War of the Worlds (2005)

[hagbard]

Ray Ferrier is a working class man living in New Jersey. He's estranged from his family, his life isn't in order, and he's too caught up with himself. But the unthinkable and, ultimately, the unexpected happens to him in an extraordinary sense. His small town life is shaken violently by the arrival of destructive intruders: Aliens which have come en masse to destroy Earth. As they plow through the country in a wave of mass destruction and violence, Ray must come to the defense of his children. As the world must fend for itself by a new and very advanced enemy not of this world, it's inhabitants must save humanity from a far greater force that threatens to destroy it.

Code: Select all

War.of.the.Worlds.DVDRip.XviD-DoNE ?- 圹圹圹
圹圹圹 Directed by Steven Spielberg 圹圹圹
圹 圹 圹 圹
圹 圹 圹 圹
圹圹圹 北辈?RELEASE INFO 膊北北北北北北北北北北北北北北北北北北北北北 圹圹圹
圹圹圹 ? ? 圹圹圹
圹 圹 ? original name .....: War of the Worlds (2005) ? 圹 圹
圹 圹 ? also known as .....: War of the Worlds (2005) ? 圹 圹
圹圹圹 ? ripper.............: Team DoNE ? 圹圹圹
圹圹圹 ? video codec........: XviD MPEG 4 Codec ? 圹圹圹
圹 圹 ? video bitrate......: ~1294 kbps ? 圹 圹
圹 圹 ? audio codec........: AC3 5.1 (448 kb/s (6 ch)) ? 圹 圹
圹圹圹 ? disks..............: 2CDs (100x15MB) ? 圹圹圹
圹圹圹 ? aspect ratio.......: 1.85:1 ? 圹圹圹
圹 圹 ? resolution.........: 640x336 ? 圹 圹
圹 圹 ? genre..............: Action / Sci-Fi / Thriller ? 圹 圹
圹圹圹 ? runtime............: 112 min ? 圹圹圹
圹圹圹 ? country............: USA ? 圹圹圹
圹 圹 ? language...........: English ? 圹 圹
圹 圹 ? subtitles..........: English ? 圹 圹
圹圹圹 ? XviD release.......: 27/10/2005 ? 圹圹圹
圹圹圹 ? DVD release........: 14/11/2005 ? 圹圹圹

ed2k: War.of.the.Worlds.DVDRip.XviD-DoNE.CD1.avi  [699.99 Mb] [Stats]
ed2k: War.of.the.Worlds.DVDRip.XviD-DoNE.CD1.rar  [529.0 Kb] [Stats]
ed2k: War.of.the.Worlds.DVDRip.XviD-DoNE.CD2.avi  [700.00 Mb] [Stats]
ed2k: War.of.the.Worlds.DVDRip.XviD-DoNE.CD2.rar  [316.6 Kb] [Stats]
ed2k: War.of.the.Worlds.DVDRip.XviD-DoNE.nfo  [7.5 Kb] [Stats]

ed2k: War.of.the.Worlds.DVDRip.XviD-DoNE.sample.avi  [17.74 Mb] [Stats]

Release Thread @ ShareVirus

[ Add all 6 links to your ed2k client ]

[Jynks]

Thanks.. i loved this movie

[potmunky]

Sorry, but I very nearly had to walk outta the cinema after wasting £5+ and two hours o my precious life on this cack.
Whatever happened to Steve Spielberg, eh?
He coulda bin a contender...
So, thanks but no thanks!

[Jynks]

Hmmm... well it was pretty good to me.. I learnt to read on the Time Machiene and War of the worlds.. this was the 2nd book I ever read in my life and I LOVE the story. They screwed with it a bit but not much. My only regret was that it didn't have the thunderchild sequence.

Out of curiosity why didn't you like it?

[potmunky]

It underwhelmed me, I spose.
Like you, WOTW is one of the first books i ever read, along with the LOTR trilogy.
I loved the LOTR films; they captured the feel/emotion/spirit of the writing, but i didnt get the same feeling watching WOTW.
Funny, but i had the same feeling when watching MinorityReport. They both seemed 'cold' films to me. As though they were technical excercises; Too clinical for me, i guess.
To my mind, Spielberg seems to be going down the path to emulating his now-dead mentor; Stanley Kubrick.
Films like ET, Duel, Jaws and Close Encounters all had a very human warmth to them. His later films seem to lack that, pretty much since Jurrassic Park.
Just my humble opinion...

Pot

[ScarletJester]

I'm not a fan of Spielburg, as he doesn't really make my kind of film, but I still like Jaws, Indiana Jones, Jurassic Park, Saving Private Ryan, AI, and War of the Worlds.
Though I'd only give it 6-7 out of 10 overall, there were a few scenes that were fantastic. I watched an average quality cam rip on my 17" monitor, but was still gripped when the aliens first started zapping stuff, when the ship got attacked, and the whole "feeding" segment of the film. I think its because one thing Spielburg is good at is "set-piece" sequences, which most modern-day action/adventure films seem totally lacking in.
It all comes down to a difference in taste though. I personally thought the LOTR films did anything BUT capture the feel/emotion/spirit of the writing of the books, where as I love the cartoon version of it (where most people hate it).
So I'd say if you haven't seen it yet, its worth a go as there are only a handful of decent sci-fi films released each *decade*, and there are some amazing scenes in this one. I was hoping that the LOTR films would get some more decent fantasy films made as that genre is even worse off than the sci-fi one, but it doesn't seem to have happened yet.

Looking forward to Munich and Indy 4 .

[potmunky]

Indy 4; They will have to reanimate both Sean Connery AND Harrison Ford if they dont get this made quickly!
(I know CGi has come a long way in recent years, but I doubt its good enough for that little miracle! )
Part of the reason I disliked WOTW so much is down to the lead character. Tom Cruise' acting was as dependable as ever, its just I really hated his arse-hole, self-centered character. I really wanted the Martians to vapourise him
As for set-pieces; Yes, Spielberg does know how to pull em off with aplomb. But that isnt enough to make a good action-movie. What the hell was the section with old, mad survivalist-guy about! It really dragged-on for what seemed like seven hours!
Oh, and the scene where Toms son goes over the hill, whilst spouting the 'I just have to do it, Dad' line!?
WTF!!??
If he was my son, I wouldnt be like 'Yeah, no problem. You have to run over that hill where the giant robots are, to probably get vapourised and prove your a man'
Eh!?
Also, why does Spielberg, (great set-piece director that he is), avoid the biggest set-piece of all!!!??? We dont really see whats going on over that hill, cept for a few soldiers on the top gettin fried. Where were the big fights between our military and theirs? It seemed like the camera was about to rise-up over the hill and actually show us what was going on, but then decides not to! They tinkered enough with the original story so that they coulda/shoulda shown that!
Its not called WAR Of The Worlds for nothing!...
Ah well. Another missed-opportunity, i spose...
I still think the original is the best. It has more emotional weight, and, relatively speaking, better SFx.
Oh, and the Yanks thought it was really happening at the time of the Orson Welles radio broadcast!!!

[spudthedestroyer]

My two cents on the big directors, I think that's its largely the budget. As the budget goes up they become lazy and sloppy to a certain degree. Maybe its just me, but I've found artists create their best works when they are "up against the wall" so to speak.

Ridley Scott, Stephen Speilberg, James Cameron, especially George Lucas etc. when they had serious budget constraints produced far superior work. Its pretty global, George Romero too, for example... I think if they turned round and slashed his Land of the Dead budget he'd have made a better film.

When they have these huge projects they invariably end up less satisfying, and director's like Lucas just go overboard and refuse to let the audience use their imaginiation to any degree.

Okay that's oversimplifying it I think, but its odd that this seems to be a contributing factor. Anyone elsse suspect this or am i the crazy guy polishing his rifle on his doorstep at this point in time?

[potmunky]

Bit of both, methinks...
I agree that the bigger the budget; the bigger the poo-pile-of-a-film getting made. Maybe its because of something Id only really thought affected actors, until now.
The 'BlueScreenOfDeath'! :-o
Lets face it. We have all seen that lead actor staring in the wrong direction as the dinosaur/light saber/spaceship hurls towards them. Its that 'acting when there is nothing to act against' type situation! Must be hard...
Ive seen in quite a few DVD Extras that actors often struggle with the whole blue/green screen filming process.
Maybe Directors suffer similarily?
Generally, the bigger the budget; the bigger the fee that ILM/WETA, etc, are getting. Its getting to the point now where the actual 'named' director is directing less and less of their films! (That make sense??? ).
I remember seeing the Extras on Episode2's DVD where the SFx guys basically said that the entire sequence, (the 'Mario-Level' as I call it), was not scripted, story-boarded or directed by Lucas! He had said that he felt the film had a lull in it, and was there anything the FX guys could come-up with! They came up with the 'Mario-Level'!!!
(Just in case I lost you there; Its the bit in the toy factory, sorry, droid factory where Leia, no Amidala gets stuck in a big jug and Luke, erm, Annakin has to jump over some crates and run along some conveyor-belt-type-things to get her out, or summink. Oh. I think thats also the bit where that dwarf-inna-tin-can grows jet-boots and flies, if thats any help!?)
Anyhoo. My point being; This cant be isolated.
I wonder, percentage wise, how much of todays SFx-laden films are actually directed by the named Director?
Obviously I realise that there have always been FX directors as long as theres been FX. But now films, like WOTW, (the now defunct?), SW films and the Matrix trilogy, etc, are virtually completely, erm, virtual.
Surely this means that 'conventional' directing is becoming less of a requirement for mainstream films?
Just my take on the downslide of, at the very least, the big mainstream/popcorn movies.
(I just cant see George Romero sitting down in front of a PC and directing CGi zombies for LOTD!!! )
Then again...

[spudthedestroyer]

You want to watch the documentry "Cutting Edge" btw, the editor is the one that gets final cut remember

[potmunky]

You got a link, Spud?
Its probably the reason why so many films by 'reputable' Directors are utter arse. Its the 'too-many cooks' syndrome, imo.
If I were a Director of, say, Spielbergs stature, I would want total control over my film. From overseeing the scripts and storyboards, thru to the the final word on casting and on to directing ALL scenes, (CGi or otherwise), and editing!
Its almost a 'trade-descriptions' thing when you got Lucas', (or whoever), name on a film and yet he didnt direct a lot of the actual content!!!
From the extras on the newer SW films, I got the feeling that Lucas was simply presented with the CGi sections and all he had to do was fit the rest of the 'real' film around them!
It can be done properly, tho...
In Blade2, GDelToro actually oversaw the CGi direction. He didnt just leave it to the non-director FX guys to 'come-up with something'.
Like Ang Lee actually played the Hulk so he could get the CGi just as he wanted! Thats direction!
Like Cameron did with Aliens; T'was his decision to slightly alter the mythology of the critters, as well as their design, to his vision. Hell, he pretty much created the FX team that worked on it, (and his subsequent films)!
Even Jackson had a major hand in the SFx set-pieces for LOTR. Which is prob why it all fits together so well.
I know there are second, (and third, and...), unit-directors who get their credit. But Ive yet to see a 'Directed by ILM/WETA' film!...
Even tho the likes of WOTW, AI, etc are pretty much just that!

[spudthedestroyer]

http://forum.dead-donkey.com/viewtopic.php?t=9564

All the directors pretty much agree that its editing that makes the film, and its editing that makes an actor. There's a comment that if an actor wants a good performance they've got to make friends with the editor, they don't ever use "takes", but rather cut different takes to make a performance.

That includes SFX shots, the editor is the one who will cut them together.

In Blade2, GDelToro actually oversaw the CGi direction. He didnt just leave it to the non-director FX guys to 'come-up with something'.

That film was awful, was that meant to be a plus? Blade 2 was pretty bad, and the action was pretty much poor set pieces. So too was Hulk, as far as comic book adaptations go it was okay i guess, but that's not saying much.

[potmunky]

I enjoyed Blade2. Best of the trilogy, imo, (dont say a lot, i know...)
I just enjoy GDT's direction and the fact that he gets a 'vision', (not always everyones cuppa, i guess), and tries very hard to stick with it. The poorest film he has done, imo, is Hellboy. Nice idea, but too cartoony. I LOVED the original comics, so I spose I was always gonna be dissapointed...

[spudthedestroyer]

IMDb

Despite super effects, a huge budget, and the cinematic pedigree of alien-happy Steven Spielberg, this take on H.G. Wells's novel is basically a horror film packaged as a sci-fi thrill ride. Instead of a mad slasher, however, Spielberg (along with writers Josh Friedman & David Koepp) utilizes aliens hell-bent on quickly destroying humanity, and the terrifying results that prey upon adult fears, especially in the post-9/11 world. The realistic results could be a new genre, the grim popcorn thriller; often you feel like you're watching Schindler's List more than Spielberg's other thrill-machine movies (such as Jaws or Jurassic Park). The film centers on Ray Ferrier, a divorced father (Tom Cruise, oh so comfortable) who witnesses one giant craft destroy his New Jersey town and soon is on the road with his teen son (Justin Chatwin) and preteen daughter (Dakota Fanning) in tow, trying to keep ahead of the invasion. The film is, of course, impeccably designed and produced by Spielberg's usual crew of A-class talent. The aliens are genuinely scary, even when the film--like the novel--spends a good chunk of time in a basement. Readers of the book (or viewers of the deft 1953 adaptation) will note the variation of whom and how the aliens come to Earth, which poses some logistical problems. The film opens and closes with narration from the novel read by Morgan Freeman, but Spielberg could have adapted Orson Welles's words from the famous Halloween Eve 1938 radio broadcast: "We couldn't soap all your windows and steal all your garden gates by tomorrow night, so we did the best next thing: we annihilated the world." --Doug Thomas

Code: Select all

                                 OS iLUMiNADOS
               
                               proudly presents:

=  = ============= { =         War of the Worlds         = } ============= =  =

       Release Date: 26/11/05         

       Theater Date: 29/06/05         
       DVD Date:     14/11/05         
       
       Source:       NTSC DVD Retail    Runtime: 116min
       Video Codec:  XviD 1.1           Video Bitrate: ~2071 kbps
       Audio Codec:  AC3                Audio Bitrate: 448kbps 5.1ch
       Interleave:   96/96ms            Subs: English, Portuguese
       Resolution:   704x384            Aspect Ratio: 1.83:1
       Frame Rate:   23.976 fps         Size: 3 x 700MB
       IMDb Rating:  6.8/10             Genre: Action / Sci-Fi / Thriller
                                     
       B-VOP, No Qpel, No GMC
       
       IMDb Link:    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0407304/

=  = ============= ========================================= ============= =  =


ed2k: War.Of.The.Worlds.2005.DVDRip.AC3.XviD-OS.iLUMiNADOS.CD1.avi  [699.65 Mb] [Stats]
ed2k: War.Of.The.Worlds.2005.DVDRip.AC3.XviD-OS.iLUMiNADOS.CD2.avi  [700.13 Mb] [Stats]
ed2k: War.Of.The.Worlds.2005.DVDRip.AC3.XviD-OS.iLUMiNADOS.CD3.avi  [700.93 Mb] [Stats]
ed2k: War.Of.The.Worlds.2005.DVDRip.AC3.XviD-OS.iLUMiNADOS.Subs.rar  [2.86 Mb] [Stats]

[ Add all 4 links to your ed2k client ]