I loved this move, amazing, so much anxiety felt through out. Between sympathizing with Tom's kids in the movie for having an emotional neglectful father who acts out in tantrums more then the kids and the terrifying, completely unfeeling exterminators of humanity, I was constantly engaged from start to finish. Ive seen this movie so many time and still love it. Also it puts things in prospective, if we were treated as vermin as we do with so many of our fellow creatures, this is what it would look like.
I love Ebert's explanation on the film's logic. "Tripod's don't even make sense. They're not stable. They should have four legs instead of three." Classic! XD
But people walk on crutches all the time and that's stable. So on that basis I dismiss Ebert's criticism on the tripods. His other points are valid, though.
I love War of the Worlds and thought the tripods were incredible! Some of the best CGI in a film hands down. The first scene when the tripods came out of the ground is just outstanding filmaking and the loud sounds they make are truly menacing! And that's only one of the many unforgettable scenes in this film! Love Ebert but gotta agree with Roeper, so much fun to see them disagree with one another and battle it out! RIP Roger Ebert
And yet, at the Oscars. King Kong.. I repeat KING KONG! Got the Oscar for better Visual Effects.. How does that work? I 100% agree, this film, 10 years on, still stands on its visual effects, even if the turning people to dust is a little dumb.. But the driving away with the bridge being destroyed is an incredible moment in cinema! Whereas, King Kong, Kong looks great. But the dinosaurs look awful! Jurassic Park's dinos look better than the dinos in Kong.
Death Valley I think most of the time they do. WELL they nominate a certain type of film. Its hardly representative of world cinema, but thats why we have Sundance, Cannes and Berlin Film Festival. I just wish there was more parity with films not in English. Or especially with black actors and films like that. The whitewash last Oscars was a HUGE JOKE! And i don't know why i care, because we all expect it. David Oyelowo as MLK was one of the, if not the best, most compelling performance of the year.. Its ridiculous! Meanwhile Steve Carell nominated... STEVE CAR... I give up... I agree with you.
It's a flawed film, but the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. I agree with Roeper, it was kind of unique to see an alien invasion film from one ordinary man's prespective, and the action sequences were great. Perhaps it's biggest flaw was being too faithful to the book.
I am not sure it is contempt as much as clarification about ratings and how there are apples and oranges. I've never seen Longest Yard but I'd be hardpressed to see what that film has to do with War of the Worlds.
Man, the special effects in this movie were AMAZING. Easily the best I've ever seen in a Spielberg movie, and that's really saying something when you remember he made films like Minority Report and Jurassic Park.
This is exactly like the time when Ebert had to school Siskel on how critics are supposed to review films in context. Siskel couldn't understand why Ebert gave thumbs down to Full Metal Jacket, but thumbs up to Benji the Hunted. And War of the Worlds kicks ass, by the way.
I think this is actually one of Spielberg's most underrated movies. Yes, there are some major plot holes (as Ebert points out) and there are elements of the ending that I feel betray the movie (Cruise and his son both somehow surviving). But this is still a gripping, apocalyptic take on the alien invasion genre.
Ebert wanted a purely methodically Kubrick level invasion movie where every detail made total sense. It's not a perfect movie, but mostly well made and pushed the source material to a whole new level in my opinion.
This movie was intense, and it scared the hell out of me. The genius of this movie, is that, inspite of what some may consider flaws, this movie takes itself very seriously. This movie is not another "Independence Day" or "Starhip Troopers"...This movie, even though it is full of action, is not an "action movie", and Tom Cruise is not an action hero, in this film. He plays the part of a Father, who, is clearly trying his best to protect his kids, but, at the same time, he is just as lost as everyone else. And, even though there isn't an overwhelming amount of character development, the characters in this movie are, still, very much sympathetic, and there are, in fact, some very powerful, emotional scenes. I wasn't blown away by the designs of the aliens, themselves, but, the tripods, their designs, and the introduction of the tripods, emerging from under the steets, and lethargically, and ominously towering over, and blowing up masses of people, mercilessly, and relentlessy... the imagery was terrying, and the massive presence of the tripods was epic. Again, this was not another "Independance Day"... Once more, this, to me, is not an action movie, or a summer blockbuster-styled film. This movie is dark, gloomy, and powerful, and to me, the feel of this movie is grounded in just as much reality, for an "Alien invasion film", as " The Dark Knight" is, for a "Superhero film". This movie seperates itself from other movies in it's genre, for that very reason.
I beleive it is the best alien invasion movie ever made but sadly no one ever acknowledges that. They always bring up the dissapointing ending even though it stays faithful to the book.
Nailed it. War of the Worlds wasn't setting out to be fun. It was setting out to take the audience on the same emotional journey as the characters. It was meant to be a scary experience, just like it would be if you were there. That's the difference with Spielberg's action movies. When the T-Rex attacks in Jurassic Park, you're not supposed to be saying "Wow, that's cool". It's terrifying. In Jaws, you don't cheer for the shark to eat people, you inhabit the characters and feel their fear. That's the genius of Spielberg, and that's the genius of War of the Worlds.
You can tell Siskel & Ebert liked each other and respected each other. I always got the feeling Ebert never really liked Roeper, it shows in their discussions.
Indeed; the fact of the tri-pod's "clunky" design is explained very well when we finally see the aliens in Tim Robbin's cellar: they've designed their robots to look like themselves, which is absolutely natural. No matter how technologically sophisticated a species becomes, it's not immune to self-centeredness.
This review is really one of Ebert's bests not because of the review itself but the discussion of listening to what people say, not looking at the final print "thumb up/thumb down." He really hits the nail right on the head, there.
War of the Worlds gets better and better with each viewing. Last time watching it I noticed the camera is never more than 6 feet off the ground, like in ET where the camera is never higher than 3 feet in the first half. Little things like that.
These two generally got along pretty well and had a fun, charming professional relationship on camera, but its interesting to look back at these reviews and see how many times they kind of got mad at one another. This, along with I think Superman Returns, was one of the occasions where they really seemed to be spiteful of each other, which is funny because there are plenty of occasions, like the reviews for Thomas the Tank Engine and Garfield 2 where they seem to have a lot of fun.
99.9% of the time, I side with Ebert during arguments of film criticism but this one, I went with Roeper. This is a fantastic challenge because plenty of people give weight to the "stars" and "thumbs" for reviews. Giving thumbs down to "War of the Worlds" on the basis of comparison to the filmmakers previous films is a silly criteria. On it's own merit, it's just as worthy of a viewing.
I read in a book about Steven Spielberg that the appearance of the son at the end implied something. When the son runs out to meet them no one else does, implying Tom Cruise could be imagining.
Though I liked the film overall, I agree with Roger that, sticking with the tripods, they should have set the film in 1898, preferably in England with a different cast, which, with alternate timelines now being commonplace in SF films, can even be explained that way if necessary. This would have been a much more daring move. I disliked Morgan Freeman's end narration, echoing Cedric Hardwicke's in the 1953 film, which Well's himself would have hated, as it misses the point of the novel entirely.
I don't agree with Ebert's opinion about the movie but I do like that he mentioned audiences should checkout the full review and the context rather than make up their minds from a rating. On the other hand, not everyone has the luxury of time to fully dive into a review
I thought this movie was fantastic. The actual motives of the aliens were not important because all that matters is that they want to kill everybody and there is literally no way for humanity to fight them. That's what made the movie so scary and the tripods so threatening. The aliens treat humans the way humans treat ants.
I think this movie confused a lot of people when it came out, even Roeper seems to be giving thumbs up for the hell of it. I saw it again for the first time since 2005 and it really has aged surprisingly well. The movie isn't really about the alien invasion but the first hand experience of such an invasion. At the time I remember people were all putting it into an 9/11-Iraq-context, but watching it from beginning to end today just as a standalone disaster movie, I think its simply a good film
I love how they disagree but have fun disagreeing with each other, both have valid points but after several viewing I agree more with Ebert, that's when I know I'm getting old haha
Continued- Though it does heavily stretch my personal suspension of disbelief. The whole jumping down in to the tripod part I mean. See it's mentioned in the film that they'd been hidden down there for thousands of years... So wouldn't they (after thousands of years of technological advancements) be obsolete?. Wouldn't they have much better technology?. Also if they put them down thousands of years ago... Why wait until now. Why not at the time when humans were wield swords?.
Exactly! It makes absolutely no sense. In the book, the Martians and the tripods come down in meteors at the same time. I think some idiot thought it would look neat to have the Martians come down in lightning so they went with that idea without thinking it through.
I have to disagree with Ebert, the extraterrestrials were mysterious and it made them interesting. Their motivation and origins would never be satisfying if they were divulged, and their strangely shaped crafts made them otherworldly, as intended by Wells.
I agree. I don't quite understand some of his arguments (I mean I understand what he's saying, but I don't see *why* he thinks that). Personally, I thought it was unique with the tripods because three legs is unnatural and that makes them interesting as aliens. However, I have still yet to see the *perfect* movie adaptation of H.G. Wells' marvelous book
@reddalek555 I think it's because the fact that they were so poorly balanced that broke his suspension of disbelief when it came to the tripods. Having four legs would indeed be more practical. That said, he does tend to be picky about the things that do and don't break his suspension of disbelief. For instance, he gave Signs four stars even though its alien invasion was rather less believable than the one in this movie. Still, he's a damn good writer and I respect him for what he does.
@keith7198 Actually, I thought his arguments are pretty bang on. The movie neglects to give us a real reason for the Tripod coming down here... Which makes them just obstacles not antagonists. In the book the reason given was that they'd run their planet dry of resources so they had no other choice than to come down here and invade. The Tripods are a little silly for the modern day, makes sense in 1890, because they were giant behemoths and the human technology was still limited.
H.G Wells is my favourite author, and War of the Worlds was a really good movie. I remeber seeing it at the cinema with my dad and brother, and it was awesome. Definately one of the best "summer blockbuster" films. But not one of the best per se. Not by a long shot.
I agree, hullboy. I liked the film even though the Father/Son relationship was kind of cliched. The excitement of the action and the acting was terrific.
The tripods in the '53 version were better designed. It was also a better movie. But I would still recommend this on the basis of the great FX and Cruise's performance.
I love how Rodger Ebert gets agitated with Richard Roeper when Roeper basically insinuates that people are just looking at the thumbs in the Stars and Ebert has to explain to him that is not just about the ratings it's about the context within the ratings definitely shows the contrast between a seasoned experienced critic with a rookie which is what Roeper was. But don't get me wrong I love Richard Roeper.
Roeper what is an exquisite successor (not replacer, nobody could replace Gene) to Mr. Siskel. When Roger Left the question was begged could the show continue and who would succeed him. My answer at the time was nobody. Roger was too much of a juggernaut. But hindsight 20/20 I can think of one person. Fran Lebowitz. Well perhaps not the enthusiast that Roger was, let’s be frank, the show with her definitely would’ve been must see television.
I like this movie. The War of the Worlds is one of my favourite stories and it started the whole Alien invasion story. It seems like this story crops every couple of decades after a major disaster or crisis. The 1938 Radio Broadcast was during the Inter-War period and the Great Depression. The 1953 film was adapted to fit the Nuclear Age and this film was made in 2005. Just four years on from 9/11. I do want, one day, a good adaptation of the source material, set in the 1890s, and really following the book, but perhaps the spirit of the book is more important. How the greatest military in the world was defeated so easily and whether the ordinary man would survive. Personally, I prefer the 1953 film, but this is also a great movie, as it even retained the feel of just being about one guy surviving and not being about the entire world like the ‘53 film.
There was another version of the story that came out that year that takes place when the book was set, called “H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds,” which was three hours long. However, it was very poorly received by both critics and audiences alike (I haven’t seen it myself but gonna check it out at some point).
Thanks my friend, glad someone agrees. I am sick of the movie industry putting out crap movies that are a waste of time and good money. We deserve more for those big wigs to live a rich lifestyle. We deserve to get what we paid for, a good movie. Not fantastic, just satisfying.
@keith7198 no, he's right. i mean, maybe here its more of a question of taste rather than fact, but i found it to be one of those unmoving disaster movies.
I think occupy was after the movie was made... And how does occupy tie into Iraqis? Not to downgrade your analysis, but I'm just curious to where you're going with this.
I agree with Mr. Ebert on the tripod debate: I understand the Wells book had to be represented accurately, but for an alien race supposedly millions of years more advanced than us humans to have wobbly tripod legs for movement, well...it doesn't make sense. If we see that as a flaw they should have, too. And then some. I did like how the actual aliens looked and moved, however.
lol love it when roeper tells him "you gave longest yard thumbs up and this down?.....Ebert has to explain, like he did to siskel that each movie is voted on its own merit after gene made a snarky comment about roger liking benji the hunted but not liking full metal jacket....its on youtube
This was a decent movie that had a lot of flaws. Some of the visuals are incredible... the bodies floating down the stream, the fiery train running down the tracks, the plane crash in the middle of the suburban neighborhood. And the alien tripods can be scary as hell with their sheer size and that metallic beast roar they give off. But so much of the rest of the film is heavy-handed and overdone. The 1953 film, although it will look primitive to today's viewers, is a much better adaptation of the same story.
Watching Roeper challenge Ebert is really enthralling.
Roeper lost his edge here, Ebert here pointed out how silly and cliche the movie came across. Far from a thriller for the human mind older than 16
5:00 "How many times do I have to explain it to you"
- Ebert & Roeper's dynamic in a nutshell.
I saw this in the theater when I was 11. It still to this day remains the only movie that has ever genuinely terrified me!
Absolutely, it's amazing Roeper even argued with him about it.
god damn when roeper said the machines were in the core where hilary swank went i laughed my ass off!! they had great chemistry ebert and him
Me to jj Butler lol
JJ Buttar Yeah but not as good chemistry as Ebert & Siskel had.
I loved this move, amazing, so much anxiety felt through out. Between sympathizing with Tom's kids in the movie for having an emotional neglectful father who acts out in tantrums more then the kids and the terrifying, completely unfeeling exterminators of humanity, I was constantly engaged from start to finish. Ive seen this movie so many time and still love it. Also it puts things in prospective, if we were treated as vermin as we do with so many of our fellow creatures, this is what it would look like.
"They're in the core where Hilary Swank once went" best part of this review lol
I love Ebert's explanation on the film's logic. "Tripod's don't even make sense. They're not stable. They should have four legs instead of three." Classic! XD
But people walk on crutches all the time and that's stable. So on that basis I dismiss Ebert's criticism on the tripods. His other points are valid, though.
Idgaf this movie scared the hell out of me. I have an almost irrational fear of aliens because of this film
I love War of the Worlds and thought the tripods were incredible! Some of the best CGI in a film hands down. The first scene when the tripods came out of the ground is just outstanding filmaking and the loud sounds they make are truly menacing! And that's only one of the many unforgettable scenes in this film! Love Ebert but gotta agree with Roeper, so much fun to see them disagree with one another and battle it out! RIP Roger Ebert
And yet, at the Oscars. King Kong..
I repeat KING KONG! Got the Oscar for better Visual Effects..
How does that work? I 100% agree, this film, 10 years on, still stands on its visual effects, even if the turning people to dust is a little dumb.. But the driving away with the bridge being destroyed is an incredible moment in cinema!
Whereas, King Kong, Kong looks great. But the dinosaurs look awful! Jurassic Park's dinos look better than the dinos in Kong.
+rorrt That's because Oscars are political awards and Spielberg didn't campaign for War of the Worlds. He campaigned for Munich instead.
Death Valley Thats probably fair to say.
But with technical oscars i always feel that there is less politics than with the large awards
rorrt It's all bullshit. They don't even nominate the best films.
Death Valley
I think most of the time they do.
WELL they nominate a certain type of film. Its hardly representative of world cinema, but thats why we have Sundance, Cannes and Berlin Film Festival.
I just wish there was more parity with films not in English. Or especially with black actors and films like that.
The whitewash last Oscars was a HUGE JOKE! And i don't know why i care, because we all expect it.
David Oyelowo as MLK was one of the, if not the best, most compelling performance of the year.. Its ridiculous! Meanwhile Steve Carell nominated... STEVE CAR... I give up...
I agree with you.
It's a flawed film, but the strengths outweigh the weaknesses. I agree with Roeper, it was kind of unique to see an alien invasion film from one ordinary man's prespective, and the action sequences were great. Perhaps it's biggest flaw was being too faithful to the book.
Nigga this movie is not flawed
Agreed. I felt like the ending didn't really work in the film even though it was true to the source material...
I agree with Roger
Me too.
Christopher Campbell He didn't, but he gave it a higher rating than War of the Worlds.
Me to
I disagree with Ebert on this one but the absolute contempt he displays for Roeper is too marvelous to deny.
I am not sure it is contempt as much as clarification about ratings and how there are apples and oranges. I've never seen Longest Yard but I'd be hardpressed to see what that film has to do with War of the Worlds.
Why can't the aliens just do both?
"Hello, I'm here to eat you." :3
I agree
Man, the special effects in this movie were AMAZING. Easily the best I've ever seen in a Spielberg movie, and that's really saying something when you remember he made films like Minority Report and Jurassic Park.
This is exactly like the time when Ebert had to school Siskel on how critics are supposed to review films in context. Siskel couldn't understand why Ebert gave thumbs down to Full Metal Jacket, but thumbs up to Benji the Hunted.
And War of the Worlds kicks ass, by the way.
Love how Roeper gets the last word
I think this is actually one of Spielberg's most underrated movies. Yes, there are some major plot holes (as Ebert points out) and there are elements of the ending that I feel betray the movie (Cruise and his son both somehow surviving). But this is still a gripping, apocalyptic take on the alien invasion genre.
Schlock movie and Ebert new it.
I loved this movie
Ebert wanted a purely methodically Kubrick level invasion movie where every detail made total sense. It's not a perfect movie, but mostly well made and pushed the source material to a whole new level in my opinion.
This movie was intense, and it scared the hell out of me. The genius of this movie, is that, inspite of what some may consider flaws, this movie takes itself very seriously. This movie is not another "Independence Day" or "Starhip Troopers"...This movie, even though it is full of action, is not an "action movie", and Tom Cruise is not an action hero, in this film. He plays the part of a Father, who, is clearly trying his best to protect his kids, but, at the same time, he is just as lost as everyone else. And, even though there isn't an overwhelming amount of character development, the characters in this movie are, still, very much sympathetic, and there are, in fact, some very powerful, emotional scenes.
I wasn't blown away by the designs of the aliens, themselves, but, the tripods, their designs, and the introduction of the tripods, emerging from under the steets, and lethargically, and ominously towering over, and blowing up masses of people, mercilessly, and relentlessy... the imagery was terrying, and the massive presence of the tripods was epic. Again, this was not another "Independance Day"...
Once more, this, to me, is not an action movie, or a summer blockbuster-styled film. This movie is dark, gloomy, and powerful, and to me, the feel of this movie is grounded in just as much reality, for an "Alien invasion film", as " The Dark Knight" is, for a "Superhero film". This movie seperates itself from other movies in it's genre, for that very reason.
I beleive it is the best alien invasion movie ever made but sadly no one ever acknowledges that. They always bring up the dissapointing ending even though it stays faithful to the book.
Nailed it. War of the Worlds wasn't setting out to be fun. It was setting out to take the audience on the same emotional journey as the characters. It was meant to be a scary experience, just like it would be if you were there. That's the difference with Spielberg's action movies. When the T-Rex attacks in Jurassic Park, you're not supposed to be saying "Wow, that's cool". It's terrifying. In Jaws, you don't cheer for the shark to eat people, you inhabit the characters and feel their fear. That's the genius of Spielberg, and that's the genius of War of the Worlds.
The subtext of this film highlighted the ravages of war. Loved it, very little of the corn-ball sappy-ness of Speilburg.
Everyone likes fucking bitching :/
One of my favorite things was always watching Siskel and Ebert bicker about different opinions. This felt nice to see Roeper do the same with Ebert.
3 legs are actually more stable than 4, at least when stationary, they find their own balance
Forever he'll be, forever he'll see, film the way it is, the way it will be, the way it was.
Roger Ebert. Rest sir. You earned it.
You can tell Siskel & Ebert liked each other and respected each other. I always got the feeling Ebert never really liked Roeper, it shows in their discussions.
They SHOULD have set this during the 1800's! That would have been great.
I saw this in the theater, the beginning was totally awesome. It sort of dragged at the end but overall I mostly enjoyed the action sequences.
I barely remember either movie, but I do remember liking Minority Report a lot more than War of the Worlds.
Fucking leave
MR was Spielberg’s last great movie he made.
I love this movie, it is in my top 5 spielberg movies, and certainly his most underrated film.
Richard could have defended this film a little better. Personally, I think it's one of the most profound post 9-11 films that have been released.
it's as profound as Starship Troopers and Sharknado
Ebert's take on ratings being relative not absolute should be universally agreed upon.
Indeed; the fact of the tri-pod's "clunky" design is explained very well when we finally see the aliens in Tim Robbin's cellar: they've designed their robots to look like themselves, which is absolutely natural. No matter how technologically sophisticated a species becomes, it's not immune to self-centeredness.
Dakota was really great. She played the heroin for the entire movie by herself, which is totally amazing.
She really stands out in Man on Fire, which came out the year before this.
I agree , Dakota did do a great job as the leading lady .
This was one of their best arguments on the show.
I liked it but holy shit his son was such a twat the whole movie I was pissed when he showed up alive at the end.
🖕
I totally agree with Roger Ebert.
Leave
I'm enjoying these old clips. You could tell in this one that Roger had been sick. His voice was a bit off.
This review is really one of Ebert's bests not because of the review itself but the discussion of listening to what people say, not looking at the final print "thumb up/thumb down." He really hits the nail right on the head, there.
War of the Worlds gets better and better with each viewing.
Last time watching it I noticed the camera is never more than 6 feet off the ground, like in ET where the camera is never higher than 3 feet in the first half.
Little things like that.
4:55 the best remake debate between this one and The Longest Yard
I think Ebert by the end was wishing for Siskel to come back.
These two generally got along pretty well and had a fun, charming professional relationship on camera, but its interesting to look back at these reviews and see how many times they kind of got mad at one another. This, along with I think Superman Returns, was one of the occasions where they really seemed to be spiteful of each other, which is funny because there are plenty of occasions, like the reviews for Thomas the Tank Engine and Garfield 2 where they seem to have a lot of fun.
99.9% of the time, I side with Ebert during arguments of film criticism but this one, I went with Roeper. This is a fantastic challenge because plenty of people give weight to the "stars" and "thumbs" for reviews. Giving thumbs down to "War of the Worlds" on the basis of comparison to the filmmakers previous films is a silly criteria. On it's own merit, it's just as worthy of a viewing.
This was one of those post-9/11 dark-and-gritty-disaster movies.
If you read his reviews you'd realize his criticisms are sharper and more intuitive than ever.
I read in a book about Steven Spielberg that the appearance of the son at the end implied something. When the son runs out to meet them no one else does, implying Tom Cruise could be imagining.
"After a million year ( 3:02 ) , can they come up with anything better than that ? " R.E Loved it !!
I loved war of the worlds. Great alien invasion movie with awesome action. Not sure why it gets such hate
Though I liked the film overall, I agree with Roger that, sticking with the tripods, they should have set the film in 1898, preferably in England with a different cast, which, with alternate timelines now being commonplace in SF films, can even be explained that way if necessary. This would have been a much more daring move. I disliked Morgan Freeman's end narration, echoing Cedric Hardwicke's in the 1953 film, which Well's himself would have hated, as it misses the point of the novel entirely.
I don't agree with Ebert's opinion about the movie but I do like that he mentioned audiences should checkout the full review and the context rather than make up their minds from a rating. On the other hand, not everyone has the luxury of time to fully dive into a review
I thought this movie was fantastic. The actual motives of the aliens were not important because all that matters is that they want to kill everybody and there is literally no way for humanity to fight them. That's what made the movie so scary and the tripods so threatening. The aliens treat humans the way humans treat ants.
I think this movie confused a lot of people when it came out, even Roeper seems to be giving thumbs up for the hell of it. I saw it again for the first time since 2005 and it really has aged surprisingly well. The movie isn't really about the alien invasion but the first hand experience of such an invasion. At the time I remember people were all putting it into an 9/11-Iraq-context, but watching it from beginning to end today just as a standalone disaster movie, I think its simply a good film
Hilarious review. I wish people would stop comparing Roper to Siskel, all reviewers have their own thoughts and methods!
@ZombieZifiction
Uhhh yes she is, I think she appeared on the second and third films at least, not sure the original one.
Tripods aren't stable??? What does Ebert think they put the camera on when they filmed the movie?
Ebert sounded like he was on the verge of just throwing up his hands and going "oh, for fuck's sake, Richard..."
Ebert was an obnoxious ahole
I love how they disagree but have fun disagreeing with each other, both have valid points but after several viewing I agree more with Ebert, that's when I know I'm getting old haha
Continued- Though it does heavily stretch my personal suspension of disbelief. The whole jumping down in to the tripod part I mean. See it's mentioned in the film that they'd been hidden down there for thousands of years... So wouldn't they (after thousands of years of technological advancements) be obsolete?. Wouldn't they have much better technology?. Also if they put them down thousands of years ago... Why wait until now. Why not at the time when humans were wield swords?.
Exactly! It makes absolutely no sense. In the book, the Martians and the tripods come down in meteors at the same time. I think some idiot thought it would look neat to have the Martians come down in lightning so they went with that idea without thinking it through.
I have to disagree with Ebert, the extraterrestrials were mysterious and it made them interesting. Their motivation and origins would never be satisfying if they were divulged, and their strangely shaped crafts made them otherworldly, as intended by Wells.
Bruh the aliens in this are way better then Independence Day 😂
@ZombieZifiction Actually, she is. She plays Jane from New Moon onwards.
I agree. I don't quite understand some of his arguments (I mean I understand what he's saying, but I don't see *why* he thinks that). Personally, I thought it was unique with the tripods because three legs is unnatural and that makes them interesting as aliens. However, I have still yet to see the *perfect* movie adaptation of H.G. Wells' marvelous book
I enjoyed this movie, but Ebert’s opinion is still valid even if I do not agree with his assessment.
I remember seeing this in theaters expecting another Minority Report, imagine my surprise
I like what Richard said about aliens in films: They either come to say hello or to eat our asses. True.
@reddalek555 I think it's because the fact that they were so poorly balanced that broke his suspension of disbelief when it came to the tripods. Having four legs would indeed be more practical. That said, he does tend to be picky about the things that do and don't break his suspension of disbelief. For instance, he gave Signs four stars even though its alien invasion was rather less believable than the one in this movie. Still, he's a damn good writer and I respect him for what he does.
I have to agree with Roger Ebert on this one. War of the Worlds is actually my least favourite Steven Spielberg movie.
Have you seen The Terminal?
butterflycaught900 terminal was great!
degree7 agreed man
degree7 agreed man
Terminal is worse to me, but yeah, this one was too dark. Lifelong Spielberg fan.
Very flawed movie but I like it quite a bit
nah
@keith7198 Actually, I thought his arguments are pretty bang on. The movie neglects to give us a real reason for the Tripod coming down here... Which makes them just obstacles not antagonists. In the book the reason given was that they'd run their planet dry of resources so they had no other choice than to come down here and invade.
The Tripods are a little silly for the modern day, makes sense in 1890, because they were giant behemoths and the human technology was still limited.
H.G Wells is my favourite author, and War of the Worlds was a really good movie. I remeber seeing it at the cinema with my dad and brother, and it was awesome. Definately one of the best "summer blockbuster" films. But not one of the best per se. Not by a long shot.
I agree, hullboy. I liked the film even though the Father/Son relationship was kind of cliched. The excitement of the action and the acting was terrific.
@Megaritz I wasnt trying to act like a smart-arse about it, its just why he thinks a Tripod needs 4 legs is beyond me.
The tripods in the '53 version were better designed. It was also a better movie. But I would still recommend this on the basis of the great FX and Cruise's performance.
can you upload the "Looneyt Tunes Back in Action" review?
Roger hates bad movies, and likes good ones.
God, I miss him.
tripods aren't stable? someone needs to retake geometry
I love how Rodger Ebert gets agitated with Richard Roeper when Roeper basically insinuates that people are just looking at the thumbs in the Stars and Ebert has to explain to him that is not just about the ratings it's about the context within the ratings definitely shows the contrast between a seasoned experienced critic with a rookie which is what Roeper was. But don't get me wrong I love Richard Roeper.
Roeper what is an exquisite successor (not replacer, nobody could replace Gene) to Mr. Siskel. When Roger Left the question was begged could the show continue and who would succeed him. My answer at the time was nobody. Roger was too much of a juggernaut. But hindsight 20/20 I can think of one person. Fran Lebowitz. Well perhaps not the enthusiast that Roger was, let’s be frank, the show with her definitely would’ve been must see television.
They featured the best part with the bridge.
What does age have to do with anything?
I like this movie. The War of the Worlds is one of my favourite stories and it started the whole Alien invasion story. It seems like this story crops every couple of decades after a major disaster or crisis. The 1938 Radio Broadcast was during the Inter-War period and the Great Depression. The 1953 film was adapted to fit the Nuclear Age and this film was made in 2005. Just four years on from 9/11. I do want, one day, a good adaptation of the source material, set in the 1890s, and really following the book, but perhaps the spirit of the book is more important. How the greatest military in the world was defeated so easily and whether the ordinary man would survive.
Personally, I prefer the 1953 film, but this is also a great movie, as it even retained the feel of just being about one guy surviving and not being about the entire world like the ‘53 film.
There was another version of the story that came out that year that takes place when the book was set, called “H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds,” which was three hours long. However, it was very poorly received by both critics and audiences alike (I haven’t seen it myself but gonna check it out at some point).
@TOK150 Is that what they did in there? I never saw that one. Looks good.
roger was particularly grumpy this day
Maybe the tripods sound clunky from being in the earth for so long and they sound awesome IMO
Roeper, the same critic who loved Anchorman 2...
I loved Anchorman 2.
You say that like it's a bad thing. lol
I'm sure they did, but that doesn't mean they liked each other. If you watch Ebert with Siskel, you can see a totally different dynamic.
Thanks my friend, glad someone agrees. I am sick of the movie industry putting out crap movies that are a waste of time and good money. We deserve more for those big wigs to live a rich lifestyle. We deserve to get what we paid for, a good movie. Not fantastic, just satisfying.
@keith7198 no, he's right. i mean, maybe here its more of a question of taste rather than fact, but i found it to be one of those unmoving disaster movies.
I think occupy was after the movie was made... And how does occupy tie into Iraqis? Not to downgrade your analysis, but I'm just curious to where you're going with this.
I agree with Mr. Ebert on the tripod debate: I understand the Wells book had to be represented accurately, but for an alien race supposedly millions of years more advanced than us humans to have wobbly tripod legs for movement, well...it doesn't make sense. If we see that as a flaw they should have, too. And then some.
I did like how the actual aliens looked and moved, however.
If you can walk with 2 legs why not 3 legs? Would only make you more stable i would think
always up for a reference to 'The Core' lol
I liked this movie a lot I don't understand why everybody hated this movie?
How can you not like the tripods?
lol love it when roeper tells him "you gave longest yard thumbs up and this down?.....Ebert has to explain, like he did to siskel that each movie is voted on its own merit after gene made a snarky comment about roger liking benji the hunted but not liking full metal jacket....its on youtube
Some great moments, BUT as a whole the 1953 George Pal production still is the best version.
N o
4:34 man Ebert almost changed opinion
This was a decent movie that had a lot of flaws. Some of the visuals are incredible... the bodies floating down the stream, the fiery train running down the tracks, the plane crash in the middle of the suburban neighborhood. And the alien tripods can be scary as hell with their sheer size and that metallic beast roar they give off. But so much of the rest of the film is heavy-handed and overdone. The 1953 film, although it will look primitive to today's viewers, is a much better adaptation of the same story.
i finally saw it and i agree totally. Everything seemed to have happened out of sheer convenience and luck for the characters.
lol I liked the movie a lot, but I gotta give Roger credit about the inconsistency in aliens being underground for that long and no one noticing.