| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Short Attention Span Theater- |
| My "War of the Worlds" movie review |
| 2005-06-30 |
| Summary: Special effects: A+ Storyline: D Oh, this movie started out so well! Cruise was really believable as a divorced father and crane operator trying to eke out a living and deal with his ex and kids. The beginning invasion effects were incredible and the speed and savagery with which our normal, everyday modern world was transformed into hell just kept me on the edge of my seat! That was the first 20-30 minutes, however, and then the movie sank into a morass of melodrama, illogic, and idiocy. Spielberg always seems to need to stop all the action right when it's getting good so we can watch our hero pour out his heart and all have a good cry. Then the movie stalls out and can't get back in gear again. In fact, it can't even find credibility or logic again and flails about desperately to find a way to wrap things up. Who needs plot when you've got a lot of screaming, running, explosions and other special effects, right? Snarky comments that hopefully don't give too much away: o Aliens buried these giant, three-legged killing machines beneath the Earth a million years ago? Why didn't they just take over the planet then?! Too easy? Not enough humans to zap? o These killing machines have some convenient metal cages that can hold about a dozen people and keep them fresh so the aliens can snack while on the go. If you find yourself in one of these cages, make sure any Palestinian suicide bombers with you get selected as a snack first, and you will be free! o The aliens are capable of space travel, generating force fields, and building giant killing machines, but they don't know anything about IR or amplified-light night vision? I could go on and on, but I'll leave it as this. My recommendation is that you wait 'til it's on DVD and rent it. |
| Posted by:Dar |
| #22 rjschwarz, honey, I'm sorry. There's no point - I just typed without thinking and that's what came out. I've seen it spelled that way by other people, and it must have just stuck. I should copy your name and paste it rather than typing it. Wanna kiss and make |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-06-30 22:34 |
| #21 Sea, you can to your list that Hollywood seems not to know things that the rest of the human race figured out many thousands of years. Lost, a show I quite like, has people wondering around in the jungle being attacked by large animals, and no one on a plane full of people seems aware that a long pointed stick is an effective defence against any large animal. |
| Posted by: phil_b 2005-06-30 22:23 |
| #20 "Certainly, there are a lot of political undertones and overtones," Koepp (the screenwriter) says. "But we tried consciously to never lead with the politics. That's a guaranteed way to make a piece of crap. "The political tones of this movie will emerge for themselves. In the '50s, 'War of the Worlds' was, 'My God, the commies are coming to get us.' Now it's about fear of terrorism. In other parts of the world, the new movie will be fear of American invasion. It will be clearly about the Iraq war for them," says the screenwriter. |
| Posted by: DMFD 2005-06-30 21:09 |
| #19 I liked the version with Will Smith. |
| Posted by: AJackson 2005-06-30 21:01 |
| #18 Maybe they should have reanimated Kubrick rather than letting Spielberg go it alone. Eh. That wouldn't have worked; not even zombies are immune to this crap. I saw a special about "Land of the Dead", and Romero babbled something about how this script -- which was written before 9/11, by his own admission -- is an allegory for our times and the war on terror, when people are expected to get with the program or they're kicked out. All I can figure is that Hollywood types are so insulated, they never hear anything contrary to the Donk talking points, and no one ever challenges them on the idiocy that dribbles from their mouths. The interviewer should have cut that response from the show -- it made Romero look like a dork, honestly -- or challenged him on it: "Who, exactly, has been exiled from the US?" God save us from a Hollyweird in which low-budget B-movie makers think they're telling Great Stories That Will Change the World. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-06-30 20:31 |
| #17 Don't feel bad, Kevin. I *loved* Waterworld. Classic Saturday afternoon B-movie Sci-Fi. The critics can eat my shorts. Too bad about War of the Worlds, though. Sounds like a bowser. Maybe they should have reanimated Kubrick rather than letting Spielberg go it alone. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2005-06-30 19:26 |
| #16 you were great in Open Range, pal |
| Posted by: Frank G 2005-06-30 19:13 |
| #15 I like to think of my acting abilities as underappreciated by the mass moviegoer. |
| Posted by: Kevin Costner 2005-06-30 18:51 |
| #14 Barbara, is it too much to ask to get my name right? You always add a "t" to my last name. I feel as if you're trying to correct me and I've called up my parents and grandparents and double-checked my drivers license and birth certificate and confirmed my spelling is the correct one. I feel as if you're trying to make a point and I don't get it. Please help. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-06-30 18:34 |
| #13 War of the Worlds is a very well written Sci-Fi classic. It's unsurprising to me that Cruise could eliminate coherence and mussle the plot. Obviously, I am still bitter over renting Minority Report. Cosner is worse at least Cruise has stayed away from the Robin Hood legend. |
| Posted by: Super Hose 2005-06-30 18:10 |
| #12 Thetans getting the best of ya Captain? |
| Posted by: Shipman 2005-06-30 16:50 |
| #11 This helps, Dar, as I was tempted to spend the time and dough; not now. Cruise is such an axxhole anyway, with his Scientology jibe and his ego tripping with someone young enough to be his daughter. Sorry, I can't get beyond the person. Call it mission impossible. |
| Posted by: Captain America 2005-06-30 16:42 |
| #10 I haven't seen the movie yet, but based on the WaPo, it seems more an allegory for Islamism, the enemy within. [rant] Hollywood consistently portrays people as brainless herd animals whose immediate response to adversity is fear, flight, and a trampling every-man-for-himself panic. We proved Hollywood decisively wrong on 9/11, when in the face of an enormous mind-boggling tragedy, the citizens of NYC and Washington acted calmly, rationally. They evacuated a burning WTC and lower Manhattan in a dignified manner; other citizens offered them food, water, shelter, and communications as needed. One man even chose to remain behind so that his disabled friend would not die alone. Hollywood wonders why no one sees their dumb movies anymore; I for one am tired of being sneered at and misunderestimated. [/rant] |
| Posted by: Seafarious 2005-06-30 16:27 |
| #9 Thanks, guys--I had no idea! Guess I missed that article. I certainly saw nothing like that in the movie to even hint that it was political in any way. Believe me, you'd *really* have to go out on a limb to even begin to compare the WoT with this movie! I don't think anyone who sees this movie is going to walk away thinking of Iraq. American soldiers are clearly portrayed as the good guys--they're in uniform, in Humvees, and in Abrams tanks, i.e. distinctly and obviously American, and they're giving their all. Either that screenwriter was talking out of his @ss to make a cheap swipe, or his contributions were revised, because there ain't nothin' political in this movie that I could see. |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-06-30 16:23 |
| #8 rjschwartz - I won't be paying to see it at all. I know the story, Tom Cruise has gotten really tiresome, and I don't see why I should waste my time and money enriching more Hollyweird idiots. I think I'll put my time to more useful ventures. Watching oil paint dry comes to mind.... |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2005-06-30 16:21 |
| #7 Dar, imagine for a minute that the heroic Americans are instead Heroic Iraqis and the Alien invaders are American troops and you'll start to see what the screenwriter was getting at. He may have invented that after the fact, he may have written that in from day one, but his comments ensured I won't be paying to see this movie in the theaters. |
| Posted by: rjschwarz 2005-06-30 16:14 |
| #6 I was hoping they would make the new version as exactly like the book as possible. Leave it to Hollyweird to screw things up. |
| Posted by: Deacon Blues 2005-06-30 16:06 |
| #5 Dar: He's not kidding. The idiot screenwriter told a Canadian paper that the whole film was an alagory for Iraq. |
| Posted by: Secret Master 2005-06-30 15:42 |
| #4 Bobby--I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not? There was nothing in the film that appeared to refer to Iraq. At the beginning of the invasion when the aliens are blowing up buildings the young girl asks her dad (Cruise) if they're being attacked by terrorists. That's all--nothing political implied by that. And, even when they're being slaughtered wholesale, the American soldiers are shown in a good light as being staunch defenders while trying to stem the tide and impose some order so the refugees can get out. I think Spielberg, regardless of his politics, values the American soldier, especially after his work on "Saving Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers". I'm just disappointed because this movie could have been SO much more with him at the helm and the budget they had. It just tanks halfway through into a ridiculous mess--from the moment Cruise's chracter runs into Tim Robbins's character, it takes a nosedive leaving you wondering if the projectionist put in the wrong reel. |
| Posted by: Dar 2005-06-30 15:28 |
| #3 Of course, we all remember the story line was written by the guy who made it "about Iraq" - the screenwriter who was featured in the Canadian mag .... oh, Stephen Koeppe? Sumptin likdat. |
| Posted by: Bobby 2005-06-30 14:54 |
| #2 Thanks Dar! |
| Posted by: Yosemite Sam 2005-06-30 12:58 |
| #1 Or skip it completely and enjoy the George Pal version. |
| Posted by: Robert Crawford 2005-06-30 12:12 |