War of the Worlds (Spielberg/Cruise)

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,266
Reaction score
21,126
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
Well, I was quite excited, as my specific camera shot came right up on the big screen...only they had done a seperate shot with the son running right through the spot I was running through and cut it in instead of me. Honestly, I probably would have done the film more help :p

Eh, it sucked pretty badly. Oh well. Yeah, like, when all the cars die on the highway, they'll of course leave a perfect driving lane :rolleyes:
 

Mike Olbinski

Formerly Chandler Mike
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
16,396
Reaction score
12
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Brandon_Webb said:
SPOILERS

I didn't read the book and I don't get it much, why did the machines stop working? What was with the blood and vines?


In the book, the aliens end up dying from our own viruses and germs, which they didn't anticipate...

Mike
 

Djaughe

___________________
Supporting Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2003
Posts
27,756
Reaction score
4
mdamien13 said:
...but Tom Cruise left alone was awful. He was quite possibly the least convincing blue collar guy from Jersey I've ever seen....

:lmao:
 

Brandon_Webb

Registered
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Posts
978
Reaction score
0
Location
Mesa, AZ
Chandler Mike said:
In the book, the aliens end up dying from our own viruses and germs, which they didn't anticipate...

Mike

Spoiler


Also what did the whole Vine thing do?
 

Mike Olbinski

Formerly Chandler Mike
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
16,396
Reaction score
12
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Brandon_Webb said:
Spoiler


Also what did the whole Vine thing do?


I need to read the book again, but I think it was just an result of them being there...I can't remember why the red weed grows.

SPOILERS

Saw it today, it was good, the beginning of the movie when the storm hits was very cool, the machines cool, the way they killed people was cool, etc.

But my belief is that the book really doesn't lend itself to be a great movie. Having no climax other than they just keep dying is hard to do in a movie.

They had Ray kill one with a grenade (not in the books of course) and while they all saw the monsters dying at the end, they still had to show one being hit with bazooka's even though it was going to die soon anyways (althought I guess they didn't know that).

So being anti-climactic sort of just makes this an average movie to me.

If you really want the War of the Worlds, read the book...it's really good.

Mike
 

MigratingOsprey

Thank You Paul!
Joined
Jul 20, 2003
Posts
13,245
Reaction score
5,451
Location
Goodyear
very average movie .. maybe worth the matinee in a couple weeks just for the sound and effects

very abrupt ending

many things in the movie irratatings

MAYBE SPOILERS..............

like when all the batteries and electricity go out and on the street you have a photo camera and a handycam in working condition

the perfect driving lane (as mentioned)

when he gets to the mothers house and all the electricty is working, why not eat the food in the house instead of messing with the peanut butter?!?!

crazy how people can march from jersey to boston w/out any food and fighting aliens over an undisclosed # of days and still be in pretty good condition

funny that boston was relatively unscathed and NY was obliterated ... I guess even aliens know which city is actually worth destroying and which one will eventually just destroy itself

what was with the vines?!?!!?

at least tim robbins was good and the little girl was very good as well ... the son was horrid
 

Renz

An Army of One
Joined
May 10, 2003
Posts
13,078
Reaction score
2
Location
lat: 35.231 lon: -111.550
Spielberg, Cruise Wage 'War' With $77.6M
Monday, July 04, 2005

LOS ANGELES — "War of the Worlds" conquered the box office as easily as the movie's aliens overpowered Earth, but it did not have enough firepower to overcome Hollywood's prolonged box office slump.

Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise's sci-fi tale took in $77.6 million over the long Fourth of July weekend, lifting its total since debuting Wednesday to $113.3 million, according to studio estimates Monday.

That fell well short of the all-time high held by "Spider-Man 2," whose $180.1 million haul in its first six days led Hollywood to a record Fourth of July weekend last year.

The top 12 movies took in $160.1 million, off 25 percent from that 2004 record weekend.

It was the 19th straight weekend that domestic revenues were down compared with last year's, extending the longest slump since analysts began tracking detailed box-office figures. The worst downturn previously recorded was 17 weekends in 1985.

For the year, revenues are down about 7 percent, while factoring in higher ticket prices, admissions are off 10 percent. The longer the slump drags on, the harder it gets for Hollywood to dig itself out of that revenue hole, said Paul Dergarabedian, president of box-office tracker Exhibitor Relations.

"There's a spotlight on the slump and people's dissatisfaction about going to the movies. That negative perception can create a negative reality," Dergarabedian said. "It also gives people the opportunity to vent all the reasons they don't like going to movies, whether it's high ticket prices or the costs at the concession stand. So they feel validated in that by the slump."

"War of the Worlds," Spielberg and Cruise's update on H.G. Wells' classic about space invaders laying siege to Earth, had the second-best four-day opening over Fourth of July, behind the $115.8 million for "Spider-Man 2."

"Anybody disappointed with the second-biggest opening ever on Fourth of July weekend should really sort of seek help," said Rob Friedman, vice chairman for motion pictures at Paramount, which handled domestic distribution for "War of the Worlds."

The studio hopes "War of the Worlds" will have a long shelf life at theaters, since Spielberg and Cruise's audiences tend to skew older than crowds that rush out over opening weekend for such comic-book adaptations as "Spider-Man 2," Friedman said.

"This is not a sequel. It's not based on a comic book and a young fan-based property. This is based on a 100-year-old literary property," Friedman said. Spielberg and Cruise's "movies tend to play longer, stay in the marketplace longer, so I think as it relates to 'Spider-Man 2,' we'll have to wait and see what the long haul brings."

Opening in 78 countries last week, "War of the Worlds" took in an additional $102.5 million overseas from Wednesday to Sunday, putting its worldwide total at well over $200 million. Paramount did not yet have figures on how much the movie took in internationally on Monday.

"War of the Worlds" bumped "Batman Begins" to second place after two weekends in the top box-office slot. "Batman Begins" hauled in $18.7 million over the four-day weekend to raise its three-week domestic total to $154.1 million.

The weekend's other new wide release, the Martin Lawrence basketball comedy "Rebound," fouled out with just $6 million from Friday to Monday, coming in at No. 7.

Estimated ticket sales for Friday through Monday at North American theaters, according to Exhibitor Relations Co. Inc. Final figures will be released Tuesday.

1. "War of the Worlds," $77.6 million.

2. "Batman Begins," $18.7 million.

3. "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," $12.7 million.

4. "Bewitched," $10.8 million.

5. "Herbie: Fully Loaded," $10.5 million.

6. "Madagascar," $7 million.

7. "Rebound," $6 million.

8. "Star Wars: Episode III — Revenge of the Sith," $5 million.

9. "The Longest Yard," $3.5 million.

10. "George Romero's Land of the Dead," $3.2 million.
 

UncleChris

Shocking, I tell you!
Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2003
Posts
30,299
Reaction score
13,689
Location
Prescott, AZ
Renz said:
The aliens were "terra-forming" our planet, making it look more like theirs.

And the blood served as fertilizer.


Anyway.... I really liked it. I made a special point to go in and watch/enjoy the movie and not try to be a critic. I'm glad I did it that way...

Is the movie perfect? Hell, no.... but what movie is? Absolutely fantastic special effects and sound, the acting was just fine for the genre movie (like ANY of the star wars acting was better... :rolleyes: ) and SS held pretty close to the original story. As an overall movie of any kind, I'd give it a B+. Within its genre, an "A."

Look, folks. If you want reality, watch the friggin' news. It's a science fiction movie, for crying out loud!! ;)

p.s. I watched the original movie last night..... Man have we come a long way in movie making. The 1953 version actually goe an award for special effects.
 

JPlay

JPlay
Joined
Jan 10, 2005
Posts
1,211
Reaction score
0
It was good not great.


SPOILER>>>

The part I was pissed about was when Cruise said look at the birds on the machines, but it was so loud you couldn't hear the rest of what he was saying.

Also why was it that Boston was also being destroyed but when he got to the house they were all perfectly fine like nothing had happened.

Ending left me wanting more.
 
OP
OP
Brian in Mesa

Brian in Mesa

Advocatus Diaboli
Super Moderator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Joined
May 13, 2002
Posts
70,690
Reaction score
21,234
Location
The Dark Side
War of the Worlds Passes $500M Globally
Source: Paramount Pictures
August 3, 2005


War of the Worlds, a Steven Spielberg film starring Tom Cruise, has passed the $500 million threshold at the worldwide box office, taking in over $218.3 million domestically and over $310.7 million internationally and still growing.

Wayne Lewellen, president of motion picture distribution for Paramount Pictures, said, "It's always gratifying to see the audience respond as strongly as it has to 'War of the Worlds,' a film that proved to be a cultural focal point for audiences everywhere. Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise have delivered another of the biggest hits of all time. We're thrilled."

Since its release, War of the Worlds has become a worldwide blockbuster. In the U.S., the film set a new career high for Tom Cruise as well as a new mark for Paramount Pictures by scoring the largest opening day, largest single day, and largest opening weekend the star and the company have ever had. In addition, the film has surpassed the $215 million domestic gross for Mission: Impossible II, becoming the biggest hit in Tom Cruise's extraordinary career.

The film has broken a total of 179 international records, including new opening-weekend highs in many territories for Tom Cruise, Steven Spielberg, and Paramount Pictures. War of the Worlds scored the trifecta -- biggest Cruise weekend, biggest Spielberg weekend, and biggest Paramount weekend -- in such markets as the UK, Italy, Spain, Australia, Mexico, Korea, Egypt, Thailand, Indonesia, Brazil, Hungary, Portugal, and many other territories. In Argentina and Russia, among other countries, the film set the new mark for the #1 opening weekend of all time.
 

vince56

ASFN Addict
Joined
Sep 15, 2002
Posts
8,918
Reaction score
1,720
Location
Arizona
We rented this last night. Oh man, where to begin.

*******SPOILER BELOW*******

This movie should've been called Plot Hole. There were too many to count. I also thought they directly ripped off Half Life 2 with the tri-pod walkers being shown walking through an industrial area, being shot with bazookas. Totally ripped from the game.

Ok, plot hole #1: "They've been planning this for a million years."

Roiiight. A million years ago, we didn't exist. There was no dominant species on the planet. If they've been planning it for a million years, why didn't they just take over the planet before we existed? Lame.

Plot hole #2: The machines were buried in the ground. Ok, if they were buried a kilometer or two underground, then maybe it could work. Of course, a km underground in New York City still wouldn't work because there's water there that far underground, but ok whatever. When the first walker came up from the ground in New York, there was barely any rock/dirt above it. It was like it was just a few feet below the ground. Uhm... what else is a few feet below the ground in New York? Subways. Yeah, I think they would've found the alien craft about 100 years ago while digging the subways. Another atrocious mistake.

Plot hole #3: The kid runs forward into the battlefield. 10 seconds later the battlefield is 100% engulfed in flames. 100%. No one lives....... but the kid. :|

Plot hole #4: Tom Cruise. What a horrible casting.

Plot hole #5: Tim Robbins is twice Cruise's size. Cruise walks in the room, Robbins is holding a shovel. Somehow Cruise walks away after killing the other man. 100% not going to happen, the odds are too high in Robbins' favor.

Those are just off the top of my head. There's more, and many of you guys on here have named them. The effects were cool, and I was able to suspend reality a bit to actually enjoy the movie... it's just the gaping plot holes that jolt you right out of the storyline and remind you it's all fake. They ruin what could've been a great movie IMO.
 

vince56

ASFN Addict
Joined
Sep 15, 2002
Posts
8,918
Reaction score
1,720
Location
Arizona
One more plot hole now that I'm thinking about it. It was cool that when the blasts from the walkers hit a person, it vaporized them and left their clothes. However, how come the blasts can vaporize people, destroy buildings, break glass, destroy cars.... yet can't burn clothes?

hmm.
 

joeshmo

Kangol Hat Aficionado
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Posts
17,247
Reaction score
0
vince56 said:
Ok, plot hole #1: "They've been planning this for a million years."

Roiiight. A million years ago, we didn't exist. There was no dominant species on the planet. If they've been planning it for a million years, why didn't they just take over the planet before we existed? Lame.

Plot hole #2: The machines were buried in the ground. Ok, if they were buried a kilometer or two underground, then maybe it could work. Of course, a km underground in New York City still wouldn't work because there's water there that far underground, but ok whatever. When the first walker came up from the ground in New York, there was barely any rock/dirt above it. It was like it was just a few feet below the ground. Uhm... what else is a few feet below the ground in New York? Subways. Yeah, I think they would've found the alien craft about 100 years ago while digging the subways. Another atrocious mistake.

Plot hole #3: The kid runs forward into the battlefield. 10 seconds later the battlefield is 100% engulfed in flames. 100%. No one lives....... but the kid. :|

Plot hole #4: Tom Cruise. What a horrible casting.

Plot hole #5: Tim Robbins is twice Cruise's size. Cruise walks in the room, Robbins is holding a shovel. Somehow Cruise walks away after killing the other man. 100% not going to happen, the odds are too high in Robbins' favor.

Those are just off the top of my head. There's more, and many of you guys on here have named them. The effects were cool, and I was able to suspend reality a bit to actually enjoy the movie... it's just the gaping plot holes that jolt you right out of the storyline and remind you it's all fake. They ruin what could've been a great movie IMO.

Plot hole 1. The book was the same way. As for taking over the planet before they existed then that would have defeated their purpose. They used the human blood as fertilizer for the red weeds. Dont know what the red weeds are for just they they are made from our blood. I believe they were not just here for the planet but for us as well to complete their plan for the planet

Plot hole 2. Who ever said the machines were that size when they buried them. They could have been just a molecule in size until the electric storm activated them and sent down the drivers.

Plot hole 3. Who said it was 100% in flames. All we saw was a big explosion and a flash of light. And how do we know that everyone else died but the kid, we dont, there could have been other survivors. Even if the place was 100% engulfed in flames he could have been underneath something inside something, ect. We just dont know.

Plot hole 5. Robbins character had also been awake for days and completely out of his mind. Plus the Cruise character had some of the strongest adreniline rushing through his viens, that have trying to save his child. Why couldnt the bigger guy be killed by a smaller guy?

I will admit their were a lot of questions left over for the audience to answer for themselves using their own imagination, the original writer wanted people to leave thinking about his book and how it represented things that were going on in the world at that time. This Movie was done in that same manor leaving the audience to use their own imagination. You probably wouldnt like the book either because their is a lot left for the imagination as well. In fact I suggest you read it to see just why the movie was the way it was.
 

joeshmo

Kangol Hat Aficionado
Joined
Feb 23, 2004
Posts
17,247
Reaction score
0
vince56 said:
One more plot hole now that I'm thinking about it. It was cool that when the blasts from the walkers hit a person, it vaporized them and left their clothes. However, how come the blasts can vaporize people, destroy buildings, break glass, destroy cars.... yet can't burn clothes?

hmm.

It only vaporizes organic or living material. Just blows up inorganic or non living stuff.

Who knows, its all in the imagination.
 

vince56

ASFN Addict
Joined
Sep 15, 2002
Posts
8,918
Reaction score
1,720
Location
Arizona
joeshmo said:
It only vaporizes organic or living material. Just blows up inorganic or non living stuff.

The last time I checked, brick buildings are not alive :D

As for "blowing up inorganic or non living stuff", peoples clothes were just flying through the air, unharmed. Not blown up, not even on fire.
 
Last edited:

Pariah

H.S.
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2003
Posts
35,345
Reaction score
14
Location
The Aventine
vince56 said:
One more plot hole now that I'm thinking about it. It was cool that when the blasts from the walkers hit a person, it vaporized them and left their clothes. However, how come the blasts can vaporize people, destroy buildings, break glass, destroy cars.... yet can't burn clothes?

hmm.
I haven't seen the movie, yet (I have it here on DVD, so I'll prob. watch it soon), but maybe their ray guns have different settings?
 

Stout

Hold onto the ball, Murray!
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Posts
38,266
Reaction score
21,126
Location
Pittsburgh, PA--Enemy territory!
joeshmo said:
Plot hole 1. The book was the same way. As for taking over the planet before they existed then that would have defeated their purpose. They used the human blood as fertilizer for the red weeds. Dont know what the red weeds are for just they they are made from our blood. I believe they were not just here for the planet but for us as well to complete their plan for the planet

Plot hole 2. Who ever said the machines were that size when they buried them. They could have been just a molecule in size until the electric storm activated them and sent down the drivers.

Plot hole 3. Who said it was 100% in flames. All we saw was a big explosion and a flash of light. And how do we know that everyone else died but the kid, we dont, there could have been other survivors. Even if the place was 100% engulfed in flames he could have been underneath something inside something, ect. We just dont know.

Plot hole 5. Robbins character had also been awake for days and completely out of his mind. Plus the Cruise character had some of the strongest adreniline rushing through his viens, that have trying to save his child. Why couldnt the bigger guy be killed by a smaller guy?

I will admit their were a lot of questions left over for the audience to answer for themselves using their own imagination, the original writer wanted people to leave thinking about his book and how it represented things that were going on in the world at that time. This Movie was done in that same manor leaving the audience to use their own imagination. You probably wouldnt like the book either because their is a lot left for the imagination as well. In fact I suggest you read it to see just why the movie was the way it was.

The book rocked; the movie sucked. Sure, let's drive in the perfectly open lane down the middle of a traffic-jammed highway...and let's have a bunch of other really stupid things.

The movie sucked, and I had a vested interest in liking it!
 

phillycard

ASFN Addict
Joined
Aug 22, 2003
Posts
6,968
Reaction score
3,470
Location
The 215
the flick was okay. The ending was basically like WTF?? No need to ever see this movie again. :confused:
 

Bada0Bing

Don't Stop Believin'
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Posts
7,596
Reaction score
839
Location
Goodyear
I thought it was a good movie and I really liked the ending. I was hoping that Cruise or the military wouldn’t just find some way to kill them. It was a clever concept.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
537,416
Posts
5,269,979
Members
6,276
Latest member
ConpiracyCard
Top