PDA

View Full Version : Snore of the Worlds



J.B. Reynolds
2005-Sep-05, 07:19 PM
Greetings;

Regarding Mssrs. Spielberg and Cruise's latest flop "War of the Worlds," I would like to add my comments to the Bad Astronomy mini-review already posted.

Best stuff: I noted with interest the use of "reflective" CG imagery -- that we are treated to the first looks of the alien vessels only in reflections in glass. I credit that idea to Mr. Spielberg, who for all his adolescent squirreliness of intellect has a keen eye for, as they say, where to put the camera. At this point in the story everyone is dying to see what these invaders look like (doubtless, like me, already more than fed up with our "hero") so the astute director plays one last teasing game --only showing them in reflection-- but really it's also because the camera is then aimed AT the actors pulling their various faces of astonishment, awe, fear and wonder. The establishing shot of the tripod itself doesn't come until much later, and even then it's a jerky traveling "p.o.v.-bystander" shot, and this helps to continually stress the human story rather than a "tale of woe" from some omniscient viewer. An ordinary establishing shot of the villain which also features the hero can only show the hero from behind, useful for making them appear tiny and helpless in the face of the aggressor perhaps, but we're not capable of identifying with them until we cut to their expressions of astonishment, awe, fear and wonder in the next close-up. Reflections are a handy short-cut to getting both in one shot. (Unhappily this leitmotif was never developed, in fact promptly abandoned after the action got going. The mirror gag with the alien periscope doesn't count.)

I was also practically cheering out loud at one little scene, when the fleeing crowds must stop for a railway crossing sign going down, and then watch what goes by: an out-of-control runaway train where every car is on fire in a blazing inferno. Then, ding ding ding ding, the gate politely goes back up; in other words, the only things in civilization that are working now are the totally pointless ones. A very thrilling scene with the perfect little squib for an ending.

The rest? Well, the word "pfui" comes to mind. Here is a "War of the Worlds" which doesn't even mention Mars! Dramatically, the little girl was the only lead actor with anything going on, and the only supporting actor worth spit was Tim Robbins, whose character was still mis-handled and, finally, thrown away altogether with no resolution except the diminution of the "hero." And really, their silent wrestling over the shotgun while the aliens are just standing there a foot away, idly scratching themselves and not noticing should have been done a lot better; as it was it came off like bad Alfred Hitchcock. The whole father/son thing was totally lifeless, too. The ex-wife & husband?--two scenes and two lines, respectively? What's with that?

As you doubtless noted, Mr. Cruise was the only actor to be mentioned within a hundred yards of the title...and yet, how woefully miscast he was. All he can play is a grinning boyishly handsome movie star lead guy, tolerable perhaps in "Minority Report" but his character was not present in this script. I mean, here he has to play a blue collar doofus, a loser who needs to be redeemed, the utter opposite of his one and only thespian capacity. And I was sure, after that long and impressive introductory shot which goes from the entire earth and swoops down to finally duck under the steel beams and locate Ray up in his shiny glass cabin of the hoist lift, delicately performing his gargantuan tasks...I was SURE that he with his unique skills would end up inside an alien invasion craft and use it to attack the others and get the drop on them, thus saving the world. But no, he is relegated to finding a few grenades which the aliens inexplicably allow him to keep while in custody, and then halfway up into the big sphincter he manages to release them from the belt and pull (and retain!) their pins -- with one hand. His whole job and its long flashy intro had not a blessed thing to do with the story, or even with his character, that couldn't have been done just by one shot, say having him arrive home in a hard hat. And really, the character should have been plain looking, not grinning boyishly handsome; Nicholas Cage, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, or even a talented unknown -- but NOT a "movie star".

And as to "bad science" questions, the script was fuller of holes than the Albert Hall. I mean, to start with: these brilliant scheming aliens plan this invasion a hundred thousand years in advance, burying thousands of ferocious ships the size of aircraft hangars on a planet populated entirely by...what?, wildebeest and apes? Why bother with the big ships, then? Why not just start remaking the planet in their own image, way back then? But no, they go and bury a thousand fleets of big huge tripod ships which nobody has ever managed to discover, and then the aliens mysteriously just show up --for no reason-- via a technology far exceeding our own...or even common sense, as in what's with the alien transport on a lightning bolt thing? So why not just send the whole tripod gizmo this way? The ships are outside the extragalactic FedEx weight limits?

Brilliant scheming cold-blooded murdering fiends in possession of miraculous time-defying technology, and they have no clue what microbiology is? And as if the first thing any reasonable intergalactic astronaut would want to do is unscrew his helmet and drink out of a dripping storm drain?

I think I speak for us all when I say, "Huh?"

Our "hero" notes that the storm wind blows furiously in the wrong direction. OK, so...why? No answer. And that there's no thunder along with the lightning strikes. Good point! Uh...so...WHY? No answer, though it's imputed that it's because it's, uh, "fake" lightning. Well so WHAT? It defies physics? Why?! What's the point? (note to authors: every point must have a point!) And as if anyone in the tale could do something about it, even if they had it figured out...?

Every car in the world is dead...except this one with the new solenoid? That's all a car needs after an EM pulse, is a new solenoid? Was that ever established? (note to authors: so why wasn't Cruise a mechanic instead of a longshoreman?) And why weren't the new solenoids on the mechanic's shelf also fried by the EM pulse?

I could only laugh with scorn and derision whenever they hopped into that van and could miraculously pick out a clear path --at 75 mph!-- in the immense sea of dead cars, wrecks and refugees on the freeway (note to authors: why not on a motorcycle?) or even through the smoldering rubble of a 707 that hit their house and yet miraculously only sheared off a bit of it and didn't incinerate the entire block, them included, with a cloud of burning jet fuel when it hit the ground twenty feet away. A wreck that burned the basement, but not the house above ground...?

Caveat emptor.

I thought the intro-outro thing with the droplet of water was cute, but nobody seemed to get it. My neighbor saw the film and couldn't understand exactly why the aliens all died suddenly; he thought it was because only Tom Cruise could see that the magical presence of birds somehow made the alien ships vulnerable, and that THEN the army could attack them and destroy them. There was some oddball stuff with birds earlier (when only the little girl sees the gulls flying inland) but it made no sense; the birds fly toward the alien ships? Why why WHY??

And then the goofy ending, almost a requisite for this director. Stupid #1 son miraculously somehow shows up at end; big hug; fade out? Neither character has demonstrably changed, in fact none of the characters changed -- all they did was die, or not. And then the obligatory "hero music" when the Army snaps into action, sniping at the already hopelessly stricken alien ship and apparently damaging it! Yes, there's the American Army for you, swooping in after the battle and fearlessly shooting the wounded!

Really, the stock world-saved-from-the-brink-of-doom ending was better done in "Mars Attacks," where the dim hero makes that silly speech from the charred capitol steps: "Well, uh, maybe we could all, like, live in teepees 'n' stuff, eh?" instead of the solemn portentous tones of Morgan Freeman quoting H.G.W.

Oh well.

Argos
2005-Sep-05, 08:33 PM
As you doubtless noted, Mr. Cruise was the only actor to be mentioned within a hundred yards of the title...and yet, how woefully miscast he was. All he can play is a grinning boyishly handsome movie star lead guy, tolerable perhaps in "Minority Report" but his character was not present in this script. I mean, here he has to play a blue collar doofus, a loser who needs to be redeemed, the utter opposite of his one and only thespian capacity.

Im not an advocate for mr. Cruise, but I think hes shown some dramatic skills in Born on the Fourth of July.

myrkat
2005-Sep-06, 05:20 PM
I saw War of the Worlds the same day I saw Batman Begins - WOW, what a difference.

Not to change the topic, but seeing a REAL MOVIE like Batman Begins really puts a perspective on how BAD War of the Worlds was! I am no Tom Cruise fan, but I am not an "anti-Tom" guy either. But I agree, this was not his role: playing a humble longshoreman is simply out of his league, if not his niched roles.

Tim Robbins' character "coulda-woulda-shoulda" any number of things or directions, but was the closest thing to acting I could identify. I mean it DID make sense: he's totally crazy because he's lost everything. The glassy-eyed, drinking crazyman role FIT. It was the ONLY thing that made sense in the whole movie.

Where were those people hoping to go on a river barge? How fast do tripods and "electric blasts" move compared to a river barge?

This should have stayed in the can. I cannot believe they wasted film on this. Perhaps Spielberg should have directed the last Star Wars picture (Ep. III) instead of Lucas, thus killing 2 birds with 1 stone (i.e. NO war of the worlds, and a DECENT star wars). Instead, we got crap all around.

Oh well, i suppose it's better than Bewitched or Herbie the Lovebug.

-myrkat

Saluki
2005-Sep-06, 08:52 PM
I was also practically cheering out loud at one little scene, when the fleeing crowds must stop for a railway crossing sign going down, and then watch what goes by: an out-of-control runaway train where every car is on fire in a blazing inferno. Then, ding ding ding ding, the gate politely goes back up; in other words, the only things in civilization that are working now are the totally pointless ones. A very thrilling scene with the perfect little squib for an ending.

I agree completely. This was the one shining moment of an otherwise useless film.

Dave Mitsky
2005-Sep-12, 11:39 AM
Whatever its merits, or lack of them, may be, "War of the Worlds" is certainly not a financial flop, which is the usual meaning of the word when it is applied to films.

US Gross - $232,606,871
Worldwide Gross - $577,606,871

Dave Mitsky

BlackStar
2005-Sep-12, 08:01 PM
Whatever its merits, or lack of them, may be, "War of the Worlds" is certainly not a financial flop, which is the usual meaning of the word when it is applied to films.

US Gross - $232,606,871
Worldwide Gross - $577,606,871

Dave Mitsky


These figures mean nothing. Billions - trillions - get wasted in Hollywood, as they continually pump out the same ol' formulaic, sanitised schmaltz. The herd lap it up, too. Sad. People are starving, for goodness sakes!

Most movies today - for that matter, most music - are "flops" in my mind. Garbage!

Nice review, Mr Reynolds. You can't beat the magic of the 1954 original.

(PS Is it true Mr Schmaltzberg is now remaking "When Worlds Collide"?? Good grief...)

Wise Bass
2005-Sep-13, 10:02 PM
As you doubtless noted, Mr. Cruise was the only actor to be mentioned within a hundred yards of the title...and yet, how woefully miscast he was. All he can play is a grinning boyishly handsome movie star lead guy, tolerable perhaps in "Minority Report" but his character was not present in this script. I mean, here he has to play a blue collar doofus, a loser who needs to be redeemed, the utter opposite of his one and only thespian capacity. And I was sure, after that long and impressive introductory shot which goes from the entire earth and swoops down to finally duck under the steel beams and locate Ray up in his shiny glass cabin of the hoist lift, delicately performing his gargantuan tasks...I was SURE that he with his unique skills would end up inside an alien invasion craft and use it to attack the others and get the drop on them, thus saving the world. But no, he is relegated to finding a few grenades which the aliens inexplicably allow him to keep while in custody, and then halfway up into the big sphincter he manages to release them from the belt and pull (and retain!) their pins -- with one hand. His whole job and its long flashy intro had not a blessed thing to do with the story, or even with his character, that couldn't have been done just by one shot, say having him arrive home in a hard hat. And really, the character should have been plain looking, not grinning boyishly handsome; Nicholas Cage, Steve Buscemi, Tim Roth, or even a talented unknown -- but NOT a "movie star".

I don't understand where the criticism is. I can see how he certainly does not appear like a blue-collar worker, but he is hardly a "shining boyish hero." In fact, he appears to do a rather good job of showing a man going into denial (the "peanut butter sandwich scene"), and then panicking irrationally.

X-COM
2005-Sep-14, 07:22 PM
I haven't seen this movie but I understand that it's a bad remake of an older film. Still if you REALLY want to enjoy "War of the Worlds" forget about the films and read the book.

Dave Mitsky
2005-Sep-15, 03:30 AM
These figures mean nothing. Billions - trillions - get wasted in Hollywood, as they continually pump out the same ol' formulaic, sanitised schmaltz. The herd lap it up, too. Sad. People are starving, for goodness sakes!

Most movies today - for that matter, most music - are "flops" in my mind. Garbage!

Nice review, Mr Reynolds. You can't beat the magic of the 1954 original.

(PS Is it true Mr Schmaltzberg is now remaking "When Worlds Collide"?? Good grief...)

The total box office gross for 2004 was a record $9.42 billion. I'll agree that the majority of Hollywood movies over the past decade or so have not been very good. However, to clam that Hollywood has "wasted" trillions is utter hyperbole. It would take over a hundred years worth of the 2004 gross to even reach a trillion dollars.

The George Pal version of "War of the Worlds" was released in 1953, BTW.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0046534/

Dave Mitsky

BlackStar
2005-Sep-15, 09:11 AM
Still if you REALLY want to enjoy "War of the Worlds" forget about the films and read the book.

For sure, and also the great sequel "After Worlds Collide"!


I'll agree that the majority of Hollywood movies over the past decade or so have not been very good. However, to clam that Hollywood has "wasted" trillions is utter hyperbole. It would take over a hundred years worth of the 2004 gross to even reach a trillion dollars.

OK, zillions then!

genebujold
2005-Sep-19, 12:43 AM
I thought moments of the acting were really good. A lot of the visual effects seemed very futuristically archaic (high-tech efforts at recreating yesteryear).

irony
2005-Sep-23, 03:16 AM
I still say what the world needs is a 'War of the Worlds' actually set in the 1890's.

Preferably animated. ANIMATED. None of this fancy-pancy computer stuff - DRAWN.

HenrikOlsen
2005-Sep-23, 04:47 AM
Or stop motion.
Yes! War of the Worlds as a Tim Burton stop motion movie:)
With the intrepid Marsian explorers as the tragic SoonToDieTrying(tm) heroes.

jsellers
2005-Oct-14, 02:14 AM
you should send this to http://www.expertnthought.com so they can publish your article on thier site. That was great. articles@expertnthought.com

just copy and paste your article in the body of the email

Diamond
2005-Oct-23, 10:24 PM
I have to agree with the OP. The film was a travesty of the book. It had a pukey ending that was just annoying.

Very little of what Spielberg wrote into the story made any sense. In the book, Wells shows the inadequacy of the religious mindset with the Reverend Nathaniel going to pieces. Spielberg was just too cowardly to ever present such a theme to the fundamentalists.

The special effects were good, but the directing and the acting were just lazy. The focus on the child's point of view was just irritating. Although there were some scary moments, the pacing was wrong and the sub-plots didn't work. Where did that news-crew come from? It was a device to get the audience to see more into the inexplicable lightning at the beginning.

Overall Spielberg has too much money and too much control. He achieved his major task of all of his films - to eliminate or demonize the British and to reassure middle America that despite everything thrown at it including unprovoked attack by aliens, the American way of life will continue.

Kemal
2005-Oct-24, 03:01 AM
And then the obligatory "hero music" when the Army snaps into action, sniping at the already hopelessly stricken alien ship and apparently damaging it! Yes, there's the American Army for you, swooping in after the battle and fearlessly shooting the wounded!

Are you implying that this is somehow morally wrong or cowardly? It's war, you use any advantage you can get.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-22, 06:04 AM
I still say what the world needs is a 'War of the Worlds' actually set in the 1890's.

Preferably animated. ANIMATED. None of this fancy-pancy computer stuff - DRAWN.

The brits did this a few years ago (not animated - set in the 1890s). As awful as it was (the animation was not good. Not good at all).. but it was also more true to the book than anything I've seen come out of Hollywood.

I still say a good remake of "war of the worlds" is Independence Day.

and generally, I've never seen a Tom Cruise movie I cared much for. For the most part, he seems to be just a pretty face over cardbordium alloy.

Grand_Lunar
2005-Nov-22, 07:51 PM
Indeed, I felt a bit dissapointed by Spielberg's rendition of 'War of the Worlds'. I hoped for something closer to the novel.
Ditto for the remake of "The Time Machine". The 1964 version was more likeable.

Samara
2005-Nov-22, 09:40 PM
Or stop motion.
Yes! War of the Worlds as a Tim Burton stop motion movie:)
With the intrepid Marsian explorers as the tragic SoonToDieTrying(tm) heroes.


yes - now THAT I would pay to see

Lianachan
2005-Nov-23, 11:17 PM
Jeff Wayne is making an animated War Of The Worlds film. Based, I think, on the version of the story that his classic musical experiment tells. I've no idea about a release date, or even how wide a release it will receive - but it is most definately in production right now.

baric
2006-Jan-07, 09:58 PM
I've read the book and seen both movies -- I definitely liked Spielberg's version. Sure, we can all be science snobs and pick apart inconsistencies that maybe didn't make as much sense as we like.

But the movie was full of action, the characters were believable, and it was faithful to the spirit of the original story (unlike the first movie).

I liked it.

Lord Jubjub
2006-Jan-11, 02:27 AM
And as to "bad science" questions, the script was fuller of holes than the Albert Hall. I mean, to start with: these brilliant scheming aliens plan this invasion a hundred thousand years in advance, burying thousands of ferocious ships the size of aircraft hangars on a planet populated entirely by...what?, wildebeest and apes? Why bother with the big ships, then? Why not just start remaking the planet in their own image, way back then? But no, they go and bury a thousand fleets of big huge tripod ships which nobody has ever managed to discover, and then the aliens mysteriously just show up --for no reason-- via a technology far exceeding our own...or even common sense, as in what's with the alien transport on a lightning bolt thing? So why not just send the whole tripod gizmo this way? The ships are outside the extragalactic FedEx weight limits?
Quite possibly. The actual age of those ships are never given. It is the Robbins character that says the millions years age. Maybe they could send the ships across intergalactic space but living beings would die?

Brilliant scheming cold-blooded murdering fiends in possession of miraculous time-defying technology, and they have no clue what microbiology is? And as if the first thing any reasonable intergalactic astronaut would want to do is unscrew his helmet and drink out of a dripping storm drain?

I think I speak for us all when I say, "Huh?"
Blame the source material. H.G. Wells had them dying for the same reason.

Every car in the world is dead...except this one with the new solenoid? That's all a car needs after an EM pulse, is a new solenoid? Was that ever established? (note to authors: so why wasn't Cruise a mechanic instead of a longshoreman?) And why weren't the new solenoids on the mechanic's shelf also fried by the EM pulse?
This is actually a good point. Cruise's mustang was actually the vehicle that should have been the only working car on the street.

I could only laugh with scorn and derision whenever they hopped into that van and could miraculously pick out a clear path --at 75 mph!-- in the immense sea of dead cars, wrecks and refugees on the freeway (note to authors: why not on a motorcycle?) or even through the smoldering rubble of a 707 that hit their house and yet miraculously only sheared off a bit of it and didn't incinerate the entire block, them included, with a cloud of burning jet fuel when it hit the ground twenty feet away. A wreck that burned the basement, but not the house above ground...?

Fires are funny things. This isn't too farfetched.


I thought the intro-outro thing with the droplet of water was cute, but nobody seemed to get it. My neighbor saw the film and couldn't understand exactly why the aliens all died suddenly; he thought it was because only Tom Cruise could see that the magical presence of birds somehow made the alien ships vulnerable, and that THEN the army could attack them and destroy them. There was some oddball stuff with birds earlier (when only the little girl sees the gulls flying inland) but it made no sense; the birds fly toward the alien ships? Why why WHY??
Carrion feeders? Cruise noting that birds landing on the vehicle meant that the shields were down. It wasn't he who first noted it. He just did someting about it.

And then the goofy ending, almost a requisite for this director. Stupid #1 son miraculously somehow shows up at end; big hug; fade out? Neither character has demonstrably changed, in fact none of the characters changed -- all they did was die, or not.
I kinda liked the fact that this whole story was about simply surviving. Lessons learned would have happened after the story ended. But I was hoping the boy would end up being dead, but this is a Spielberg movie.

And then the obligatory "hero music" when the Army snaps into action, sniping at the already hopelessly stricken alien ship and apparently damaging it! Yes, there's the American Army for you, swooping in after the battle and fearlessly shooting the wounded!
You take whatever opportunities to attack that you can.

Inferno
2006-Jan-18, 02:42 AM
I enjoyed Spieiberg's version quite alot. I'd agree it's very light on character and plot, but the tension and suspense Spielberg's created as fantastic. I watched it on a plane and even with those awful tv screens and cramped conditions i found myself on the edge of my seat really excited to see what happens next.

The characters were the biggest let down. The children in particular were annoying (not the actor's fault).

The ending also didn't work. It was always going to be tough translated Well's ending onto the big screen for modern day audicences, but they still could have done better. For me the books ending works so well because the human race has been destroyed. Completely overrun. Completely humbled. It's only through a lucky chance that they win. In the movie the ending comes right after Cruise destroys a tripod. That is the first victory by the humans.

etorres
2006-Jan-20, 06:26 PM
I have no idea why no one mentioned the little girl that plays cruise's daughter on the film. She was absolutely THE most annoying part of the whole film. All she did for half the film was scream and annoy the heck out of the audience in the theater. The son and his inexplicable need to abandon his father and sister smack in the middle of a major battle for reasons that are never really explained and his subsequent "miraculous" reappearance in Boston was a close second.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-20, 09:31 PM
I have to agree with the OP. The film was a travesty of the book. It had a pukey ending that was just annoying.

Haven't read the book, but I rather liked the movie.


Very little of what Spielberg wrote into the story made any sense. In the book, Wells shows the inadequacy of the religious mindset with the Reverend Nathaniel going to pieces. Spielberg was just too cowardly to ever present such a theme to the fundamentalists.

Well, maybe so, but maybe he had other reasons to avoid that; mainly, not gaining ire with a large religious audience (a decent portion of the US is pretty religious, after all).


The special effects were good...

Agreed.


...but the directing and the acting were just lazy.

I disagree, actually. I think the directing and acting were pretty well done.


The focus on the child's point of view was just irritating.

I dunno, I think it added a strong element to the film. Oh well.


Although there were some scary moments, the pacing was wrong and the sub-plots didn't work.

Well, maybe you are right here. I wouldn't know, really.


Where did that news-crew come from? It was a device to get the audience to see more into the inexplicable lightning at the beginning.

The news crew annoyed me. They seemed to have just been "thrown in" as a plot device. War of the Worlds needed no plot devices; the less the main characters knew, the better.


Overall Spielberg has too much money and too much control. He achieved his major task of all of his films - to eliminate or demonize the British and to reassure middle America that despite everything thrown at it including unprovoked attack by aliens, the American way of life will continue.

"Eliminate or demonize the British"? How the hell did he accomplish that?

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-20, 09:37 PM
This is my review of War of the Worlds:

Overall good.

Nitpicks:
Some scenes didn't need to be in there, and seemed like they were added in just to be added in; in short, unnecessary and added nothing to the story or theme.

Tom Cruise shouldn't have been in it, and especially not in the role he had been given.

Aliens shouldn't have been shown, and especially not at the length they were; why expose themselves?

The vehicles they used should have had better armor: they were metal-plated and an axe went through them... this is advanced technology how?

The vehicles did not need to be underground. They could easily have been teleported to Earth. It was an interesting idea, but ultimately useless and rather silly.

Heroism DETRACTS from the story. They didn't need to show the main characters destroy the machines. This was a rather arbitrary addition you find in any Western movie nowadays; there needs to be "The Hero", who through resourcefulness, defeats "The Undefeatable Enemy". These plot elements are not necessary, and do not need to be in every single movie.

Good points of the movie:

The Peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich part is one of my favorite scenes; where Tom Cruise tries to regain a sense of normalcy when his world was collapsing around his ears.

Some of the scenes were very nicely scary. The "Red Weed" part was pretty darn freaky and disturbing in its own way.


This is all I can think of at the moment. But I honestly don't get all the insults sent the way of Spielberg. I've seen "Schindler's List", and it was an incredible movie. I just think that Spielberg's been somewhat corrupted by the Special Effects and Heroic Scenes recently.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-20, 09:39 PM
I have no idea why no one mentioned the little girl that plays cruise's daughter on the film. She was absolutely THE most annoying part of the whole film. All she did for half the film was scream and annoy the heck out of the audience in the theater. The son and his inexplicable need to abandon his father and sister smack in the middle of a major battle for reasons that are never really explained and his subsequent "miraculous" reappearance in Boston was a close second.

Yeah, agreed, more or less. The girl didn't honestly annoy me too much, but MAN the actress could do with a less shrieky voice.

The "miraculous" reappearance was pretty silly and unnecessary. I can somewhat understand his need to see the battle, though; what with humanity collapsing around his ears, he really wanted to see the humans fight back. When you see a ton of death and pointless slaughter around you, you want to cling to the idea that there's a way out of it; to him, it was through warfare, and he wanted to witness it.

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-22, 01:31 AM
I actually liked the movie...

Was it the best? No....but hey, it wasn't that bad.

Most of the points I see in this thread can be applied to ANY MOVIE! I think everyone was waiting for a movie to pic on and finally found it.:rolleyes:

I was just glad it wasn't another damn super-hero movie.....:wall:

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-23, 03:03 PM
My main problem with how many BAers (from what I know), have taken shots at Spielberg himself, even insulting him and denoting that he was inadequate in intelligence.

I mean, maybe I'm just taking a few of the comments a little too far, but isn't that taking critical reviewing a little too far, into the range of Ad Hominems? Spielberg has never seemed unintelligent to me; outside of Schindler's List, he just seems unwilling to "Break the Mold", and try something new. Is that really so unforgivable?

If I could, I would change the entire Hollywood industry. I would change the face of every movie produced. I would introduce both realism and extremist surrealism; I would make many movies with the comic-book unrealism of "Sin City" and the gritty real-world realism of "Man on Fire"; but I would make sure that the directors doing them are willing to go out on a limb, and willing to try something completely new; and rely less and less heavily on cliches and stock characters.

But Spielberg is not me. Why should I denote he's stupid for that?

Astro-Noob
2006-Jan-29, 06:56 PM
I've read the book, but haven't seen the movie. According to the book, the machines weren't buried, they were actually FIRED BY CANNON from mars. Consider the age of the book, this may have looked plausible to them then. The top of the "shells" unscrewed, the alien's machines began constructing the death rays and tripods, while the aliens squirmed uselessly about (gravity too high for them). Good reading.

Inferno
2006-Jan-31, 12:56 AM
Tom Cruise won Worst Actor at the Razzies for his performance in WOTW. now the Razzies are just a bit of silly fun, but was Tom really that bad? No, it wasn't a stand out performance, but then again it really couldn't be with the limited character development. He did a competent job - basically playing himself. I assume they really gave him worst actor because of all the insane publicity around him and Katie over the last year.

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-31, 12:58 AM
Inferno gets a cookie.:)

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-31, 01:14 AM
I've read the book, but haven't seen the movie. According to the book, the machines weren't buried, they were actually FIRED BY CANNON from mars. Consider the age of the book, this may have looked plausible to them then. The top of the "shells" unscrewed, the alien's machines began constructing the death rays and tripods, while the aliens squirmed uselessly about (gravity too high for them). Good reading.

And the funny thing is, compared to this, the movie was completely realistic :)

Dragon Star
2006-Jan-31, 01:25 AM
lol

Lianachan
2006-Jan-31, 10:11 AM
My main problem with how many BAers (from what I know), have taken shots at Spielberg himself, even insulting him and denoting that he was inadequate in intelligence.

I mean, maybe I'm just taking a few of the comments a little too far, but isn't that taking critical reviewing a little too far, into the range of Ad Hominems? Spielberg has never seemed unintelligent to me; outside of Schindler's List, he just seems unwilling to "Break the Mold", and try something new. Is that really so unforgivable?

If I could, I would change the entire Hollywood industry. I would change the face of every movie produced. I would introduce both realism and extremist surrealism; I would make many movies with the comic-book unrealism of "Sin City" and the gritty real-world realism of "Man on Fire"; but I would make sure that the directors doing them are willing to go out on a limb, and willing to try something completely new; and rely less and less heavily on cliches and stock characters.

But Spielberg is not me. Why should I denote he's stupid for that?

It's all entirely subjective, of course. He's made some fantastic films over the years - Indiana Jones, Jaws, etc.. - but I personally haven't liked anything he's done for a long time.

Halcyon Dayz
2006-Jan-31, 12:00 PM
Spielberg is one of the people who invented the mold.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-31, 07:36 PM
It's all entirely subjective, of course. He's made some fantastic films over the years - Indiana Jones, Jaws, etc.. - but I personally haven't liked anything he's done for a long time.

How does this make him an idiot, though? He makes a movie you don't like, and he's suddenly mentally incapable? Or is the particular insult being used simply a misnomer, meant to say that a person has to make a movie for your personal taste in order to be considered of higher intelligence? I'm not claiming that YOU said it, though I don't knwo if you did or not, just that I remember that people on this forum have, indeed, deemed Spielberg an "idiot" at one time or another.

I mean, jeez.

Lianachan
2006-Jan-31, 08:13 PM
How does this make him an idiot, though? He makes a movie you don't like, and he's suddenly mentally incapable? Or is the particular insult being used simply a misnomer, meant to say that a person has to make a movie for your personal taste in order to be considered of higher intelligence? I'm not claiming that YOU said it, though I don't knwo if you did or not, just that I remember that people on this forum have, indeed, deemed Spielberg an "idiot" at one time or another.

I mean, jeez.


:hand:

I said it's all entirely subjective, of course and I personally haven't liked... If you have to vent, please do so in reply to others who've perhaps earned it more.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-31, 10:29 PM
:hand:

I said it's all entirely subjective, of course and I personally haven't liked... If you have to vent, please do so in reply to others who've perhaps earned it more.

I know that's what you said. But what you said was in responce to a post I was making against such behavior. I was taking it as a defence.

SolusLupus
2006-Jan-31, 10:29 PM
:hand:

I said it's all entirely subjective, of course and I personally haven't liked... If you have to vent, please do so in reply to others who've perhaps earned it more.

I know that's what you said. But what you said was in responce to a post I was making against such behavior. I was taking it as a defence. Plus, I think my post came off more harshly than I meant it to. I wasn't actually intending to directly attack you, I was more of meaning "why does that make it right?" to you, not saying, "You said it's right".

Sorry about that.

Inferno
2006-Jan-31, 11:01 PM
It's all entirely subjective, of course. He's made some fantastic films over the years - Indiana Jones, Jaws, etc.. - but I personally haven't liked anything he's done for a long time.

Speilberg still has the same raw talent he always had. WOTW, Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can were all turned into entirely enjoyable films through Speilberg's direction.

Where his films have been lacking lately IMO is with the script. WOTW had a very simple script with some plot holes and silliness, Minority Report just failed in its last 30 minutes where the script turned into a hollywood thriller by numbers with cliched conspiracy theory, and CMIYC's script failed to really dig into the depth of the emotion and characters of the true story (much the same way as Ron Howard's A Beautiful Mind, while good in it's own right, could have been so much better if they followed the drama of the true story).

Lianachan
2006-Jan-31, 11:38 PM
I know that's what you said. But what you said was in responce to a post I was making against such behavior. I was taking it as a defence. Plus, I think my post came off more harshly than I meant it to. I wasn't actually intending to directly attack you, I was more of meaning "why does that make it right?" to you, not saying, "You said it's right".

Sorry about that.
No worries. You're right - it doesn't make it right. I happen not to like anything of his I've seen for years. This isn't a decision I've made, to dislike it all, it just pans out that way. This doesn't make Spielberg (or me!) an idiot at all, to my mind. He's just been failing to boil my kettle. Different strokes, and all that.

Lord Jubjub
2006-Feb-01, 02:23 AM
Tom Cruise won Worst Actor at the Razzies for his performance in WOTW. now the Razzies are just a bit of silly fun, but was Tom really that bad? No, it wasn't a stand out performance, but then again it really couldn't be with the limited character development. He did a competent job - basically playing himself.

Naw, he hasn't won yet.

Best Actor Razzie Nominations (http://www.razzies.com/history/05nomActo.asp)

Some of his competition deserves that award more than he . . .:eek:


I assume they really gave him worst actor because of all the insane publicity around him and Katie over the last year.

They gave him two nominations in this category:

Most Tiresome Tabloid Targets (http://www.razzies.com/history/05nomMTTT.asp)

SolusLupus
2006-Feb-01, 02:49 PM
They gave him two nominations in this category:

Most Tiresome Tabloid Targets (http://www.razzies.com/history/05nomMTTT.asp)

Well deserved. Well deserved.