W.O.W. (War of the Worlds)

Arts & Sciences Arts & Entertainment
#1

War of the Worlds

Watched it last night and must say I wasn’t disappointed - the movie wasn’t that great as I expected but at least the SFX were ok.
Tom Cruise was unbelievable in his role, trying too hard. Dakota Fanning did nothing but screaming and Justin Chatwin was just irritating in his role as ‘child psychologist’ and wannabe-soldier; Tim Robbins had a small role only that’s actually not worth mentioning.
The movie also had more (plot) holes than Swiss Cheese and didn’t manage to grip the viewers, though there were some good laughs on occassion.
There are better blockbusters with similar or better effects that are at least entertaining overall (ID4, The Day After Tomorrow), and certainly WOW is not going to win anyone an Oscar.

Overall Spielberg seems to have lost his edge - time to retire perhaps?

:thumbsdown:

#2

I’m amazed at how many movies with big name stars and big name producers etc just lately seem to SUCK.

Maybe I’m getting old :s

#3

I enjoyed it for its historical significance.
Funny how we humans gave alien beings so little credit.
Who would think of inhabiting a planet without checking to see if the environment is suitable? And why have a big robot snake eye if its range of vision is limited to human sight?
The aliens lost because they were dumb.
That kind of plot went over well in the 20’s, but…

#4

Thanks for giving away the ending, ST :raspberry:

#5

You’re saying ID4 and The Day After Tomorrow were better than WOW?

That is very disappointing, those two movies are two of the worst movies I have ever seen.

I’m still going to see War of the Worlds, though.

#6

[quote=“Redmenace”]
You’re saying ID4 and The Day After Tomorrow were better than WOW?[/quote]
ID4 and The Day After Tomorrow sucked, but WOW didn’t.
[color=red]
Spoilers*******
[/color]
Speilburg paid homage to HG Wells, Orson Wells, and the original movie. It was pure escapism. Don’t expect any acting. The only dialogue is stuff like, “Watch out!” “Be quiet!” “Run away.”

#7

Lost it? He never had it. I can count the number of good films that man’s made on the thumbs of my two hands.

Brian

#8

[quote=“truant”]I’m amazed at how many movies with big name stars and big name producers etc just lately seem to SUCK.

Maybe I’m getting old[/quote]
It’s not your fault - Hollywood doesn’t have any new ideas, instead we are bombarded with 2nd class remakes and the like.
As well emplyoing big names (director and/or actors) has never been a receipe for guaranteed success, but it seems they haven’t figured it out yet …

Better in the way that they are more entertaining over-all, have less plot holes and have even better special effects.
All three belong into the same class - switch-off-your-brain-and-enjoy-the-ride movie, but WOW being the worst of them that has IMO nothing better to offer than the other two.

:laughing:

I would give him credit for a few more but I also think he is highly overrated.

#9

The first half wasn’t too bad, but the second half was hastily resolved, unrealistic, and shallow. The writers need to go back to screenwriting class, and Spielerg needs to refresh himself on the art of filmmaking.

It could have been a much better movie. Not worth the cash, or even the time.

#10

I’d go for a Forbidden Planet remake. Still one of the best Sci Fi movies made.

Somebody mentioned Tom Cruise. He sucks big time. :raspberry:

#11

They get the funding for a film on the condition that there are certain number of fights, a certain number of flatulance jokes and/or on the condition that John Travolta or Brad Pit gets a certain amount of screen time. They don’t care if the thing makes sense or deals with an aspect of real human experience because they know that if the sound bite is “cool” and they have a big name star people will pay to see it. Hollywood films are as bad as they are because they’re produced by business people and not by artists, and because there literally hundreds of millions of people in the world who “just want to be entertained” and bring almost no intelligent critical judgement to their movie viewing choices. As long as we keep paying to see stupid movies they will keep making them. It’s show business. Show “business.” With no “business” there’s no “show.” That would perhaps be preferable.

#12

Is that what people said when a) They had their toes stepped on by latecomers who nearly toppled their popcorn; then b) had to endure the same people yammering away on their cellphones when the credits started up; and c) what everyone said when the quality of the story began to reveal itself?

Okay. Just wondering. :slight_smile:

#13

Lost it? He never had it. I can count the number of good films that man’s made on the thumbs of my two hands.

Brian[/quote]

Couldn’t agree more. One or two good ones, that’s it. He’s a consistent, predictable, Hollywood king. Which isn’t saying much.

#14

The buildup to the invasion was great but everything went downhill after that. It’s amazing that you can find a 2 inch dinosaur bone in the middle of the Mongolian desert but somehow city authorities missed the 200 tonne giant flipping alien war machine under a intersection.

It was a decent movie but it could have been so much better, Batman was a much better summer blockbuster movie.

#15

absolute shite

#16

I kept wishing the aliens were plants or trees. It would have been a lot scarier if Speilberg had made a movie version of The Day of The Triffids. I’ve been avoiding this thread but finally saw it tonight. I wasn’t expecting much as I prefer dialogue driven movies and sci-fi movies usually don’t have much in the way of dialogue. My expectations weren’t let down. My first time-check was after an hour which is the mark of a captivating movie for me. It was captivating but unfulfilling.

#17

What always pisses me off is movies with simple logical inconsistencies, like (as someone said) the millions of buried fighting machines that no-one ever noticed. Why were they buried anyway? In preparation of an invasion to wipe out the people who weren’t there yet? That seems a bit silly.

And who buried them? Beings that were immune to Earth diseases?

And what about the guy with the video camera? Classic!! All power is out due to EMP. Cars won’t start. Phones don’t work. All electronic circuits have been fried. And somebody has a working video camera? :loco:

The movie had some cool moments, but I spent a lot of time saying “This is bollocks!” Never did that while listening to the Orson Wells radio show.

#18

I tell my students that they will beccome smarter if they look for the inconsistencies in the movies they see, and that their English will certainly improve if they try to describe those inconsistencies. It’s quite a let down for them actually because they are frequently not used to thinking this way and prefer to “just be entertained”. If they prefer to “just be entertained” however they are not likely to learn much of anything from their movie viewing experience. To learn anything they need to be engaged in it from the beginning. From choosing which films to watch, to deciding what vocabulary is worth selecting for comment, study or review, to bringing a bit of energy to a description and criticism of the film. It is something of an about face attitude wise but once they experience some active engagement rather than passive reception they realize they have learned something profound about movies and about life. Wasn’t it Socrates who said “An unexamined movie isn’t worth watching”?

#19

It’s just a movie. You’re allowed to suspend belief for a couple of hours. That hitch hiker guide movie is coming on the 15th. I’m sure that will be totally believable.

#20

it was a tad disapointing! I was expecting better, much better. :frowning: