War of the Worlds film (Tom Cruise) – films that you would avoid normally

I’ve not seen this before and I caught it on TV last night. I was really really surprised – suitably dark with a few good moments of acting from TC. If you haven’t seen it- do it.

Best Marigold Hotel… it was heart warming and nice.

Very American-ised..When I heard they were doing the remake I was hoping it would be a very British film. Still not as bad as I was expecting it to be

Saw it when it first came out – thought it had a genuine air of menace about at the time.

Not a bad film at all, one of TC’s less irritating appearances.

genuine air of menace

Agree. Especially the part where everyone is trying to get onto the ferry and then a stampede starts- reminded me of rats fleeing a sinking ship.

I thought it was good in spite of TC being in it. I saw it a few years ago.
Similarly, though not a TC fan, I watched Oblivion last year and thought that was a cracker as well.

I have recently had to admit that, although I find TC irritating in interviews and a lot of his films, he does put out a good movie from time to time.

I like the War of the Worlds remake, the scene where the guy takes the car from him is properly dark and tense

Could have done without Dakota Fanning screaming for what seemed like the entire film

Watched it in boredom tandem with Top Gun on Comedy Central, which was an odd experience.

I had really high hopes that they would do something a lot more Victorian when they re-made it, maybe something like Alan Moore’s League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but got Tom Cruise playing himself in a Hollywood action film.

Sorry, was not a fan.

I liked everything but the happy reunion ending.

Normally avoid jim Carey ,but “I love you Phillip Morris ” is very wonderful.

I liked everything but the happy reunion ending.

Why do film makers do this? Captain Corelli’s Mandolin was similarly wrecked when committed to film (as if having Nicholas Cage starring wasn’t bad enough).

Anyway, re. TC – my default mode is “don’t watch”.

I had really high hopes that they would do something a lot more Victorian when they re-made it, maybe something like Alan Moore’s League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, but got Tom Cruise playing himself in a Hollywood action film.

I haven’t got a problem with the updating in terms of making it modern – I think it’s a great film in terms of conveying what would be the utter helplessness of modern societies. Spielberg actually makes a fairly surprising blockbuster, really dark in places.

Didn’t find Cruise believable in the role, though.

Compare and contrast The Road, which is similarly-themed in some respects.

Darn good film WotW, it’s one of the movies where GCI doesn’t outplay the Acting.
Typically TC, but then in these roles he’s rather good in them.

If you want another of his most recent good films with TC in try “Live, Die, Repeat” it too is rather good, but do watch it thoroughly as there are a few twists and turns you’ll loose if supping Beer of crunching crisps.

Watched WOTW last night and whilst there were some good bits like the ferry, on the whole it was terrible.
I don’t mind TC when he’s “acting” and not just doing his dialling it in with a sh!t eating grin

Live, Die, Repeat

would watch again

Thought Oblivion was worth a watch too.

I thought one of the really impressive things about WotW was:

Instantly forgettable by the numbers Hollywood blockbuster. Just about held my attention in the cinema. As above, screaming daughter was a bit like being poked in the ear with a sharp stick, repeatedly.

Compare and contrast The Road, which is similarly-themed in some respects.

Ummmm, no. They are similarly themed only in the most superficial sense.

I don’t get it, that film is ten years old I hate to think how many re runs there have been, how has it taken so long to filter through to the ahem North of Watford consciousness?

As Cruise movies go I didn’t think it was in Last Samuri league and someone up there is quite right about that Screamy Fanning girl needing a slap and telling never to act in a movie ever again, but other than that it was OK ish.

Just a thought has the OP ever watched Starship Troopers? Just so I can get a point of reference taste wise.. 😉

If you are into Dakota Fanning then you need to watch the whole Box Set of Taken (nope not the crappy film with Liam Neilson in)

It’s awesome.

I liked everything but the happy reunion ending.

To be fair to it, that is how the book ends as well. ( the journalist is reunited with his wife in one of the least convincing plot devices since Bram Stoker does for the greatest anti hero ever devised in a one liner )

Well, not a fan exactly, just thought that she was so impressive in this part for such a young actor.

It’s a while since I’ve actually watched a movie on TV, managed to get through about 45 minutes of this last night before getting so pissed off at the adverts I had to switch it off. It felt like there were 10 minutes of adverts for every 10 minute of film.

Is this a Channel 5 thing? Genuine question as nearly everything I watch is downloaded or streamed these days.

Yup channel 5 by far the worst channel with the ads. Main reason I record their films and skip the ads.

Can’t suspend my loathing of Scientology long enough to enjoy a Tom Cruise film these days.

Nice to see the marketing plan worked out for ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ or ‘Live, Die, Repeat’. LDR was the tagline for the movie in the cinema but they decided it made more sense than the title when it came to the DVD release.
Neither is really a very good title for the movie to be honest although they both make a bit more sense than the novel it’s based on which for some bizarre reason is called ‘All you need is Kill’..!?!?

Edit: The manga heritage of the story goes a long way to explaining why Emily Blunt’s character spends most of the first half of the movie carrying a massive sword.!!

H1ghland3r

Nice to see the marketing plan worked out for ‘Edge of Tomorrow’ or ‘Live, Die, Repeat’. LDR was the tagline for the movie in the cinema but they decided it made more sense than the title when it came to the DVD release.
Neither is really a very good title for the movie to be honest although they both make a bit more sense than the novel it’s based on which for some bizarre reason is called ‘All you need is Kill’..!?!?

All you Need is Kill is an awesome title imo.

Agreed but it doesn’t really tell you much about what’s going on.. Works great for the novel, would have killed the movie stone dead I think as no-one would have had a clue what it was about and would likely have been expecting some kind of Bourne/Bond alike…

hora – Member
I’ve not seen this before and I caught it on TV last night. I was really really surprised – suitably dark with a few good moments of acting from TC. If you haven’t seen it- do it.

I thought it was decent enough, I would love someone to make a true to the original victorian version though.

H1ghland3r

Agreed but it doesn’t really tell you much about what’s going on.. Works great for the novel, would have killed the movie stone dead I think as no-one would have had a clue what it was about and would likely have been expecting some kind of Bourne/Bond alike…

Edge of Tomorrow tells you even less of what’s going on. Typical committee deigned Hollywood safe option really. Anyway, considering the film failed to light up the box office as “Edge of Tomorrow” I don’t see how “All you need is Kill” could have done much worse.

People would have known as much about the film with that title as they would from the other since the trailer and marketing would presumably have been much the same.

I recall finding it OK, better than I was expecting anyway. It’s from roughly the same time as Collateral, probably the Tom Cruise movie that I’ve enjoyed the most.

I thought it was decent enough, I would love someone to make a true to the original victorian version though.

Agree however it’d be Hollywood and it’d be too dark to be commercial enough for them.

Seen it a few times.
The best bit is near the beginning – the lightning storm then the machine revealing itself out of the ground for the first time – bloody brilliant.

It’s all about expectation. I don’t think I’ve seen a Tom Cruise film I’ve not enjoyed and Spielberg can do no wrong in my book, but WofW did nothing for me when I saw it at the cinema. Maybe if I’d happened across it on Channel 5 last night I might have been more impressed due to low expectations.

In a similar vein I had very low expectations of 2012 but was thoroughly entertained by it.

Possible- yes: I happened across a film called: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/stake_land

I’d never watch such a film usually but I stayed with it and loved it.

and Spielberg can do no wrong in my book

You’re easily pleased.

Didn’t really like War of the Worlds

Did like Jack Reacher despite me wanting to hate it because the Cruiser is definitely NOT how Jack Reacher is written in the books but it was a pretty decent film

Also really liked Edge of Tomorrow although a lot of that was down to Emily Blunt

You’re easily pleased.

Jaws, ET, Raider of the Lost Ark – all in my top 10 films ever 🙂 Schindler’s List and Saving Private Ryan were pretty good (understatement) too 😉

Only recently have I felt let down by Spielberg with War of the Worlds and also Super 8 (which I think he produced). I didn’t bother with Indiana Jones 4 nor do I want to bother.