Kenji Wrote:Next summer, Spielberg + Cruise coming again!
But! but but but.....actually, I'm a little nervous about this. H.G. Wells is one of my favorite authors, and I really like "War of the worlds". Original movie is classic now, but it's still good to me. When I saw remake version of Time Machine, I got shock! Opening sequences were terrible.
I hope Spielberg and Cruise version would be successful.
http://www.apple.com/trailers/paramount/waroftheworlds/
About six months ago, I wrote about War of the Worlds. And.....
Today I saw War of the Worlds in theater. It was pretty good. At first I worried about spielberg version, but it was no problem. Surely they used a lot of CG. Especially CG aliens were creepy but mediocre. But one good thing was "Tripods", that effect was GREAT!
I guess everybody doesn't like Tom Cruise. :p But it desn't matter! No problem. This movie's main role is tripods. They have a worth to see!
I can't wait to see this film as it's gotten me pumped up all week in anticipation! I can always count on Spielberg for delivering a great enjoyable flick and IMO his only crappy film is 1941.
Medusa Wrote:No that was Mars Attacks! Ack Ack Ack!
ha ha
LOL!
I LOVE Mars Attacks!
smithers52 Wrote:IMO his only crappy film is 1941.
Really? I like 1941. That was another good(funny) movie of Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi.
*** MINOR SPOILERS FOLLOW ***
*****************************
My verdict: Spielberg's weakest effort since 1941. After seeing several good reviews, I was expecting something much more suspenseful than I got. Instead, I often found myself bored, just waiting for the movie to finally conclude. It wasn't unbelievably terrible, but I think Ebert may have been a bit generous to give it two stars. My fiancée and I were both disappointed.
And what's up with the whole "human drama" thing? Dakota Fanning's very talented, but she screams so much in this movie that it makes her annoying (to us anyway). And she's the only character with any real appeal. The son is an annoying whiner. Cruise's character is just... well, it's just Cruise. Then you have the mob scenes where humans are being despicable to each other, which made me think, "Wiping them out is bad because... why?" Even Independence Day, which I personally think was an overrated B movie, did a much better job of creating sympathetic human characters that I actually wanted to see win. War of the Worlds, instead, seems to be more about one family surviving rather than the human race "winning", and that's a valid course to take... if it works. I just didn't think it did here because I didn't care much whether the family survived or not.
The bad: Sappy ending, annoying characters, unsympathetic and stupid humans. Showing the aliens was a bad idea, too. They would've been much more intimidating without seeing that they're a mutated version of "Gremlins".
The good: The mystery involved in showing the "invasion" from the perspective of only one family was interesting. You basically learn things as they do. Tim Robbins had one of the more interesting characters, and the resolution of his interaction with Cruise's character was fairly well done. There were also some individual shots here and there that kept my interest, most notably the plane wreckage scene.
All in all, not enough good and too much bad for my money. Your mileage may vary.
Blake
*****************************
My verdict: Spielberg's weakest effort since 1941. After seeing several good reviews, I was expecting something much more suspenseful than I got. Instead, I often found myself bored, just waiting for the movie to finally conclude. It wasn't unbelievably terrible, but I think Ebert may have been a bit generous to give it two stars. My fiancée and I were both disappointed.
And what's up with the whole "human drama" thing? Dakota Fanning's very talented, but she screams so much in this movie that it makes her annoying (to us anyway). And she's the only character with any real appeal. The son is an annoying whiner. Cruise's character is just... well, it's just Cruise. Then you have the mob scenes where humans are being despicable to each other, which made me think, "Wiping them out is bad because... why?" Even Independence Day, which I personally think was an overrated B movie, did a much better job of creating sympathetic human characters that I actually wanted to see win. War of the Worlds, instead, seems to be more about one family surviving rather than the human race "winning", and that's a valid course to take... if it works. I just didn't think it did here because I didn't care much whether the family survived or not.
The bad: Sappy ending, annoying characters, unsympathetic and stupid humans. Showing the aliens was a bad idea, too. They would've been much more intimidating without seeing that they're a mutated version of "Gremlins".
The good: The mystery involved in showing the "invasion" from the perspective of only one family was interesting. You basically learn things as they do. Tim Robbins had one of the more interesting characters, and the resolution of his interaction with Cruise's character was fairly well done. There were also some individual shots here and there that kept my interest, most notably the plane wreckage scene.
All in all, not enough good and too much bad for my money. Your mileage may vary.
Blake
Please support Friends of Washoe.
********* Major Spoilers *********
I can see where Blake is coming from, however I think if anything is at fault it is the source material.
I loved War of the Worlds, the book. It has a sense of inevitability about it. The message was one of our own insignificance.
What the film did was take certain scenes from the book and modernise them. I thought it covered almost everything. Where the book had two protagonists (the main narrator and his brother(?)) the film condensed it into one, Cruiser.
Tim Robbins character is probably the most literal from the book, he even says the line that is the core message of the novel, and as Blake says, his resolution is done well and closely resembles that of the book (with the added tension of an "innocent" in the room).
The angry crowds fighting amongst themselves is one of those scenes updated from the novel. Not pleasant, but I think more truthful than many people would like to admit to themselves. Again, done very well I thought.
Cruises character was too rough around the edges. He wasn't a particularly nice guy, but he had growth through the film and you felt for him at the end.
Fanning was her usual self, outshone the rest of the cast with a simple look. She did scream alot, but hey, if it was the end of the world what else do you expect a ten year old girl to do.
The son was how he was because of his father. Made sense to me, but I agree it didn't make you care too much about him.
As stated above, the film's main problem is the source material. The cellar scene is great in novel form, but after all the wizz and bang of the first half of the film, it felt boring. And the ending of the novel is quaint in these modern times. And this is Spielbergs achilles heel at the moment, he enjoys putting his protags in such awful situations that he struggles to find a satisfying resolution. Which is possibly why he was drawn to the novel in the first place.
And yes, showing the aliens was silly considering the design job on them. The aliens in the novel are exactly that, alien, unlike anything seen on earth, and yet Spielberg ignored that and went with a Hollywoodised version of what an alien should look like, but cute!
After all that, I liked it. It was tense in places, exciting, visually it ticked all the right boxes, and I was pleasantly surprised how faithful it did stay to the novel. However the two others I saw it with were "didn't like" and "was okay" respectively.
As for some good shots, check out the driving scene on the freeway. Must be a good five minutes of footage, the camera floating around, behind, over and inside the moving car and finishing with a crane shot of it making it's way through the static traffic. All one shot. Amazing.
Dave
I can see where Blake is coming from, however I think if anything is at fault it is the source material.
I loved War of the Worlds, the book. It has a sense of inevitability about it. The message was one of our own insignificance.
What the film did was take certain scenes from the book and modernise them. I thought it covered almost everything. Where the book had two protagonists (the main narrator and his brother(?)) the film condensed it into one, Cruiser.
Tim Robbins character is probably the most literal from the book, he even says the line that is the core message of the novel, and as Blake says, his resolution is done well and closely resembles that of the book (with the added tension of an "innocent" in the room).
The angry crowds fighting amongst themselves is one of those scenes updated from the novel. Not pleasant, but I think more truthful than many people would like to admit to themselves. Again, done very well I thought.
Cruises character was too rough around the edges. He wasn't a particularly nice guy, but he had growth through the film and you felt for him at the end.
Fanning was her usual self, outshone the rest of the cast with a simple look. She did scream alot, but hey, if it was the end of the world what else do you expect a ten year old girl to do.
The son was how he was because of his father. Made sense to me, but I agree it didn't make you care too much about him.
As stated above, the film's main problem is the source material. The cellar scene is great in novel form, but after all the wizz and bang of the first half of the film, it felt boring. And the ending of the novel is quaint in these modern times. And this is Spielbergs achilles heel at the moment, he enjoys putting his protags in such awful situations that he struggles to find a satisfying resolution. Which is possibly why he was drawn to the novel in the first place.
And yes, showing the aliens was silly considering the design job on them. The aliens in the novel are exactly that, alien, unlike anything seen on earth, and yet Spielberg ignored that and went with a Hollywoodised version of what an alien should look like, but cute!
After all that, I liked it. It was tense in places, exciting, visually it ticked all the right boxes, and I was pleasantly surprised how faithful it did stay to the novel. However the two others I saw it with were "didn't like" and "was okay" respectively.
As for some good shots, check out the driving scene on the freeway. Must be a good five minutes of footage, the camera floating around, behind, over and inside the moving car and finishing with a crane shot of it making it's way through the static traffic. All one shot. Amazing.
Dave
Dave,
Great summary. "War of the Worlds" is one of the few HG Wells' books that I didn't read, so I can't compare.
SPOILERS...............................
SPOILERS......................................
SPOILERS........................................
I enjoyed Speilberg's WOTW. In fact, I'm going to see it again with a group of friends. I saw it at 10 AM on Saturday morning and was one of 3 people in the theater, just the way I like it. I was, quite literally, sitting on the edge of my seat during a good part of the movie. After the breakneck pace of the first 3/4 of the movie, the switch to the much discussed basement scene with Tim Robbins brought the film to a disconcerting halt. However, I can't bitch about that scene too much... just that it was a little too long.
Cruise was better than I expected, but then, I expect nothing from him but...being Tom Cruise.
I was confused by the bloody foliage stuff, whatever that was. Was it the aliens way of reverse-terraforming the planet? Was it human blood supplying the growth?
The tripods were great; the aliens themselves were too ET-ish.
I really liked Speilberg's use of sound. The great thundering blast emitted by the tripods did sound an awful lot like the T-Rex's blast in "Jurassic Park." I loved it anyway.
Trying to regain the pace after leaving the basement ... well, I'm not sure Speilberg ever did. The final 1/4 of the film was not up to first 3/4. The ending was annoying. For his ex-wife's neighborhood to be completely untouched, not a window broken, not a brick missing, no WTC-like dust anywhere, no evidence of aliens anywhere near them, seemed quite false to me.
But overall, I got the thrills I was looking for... so much so, I'll see it again.
Great summary. "War of the Worlds" is one of the few HG Wells' books that I didn't read, so I can't compare.
SPOILERS...............................
SPOILERS......................................
SPOILERS........................................
I enjoyed Speilberg's WOTW. In fact, I'm going to see it again with a group of friends. I saw it at 10 AM on Saturday morning and was one of 3 people in the theater, just the way I like it. I was, quite literally, sitting on the edge of my seat during a good part of the movie. After the breakneck pace of the first 3/4 of the movie, the switch to the much discussed basement scene with Tim Robbins brought the film to a disconcerting halt. However, I can't bitch about that scene too much... just that it was a little too long.
Cruise was better than I expected, but then, I expect nothing from him but...being Tom Cruise.
I was confused by the bloody foliage stuff, whatever that was. Was it the aliens way of reverse-terraforming the planet? Was it human blood supplying the growth?
The tripods were great; the aliens themselves were too ET-ish.
I really liked Speilberg's use of sound. The great thundering blast emitted by the tripods did sound an awful lot like the T-Rex's blast in "Jurassic Park." I loved it anyway.
Trying to regain the pace after leaving the basement ... well, I'm not sure Speilberg ever did. The final 1/4 of the film was not up to first 3/4. The ending was annoying. For his ex-wife's neighborhood to be completely untouched, not a window broken, not a brick missing, no WTC-like dust anywhere, no evidence of aliens anywhere near them, seemed quite false to me.
But overall, I got the thrills I was looking for... so much so, I'll see it again.
Reading is freedom.
The mind soars, no earthly cares,
no limitations.
A Maggers Haiku, 2005
Years ago my mother used to say to me... "In this world, Elwood, you can be oh so smart or oh so pleasant."
Well, for years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.
You may quote me.
Elwood P. Dowd
Maggers Wrote:SPOILERS...............................
SPOILERS......................................
SPOILERS........................................
I was confused by the bloody foliage stuff, whatever that was. Was it the aliens way of reverse-terraforming the planet? Was it human blood supplying the growth?
In the novel it is called the Red Weed, and is something that just came along with them, not deliberate, just hitched a ride. The original world we were at war with was Mars, and HG may have been trying surmise why Mars is red.
Correctly, imo, Spielberg avoided the links to Mars and kept their origin as incidental, however he kept the Red Weed, and seemed to make it deliberately ambiguous as to it's nature. So it was it is, not of this world.
Quote:I really liked Speilberg's use of sound. The great thundering blast emitted by the tripods did sound an awful lot like the T-Rex's blast in "Jurassic Park." I loved it anyway.
Agreed, I was really hoping for an ooo-laaaa.
The whole film played a bit like a greatest hits of Spielberg. Note the 'trapped in car as it gets tossed around' scene, flashing lights in the basement, and many more I'm sure.
Dave
Spoilers************
Spoilers*******
I went and saw this with my wife over the weekend. In my opinion it was good but not coming anywhere near great.
For some reason to me it just came off as flat. Cruise as the screwed up dad didn't work and some of his reactions early in the movie made me want to smack him.
The Tripods were very cool and just about what I pictured them to be. The aliens were very very weak at best. Making them tripods was an ok idea I guess, but making them kind of a cross between Gremlins and ET just didn't work. C'mon these things are trying to destroy our world and us, they can't be that cutesy. Just my opinion for what its worth.
I did think it was interesting all the 9/11 that Spielberg used, (the missing family members board, the scene with them running and all the paper falling from the sky and Cruise coming in covered in the white powder, that in this case was people).
I saw a review that said the book originally was a reaction to industrialism (which I really don't see...and not sure where that came from ) and that the first movie showed a reacion to the cold war, which yeah I guess I could see, and that this one was a reaction to terrorism, which I only see with the absolute purpose that Spielberg made it to be.
After seeing I had the feeling that I really should have went to Land Of the Dead instead. Maybe with some time to let it stew I will like this movie more. Who knows...
Spoilers*******
I went and saw this with my wife over the weekend. In my opinion it was good but not coming anywhere near great.
For some reason to me it just came off as flat. Cruise as the screwed up dad didn't work and some of his reactions early in the movie made me want to smack him.
The Tripods were very cool and just about what I pictured them to be. The aliens were very very weak at best. Making them tripods was an ok idea I guess, but making them kind of a cross between Gremlins and ET just didn't work. C'mon these things are trying to destroy our world and us, they can't be that cutesy. Just my opinion for what its worth.
I did think it was interesting all the 9/11 that Spielberg used, (the missing family members board, the scene with them running and all the paper falling from the sky and Cruise coming in covered in the white powder, that in this case was people).
I saw a review that said the book originally was a reaction to industrialism (which I really don't see...and not sure where that came from ) and that the first movie showed a reacion to the cold war, which yeah I guess I could see, and that this one was a reaction to terrorism, which I only see with the absolute purpose that Spielberg made it to be.
After seeing I had the feeling that I really should have went to Land Of the Dead instead. Maybe with some time to let it stew I will like this movie more. Who knows...
"No other success can compensate for failure in the home." D.O. McKay
"Never raise your hand to your kids. It leaves your groin unprotected."
~ Red Buttons
Too literal? I'm sorry you feel I have a Literal Agenda!