doesn't reflect a liberal or feminist bias.
Luigi Novi: It most certainly does, Rona. Liberal and feminist bias would be much harder to detect in your posts if they didn’t contain so much material pejorative to Republicans and conservatives as a group, and if they were rendered so internally inconsistent by your efforts to steer your arguments in way that gives deference to females. If you honestly believe that bias isn’t detectable in your posts, then you’re fooling yourself, since it’s evident to most, if not all, of the other people here, a diverse group comprising a wide range of varying sociopolitical points of view.

Rona: Didn't Hitler exploit the phallic presense of the Hindenburg as intimidating propaganda?
Luigi Novi: The shapes of dirigibles are determined by the physics by which they work, and date back to the 19th century, when Hitler was a child.

Zarm, I admire many deeply religious Christians. A good example of one is Jimmy Carter. He has professed to be born again, and he even teaches Sunday school. I am critical of Bush however. I think he is is a phony (he doesn't even attend Church) whose religious convictions seemed to be intertwined with Karl Rove's political strategies. I also deeply admire Reverend Martin Luther King. People have to be careful of where their religious beliefs lead them. Just this week, the ADL's Abe Foxman had to warn Jerry Falwell that he may be stirring anti-Semitic sentiment.

If I sometimes appear outspoken, forgive me. It's just that everytime I turn on FOX News or talk radio, I see politicians and organizations I admire being bashed. Day after day of this does fray my nerves.

Zarm, I was specifically refering to "extreme right-wingers". I hope you don't consider yourself an "extremist". I wasn't refering to you. I've also denounced extreme left-wingers such as Ward Churchill.

And finally, Hollywood should be liberal. It reaches a global audience. A very diverse audience too; Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddists, atheists, liberals and conservatives. Hollywood films shouldn't represent the narrow political beliefs of the American Republican party.

From what I've seen, I don't think that's something that Hollywood needs to worry about so far.

Rona: Didn't Hitler exploit the phallic presense of the Hindenburg as intimidating propaganda?
Luigi Novi: The shapes of dirigibles are determined by the physics by which they work, and date back to the 19th century, when Hitler was a child.

Actually, many scholars have noted the use of phallus symbollism in Nazi Germany. Among the symbollisms cited are the stiff-arm Nazi salute and the swastika (four phalluses there). But I personally can buy into that because of the symbols' usage as a uniting force for Hitler's military. (Mas macho, doncha know?) I don't however, believe that Der Fuhrer was consciously aware of the phallic nature of the symbols he chose.

And that doesn't mean I think Spielberg was employing any sexual imagery in this film. (But, again, this is something I'm stating without having seen the film yet.) I mean, it ain't like we're talking about Ridley Scott's Alien. (That's a film that is rife with a helluva lot of sexual imagery. And that's due to the input of the conceptual designer H.R. Giger. If you've ever seen any of Giger's work, you'd know how sexual his art can be.)

"I like to watch." - Chance the Gardner

Rona: And finally, Hollywood should be liberal. It reaches a global audience. A very diverse audience too.
Luigi Novi: Why does something that reachese a diverse audience necessarily be liberal? Since when does diversity require liberalism?

Rona:Hollywood films shouldn't represent the narrow political beliefs of the American Republican party.
Luigi Novi: You have yet to establish that it does. You've named exactly one film that you claim does this, and the arguments you use to illustrate this point are extremely flimsy.

Quien es mas macho: Adolf Hitler...or Ricardo Montalban?

Rona:Hollywood films shouldn't represent the narrow political beliefs of the American Republican party.
Luigi Novi: You have yet to establish that it does. You've named exactly one film that you claim does this, and the arguments you use to illustrate this point are extremely flimsy.

Even more problematic for me is the implication that Rona believes it would be perfectly alright if Hollywood represents the equally narrow political beliefs of the American Democratic Party. Personally, I would prefer a balance and/or combination of the two. In other words, a variety.

Sorta like whats out there now?

Rona: During the Carter administration, a film about kind aliens (Close Encounters of the Third Kind) was made. During the Bush administration, it was thought that a film about violence and war was appropriate.

Actually because of the nature of film-making and speical effects (espically in the 70s) Close Encounters started shooting in May of 1976 (http://imdb.com/title/tt0075860/business) a full six months before Carter was elected. Also meaning that it was written before that, probably a good bit before that, since big speciall effects films require a lot of preperation time before they start shooting.

Benn: Actually, many scholars have noted the use of phallus symbollism in Nazi Germany.
Luigi Novi: Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with that, just Rona's notion of dirigibles as symptomatic of it, when the reasons for their shaper were determined by other things, and predated Hitler's regime by decades.

Benn: Personally, I would prefer a balance and/or combination of the two. In other words, a variety.
Luigi Novi: Not to mention the films that bear no relevance or meaning with respect to either one of those things as well.

I read many posts, on different subjects, I don't agree with. I can accept the poster's right to their own viewpoint. I do think it crosses the line into being disrespectful when an inordinate amount of time is taken to discredit my views. If someone doesn't agree, fine, but don't make a federal case out of it. Luigi, please stop trying to assert that every post should conform to your viewpoint. You should also stop trying to pretend that your viewpoints conform to the highest scientific standards. They don't; you're not a scientist. I rather value ScottN's opinion more on such matters.

Can you let people get back to comments on War of the Worlds, and stop spending time bashing my posts.

So only scientists can make scientific comments from now on? I guess I'll have to restrict my comments to only be regarding unemployed college students from now on...

I read many posts, on different subjects, I don't agree with. I can accept the poster's right to their own viewpoint. I do think it crosses the line into being disrespectful when an inordinate amount of time is taken to discredit my views. If someone doesn't agree, fine, but don't make a federal case out of it. Luigi, please stop trying to assert that every post should conform to your viewpoint. You should also stop trying to pretend that your viewpoints conform to the highest scientific standards. They don't; you're not a scientist. I rather value ScottN's opinion more on such matters. - Rona

So, that means that because (as far I know) you're not a psychoanalyst, your attempts at psychoanalyzing this film are completely invalid?

You do realize Rona that this is a nitpicking site? That even our own posts are fodder for nitpicking? If you make claims that others find flawed that it will be pointed out? This has nothing to do with being disrespectful in and of itself. It's how the nitpicking is done that is disrespectful. And with the exception of the drug-related comments, I believe you have been treated most respectfully. It's just that most of us do not agree with the conclusions you've reached about this film.

I do need to be (nor does Luigi) a scientist to have read the pertinent scientific literature and draw my own conclusion about their varacity. It's a matter of having some understanding of the scientific method and basic science. Again, for it to be true only a scientist can comment on science (paraphrasing, I admit, your post), you would have to be a psychoanalyst to make the analysis you have been about Spielberg's film.

I'm sorry if you feel everyone's being disrespectful to you. But you cannot go to a site such as this and make the claims you do and expect us not to nitpick them. We are a very opinionated bunch here and are generally not shy about expressing ourselves. You should know that by now.

Luigi Novi: Oh, I wasn't disagreeing with that, just Rona's notion of dirigibles as symptomatic of it, when the reasons for their shaper were determined by other things, and predated Hitler's regime by decades.

I don't know why, but for some reason I glossed over the word "Hindenberg" in the initial post. Sorry about that.

"I like to watch." - Chauncy Gardner

Rona: I read many posts, on different subjects, I don't agree with. I can accept the poster's right to their own viewpoint.
Luigi Novi: Then why have you responded to those who disagree with you by distorting their words, lobbing false accusations and judgements against them, and distorting their words? I can provide you examples of this if you wish. If you accept others' viewpoints, then why, for example, why did you distort a statement I made on the Dukes of Hazzard board as a means to made a subtle insult toward me, particularly when I hadn't even said anything to you on that board, and then not apologized when I corrected your distortion?

Rona: I do think it crosses the line into being disrespectful when an inordinate amount of time is taken to discredit my views. If someone doesn't agree, fine, but don't make a federal case out of it.
Luigi Novi: I'm not sure if this comment is being made towards a particular person here, and I don't know what you consider "an inordinate amount of time", but for my part, I use whatever time is appropriate to compose a response to others' posts, depending on how long it takes to read and think about what they're saying, how much research or reference is involved in doing so, how much material I'm responding to, etc. The last five posts I made here prior to this one did not require an inordinate amount of time, and of those five, four of them were quite brief. With the exception of an inappropriate remark alluding to drug use, I don't see anyone who has made a "federal case" of it either. That one person, in fact, was politely rebuked for that comment, and he apologized for it, so it would seem that you're being treated with the same courtesy that everyone else is entitled to here, Rona.

Rona: Luigi, please stop trying to assert that every post should conform to your viewpoint.
Luigi Novi: You have not established that I am doing this at all. If you have evidence of this, then by all means, please provide it.

Rona: You should also stop trying to pretend that your viewpoints conform to the highest scientific standards. They don't;
Luigi Novi: Okay. Can you please show me where I errred in this regard? I don't pretend that my posts conform this standard you described, but I certainly attempt to make my arguments as reasonable as I can. If I have failed to do so in some respect, please point out where I done so, as I would like to improve them as much as possible, and welcome criticism from others.

Rona: you're not a scientist.
Luigi Novi: Argumentum Ad Hominem. I don't recall saying or implying that I was, nor do I require being one for any of the statements I have made here to be true, any more than I need to be a Historian to say that George Washington was the nation's first President, or a Professor of English to know what a gerund is. The sum of the world's knowledge is available for any layment to study or reference, and to employ in discussion. If you want to refute any of my statements or other information I've employed, then you must do so on the basis of their veridical or argumentative worth. Again, I invite you to do so, as you may have insight into them that has not occurred to myself or others here.

I would also point out to you in a friendly manner that use of Ad Hominem arguments against other visitors here is a violtion of Nitcentral rules.

Rona: I rather value ScottN's opinion more on such matters.
Luigi Novi: So do I. Scott's the man.

Rona: Can you let people get back to comments on War of the Worlds, and stop spending time bashing my posts.
Luigi Novi: No one is "bashing" your posts. We're merely responding to them, largely because your arguments are so profoundly flawed. If you do not wish us to respond to your posts, then either you can stop employing such poor reasoning and argumentation in them, or not make them at all. As aforementioned, only one person made an inappropriate remark to you, and he was disciplined for it.

Guys, thanks, but keep me out of it, PLEASE!!!

Right. So... War of the Worlds.

Here's something else that bugged me upon further consideration... why does the underwater ship create a whirlpool if it's coming up? Is it purposefully generated to draw the ship closer for a garaunteed capsizing, or what?

Probably for the same reason it tipped over the ferry: It was a scary thing to witness. Just as there was no logical reason to tip it over, since they could've zapped the humans where they were on the boat, and dumping them into the water would only scatter them and make it harder to zap them, I would imagine the same reasoning behind the whirlpool.

Luigi, you have a problem . Over various boards you have continuously insulted me. You have said I have a "flimsy intellect", I have "shoddy reasoning", etc. Enough. Don't respond to my posts anymore. I don't need condescending lectures from you as if I'm scientifically ignorant (by the way, the Hindenburg was built in 1936, not the 19th century). You don't know my IQ, my level of education, etc. If I were to string all of your insults describing me together , they would appear to be describing an near-retarded idiot. I have never stooped to the level of questioning the intelligence of any poster. You have gone so far over the line, it's inexcusable. You're totally disrespectful. You're not as clever as you think, always weaving insults of me into your posts and then pretending to be objective.

Guys. Take it off line. NOW.

This discussion is ended. Rona and Luigi, I'd advise you to stay off this particular board for a short time, then, if you wish to return, please discuss only the movie without delving into each other's percieved shortcomings.

Well, (judging from the thread activity since the 13th) when you can honestly say that that debate was the only interesting thing about this movie... you've got a pretty sad movie. :-)

Some viewers failed to understand the Iraqi War connection made by the film, so I will provide an excerpt from Britain's "Sight and Sound" film magazine:

"Spielberg's invaders- in their carpace-like machines, ignoring the native peoples except to imprison them and subject them to meaningless privations, so incapable of understanding the climate of the land they have conquered that a plan brewing for "a million years" is undone because they didn't take elementary precautions against disease- stand less for al-Quaeda or Saddam Hussein than for George W. Bush's America at work in Iraq, Afghanistan or Guantanamo Bay."

They didn't "fail to understand" that connection, because neither you nor that columnist established that there was one as a question of fact. Such interpretations are subjective, and not everyone makes the same interpretation of the film as you or that columnist did.

Rona, in your own earlier posts you said that this film represented the war between liberalism/feminism vs christian/conservatism; with the aliens being the liberals and the humans being the conservatives. Now you are saying that the aliens are the US and the humans are the Iraqis. I think this proves that such things are generally subjective as you have reversed your own position. Although I personally do find more symbolism in this film with the Iraq invasion than the freudian connections that you saw.

This movie is coming to DVD next Tuesday

The date has changed. Comes out tomorrow (11/22)

At the end of the movie, we see grandma & grandpa (Gene Barry & Ann Robinson) coming outside the house, standing on top a flight of stairs.

Yet seconds, later, when the camera returns to the same flight of stairs...but grandma & grandpa (Gene Barry & Ann Robinson) ARE GONE!

WHERE DID THEY GO?

Just rented the DVD and all I can say is......

I am so glad I did not buy this movie, or pay to see it in the theater.

(I have not read the comments above, as I like to post my ideas fresh)


Now, I love the original movie, have read the H.G. Wells novel, listened to Orson Welles' Radio version, and even have Rick Wakeman's rock opera, but I don't care that liberties were taken with the story. On the contrary, I'd like to see John Christopher's The Tripods adapted this way (and I think that is the one Spielberg should have done!)

The way this was hyped up, I expected almost a Star Wars-ian fervor over it. But then, I realized it was only the media and the promotional juggernaut. The buzz among the regular people.... "Meh...!" Myself now, included.

WTF was all the hype about?? Sure, some great special effects, but a lot of times it was like we were watching reaction shots instead of the real goings-on. I think this was a cheap movie intended to be hyped as a big-budget one. Probably most of the budget went to Cruise's salary.

I can't even nit this thing right now, I'm so pissed (also in the English sense of the word)! Two things I liked -- the one-take of Cruise & Co escaping the city in the minivan, a long shot (I assume edited thru CGI) that was very cool. And the basement search scene, very tense for a particular five minutes.

But, many more things I did not like. The basement scene was what? 30 minutes? After a while I was shouting to the writer/director, "Get them out of the basement!!!" I saw flickers of scenes from other Spielberg movies -- let's see, A.I., when the alien ship (Moon balloon) rises over the ridge behind the kid. (Not to disinclude CE3K). Jurassic Park-- the aforementioned search scene, too reminiscent of the raptor/kitchen scene. The overlook of the tripods destroying the city is from Empire of the Sun, when Christian Bale is looking at the night destruction through the window. I could go on.

I'm just left with a "What was all that fuss about?" feeling, regarding the media hype and all. Still, for $3.99, not too bad a way to kill an evening. I'm still happy I didn't buy it before having seen it!

I could say many things about the movie, but everyone else has already said it for me. Basically, it sucked. Though that flaming train thing was pretty cool. Overall, I think the movie would have been a lot better if it had ended with all of humanity being destroyed and the aliens taking over rather than coming up with some contrived way for everything to work out all right.

There are only 2 things that REALLY bug me about this movie:

1: Why didn't Spielberg give Gene Barry & Ann Robinson any lines?

2: Why did the aliens wait until the 21st century to attack & not before when Earth was less advanced? Sure, the consequences would still be the same, but the battle would have been a lot shorter.

1: They would hav ebeen paid more and Cruise's paycheck took too much form the budget as weell as the special effects.

2: They overslept and forgot to check their calenders.

It's nice to see the nits are back to the movie and not each other. One thing that I like about this movie is that it more closely resembeled the book, the aliens did anyway. The 1953 movie is a classic, of course, but typically older movies have more in common with their literary works. To understand this movie better you should read the book, it's seriously like a weekend read.

Ok, on to the nits, even though most of the good ones are already taken. To possibly answer a recent question, the aliens waited until the 21st century because in the book they attacked in the early 20th century and this is meant as a tribute. Also, maybe they wanted a larger population to "seed" the planet faster. That "orange goo" that spewed out of the war machine at the end was probably a pool of nutrients they bathed in to feed.

So these tripods were buried underground, and none of them were ever discovered? We get the impression that they were there a long time, book 200+ years I believe, and it was mentioned that the pressure would crush them but aren't the continents in motion? I realize this occured over a few days but couldn't the military set traps for these machines like large-scale trip wires, or something similar to the snow speeders in Star Wars?

When Cruise and crew were in his ex's house and that light show was going on outside Tom's character said it was "something else." Was that ever explained? Luigi was surprised that the eye-tenticale thing was easily damaged with an axe, but a sharpened wedge hitting a telescopic arm with force is plausible IMHO. I prefer how the aliens arrived in the 1953 movie, more believable.

I believe the snow was intended to be more ashes from disintegrated people, but I could be wrong... it's been a while.

The snow was the deteriorating red seedweed that was dying.

If you recall, Cruise's character approached a statue in Boston & grabbed some of the red seaweed and it fell apart in his hands...deteriorating into a snowflake-like effect.

It's playing on HBO now, and for the next few weeks. Dakota Fanning's performance as a most annoying kid would make me want to forsake having kids and get a vasectomy. (I had one already, though.) Speilberg's come a long way (down) from Jaws, where the Brody kids were more realistic. Now, most kids in Speilberg movies are just plain annoying.

Paramount Dumps Cruise.

I don't think the disintegrator beams worked only on biological matter when used on people as, last time I checked, cotton, wool, and leather is biological. It was an interesting effect but why? Also, it still could be considered a "heat ray" because drastically heating something up can easily cause an explosion.

I got the urge to watch this movie again, those war machines are just so cool looking, and I noticed a couple more things I wanted to mention:

At the end, Ray makes an amazing deduction concerning the tri-pod's shields being down just because there were some birds landing on it. These shields seem to extend nearly to the ground, if not completely, and there are several scenes where, as the machines are in motion, objects pass underneath them, plus there's the one under water. I of course don't know how these shields are supposed to work, and neither should the characters, but they seem a tad inconsistant.

After Ray leaves a couple hand grenades inside the tri-pod that captured him, before it topples over the two baskets on the back are released and land in a tree. It must be either autumn or winter because there's no leaves on the trees and the branches stick through those baskets like swords. Surprisingly, nobody is impaled, or apparently injured, from the fall into the tree.

When the mob at the harbor starts attacking the van somebody throws an object into the windshield, making a hole. Soon afterward, a black man begins peeling away the safety glass around that hole with his bare hands to get to Ray. While certainly not impossible I don't think safety glass comes apart that easily, and I would think he could simply pull the windshield off by this point. Plus, this man would have almost no skin left on his palm after doing this.

Zarm: The soldiers tear it's face appart with AK-47s.
Just FYI, American soliders don't use AKs, except special forces and the like when combating enemies who do. The soliders in the movie were using M-16s and M-4s.

Rona: The reviewer made the observation that the Martian craft had "vagina-like orifices".
Not trying to start this debate again, it sounds like that reviewer needs to get his(her) eyes checked. The orifice that takes in people to harvest thier bodily fluids more closely resembles an anus than a vulva.

Rona: The Martian machines are seen to bleed all over the Earth.
The war machines are spraying human blood in order to 'water' their red-weeds, recreating their planet's ecology, or Marsforming as Merat put it. This, however, is just an assumption obtained from the book. Another assuption from the book is that those horn blasts are calling to other tri-pods, since the aliens don't have a spoken language.

Benn: Actually, many scholars have noted the use of phallus symbollism in Nazi Germany. Among the symbollisms cited are the stiff-arm Nazi salute and the swastika (four phalluses there).
True, except I don't believe the swastika was meant for phallic symbollism. One of the stories of the swastika's origin is that when God was stirring up life in the universe the symbol represents that action. If the four points were meant to be phallic, I would say that has a homosexual connotation since they are following one another.

Sorry for the long post but perhaps it may be time for board #2.

I found the DVD of this pic in the $5 bin of the Woodbridge, New Jersey Wal-Mart last week. Blew it off. Once on HBO was enough.

This is a movie which didn't need to be done..
pointless and full of nits too.
Like the videocamera which still works, the EMP on cars (which modern tests say most cars will NOT be effected)...
cheap effects worse than an old dr who episode..
the budget went to scientology of course..

Yeah, but it was some crazy alien EMP. Beyond our understanding and all that.

I just came back from Toronto and the dvd store had 4 for ten canadian bucks and the shoplifters took War of the Worlds 2005 and Star wars triology. Arghhhhhhhhhh (time for a colorful meta4 here), so I thought I got a great deal...

also the 5 Tng movies too...were shoplifted..

War of the Worlds 2005 and Star wars triology

I think you are talking two ends of the quality spectrum here, assuming you are referencing the Original Star Wars trilogy.

Yes, Influx.

my wifee got the other sets, tng.

Luigi: Why, for example, does this little idiot say that he has to be there, that he “wants to see” the destruction? Why, during the trio’s earlier bathroom stop, did he try to join the military, as if they need him? What was the reason for this? If I were Cruise, I’d have punched the little idiot in the face and told him to get his ass moving.
I caught part of this movie again recently and this is what stood out to me as being inexplicably bad writing and a terrible way to add artificial drama. On a different note, perhaps the differences in the effects of the aliens' 'heat ray' is that they have different settings?

Rona: If one performs a more thorough Freudian analysis on the film, it becomes even more disturbing.
Nothing in the rest of this post even remotely matches a "Freudian analysis". Just mentioning his name has no meaning, especially coming from the book you reference.

Benn: Freud himself (who's been largely discredited, I believe)
constanze: a lot of Freud's theories have been discounted today by scientists in psychology...
Brian: As for Freudian Psychoanalysis, most actual psychologists and the like do not use it any more.
LN: Given that Freud’s theories have been debunked as pseudoscientific, why would a Freudian analysis be of any merit?
Sigmund Freud is still a respected psychiatrist and is the father of psychoanalysis, one of the most widely-used types of therapy in psychology/psychiatry with multiple forms. There is really only one area of his career that has a blemish on it, and is the source of his negative reputation. Some of his work, with his colleague Josef Breuer, was on women suffering from 'hysterics' and repressed memories. His research led him to the conclusion that many of his female patients' symptoms were caused by physical/sexual abuse when they were children. He had a book published on this theory but I don't recall the title. Later he came to the realization that this theory made the implications that several prestigious/elite families in Vienna were guilty of child abuse and/or pedifilia(?) and he was not willing to follow through with this theory and potentially lose his practice, license, and reputation. Despite this only being a theory his patients were getting better under the treatment he and Breuer were administering, but instead of going the ethical route Freud chose to look for other possibilites and this is when his questionable sex-related theories started, and those patients relapsed. Although this is the area that Freud is more universally well-known it is certainly not his only focus in the field of psychiatry as he pioneered several others along with Breuer and Jean-Martin Charcot; a French neurologist who continued on Frued's theory when he took his different approach.