In Reply to: War of the Worlds: posted by tinear on July 26, 2005 at 12:11:37:
a minor reason, anyhow.
The problem with WotW is there is no antagonist, except for overwhelming machines. And...there is no foil for Cruise. No one actor can carry an action film for that long, and Tom certainly can't. The movie is a one-trick pony which is fine for popcorn but, compared to The Terminator, for instance, it pales. Think of all the powerful characters in Terminator, their interractions, the orchestrated tensions, the complexity and number of scenes.
Now, WotW: monotonous "excitement" with extrordinarily repetitive scenes of slogging machines burning rays into exploding bodies.
When at last we see the creatures for a few moments, they look familiar, do nothing menacing, don't actually hurt a fly. They're inept, boring, and ineffective as plot devices.
Compare this to the wonderful acting ensemble in Jaws, Raiders, or Jurassic Park and realize how far Spielberg has fallen.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Lots seized on the women part of my commentary which was just - tinear 18:51:27 07/27/05 (2)
- I think SS was intentionally having us experience the invasion through the eyes of one person. - sjb 19:38:27 07/27/05 (1)
- Nah, we're both right and your reasons show it sucked more than I thought. nt - tinear 04:56:07 07/29/05 (0)