 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.81.84.149
In Reply to: Those airborne toxins came straight from H.G. Wells. Be fair. nt posted by clarkjohnsen on July 9, 2005 at 11:54:20:
And in a good movie I would not pick on it. In a bad movie then i wonder why Spielberg just didn't make a NEW monster movie. Plenty of directors have what is called creative licence...this movie could have used a total re-vamp for a 2005 audience not a 1940's audience or whenever this originally aired.Of course that is the crux...this thing never should have been made in the first place. There is nothing here to support a motion picture.
Consider the film Invasion of the Body Snatchers...The 1978 Sutherland version as well as the original are masterfyul science fiction monster movies of alien Invaders with the GUTS to have US lose.
There are just so many better monster movies with real creepiness, scares, and more importantly what seems to be REAl jeapardy, loss, and organic fully realized characters.
We get a disaster movie of typical disaster movie quality. And maybe I'm a little harder on this picture because I expect so much more from Steven Spielberg. Spielberg for me walks a thin line in most of his films as it is and I am very generous when it comes to sentiment in film because I don't view sentiment or optimism as a lack of art or a lack of reality.
Spielberg usually places a lot on his characters and emotion...if you buy Cruise here and you care about him and his family this film will ultimately work - I never really did.
Indeed, I can even forgive over sentimental aspects of his movies. Saving Private Ryan's bookends are shmaltz but the rest of the film works. Someone has done a lot of homework on the history of the war and even more-so on the political climate with the entire premise of sending a platoon in for one guy as being entirely politically motivated. I can even forgive the fact that they left out the countries that really did win that war in the first place and it was not America but that's another matter. I don;t expect perfect all-encompassing history's from a two hour film that was basically meant to show that war isn't heroic and a wonderful place to show off to your girlfriend as many other films project.
War of the Worlds was devoid of heart and soul - and pouring on sentiment only works if the audience cares about the characters...If I do then I don't mind the musical crescendo tear-up heart stringing pulling tactics. Spielberg walks that line -- when it works he is the master at it...and when it doesn't man does it fall into the abyss of shallow.
Follow Ups:
a
... you can't even stand-by your own viewpoint on the rare occasion when you're correct.AuPh
a
For you to call me "stodgy" is the epitome of chutzpah given your history, and conciliatory behavior is so atypical of your modus operandi as to be more alien than any special effect conceived by Steven Spielberg for WoTW. Folks needn't take my word for it, the Video Asylum Search Engine will bear this out. Desist indeed! LOL!The saddest part of this new "consiliatory" backpedalling motion you've devised is that it clearly demonstrates that you can't make up your mind whether to like a film or not without checking which way the critical wind is blowing! No wonder you prefer to rely on the likes of Duncan Sheperd to write "stodgy" opinions, it aleviates the pressure of taking a position and saves you $6 to $10 for a ticket.
I'm very disappointed in you, my friend. For once I thought you were providing an intelligent, informed opinion of a current blockbuster summer release, having attended the screening yourself. Instead I find you buttering up RGA and asking for some syrup to cover your waffle. ;^)
Regards,
AuPh
There is hope.For the record -- and this has been put on record before -- if I decide to see a movie I may clip reviews, but I never read them until afterwards. You alledge otherwise, but you live in a fantasy world, clearly.
clark
Seriously, I couldn't believe that you were doing the waffle dance and using such a lame excuse as "being conciliatory." That just doesn't pass any reasonable credibility test.> > > "For the record -- and this has been put on record before -- if I decide to see a movie I may clip reviews, but I never read them until afterwards. You alledge otherwise, but you live in a fantasy world, clearly." < < <
Saying "if I decide to see a movie" obfuscates the real point to which I was alluding (i.e., the fact that you've apparently posted critical reviews from second or third hand sources of films that you've never experienced first hand.
Let's put this into a historical perspective, shall we?
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/search.mpl?searchtext=duncan+
sheperd&topic=&author=clarkjohnsen&date1=2001-01-01&date2=
sheperd&topic=&author=clarkjohnsen&date1=2001-01-01&date2=
&slowmessage=&forum=filmsHave you seen all of these films in a theater (Die Another Day, Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets and Treasure Planet)?
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=films&n=27934&highlight=
duncan+sheperd+clarkjohnsen&r=&session=How about I, Robot? Did you actually see it in it's initial release?
http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=films&n=14557&highlight=
duncan+sheperd+clarkjohnsen&r=&session=sheperd&topic=&author=
clarkjohnsen&date1=2001-01-01&date2=&slowmessage=&forum=filmsTwo reviews of LOTR, ...but where's your's???
This is just a random cross section, 3 of some 49 recorded second hand reviews that you authored since 2001, using the Film Asylum search engine, cut & pasted from Duncan Sheperd's reviews; many, many more examples can be brought up (further back and other reviewers).
Personally, I don't have a problem with your posting links to second hand opinions if, and I do mean IF, you've actually attended a showing of the film in question because it presumes that you share the same opinion (i.e., first-hand knowledge) as the reviewer. In other words, you should qualify it and express your own views as well so that folks know that you've actually seen the picture.
What I think folks really want to know is what YOU or I think of a specific movie as they're going to be able to gauge their own interest from first hand INFORMED opinions and interaction with folks whose opinions they trust on this discussion board. If it was just a matter of looking up reviews, that would be a no-brainer. One could simply post a link to Rotten Tomatoes for a good cross section of reviews.
Cheers,
AuPhPS: Chickensh*t served at no extra charge by the Colonel of Truth! ;^)
...that he can compose in Word and then post when he's finished? I hate reading drafts.Regarding the message itself, this one sentence indicates its silliness: "Personally, I don't have a problem with your posting links to second hand opinions." Those were all first-hand opinions.
And they were posted for entertainment value, besides the information afforded. Many times I find I see movies late, plus, many reviews are on-line only for a week.
Cease and desist these broadsides.
clark
> > > "Cease and desist these broadsides." < < <It's your broadsides that should be monitored, mon ami. ;^)
> > > "And in a good movie I would not pick on it. In a bad movie then i wonder why Spielberg just didn't make a NEW monster movie. Plenty of directors have what is called creative licence...this movie could have used a total re-vamp for a 2005 audience not a 1940's audience or whenever this originally aired." < < <...I think Clark is refering to the original novel, by H. G. Wells from the 1890's, not the radio broadcast scripted and directed by Orson Welles' Mercury Theater from the 1930's or the George Pal produced 1950's film adaptaion, not that this would matter much in your estimation. Oh, BTW, as I see it, a director's "creative license" shouldn't be the same as the one issued by the British Admiralty to James Bond. :o)
The point Clark is making is a fair one because, even in the course of fine-tuning the story for a modern audience, Spielberg was trying to remain true to the author's intellectual work. War of The Worlds is much more than a "monster movie" just like it's alleghorical content as a written work is more than about space invaders. You can still enjoy popcorn with it, but please, no Cheetos! ;^)
In any adaptaion of a classic novel a seasoned 1st tier director who respects the author's work will want to anchor his vision to the original story in certain areas. If Roger Cormon had produced WoTW I'm sure that it would've hired a hack to totally revamp Well's seminal work for a hip young 2005 audience, or at least it would've been so cheesy that it would "seem" hip to those who don't read books.
Spielberg took some risks here and, IMHO, they paid off. Of course, your mileage will undoubtably vary.
Respectfully,
AuPh
If I read the book I would not need to see the film and if I need to read the book to understand the film then it's a bad film.The problem with people who have READ the book is that they can read into the film polititical or societal satire because in the book it may have been quite profound. When it is NOT there in the film but one remembers the book they "fill-in" the missing gaps. The audience who have not read the book don;t have the gaps to "fill-in" and therefore the film is in isolation and can be more objectively viewed.
It is the same with LOTR - the film without reading the Book is overlong tiresomme one note and not the least bit deep. I can only imagine that the book has some sort of political satire or point other than power corrupts whioch is the only thing the films harped on for 9 hours and thanks I alreayd know that.
Some crtics have been on about terrorism and 9/11 in War of the Worlds...Holy read anything you want into this film Batman because it just is not there. Interestingly idf there was commentary, the lopsidedness of power in the world today the film SHOULD have been set in Iraq with the aliens finally dieing from not understanding different cultures -- that MIGHT have worked.
... back in junior or senior high. I'm kind of surprised that you haven't because you seem to be a well educated fellow.> > > "The problem with people who have READ the book is that they can read into the film polititical or societal satire because in the book it may have been quite profound. When it is NOT there in the film but one remembers the book they "fill-in" the missing gaps. The audience who have not read the book don;t have the gaps to "fill-in" and therefore the film is in isolation and can be more objectively viewed." < < <
It isn't a matter of needing to read the book in order to understand the film, it's a matter of visualization and interpretation of a classic work from a different medium.
> > > "It is the same with LOTR - the film without reading the Book is overlong tiresomme one note and not the least bit deep. I can only imagine that the book has some sort of political satire or point other than power corrupts whioch is the only thing the films harped on for 9 hours and thanks I alreayd know that." < < <
Of course you can read whatever you want into any book or film, but according to Tolkein himself, LoTR wasn't intended as some sort of political satire; sadly too many folks try to read things into fantasy that isn't there. Yes there are strong indications of trust and sacrifice, but that shouldn't necessarily reflect any particular time or place in the real world.
Which brings me back to the subject at hand. Fans of Lord of The Rings and War of The Worlds have ALWAYS been concerned that it wouldn't be done properly; I'm talking about fans of the books. Fans often don't want to see ONE WORD changed from a favorite novel or series of books even when failing to make alterations in transitioning to film drastically impairs the flow of the film. Note: Most of the fans of the literature, however, were delightfully surprised by the outcome, and no one needs to read Tolkein's Ring's Trilogy in order to appreciate these fine films.
Peter Jackson respected the work while making necessary alterations, including the dropping of a well liked minor character, to keep the flow of the story moving. My point being that no one NEEDS to read a book before seeing the movie in order to appreciate the film interpretation; if they do, then the filmmaker has failed in his effort. OTOH, the true test of a classic film is how much of the original author's written word can make it's way into the film and still be true to that original work.
IMHO, Spielberg succeede with WoTW by re-envisioning and embellishing upon H. G. Well's classic tale, which is always a risk, but he somehow managed to do it without compromising the original work. The fact that you apparently dislike both LoTR and WoTW suggests to me that adult fantasy & SF isn't your cup of tea. Nothing wrong with that, but we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess.
AuPh
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
