Son and I saw " war of the Worlds" last night. It was classic action and seat of pants scenes
But we thought Jurrassic Park still was better ,,, and even Jaw But we had fun and enjoyed it and its good to see some work from Steven like his classics.. I think its a Movie thats made for big screens! so see it best< Tom Shelly Whitworth-King wrote: > Hello Dave and David and MOPO > > What few reviews I've read from here in the UK have been favourable and > indeed, I get the feeling that this is seen as a return to form for > Spielberg so not sure what gives with all the negative comments and > trashers. Suffice is to say, I will have to wait to see this film for > myself but I'm looking forward to it. > > What a dull place it would be if we ALL had exactly the same viewpoint > though? > > Thanks for sharing! > > Shelly > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: Dave Ressler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Dave Ressler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [MOPO] PT. 2 - Spielberg does it again - War of the Worlds > Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 23:53:03 -0700 > > David, > > I rarely post here, but felt strongly enough about this to respond. I saw > the film yesterday, and had been dying to see it since this past winter when > I first learned that it was in the works. I ordered tickets for the first > showing of it here, the day before it actually opened. I had to wait until > just before leaving the house to read Roger Ebert's review (he won't publish > his reviews until actual day of release). I headed to the theater expecting > it to be a real dog rocket, and was highly disappointed that a film that I > had anticipated viewing for months would end up being a real let-down. > Imagine my surprise when, despite my pre-conceived notions thanks to good > ol' Rog, the film completely blew me away !! It was far more than I ever > expected even BEFORE reading Ebert's review, and I plan to see it again at > least once - if not twice - and will be waiting in line the first day it is > released on DVD. If I am the first to agree with your assessment of the film > here on MOPO, t! > hen so be > it -- but your post nails the film dead-on for me, and I can't think of > anything you missed or that I can disagree with. > > As a background, I've read the H.G. Wells story several times in my larval > stages and saw the '53 version of the film many times, the first time at the > age of 8. When you know the story, and know what to expect --- and then are > still surprised and amazed watching a modern-day remake --- I think that > speaks volumes about the film. I can't think of one other modern day > sci-fi/fantasy/horror film re-make that has improved on the original. I > really believe that this one has. I LOVE the horror and sci-fi genre, from > the silent era through the 1950's and beyond, and I agree that 1953's War Of > The Worlds was certainly one of the very best sci-fi films produced > (although I do think that the '56 Invasion Of The Body Snatchers and '51's > The Day The Earth Stood Still also deserve props). In my humble opinion, the > original War Of The Worlds is a very good film, but I'd have to say that, as > far as this genre goes, Spielberg's version is a great film. > > I must say that this is where I will have to draw the line with Roger > Ebert's reviews, and although I had respected his opinion for the most part > in the distant past, I think that within the past few years he has really > started to slip and is becoming increasingly grating and irritating. It > angers me that he probably has more power than any film critic out there > right now, and that people will not go to see films because he proclaims > that he doesn't like them. The man cannot go to see a movie like Jurrasic > Park or Spider-Man and enjoy it -- perhaps there is no fun left in him, and > he no longer can go to a film just to be entertained without analyzing it > frame-for-frame. Oh, he liked Spider-Man 2 much more -- because the > storyline carried more "character development". I personally believe that he > should be locked in a room and be forced to sit through endless screenings > of Citizen Kane until he expires. Speaking of expiring, perhaps he has -- a > friend of mine thinks that he > progressively appears to be kept alive by artificial means, and is looking > pretty creepy these days. Deserves some checking into perhaps. > > But, curiously, I've noticed the same response that you've gotten so far to > your review and observations -- it's very puzzling to me, since I was > absolutely thrilled with the movie, but go check out the reviews of the > multitudes on Yahoo! and you'll find that people either love it or hate it, > and there's not much middle ground. It is more like the response that I'd > expect for last year's "The Village" (which I believe is truly worthy of the > criticism). There's no comparison here -- the special effects in Spielberg's > WOTW are absolutely seamless and without question the most impressive I have > ever seen in a film with this type of a setting (the planet earth). I have > seen sci-fi/fright-flick/gore-fest films of all manner and can't think of > anything within this genre that can even begin to compare with the realism > portrayed here - and it truly is frightening (IF you go to the film with an > open mind and allow yourself to go along for the ride). > > I don't know if these naysayers have read Ebert's review or what -- but to > me the negatives just don't compute. Ebert and his negativity followers > complain about hollow characters and/or lack of character development, > believe the "tripods" are of ludicrous design, claim the aliens have no > valid "reason" for their attack, and nitpick on certain aspects within the > storyline. Hey, I'm sorry -- this is a science fiction film, and logic > doesn't apply here. Why don't they instead review the novel by H.G. Wells -- > that would be more appropriate. All Spielberg has done is tell Wells' story, > and has actually more faithfully adhered to Wells' story than did Byron > Haskin in 1953 -- AND has brilliantly updated it to bring the story into the > world of here and now. I do believe that with a few touches that could have > been added, and just a few more tweaks in the script, that this film would > border on a masterpiece. > > I pose this question: exactly how much character development are you > expecting from frantic human beings who are all, from the beginning to the > end of the film, running to escape hideous deaths or being blasted to atoms? > I also happen to think the acting was exemplary from nearly everyone in the > film -- and I agree that Tom Cruise (who I am not particularly enamored with > in his real life exploits) -- did an absolutely fine job. In fact, I can't > think of anyone else who could have handled his role better. > > Despite the negative comments here and elsewhere, this was my experience at > the theatre: the seats were packed, and yet you NEVER heard any asides from > anyone. My wife asked me 1/2-hour into the film if I brought any TUMS. When > the film left out, everyone, and I mean everyone, openly discussed aspects > of the film -- "What did you think about ....", "Oh man, how about the part > where ....", "Geez, did you see when ....". I've been to quite a few films, > and can't remember the last time I heard such robust discussion leaving the > theater. My wife later told me that she thought she was having heart > palpitations during the movie. My 15 year-old daughter, who has seen vile > and grisly garbage such as SAW, said it was the scariest movie she has ever > seen (and her friend agreed). We talked about the film for a full hour > afterwards. Yet I've read reviews from people who said they were BORED!!! I > truly don't understand how that's possible (and I'd hate to think what it > takes to please a! > nd > entertain these folks), but it shows how different public opinion can be. > By the way, immediately after the film left out I said "I'm going to see > that again", and my wife said she definitely would not. A half hour later > she changed her mind -- it took her that long to settle down! Also, a > long-time friend of mine from Rhode Island (who I will begrudgingly admit > probably enjoys horror and sci-fi films even more than I do), called me > tonight and absolutely raved about this film. I've read the negatives, but I > haven't heard anything but the highest praise from those that I know > personally. > > To me, this was the kind of film that makes movie-going a joy, and the > greatest form of escapism entertainment in the world. On the big screen, it > is nothing less than breath-taking. I'd place it among Spielberg's top 5 > films, and that's saying a lot -- regardless of what certain critics may > have to say, he is the Frank Capra of the modern film-making era and his > films will be treasured by many generations to come. For a director/producer > with his skill and talent level to make a classic sci-fi film -- and make it > right -- is a sci-fi fanatic's dream come true. I'm a long-time and devout > fan of classic sci-fi films from Metropolis to Forbidden Planet to 2001 to > E.T., and I'm generally very skeptical of and loathe to modern-day sci-fi > and sci-fi remakes. However, and after only 1 sitting, I can honestly say > that this is instantly my favorite sci-fi film of all time. Nobody else has > to agree with me, and that's fine ---- more room for me to stretch out in > the theater the next ! > time I go > to see it ... and the next time after that. > > Anyway David, just wanted you to know --- you are not alone, and no, you > weren't seeing things. It is indeed an astonishing film. If this doesn't get > your heart pounding, you are most likely dead. > > Dave > > David Kusumoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wow, I just came back from a long day at the office and I have to say that > every single private e-mail (but one) that I've received about my review of > Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" this morning (that is, from people who've > seen it since its release), was negative. They didn't like the film or > thought it was dull or just plain ordinary beyond the special effects. > > Lemme add what I've since shared with others. I just got my first look at > reviews in the LA Times, the Chicago Tribune, the NY Times and the SF > Chronicle. And those reviews were spot-on about how I felt last night. > Roger Ebert's review was negative, citing the fact that he couldn't get past > the source material, the original 1898 book, that he didn't feel "tripod" > aliens were credible, so he gave it a thumbs down. Fine. > > People who seen War of the Worlds and hate it won't change their minds. But > those who haven't should think about this: Try not to punch holes into a > film that's in a genre that requires going in -- a complete suspension of > disbelief (defined here as: "a willingness of a reader or viewer to suspend > his or her critical faculties to the extent of ignoring minor > inconsistencies so as to enjoy a work of fiction.") > > We're not talking "Lord of the Rings" here. This isn't art or a cinematic > masterpiece based on classic literature. Films in this crowd-plesing genre, > well, I expect plot lines and holes you can drive a truck through, as well > as acting of the type that's overwhelmed by visuals. > > Hence I don't understand the fuss about Tom Cruise's acting (or lack of it) > in a sci-fi film. It's like people attacking Star Wars for wooden acting. > The 1977 original was hardly the stuff of the Lee Strasberg school of acting > -- but we loved its comic book and serial-like structure anyway. Suddenly > these genre pictures require Brando acting fireworks and emotional dialogue? > Not for me. I may not like Tom Cruise personally but I believe he's grown > as an actor. I GUARANTEE someday he will win an Oscar on MERIT -- for a > role that's perfect for him. The last role that showed what he was capable > of (to me, anyway) of greatness was way back in 1996 in Cameron Crowe's > "Jerry Maguire." I didn't count his 1989 Oscar nomination in Oliver > Stone's "Born on the Fourth of July," which felt gimmicky. I put Jim Carrey > in the same boat. He's comedic, but someday he will transition like other > comedians such as Robin Williams and Bill Murray and Steve Martin -- into > believable dramatic actors. I hated Cruise and Carrey until I saw Cruise in > "Jerry Maguire" and Carrey in "The Truman Show." > > Why I liked "War of the Worlds" (despite my personal aversion to sci-fi or > sword and sorcery material) is that it goes against the grain of what I'm > personally used to. There were no heads of state debating the attacks, no > famous landmarks blown up, no war rooms with military people talking about > counteratttack plans, no scientists or professors speculating what's going > on, no dumb TV interviews of "victims." The HG Wells book describes the > attackers as Martians, vividly depicts them as being "tripod-like" in form > and there are bits and pieces from which I drew links between a 107-year old > book, a 52-year old film starring Gene Barry and a garden variety of other > sci-fi and horror films that have had a "been-there-done-that quality." And > it's a fair argument that an audience should NOT have to rely on source > material to enjoy a film. It should stand alone. I couldn't do it because > I'm old and I know the book (set in Britain, by the way) and the 1953 film. > > Another MoPo member made a great observation: he asked, "ponder this about > "The Terminal" and "War Of The Worlds" (both Spielberg films): "aren't > they actually two sides of the post 9/11 political psyche?" > > ABSOLUTELY. And you can add "Minority Report" (another Cruise and Spielberg > film) to the list, which was about preventing crimes before they happen > using a system based on identity registrations and predicting the future. > Beyond the menacing tone in Spielberg's latest film, there are two quick > scenes in "War of the Worlds" that mirror the "immediate post-9/11 > aftermath." (I won't mention 'em.) The film isn't otherwise overtly > political, and I like questions such as, "why are they attacking us?" -- are > left ambiguous (hence more frustrating to those who've never read the book > nor seen the 1953 film). They want answers to everything. Well, the aliens > won't say and there's no scientist on camera giving away the facts. So in > fairness, people have a right to be disappointed with the ending, perhaps > even bitter. > > Now, what did I HATE about "War of the Worlds?" > > I expect sci-fi thrillers to be devoid of airtight logic and believable plot > lines; I look at the genre as a fun collection of "what if?" fantasies with > a lot of tech stuff for geeks. Nevertheless, I hated how Spielberg handles > who survives and who doesn't at the end. I wanted it darker and bleaker. > Candidly, I wanted more people close to Cruise dead. It would make more > sense. I hated the son and what happens to him (or doesn't) when the film > ends. I didn't want a "talking head picture." Hence I didn't need more > character development beyond just knowing that we're going to follow Tom > Cruise and his two kids from the beginning to the end. The little girl > (Dakota Fanning) is dynamite. And to me, the tension and suspense in the > quiet scenes with Tim Robbins were spectacular. I'm sure they felt "slow" > or even boring to others. > > Finally, anyone astute about what's going on with Morgan Freeman's narration > at the beginning and at the end -- will immediately catch that they're > almost word-for-word out of H.G. Wells original 1898 book. And it's > thrilling to hear Wells's words resonating today, year 2005. Again, you > shouldn't have to know this, and to say you do smacks of intellectual > snobbery. > > But for me, those words read by Morgan Freeman just jumped out. They still > feel relevant. This film could've been done so many different ways that > would've delighted the "Independence Day" and "Armageddon" crowd. This is > not an across-the-board crowd pleaser like "Close Encounters" or "Jaws." It > could've even been done as a literal translation of the HG Wells book, you > know, w/an aura of the Victorian age, set in the UK, instead of being > depicted as it does here in present day New Jersey and the route to Boston. > > I'm won't change people's minds. I'll just close with what A.O. Scott of > the New York Times wrote in his review of the film. He said while there are > flaws in "War of the Worlds," and while there are some who will argue to the > death that even his re-working of Kubrick's "A.I." was abysmal, "War of the > Worlds" is only a movie.... > > "...and a lesser Spielberg movie at that. But "War of the Worlds" also > succeeds in reminding us that while Mr. Spielberg doesn't always make great > movies, he seems almost constitutionally incapable of bad moviemaking. It's > not much to think about, but it's certainly something to see." > > -koose. > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > > Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! > http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ > How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List > > Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L > > The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
