The War of the Worlds

[jim48]

AMC ran the 1953 George Pal The War of the Worlds. on Saturday. What a gem! I prefer that to the Speilberg re-make with Tom Cruise. Pal's movie scared the bejeebers out of me when I was a kid!

 

[MeteorWayne]

Sorry I missed it. It's very well done and the 3? remakes pale by comparison.

Have you ever read the book? Very good as well.

 

[docm]

One of my favorites too, but Spielbergs was closer to the novel and very well done.

 

[jim48]

I didn't appreciate the novel until I was older. Visually the Spielberg re-make had the Martian machines dead-on, but still I think it was lame compared to George Pal's movie. Byron Haskin directed that. He later produced the first Star Trek pilot. and I think he directed one of Harlan Ellison's Outer Limits scripts.

 

[docm]

George Pal's film had a decent script and Haskin had "the touch" for doing sci-fi.

 

[StarRider1701]

Interesting that you should post this topic now, because SyFy had the newest War of the Worlds(2005) on last Saturday night and I saw it for the first time. I was totally disappointed. Clearly a low budget film, they spent probably half of it on Tom Cruise dying in the first 5 minutes just so they could put his name on the Marque. A totally crappy movie, I'm glad I didn't spend any money on it.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

I actually didn't hate the last one so terribly much, despite the fact that it had Cruise in it. It was a bit closer to the original story for the "feel" of it. The crazy wanna-be guerrilla fighter hiding out in the basement was a great touch, reminiscent of the novel, as well as the resolution of that particular plot element. I thought it "upped the amperage" of the drama significantly and instead of implying man's fall down the ladder, it demonstrated it. A nice touch.

 

[FlatEarth]

I saw it in the theater as well as own the DVD. I was also disappointed by it, but it had its moments (like when the tripods first emerged...awesome). My problem was with the annoying teen son, who I wanted so bad to be smeared across the landscape. I hoped for a different ending than the original, because we knew what to expect and I wanted a surprise twist, like maybe we figured out how to get our microbes to zap 'em. Anyway, it's still a cool movie that I watch when I'm in the mood for a disaster.

 

[StarRider1701]

I actually didn't hate the last one so terribly much, despite the fact that it had Cruise in it.

But that's just it, Cruise wasn't really in it, he was the first human to be killed at the beginning. Not that I like Tom Cruise all that much, but I kinda expected him to be there. :lol:
Truth be told, I didn't notice that he was the one who died at the beginning, I kept looking for him and finally said something out loud about halfway through. Girlfriend then told me that he was the first one killed.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

..But that's just it, Cruise wasn't really in it, he was the first human to be killed at the beginning. Not that I like Tom Cruise all that much, but I kinda expected him to be there. :lol:
Truth be told, I didn't notice that he was the one who died at the beginning, I kept looking for him and finally said something out loud about halfway through. Girlfriend then told me that he was the first one killed.

Err.. He was there, all through the movie. He didn't die. (Unless there's some weird scene in the first few seconds of the movie that I have forgotten and which implies everything else is a flashback.)

This is the movie you're talking about, right? War of the Worlds (2005)

 

[FlatEarth]

What the heck are you talking about, SR? Cruise didn't die, and the friggin son didn't die either. Me thinks you had yer eyes closed 'cause you you were scared. :lol:

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

I have to say the remake is bothering me less and less as I watch it more. Yes it's truer to HG Wells original story but the part about the Martians "zapping" down to their pre-buried machines kinda ruins it for me. The movie has to work to make up for that. I still prefer the original but no longer despise the remake. (unlike the POTA remake ... which sucks)

 

[docm]

What the heck are you talking about, SR? Cruise didn't die, and the friggin son didn't die either. Me thinks you had yer eyes closed 'cause you you were scared. :lol:

Just mistaken in the WOTW confusion;

War of the Worlds (2005) by Steven Spielberg

H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005) by Timothy Hines

H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005) by David Michael Latt

War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave (2008) the sequel to David Michael Latt's film, directed by C. Thomas Howell.

 

[FlatEarth]

Just mistaken in the WOTW confusion;

War of the Worlds (2005) by Steven Spielberg

H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005) by Timothy Hines

H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005) by David Michael Latt

War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave (2008) the sequel to David Michael Latt's film, directed by C. Thomas Howell.

Now I'm confused. I must admit I was not aware of the other versions, but I still think StarRider was clutching his blankey when the tripods first emerged.

 

[StarRider1701]

Just mistaken in the WOTW confusion;

War of the Worlds (2005) by Steven Spielberg

H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005) by Timothy Hines

H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005) by David Michael Latt

War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave (2008) the sequel to David Michael Latt's film, directed by C. Thomas Howell.

Now I'm confused. I must admit I was not aware of the other versions, but I still think StarRider was clutching his blankey when the tripods first emerged.

I was getting the feeling we were talking of different movies. Thanks for the info, docm. Not sure which of the other two movies made in 2005 I watched on SyFy last Sat, but I thought they said it had Tom Cruise in it. The movie I watched was very low budget, which totally focused on the Scientist main character and his experiences during the invasion. There was almost no special effects, no shots at all of the military fighting the aliens with more than just small arms. And the "tripods" looked almost insect-like with more than three legs. A totally crappy movie.

 

[a_lost_packet_]

What the heck are you talking about, SR? Cruise didn't die, and the friggin son didn't die either. Me thinks you had yer eyes closed 'cause you you were scared. :lol:

Just mistaken in the WOTW confusion;

War of the Worlds (2005) by Steven Spielberg

H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005) by Timothy Hines

H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds (2005) by David Michael Latt

War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave (2008) the sequel to David Michael Latt's film, directed by C. Thomas Howell.

...

Wow... So, lots of people like to take advantage of when the a famous work becomes part of the common, literary lexicon... Good grief, that's a bunch of recent WotWs....

 

[a_lost_packet_]

I was getting the feeling we were talking of different movies. Thanks for the info, docm. Not sure which of the other two movies made in 2005 I watched on SyFy last Sat, but I thought they said it had Tom Cruise in it. The movie I watched was very low budget, which totally focused on the Scientist main character and his experiences during the invasion. There was almost no special effects, no shots at all of the military fighting the aliens with more than just small arms. And the "tripods" looked almost insect-like with more than three legs. A totally crappy movie.

I think I remember something of that movie. I watched it for about 10 minutes and, though it might have had some interesting twist, I didn't feel like waiting around for it. Yeah, it didn't grab me as being very special... like most SyFy crapola they push.

 

[docm]

The UK produced/Timothy Hines directed H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (2005) (note no space between H. and G.) is considered the only (mostly) true-to-the-book adaptation. The production takes place in the 19th century and has an early 20th century film stock 'look.' Absent though are black smoke and the Martians great pit at the end.

With mixed reviews, a long run time (179 min), BBC style period acting and less emphasis on F/X it didn't do well here, though one wonders if threats by Dreamworks and Paramount had something to do with influencing 'friendly' reviewers.

 

[JonClarke]

With mixed reviews, a long run time (179 min), BBC style period acting and less emphasis on F/X it didn't do well here, though one wonders if threats by Dreamworks and Paramount had something to do with influencing 'friendly' reviewers.

Since you are (presumably) immune to such threats, what did you think. Apart from missing out the Black Smoke at the Pit, what you describe sounds rather good.