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.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- That may be - RGA 17:58:58 07/10/05 (11)
- You may be right -- I rarely go to such type movies... nt - clarkjohnsen 10:45:07 07/11/05 (7)
- Typical, ... - Audiophilander 10:57:12 07/11/05 (6)
- I was being conciliatory. You OTOH are your usual stodgy self. Desist. nt - clarkjohnsen 11:11:15 07/11/05 (5)
- I believe that, in your case, "being conciliatory" is a euphemism for flip-flopping. - Audiophilander 23:04:11 07/11/05 (4)
- Well at least you're not calling me a "chickensh*t" like in your original message. - clarkjohnsen 10:41:56 07/12/05 (3)
- Too close to bat guano, and we know for whom that's reserved. - Audiophilander 15:26:42 07/12/05 (2)
- NOTE BENE: This is the writer's fourth version of this particular post. Would someone please inform him... - clarkjohnsen 08:08:35 07/13/05 (1)
- "I hate reading drafts." - Don't worry about it, you're too old to be concerned about conscription. - Audiophilander 08:56:19 07/13/05 (0)
- Ummmm... - Audiophilander 22:56:58 07/10/05 (2)
- A film should stand ENTIRELY on its own merit! - RGA 11:44:44 07/11/05 (1)
- "If I read the book I would not need to see the film..." - It's a classic! I thought that everyone had read WoTW... - Audiophilander 17:01:02 07/11/05 (0)