War of the Worlds.

[rumples riot]

Hey all,

Last night I picked up an advanced copy of the War of the Worlds 2004. Wow what a great movie. So much action that it keeps you on the edge of your seat. Great story of course, good old HG. I thought it was better than all previous versions even with Cruise as the Star. His performance was very good I must say, even though I don't generally like his movies; this shone out above anything else he has done. His portrayal of a man in shock in the first scenes was very good. Maybe he has been taking some lessons from De Niro. The Supporting stars were also pretty good. The little girl's acting was fantastic. The shock of those events would freak any child out.

So if your a Scifi fan I can really recommend this movie.

[davidpretorius]

I loved it at the movies and i watched it again last night on dvd. I was hanging out for the lightning strikes and other great sound effects, but my little surround sound system was a real disappointment. The special effects were gut wrenching at the movies.

Turn it up loud and blow yourself away!

[asimov (John)]

Sounds good.

[RB (Andrew)]

Originally Posted by rumples riot

... even with Cruise as the Star. His performance was very good I must say, this shone out above anything else he has done.

You mean his outdone his Top Gun performance?

Cheers Paul, looking forward to seeing the DVD.

[rumples riot]

Yeah, got a nice HD Sony plasma and top sound system. 180 watt RMS Wharfdales for front and centre, and a large DB Active Sub (300 Watts RMS). Rears are a couple of 40 watters, but that is all you need. When this baby is turned up on the Sony 6.1 receiver it really rocks. Friends say they can hear it out on the street. Thats 40 metres away. My neighbours in the Units must wonder if I am deaf. Love the sytem I have and am lucky to own it.

So I have little need to go to the cinemas as my system is better than the delivery system they have. The image is certainly sharper than the cinema. I don't understand why Australia is still running non digital projectors. The image is pixelated and scratchy. Thats how spoilt I am.

Anyway, I digress. The film was great. I loved the people exploding and turning into dust. Very cool.

[rumples riot]

I feel the need for speed. What a crap line for a quite frankly a crap movie. Sure it appealed to the juvenile in us all. But it had little subtance in it, and they had the wrong guy as the lead. So yes, this was so much better for cruise.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

This movie got great reviews from Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton. Spielberg has to try pretty hard to make a bad movie, but this one is supposed to be Speilberg action at its best. I'll be grabbing the DVD, but I wish I went to see it at the cinema.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

Originally Posted by rumples riot

So I have little need to go to the cinemas as my system is better than the delivery system they have. The image is certainly sharper than the cinema. I don't understand why Australia is still running non digital projectors. The image is pixelated and scratchy. Thats how spoilt I am.

You're getting bad service from your local cinemas. You should try going somewhere else. The cinema picture (film or not) should be heaps better than DVD which is a pathetic 0.4 megapixel image (0.3 Mpix for full 2.5:1 wide screen). I have a HD projector and love watching movies on DVD at home, but it's still no substitute for the cinema (unless the projector guy decides not to bother focusing the lens properly ).

[rumples riot]

Steve, I have been told by a reliable source here in Adelaide, that no Australian cinema has digital projectors. Yet in the States that is all there is in the Cinemas. In fact when Lucas made his agreement with Australian Cinemas for his last two movies, he said he would only allow them to be screened in the Cinemas if they used a new copy of the film for every session for the first two weeks. That's what he thought of the use of film projectors in Australia.

Everytime I go to the cinemas in the last 18months I have been disappointed by the image and to a certain degree with the sound. Often the sound is not centred properly and is not surround. The image is very grain, pixelated and scatched. I never noticed before I got my system. Now I do.

[janoskiss (Steve H)]

A film projector should be fine if it's a good 35mm (let alone 70mm) copy of the movie and the projector is up to throwing the image onto a big screen. There can be no doubt that film is a lot better than DVD, just like a half-decent 35mm film camera will produce much more detailed images than a 0.3 to 0.4 megapixel digital camera ever could.

It must be the way the cinemas up your way are run and copies of the films are produced. I watched The Good, the Bad and the Ugly at the Astor here in Melbourne. I also have the recent anamorphic wide screen release DVD which I watched many times on my smaller big screen (100 inch diag). The DVD is very good. But the cinema film version was awesome! A lot more detailed that the DVD. And so it should be. That's why I pay good money to see it at the cinema.

It is a shame you are getting such bad service from the theatres. But at least you have a good display for watching movies at home. I'd you never go back to a regular CRT TV after seeing how DVD looks on a HD display.

[Jonathan]

I avoided this movie for one simple reason - Tom Cruise. It had everything else going for it - a great story directed by Steven Spielberg. But over the last few years I haven't been able to sit through any movie with Tom Cruise in it, especially Top Gun and Days of Thunder. But seems you guys reckon it's so good I'll have to get the DVD and give it a go!

The talk of film projectors reminded me of when I went to see the re-release of Star Wars at the local cinema. Part way through the movie the film broke! After a few minutes they re-spooled it and we were under way again. I'd never seen that before, and haven't seen it since.

I read an article a couple of years ago about the first digital projectors installed in the USA (I think it was for Star Wars Ep1?). They reckon that only a few people with keen eyes picked up on the quality difference. I found that a little bit hard to believe considering the amount of dust, scratches and other crap that is visible on most cinema films. It's time Australia converted! (or learned how to keep film clean from dust, scratches etc.)

One thing that really annoys me is when you buy a DVD that is said to be "digitally remastered" and many of the defects from the film are still obvious, such as dust and scratches. If I can see it on my TV why don't they notice it when they are doing the remastering? The majority of these problems could have been easily fixed at the time.

[De-Gen]

*may contain spoiler*

I thought the movie was good but only one problem - how can bacterias that normally affect human infect organism outside earth?

[RAJAH235]

Was O.K. but still prefer the original. The little 3 eyed martians were great.
De-Gen, Sounds like you've answered your own question. (No natural immunity). L.