Thumbs up War of the Worlds

[DAVO]

Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job with this
one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but overall a must see
for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it on DVD for the HT. I'm
surprised there hasn't been more comment in here on this movie.

DAVO

[Chriz]

Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:

> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job
> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but
> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it on
> DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment in here
> on this movie.

Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and sonically. This movie is a
great HT tester and great for sub action.

--
Remove ALL_YOUR_HARDWARE to reply by email.

[Wally Anglesea™]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:45:07 +1000, "Chriz"
<chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:
>
>> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job
>> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but
>> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it on
>> DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment in here
>> on this movie.
>
>Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and sonically. This movie is a
>great HT tester and great for sub action.

Great movie, but typically, Spielberg spoils the effect by having a
sappy unneccessary happy resolution at the end. He can't help himself.
--
Read all about Australia's biggets doomsday cult:
http://users.bigpond.net.au/wanglese/pebble.htm

"You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down"

[TT]

"Chriz" <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:42c9c9f0$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
: Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:
:
: > Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a
splendid job
: > with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the
context but
: > overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait
to get it on
: > DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more
comment in here
: > on this movie.
:
: Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and
sonically. This movie is a
: great HT tester and great for sub action.
:

The movie does have some very good special effects and the
CGI is great but it is a crap film. The story line is
ridiculous, it is a bastardisation of H.G. Wells book and it
is has several technical flaws that make it just a load of
crap.

This was a perfect opportunity to make a period piece and
use "Jeff Wayne's" music (and Richard Burtons voice) to
create a stunning film but instead we get Cruise and H.G.
Nelson.

Special effects 10/10. Story line and technical
believability 2/10. (and no I don't mean the machines I
mean everything else around it)

Example. At the start Cruise discovers *all* machinery,
including his wrist watch, has been taken out by EMP. Next
scene a news crew rolls up, in their working van and show
him a video of what happened while he is picking through the
wreckage of a Jumbo plane crash (minus dead bodies). So not
only did their car work, but their video cameras, their
VCRs, their mobile phones etc. This is the sort of
inconsistent crap this film delivers!

A great $2 movie when on special at Video Ezy ;-) Or if you
are that brain dead and only like CGI then this is the film
for you.

Regards TT

[Chriz]

Once upon a time TT decided to write:

> "Chriz" <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote in
> message news:42c9c9f0$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>> Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:
>>
>>> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job
>>> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but
>>> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it
>>> on DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment in
>>> here on this movie.
>>
>> Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and sonically. This
>> movie is a great HT tester and great for sub action.
>>
>
> The movie does have some very good special effects and the
> CGI is great but it is a crap film. The story line is
> ridiculous, it is a bastardisation of H.G. Wells book and it
> is has several technical flaws that make it just a load of
> crap.
>
> This was a perfect opportunity to make a period piece and
> use "Jeff Wayne's" music (and Richard Burtons voice) to
> create a stunning film but instead we get Cruise and H.G.
> Nelson.
>
> Special effects 10/10. Story line and technical
> believability 2/10. (and no I don't mean the machines I
> mean everything else around it)
>
> Example. At the start Cruise discovers *all* machinery,
> including his wrist watch, has been taken out by EMP. Next
> scene a news crew rolls up, in their working van and show
> him a video of what happened while he is picking through the
> wreckage of a Jumbo plane crash (minus dead bodies). So not
> only did their car work, but their video cameras, their
> VCRs, their mobile phones etc. This is the sort of
> inconsistent crap this film delivers!

You forgot to mention that although the plane totally destroyed the house,
his car car which was parking in the driveway was left totally unscathed.

--
Remove ALL_YOUR_HARDWARE to reply by email.

[Chriz]

Once upon a time Wally AngleseaT decided to write:

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:45:07 +1000, "Chriz"
> <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:
>>
>>> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job
>>> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but
>>> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it
>>> on DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment in
>>> here on this movie.
>>
>> Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and sonically. This
>> movie is a great HT tester and great for sub action.
>
> Great movie, but typically, Spielberg spoils the effect by having a
> sappy unneccessary happy resolution at the end. He can't help himself.

Yeah, the sappy ending was a bit much. I can take an abrupt ending, but the
sappiness took away from it. That combined with some of the inconsistencies.

--
Remove ALL_YOUR_HARDWARE to reply by email.

[DAVO]

"Chriz" <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:42c9d769$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> Once upon a time TT decided to write:
>
> > "Chriz" <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > message news:42c9c9f0$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
> >> Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:
> >>
> >>> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job
> >>> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but
> >>> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it
> >>> on DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment in
> >>> here on this movie.
> >>
> >> Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and sonically. This
> >> movie is a great HT tester and great for sub action.
> >>
> >
> > The movie does have some very good special effects and the
> > CGI is great but it is a crap film. The story line is
> > ridiculous, it is a bastardisation of H.G. Wells book and it
> > is has several technical flaws that make it just a load of
> > crap.
> >
> > This was a perfect opportunity to make a period piece and
> > use "Jeff Wayne's" music (and Richard Burtons voice) to
> > create a stunning film but instead we get Cruise and H.G.
> > Nelson.
> >
> > Special effects 10/10. Story line and technical
> > believability 2/10. (and no I don't mean the machines I
> > mean everything else around it)
> >
> > Example. At the start Cruise discovers *all* machinery,
> > including his wrist watch, has been taken out by EMP. Next
> > scene a news crew rolls up, in their working van and show
> > him a video of what happened while he is picking through the
> > wreckage of a Jumbo plane crash (minus dead bodies). So not
> > only did their car work, but their video cameras, their
> > VCRs, their mobile phones etc. This is the sort of
> > inconsistent crap this film delivers!
>
> You forgot to mention that although the plane totally destroyed the house,
> his car car which was parking in the driveway was left totally unscathed.
>

Yep I'm sure we all agree on the flaws. All that everyone here so far has
mentioned was absolutely correct especially the tv crews equipment/vehicle
and then if you ever see a jumbo that's crashed, it would be scattered for
kilometres, not just in the yard and his escape vehicle was as you say
unmarked as was the pathway leading from the property. There were a lot more
as well but hey, it's only a movie.

As for the ending with his son just walking up the road, well, he should go
and buy a lottery ticket. I guess we come to expect more "realness" in
storylines,(and I agree), but I guess too much emphasis is placed on the SFX
CGI rooms these days.

I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie though and overall I would give it a 8
out of 10 with the -2 coming only from the silly mistakes as mentioned
above. These could easily have been rectified with a little more thought.

DAVO

[Keith Gow]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:43:41 +1000, "Chriz"
<chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> waxed lyrical:

>Once upon a time Wally AngleseaT decided to write:
>
>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:45:07 +1000, "Chriz"
>> <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:
>>>
>>>> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job
>>>> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but
>>>> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it
>>>> on DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment in
>>>> here on this movie.
>>>
>>> Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and sonically. This
>>> movie is a great HT tester and great for sub action.
>>
>> Great movie, but typically, Spielberg spoils the effect by having a
>> sappy unneccessary happy resolution at the end. He can't help himself.
>
>Yeah, the sappy ending was a bit much. I can take an abrupt ending, but the
>sappiness took away from it. That combined with some of the inconsistencies.

Oh, please, are we all this cynical? Just because it's happy, it's
sappy?

-- Keith Gow --

http://reviewaday.blogspot.com/

[Prodigy]

DAVO <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:rujye.14532$oJ.13481@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job with
this
> one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but overall a must
see
> for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it on DVD for the HT. I'm
> surprised there hasn't been more comment in here on this movie.

It's definately the scariest movie Spielberg has ever done. Once the attack
started, the movie didn't let up on the suspense.

[TT]

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Jelye.14677$oJ.1522@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
:
: "Chriz" <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote
in message
: news:42c9d769$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
: > Once upon a time TT decided to write:
: >
: > > "Chriz" <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com>
wrote in
: > > message news:42c9c9f0$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
: > >> Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:
: > >>
: > >>> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done
a splendid job
: > >>> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in
the context but
: > >>> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't
wait to get it
: > >>> on DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been
more comment in
: > >>> here on this movie.
: > >>
: > >> Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and
sonically. This
: > >> movie is a great HT tester and great for sub action.
: > >>
: > >
: > > The movie does have some very good special effects and
the
: > > CGI is great but it is a crap film. The story line is
: > > ridiculous, it is a bastardisation of H.G. Wells book
and it
: > > is has several technical flaws that make it just a
load of
: > > crap.
: > >
: > > This was a perfect opportunity to make a period piece
and
: > > use "Jeff Wayne's" music (and Richard Burtons voice)
to
: > > create a stunning film but instead we get Cruise and
H.G.
: > > Nelson.
: > >
: > > Special effects 10/10. Story line and technical
: > > believability 2/10. (and no I don't mean the machines
I
: > > mean everything else around it)
: > >
: > > Example. At the start Cruise discovers *all*
machinery,
: > > including his wrist watch, has been taken out by EMP.
Next
: > > scene a news crew rolls up, in their working van and
show
: > > him a video of what happened while he is picking
through the
: > > wreckage of a Jumbo plane crash (minus dead bodies).
So not
: > > only did their car work, but their video cameras,
their
: > > VCRs, their mobile phones etc. This is the sort of
: > > inconsistent crap this film delivers!
: >
: > You forgot to mention that although the plane totally
destroyed the house,
: > his car car which was parking in the driveway was left
totally unscathed.
: >
:
: Yep I'm sure we all agree on the flaws. All that everyone
here so far has
: mentioned was absolutely correct especially the tv crews
equipment/vehicle
: and then if you ever see a jumbo that's crashed, it would
be scattered for
: kilometres, not just in the yard and his escape vehicle
was as you say
: unmarked as was the pathway leading from the property.
There were a lot more
: as well but hey, it's only a movie.
:
: As for the ending with his son just walking up the road,
well, he should go
: and buy a lottery ticket. I guess we come to expect more
"realness" in
: storylines,(and I agree), but I guess too much emphasis is
placed on the SFX
: CGI rooms these days.
:
: I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie though and overall I
would give it a 8
: out of 10 with the -2 coming only from the silly mistakes
as mentioned
: above. These could easily have been rectified with a
little more thought.
:
: DAVO
:


Well it's good to see that people so see it's flaws. It
genuinely annoyed me - the whole thing and deviating from
the book is what caused it.

The whole premise of the film. Intelligent Aliens bury war
machines before civilised homo-sapiens populated the areas.
The Aliens then teleport down, start up the machines and
promptly gratuitously slaughter said homo-sapiens that they
at a later stage turn into fertiliser.

Now why would they do this? If they don't want humans why
wait till they evolve? Do humans make better fertiliser? I
certainly know some that are full of it ;-) Why not conquer
the world before the humans were here? Doesn't make sense.

Not to mention all these buried machines (that aren't
exactly small) were never dug up when humans put in water
mains, subways, tunnels, bores or turned up in seismic
surveys. Just bullshit!

And this sort of stuff just goes on and on through the whole
film.

Cheers TT

[Sponky]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 8:21:29 +0800, Wally Anglesea™ wrote
(in message <gikjc1p9nglknq7f5bohruq22loaes9r7l@4ax.com>):

> Great movie, but typically, Spielberg spoils the effect by having a sappy
> unneccessary happy resolution at the end. He can't help himself.

Inherent from the original novel and 1950's movie.

Thats part of the problem with making the enemy too strong.

+-================================================== =====-+
Sponky

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a fast food Knight.
----------------------------------------------------------

http://toomanylosers.blogspot.com/

[Sponky]

On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:33:42 +0800, TT wrote
(in message <42c9f25a$1@quokka.wn.com.au>):


> Well it's good to see that people so see it's flaws. It
> genuinely annoyed me - the whole thing and deviating from
> the book is what caused it.
>
> The whole premise of the film. Intelligent Aliens bury war
> machines before civilised homo-sapiens populated the areas.
> The Aliens then teleport down, start up the machines and
> promptly gratuitously slaughter said homo-sapiens that they
> at a later stage turn into fertiliser.
>
> Now why would they do this? If they don't want humans why
> wait till they evolve? Do humans make better fertiliser? I
> certainly know some that are full of it ;-) Why not conquer
> the world before the humans were here? Doesn't make sense.
>
> Not to mention all these buried machines (that aren't
> exactly small) were never dug up when humans put in water
> mains, subways, tunnels, bores or turned up in seismic
> surveys. Just bullshit!
>
> And this sort of stuff just goes on and on through the whole
> film.

Not to mention that these aliens that have been planning a million years for
this totally failed to take into account bacteria.

+-================================================== =====-+
Sponky

----------------------------------------------------------
I'm just a fast food Knight.
----------------------------------------------------------

http://toomanylosers.blogspot.com/

[DAVO]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "TT" <TTencerNOmorespam@westnet.net.au>
> Newsgroups: aus.audio-visual.home-cinema,aus.dvd,aus.tv
> Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2005 12:33 PM
> Subject: Re: Thumbs up War of the Worlds
>
>
> > Well it's good to see that people so see it's flaws. It
> > genuinely annoyed me - the whole thing and deviating from
> > the book is what caused it.
>
> I can understand that but I have never read the book
> >
> > The whole premise of the film. Intelligent Aliens bury war
> > machines before civilised homo-sapiens populated the areas.
> > The Aliens then teleport down, start up the machines and
> > promptly gratuitously slaughter said homo-sapiens that they
> > at a later stage turn into fertiliser.Now why would they do this?
> > If they don't want humans why wait till they evolve?
> > Do humans make better fertiliser? I
> > certainly know some that are full of it ;-) Why not conquer
> > the world before the humans were here? Doesn't make sense.
>
> You are talking and thinking like a human being, remember if they are
> Aliens, they probably would not think the way humans do.
> >
> > Not to mention all these buried machines (that aren't
> > exactly small) were never dug up when humans put in water
> > mains, subways, tunnels, bores or turned up in seismic
> > surveys. Just bullshit!
>
> They were probably buried a looooooooong way down and the material may not
> have been detectable, yet a couple of hand grenades did bring one down
> didn't it.
> >
> > And this sort of stuff just goes on and on through the whole
> > film.
>
> I think you're being a bit harsh there TT. I still enjoyed it and I will
> still definately get the DVD.
>
> DAVO
>

[Chriz]

Once upon a time Keith Gow decided to write:

> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 10:43:41 +1000, "Chriz"
> <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> waxed lyrical:
>
>> Once upon a time Wally AngleseaT decided to write:
>>
>>> On Tue, 5 Jul 2005 09:45:07 +1000, "Chriz"
>>> <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:
>>>>
>>>>> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job
>>>>> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but
>>>>> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it
>>>>> on DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment in
>>>>> here on this movie.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and sonically. This
>>>> movie is a great HT tester and great for sub action.
>>>
>>> Great movie, but typically, Spielberg spoils the effect by having a
>>> sappy unneccessary happy resolution at the end. He can't help
>>> himself.
>>
>> Yeah, the sappy ending was a bit much. I can take an abrupt ending,
>> but the sappiness took away from it. That combined with some of the
>> inconsistencies.
>
> Oh, please, are we all this cynical? Just because it's happy, it's
> sappy?

Well the son should have died. It's only logical.

--
Remove ALL_YOUR_HARDWARE to reply by email.

[Chriz]

Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:

> "Chriz" <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42c9d769$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>> Once upon a time TT decided to write:
>>
>>> "Chriz" <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote in
>>> message news:42c9c9f0$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>>>> Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:
>>>>
>>>>> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job
>>>>> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but
>>>>> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it
>>>>> on DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment in
>>>>> here on this movie.
>>>>
>>>> Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and sonically. This
>>>> movie is a great HT tester and great for sub action.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The movie does have some very good special effects and the
>>> CGI is great but it is a crap film. The story line is
>>> ridiculous, it is a bastardisation of H.G. Wells book and it
>>> is has several technical flaws that make it just a load of
>>> crap.
>>>
>>> This was a perfect opportunity to make a period piece and
>>> use "Jeff Wayne's" music (and Richard Burtons voice) to
>>> create a stunning film but instead we get Cruise and H.G.
>>> Nelson.
>>>
>>> Special effects 10/10. Story line and technical
>>> believability 2/10. (and no I don't mean the machines I
>>> mean everything else around it)
>>>
>>> Example. At the start Cruise discovers *all* machinery,
>>> including his wrist watch, has been taken out by EMP. Next
>>> scene a news crew rolls up, in their working van and show
>>> him a video of what happened while he is picking through the
>>> wreckage of a Jumbo plane crash (minus dead bodies). So not
>>> only did their car work, but their video cameras, their
>>> VCRs, their mobile phones etc. This is the sort of
>>> inconsistent crap this film delivers!
>>
>> You forgot to mention that although the plane totally destroyed the
>> house, his car car which was parking in the driveway was left
>> totally unscathed.
>>
>
> Yep I'm sure we all agree on the flaws. All that everyone here so far
> has mentioned was absolutely correct especially the tv crews
> equipment/vehicle and then if you ever see a jumbo that's crashed, it
> would be scattered for kilometres, not just in the yard and his
> escape vehicle was as you say unmarked as was the pathway leading
> from the property. There were a lot more as well but hey, it's only a
> movie.
>
> As for the ending with his son just walking up the road, well, he
> should go and buy a lottery ticket. I guess we come to expect more
> "realness" in storylines,(and I agree), but I guess too much emphasis
> is placed on the SFX CGI rooms these days.
>
> I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie though and overall I would give
> it a 8 out of 10 with the -2 coming only from the silly mistakes as
> mentioned above. These could easily have been rectified with a little
> more thought.

I agree it was a very enjoyable movie despite some flaws, but I suppose it
could have been a lot better as well.

--
Remove ALL_YOUR_HARDWARE to reply by email.

[Chriz]

Once upon a time Prodigy decided to write:

> DAVO <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rujye.14532$oJ.13481@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job
>> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but
>> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it
>> on DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment in
>> here on this movie.
>
> It's definately the scariest movie Spielberg has ever done. Once the
> attack started, the movie didn't let up on the suspense.

Yeah, that's why despite some weaknesses in the story, it was still a good
movie overall.

--
Remove ALL_YOUR_HARDWARE to reply by email.

[TT]

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MDnye.14813$oJ.1995@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
:: > > Well it's good to see that people so see it's flaws.
It
: > > genuinely annoyed me - the whole thing and deviating
from
: > > the book is what caused it.
: >
: > I can understand that but I have never read the book
: : > DAVO
: >
:
Oh dear :-( I would strongly suggest you do as it is very
short and an all time classic. This and the time machine
are a must read for any Sci-Fi fan.

Cheers T

[DAVO]

>
> I agree it was a very enjoyable movie despite some flaws, but I suppose it
> could have been a lot better as well.
>

As I said Chriz, a little more thought into some of those scenes could have
made it a much more enjoyable storyline. The stupid part is it's as though
they were concentrating too much on their SFX dept and the storyline came
well down the list of priorities. But yes you are right.

DAVO

[Beautiful Femur]

DAVO wrote:

> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job with this
> one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but overall a must see
> for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it on DVD for the HT. I'm
> surprised there hasn't been more comment in here on this movie.

i've heard it's a pile of crap that exploits sept11 and doesn't do any
justice to the novel nor previous 1950's movie.

what do you expect from tom "don't squirt water in my face because i
don't like it" cruise....

[georgiarose]

"DAVO" <davideo@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Jelye.14677$oJ.1522@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "Chriz" <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:42c9d769$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>> Once upon a time TT decided to write:
>>
>> > "Chriz" <chrizizhereALL_YOUR_HARDWARE@hotmail.com> wrote in
>> > message news:42c9c9f0$1@duster.adelaide.on.net...
>> >> Once upon a time DAVO decided to write:
>> >>
>> >>> Went and saw WOTW last night and Spielberg has done a splendid job
>> >>> with this one despite some poorly written flaws in the context but
>> >>> overall a must see for all of you. I for one can't wait to get it
>> >>> on DVD for the HT. I'm surprised there hasn't been more comment in
>> >>> here on this movie.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah it's a great movie, especially visually and sonically. This
>> >> movie is a great HT tester and great for sub action.
>> >>
>> >
>> > The movie does have some very good special effects and the
>> > CGI is great but it is a crap film. The story line is
>> > ridiculous, it is a bastardisation of H.G. Wells book and it
>> > is has several technical flaws that make it just a load of
>> > crap.
>> >
>> > This was a perfect opportunity to make a period piece and
>> > use "Jeff Wayne's" music (and Richard Burtons voice) to
>> > create a stunning film but instead we get Cruise and H.G.
>> > Nelson.
>> >
>> > Special effects 10/10. Story line and technical
>> > believability 2/10. (and no I don't mean the machines I
>> > mean everything else around it)
>> >
>> > Example. At the start Cruise discovers *all* machinery,
>> > including his wrist watch, has been taken out by EMP. Next
>> > scene a news crew rolls up, in their working van and show
>> > him a video of what happened while he is picking through the
>> > wreckage of a Jumbo plane crash (minus dead bodies). So not
>> > only did their car work, but their video cameras, their
>> > VCRs, their mobile phones etc. This is the sort of
>> > inconsistent crap this film delivers!
>>
>> You forgot to mention that although the plane totally destroyed the
>> house,
>> his car car which was parking in the driveway was left totally unscathed.

.... and don't forget the very convenient way all the wreckage fell leaving a
perfect path for them to drive away up the road. Lucky that eh!

>>
>
> Yep I'm sure we all agree on the flaws. All that everyone here so far has
> mentioned was absolutely correct especially the tv crews equipment/vehicle
> and then if you ever see a jumbo that's crashed, it would be scattered for
> kilometres, not just in the yard and his escape vehicle was as you say
> unmarked as was the pathway leading from the property. There were a lot
> more
> as well but hey, it's only a movie.
>
> As for the ending with his son just walking up the road, well, he should
> go
> and buy a lottery ticket. I guess we come to expect more "realness" in
> storylines,(and I agree), but I guess too much emphasis is placed on the
> SFX
> CGI rooms these days.
>
> I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie though and overall I would give it a
> 8
> out of 10 with the -2 coming only from the silly mistakes as mentioned
> above. These could easily have been rectified with a little more thought.
>
> DAVO
>
>