Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Review

WAR OF THE WORLDS (2005) Review

You’re not ready for this. I can state that with absolute certainty.

This isn’t the warm fuzzy Spielberg that makes you feel all safe. This is DUEL Spielberg. I wouldn’t say JAWS cuz, frankly this film doesn’t have the “sense of fun” that JAWS had… That adventure feeling. DUEL wasn’t an adventure – it was a man desperately clinging to life – tormented for reasons beyond his ability to understand. It was unrelenting.

But there’s a kid. A cute one in WAR OF THE WORLDS – well that cute kid – she gets given the Christian Bale Shanghai Trauma. She’s a smart little kid, but she’s a little kid and she crawls into a dark place inside herself, and she will never be the same after her experiences here. So this isn’t ShortRound kid, this isn’t Smiley Joel Osment, this isn’t Elliott -- Remember the look on Brody’s kid’s face after he saw that man eaten by Bruce in JAWS? That, “I don’t think he’ll ever go in the water again” look? That sort of kid performance, where you believe that perhaps they drugged the kid, beat em with a rubber hose, shocked ‘em between takes, shot a puppy off camera… It’s that sort of thing.

It’s got Tom Cruise. Yeah, but who the hell is Tom Cruise these days. I mean, prior to this year I thought I had a handle on who Tom was. He was a perfect marketing machine, whose off screen life had him saving people from death, marrying beautiful stunning women and quietly being a part of Scientology. None of that matters to me though, cuz what keeps my interest with Tom is his choice in projects, roles and partners in the world of film. I like how Tom puts himself in Director’s hands and let’s them get what they need out of him. Lazy directors just go for the All-American Tom Cruise… Great directors like Crowe, Mann, Oliver Stone, P.T.A., Kubrick and now Spielberg… They tend to use Cruise counter to his mainstream image. Here… Cruise gives one of his absolute best performances.

Then there’s Spielberg… Steven hampered by a way too short shooting schedule and post time… Thrives like he hasn’t in Decades. In the past 20 years, Steven has made films I admire and like quite a bit. But I haven’t been AWED by Steven for an entire film – start to finish since probably CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. Yes, I know RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was in-between – but Raiders was never real… it was always filled with characters that didn’t live in my world, but the fantasy world of Serials and Popcorn fare. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS though… it devastated me. Dreyfus was 100% real to me. He lived in my time – in the seventies. He was a fun eccentric dad that’d take me to PINNOCHIO and GOOFY GOLF… Play with HO scale models and trains… The sort of dad that if he saw UFO’s would definitely come pick up the family to go see em too. But then the fanaticism took over, broke apart the family… and by the end… My jaw was just on the floor.

Well, I have to say – in Steven’s entire career he’s never made anything quite like this. It has the gut punch ouch of the raiding of the Ghetto in SCHINDLER’S LIST – I know that’s hard to imagine given this is a fictional story… but there’s imagery here… Imagery that I’ve only heard stories about. When 9/11 happened, my girl friend at the time lived in Queens – she still does. She told me stories of ash raining down – business papers falling from the sky… and the smell. Well, Spielberg isn’t doing THAT imagery – instead he plays this 100% real. When you see a Tripod unleash… when you see it do what it does – when you see the reactions it gets out of Tom and his two kids (Justin and Dakota) it sells it. This isn’t an awe film – it’s exactly what Steven set out to make, the American Survivors Tale. The Modern Holocaust. And it’s tougher than SCHINDLER’S… it’s more along the lines of THE PIANIST.

I love H.G. Wells’ book WAR OF THE WORLDS. Orson Welles’ radio broadcast of WAR OF THE WORLDS I love even more. George Pal’s WAR OF THE WORLDS, I love even more. BUT then there’s this. The adaptation of material has been exquisite. The beats are essentially similar – most to the Welles radio play. The result is a sense of immediacy, urgency and visceral power that I honestly feel you’ve never seen out of Steven. There was a 45 minute part of the film where I felt my bottom lip trembling and I was literally gripping my seat for a death grip. It was that intense.

That’s it for the spoiler free side of this. There’s some stuff that I want to discuss, simply because well – I am just dying to discuss things in even greater detail. So – beware of spoilers – and I really recommend that you do not read below this point. The more you can just sort of walk into this not knowing what to expect – the better. Trust me – just see it without seeking spoilers – you’re in for something extraordinarily special from Steven this time.

First – I’d like to tackle in greater detail Tom Cruise’s Ray Ferrier. For the first time in a billion years – Steven has a 100% real modern blue collar fella. Ray’s a prick, an arrogant overgrown child, he’s that guy that was the badass at High School sports – but not good enough to get a scholarship to go anywhere. I think he knocked up the High School Cheerleader (Miranda Otto) and she stuck with him… through his steel grip on his own myopic obsession with his lot in life. How fucked over he was by the weight of her and those kids. He probably blames them for not going to college, instead of his own shit grades. He doesn’t want the family car, he wants his Mustang, cuz it’s cool. His house is a single “boys with toys” residence… Engine taken apart in his kitchen, nothing in the fridge, house a total mess. He resents his kids, but I think he loves Miranda’s Mary.. and feels shame for not being able to be the man she’s currently married to. A successful “well-off” emotionally grounded man that provides everything he couldn’t begin to. And it pisses him off. He feels his ex-wife judges him, his kids judge him.

I completely buy Tom Cruise in this character. His ability to project a complete lack of empathy for most anyone, but himself and what’s his… He is INSTANTLY transformed by what he sees. He commits grand theft, is willing to commit vehicular homicide, he will use his gun on others, he thinks the worst of others, and that gives him the intellectual security to do what he will to others to ensure his survival and that of his kids. Anybody else is expendable.

Cruise’s performance is absolutely riveting. Mainly because he is so alive moment to moment in this film. He’s just had his world destroyed. He has no idea how to really handle any of this – his big plan is to get to his ex-wife, you get the idea that she saved his ass after so many mistakes and irresponsible snafus – that it isn’t funny – and I definitely have the idea that he’s lost without her. Lost in terms of organizing his life, crisis management and most importantly… in dealing with his kids. This really isn’t about a scene here or there that Cruise shines in – it’s just compelling throughout.

Dakota Fanning – supporting actress nominee possibility. She’s that good. Her freak-out in the car… her education of dad regarding Hummus and Peanut butter – great. But… The river, the blindfold, deuce coup, the basket and the look she gives Dad after. It’s just fantastic. At no point does it seem she isn’t in the situation she is in. 100% believable and heart-breaking. I’ve enjoyed her work in other films, but this is just another level altogether.

Justin Chatwin plays Tom Cruise’s son. He really dislikes his father, and with good reason. Most likely you’ve never seen him act before, unless you were a huge fan of SUPERBABIES: BABY GENIUSES 2, but Justin’s big breakthrough is in a film that Dreamworks is releasing later this summer called THE CHUMSCRUBBER. In that, Justin plays a real bastard of a kid – and here. Here he plays a kid outraged by what is going on. He’s disgusted to be “running away” – he still has that ridiculous notion of standing up and fighting these aliens. His sense of family is a bit off… at times he really seems to be a great big brother to Dakota – but Tom’s character has influenced Robbie more than he would like to admit. He’s just as self-centered, but he’s probably smarter than his father.

Overall the family unit on the run is incredibly believable and real. This is the most grounded in modern culture film that Spielberg has made in decades. The characters feeling absolutely alive and in the moment on screen. Really can not express that enough.

As for the Tripods. Absolute mutherfuckers. These things… Jesus. From the sound design to the visual effects work… They’re a nightmare. The sound of the energy beam, the fury and horror of its results. When it very first makes its appearance, and Tom is running for his life and people around him burst into ash that he runs through, being covered in. It’s a nightmare. Just a fucking nightmare. The look on his face when he’s home, he’s absolutely bug-fucked. You can see his entire mind and body shutting down. The only thing that snaps him too is the touch of his daughter and then looking in that mirror and seeing the ash of neighbors upon his skin. This is absolutely haunting. Brilliant work by Koepp, Spielberg and Cruise.

Now – I’m gonna discuss the ending. This movie ends as quickly as it starts. It is faithful to the book. Mankind is not responsible for its salvation. The end narration is in the closing words of the novel. Whether you believe it to be a religious conclusion or not – is up to you. Personally – if it was God, I don’t really accept that, cuz if there is a God, then these creatures are His creatures too. Rather, I believe the aliens rushed into something without fully thinking it through. In colonizing another world, how can one pretend to adequately analyze the billions of factors that could react to your existence. From people to sub-atomic items. I have always loved this ending, and it is absolutely the ending that HAS to be there.

The film is much closer to the source material than most would first think. The lightning as a distraction to the creatures arriving to occupy their machines already here. Even the things coming up from underground… ultimately the war machines come out of a crater. The people are witnessing a bizarre and curious activity that they have no frame of reference to. The Ray weapon in many ways is like the one in the book – but also combines aspects of the black gas in a way.

The main thing about this film is that this is absolutely amongst the very best Steven Spielberg films ever made. I am absolutely shook to the core by the film. This is a film with hardcore vintage sci-fi imagery given a power and weight that was inconceivable in its relevance to today. The film succeeds at the absolutely same level as Welles and Pal did. Perfect creations for the times they were made… and I believe it will resonate dramatically with today’s audiences.

This is the very best film I’ve seen this year.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • June 27, 2005, 6:20 a.m. CST

    I forgot...FIRST!!

    by Zombieflicker

    Good Review Harry... This movie is going to rock!!

  • June 27, 2005, 6:21 a.m. CST

    kingsley voiceover

    by sefsterJ

    Yes, but does it fast forward thousands and thousands of years at the end?

  • June 27, 2005, 6:23 a.m. CST

    GO SPIELBIE!

    by thx777b

    This whole WAR OF THE WORLDS radiance makes me feel 12 again. Flashback of me going blind with my best friend to watch JURRASIC PARK w/t our bikes!

  • June 27, 2005, 6:27 a.m. CST

    is this me...

    by tomdolan04

    "Imagery that I

  • June 27, 2005, 6:31 a.m. CST

    Still Not Interested

    by Nivek666

    Personally, Im sick of Alien Invasion movies, and since the Kong trailers on TV tonight, I have zero reason to see this flick in the theatre. Cruise burned me by stealing spotlight from Batman Begins with this TomKat crap,his Scientology Psychiatry Rants, and Im just flat out so, soo f'ing sick of looking at his face anymore, I dont think I can watch him for two hours. If this movie came out a couple years from now, I think I'd actually try to watch it, but Im so sick of Tom Cruise and Alien flicks, I concider this a big waste of time, I dont care who tells me its good.

  • June 27, 2005, 6:32 a.m. CST

    Wow of the Worlds...

    by darkm@tt

    Holy mothership of Speilberg... If Harry's got this right then I've found my film of the Summer!!

  • June 27, 2005, 6:45 a.m. CST

    There are times like now when I would like to accuse Harry of be

    by Rogue_Leader

    Let me guess Harry? They agreed to pay for extra advertising on your site or something? Sheeesh! I refuse to believe its that good. Better than Raiders of the Lost Ark? PLEASE!

  • June 27, 2005, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Rating?..

    by scrumdiddly

  • June 27, 2005, 7:12 a.m. CST

    Well, there goes my spoiler-free vow...

    by Tubbs Tattsyrup

    Damn you, Harry. Damn you. Oh well, I suppose I want to see it even more now...and to the people who can't get over Scientology: seriously, is it that hard to forget the real world for 2 hours and watch a SCI FI MOVIE? Jesus. You'd think the people around here would rather watch a movie than bitch about a guy, who is, after all, AN ACTOR, who actually MAKES MOVIES, which people go to SEE...see what I'm driving at? I'm going to see it, I'm going to plunk a big tubba popcorn on my lap and enjoy the show. From all accounts, planted or not, it looks great. And even if it isn't better than RAIDERS, hey - at least it's got Tripods, a John Williams score and a Scientologist to bitch about ;)

  • June 27, 2005, 7:14 a.m. CST

    It's PINOCCHIO not PINNOCHIO

    by DanteS2005

    Ok, i'm italian, Carlo Collodi (the author) was italian, and the novel is named PINOCCHIO. Please, show some respect.

  • You never do understand do you Harry...

  • June 27, 2005, 7:16 a.m. CST

    Rogue Leader

    by HEADGEEK

    I didn't say it was better than RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Raiders never existed in the same world as me. That film is a dream of another era and time. It was old fashioned filmmaking. And absolutely fantastic. But in many ways - RAIDERS isn't purely a Spielberg film - it's a hand in hand film with George Lucas and you can feel it and see it. The Indiana Jones films are not at all like any of Steven's other work. If you reread that paragraph, you'll see that I'm talking about the feeling of AWE. RAIDERS has one moment of pure awe, and that's the opening of the Ark. CLOSE ENCOUNTERS is absolutely a part of the world we live in. Those houses, those neighborhoods... Those parents. When the fantastic reaches our world - like it did in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS... you get the sense of AWE like there is in WAR OF THE WORLDS. The trailers for this film are completely showing you NOTHING from the film. NOTHING. You really have no idea about the iconography that Spielberg is set to unleash. There's no 100 mile wide spaceships. There's no spaceships. That isn't how this works. This is the very best "SPIELBERG" film since RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was released. And - it harkens back to the sense of real world touched by the fantastic of CLOSE ENCOUNTERS - but with the brutal intensity of DUEL. But - you'll see.

  • June 27, 2005, 7:16 a.m. CST

    The Garga's will be seeing this...

    by Mel Garga

    And all this talk about Duel has me itchin' for a Dennis Weaver comeback.

  • June 27, 2005, 7:18 a.m. CST

    CAPTAIN WALKER

    by HEADGEEK

    I saw the film with no conditions made by anyone. I don't see films with "conditions" that's my condition.

  • June 27, 2005, 7:19 a.m. CST

    DONT believe this review for a second!!

    by Dave33

    Come on!!The AICN guys were invited by Spielberg himself to the set of WOTW....do you think Harry would give a negative review??.Wait for Rottentomatoes.com for the REAL reviews!!

  • June 27, 2005, 7:36 a.m. CST

    I believe Harry's reviews for one reason.

    by Azlam Orlandu

    That reason being that he still goes to the movies without tearing them apart piece by piece and pre-judging them before he sees them. Harry still longs for the unexpected fun of not knowing what happens in a film before he sees it. Harry also takes the good with the bad and focuses on the good instead of nitpicking the bad. In all reality can you blame him? If some of you would focus more on what you liked instead of trying to beat down other peoples tastes and what you don't like you'd be happier, I guarantee it. You disagree? Great,I'm happy for you, but you know I'm right, deep down in your soul you feel it. I can't fucking wait for Wednesday! -Az

  • June 27, 2005, 7:40 a.m. CST

    This movie will suck.....

    by jollysleeve

    At first, I was looking forward to War of the Worlds. I thought it would be great. Then I heard that Tom Cruise was on Oprah and jumping on a couch. That indicated to me that maybe the movie had poorly directed action. Then I heard that Cruise was a Scientologist and that he got sprayed with water at the movie's Premiere. "Uh, oh," I said. This movie isn't sounding so good. Whenever someone gets sprayed with water, history has shown that the movie they're currently starring in has bad acting. Then the final straw: Tom Cruise went on the Today show, and I guess the interview went awkwardly. That was definite proof that War of the Worlds will be terrible...... Signed, AICN talkbacker # 2,890,500 who prides himself on what a rebellious non-conformist he is.

  • June 27, 2005, 7:44 a.m. CST

    Yeah, don't trust this review...

    by jollysleeve

    Harry says WOTW will kick ass, but don't believe it. Harry is completely unreliable. If he says it's good, it's proof that it's bad. And what about all those other reviews of WOTW, and how every single one praises this movie? Um, those are fake too. Yeah, and everyone who has seen the movie and loved it thus far are also unreliable. Yeah, this movie will suck, even though every indication is that it will kick ass.......... And when you go to the theater and actually see the movie and are blown away by it. Let me warn you: Don't trust your own reaction to the film. You are notoriously unreliable when it comes to your own opinion, and it's rumored that your aunt has ties to the movie industry so you are probably a plant.

  • June 27, 2005, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Sweet holy Jebus!!!

    by Fart_Master_Flex

    I can't WAIT for this friggin' movie. Personally I thought Minority Report was a masterpiece. So I don't think Spielberg has been slacking. If I dig this even half as much as I dug Minority Report, parents hide your kiddies because it will be boner city in the theater.

  • June 27, 2005, 7:54 a.m. CST

    I think this movie will be good, but that its reviews will annoy

    by FluffyUnbound

    Harry's review references 09/11, the Baltimore Sun review spends like half of its length referencing 09/11, and talking about how Spielberg is the first to integrate 09/11 imagery into entertainment, blah blah blah. That's ridiculous. Ron Moore did all of the stuff the Sun reviewer talks about in Battlestar Galactica. Referencing 09/11 is no longer original or daring. Judge the movie as the movie, and not because it breaks taboos that no longer exist.

  • June 27, 2005, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Neighbors' Ashes!

    by jollysleeve

    BTW, in case my earlier sarcasm wasn't obvious enough... I am so stoked to see this movie! You want to wait until the Rotten Tomatoes reviews, fine. But I can guarantee you right now that this puppy will be one fresh-as-hell tomato.

  • June 27, 2005, 7:58 a.m. CST

    Can't wait. Thanks, Harry.

    by viola123

    Man, I'm spoiled now majorly, but that's OK. Thanks for the review, Harry, and we'll all get to judge for ourselves in a few days. From the little we have seen, it does look like an excellent film. I'm not going to resist it. LOL. :)

  • June 27, 2005, 8 a.m. CST

    "my girl friend at the time lived in Queens

    by Mr. Profit

  • June 27, 2005, 8:03 a.m. CST

    WOTW

    by Duffer63

    Seeing this movie 2mo and I cant friggin wait. I know one person who has seen it and he didnt have high praise for it which did worry me slightly. I still cant wait. Its Spielberg. Its summer. Its huge and its starting to remind me of the anticapation I felt before going to see Jurrasic Park. Danny Huston for the Joker!

  • June 27, 2005, 8:08 a.m. CST

    I want to see this movie but the TomKat hype machine is a turn o

    by Mr. Profit

    I hope it's a good film, maybe I'll see it. I'll wait for RottenTomatoes.com, because Harry said that the Dead Reckoning kicked the Tumblers ass and when I saw the film, the Dead Reckoning was nothing more than the Jeepers Creepers truck with missiles and guns. I like this site, but it needs to drastically rethink the ways reviews are presented. The majority of the readership feel that all the reviews are plants. And this is due to vague reviews that only hype the positive of a film.

  • June 27, 2005, 8:09 a.m. CST

    thx77b nailed it

    by JackSkellington

    I get the same feeling. Most movies I go to now, even the ones I'm excited for, are still just movies. But this one, like Jurassic Park (and the feeling I had BEFORE I actually saw it) ID4, feels like it is bigger than me. This is an experience. One that will change cinema for a lot of people, the same way the suddenly electricity-free wires snapping did on that Costa Rican island eleven years ago did. I'm nervous to see New York crumble and excited as hell to watch it happen!

  • June 27, 2005, 8:14 a.m. CST

    Thanks for the spoiler warning....

    by sundancekeed

    I took your advice and stopped reading the review at the appropriate juncture. I've been straddling the fence on this film for months as to whether I really wanted to see it or not. The trailers really did little to get me interested. Awe-struck shots of terror are a dime a dozen and I was thinking that this looked pretty pedestrian. And based on your description of Batman Begins, which I absolutely loved, I think I'm gonna check this one out, Harry. If it REALLY is the Spielberg of Duel directing this, I have a feeling I'm going to love it. That movie actually scared me when I was a kid and I watched it with my parents and all the lights on. That flick still creeps me out and it's hard to believe that guy was the same one who directed E.T. I MISSED that guy. If he's really back, I hope he stays awhile. Tom Cruise, I can take or leave. I could care less about his love life or religion. Entertain me, Underwear Boy and we don't have a problem. I've liked Dakota Fanning in the things I've seen her in previously, even if she is a 40 year old midget.

  • ...Hey everybody, I'm first. Where's the Kong trailer? I don't have a fucking thing to say about War of the worlds, I've just been pressing "refresh" on the AICN homepage, waiting patiently till a new article comes up. I narrowly missed out on a few already in the last 24 hours, but dammit, I made it first onto this TB......which is good because I'm actually getting quite hungry; I've been sitting on my overweight ass the whole weekend waiting for this opportunity to come up. The only food I've eaten was the 18 inch pizza with a side order of chicken wings, which I persuaded the Pizza guy to post through my half-open window, so I didn't have to leave my PC for too long. Unfortunately, as I was arguing with him over the price, the Tigger article appeared - man was I bummed that I missed the chance to post "first" on that one. I thought I may have missed out on probably the greatest moment of my cold and empty life. But I've done it now, I've shown 'em all that I, the mighty InBloom, can be first on a talkback. So, what about that Kong trailer eh? I'd love to see that, although I really don't give a shit about War of the Worlds - Peter Jackson is clearly a more skilled and accomplished director than Spielberg anyway - who either makes boring war films or gay kids' films - not like Jackson's profound and thought-provoking take on Lord of teh Rings... hang on a minute!!! I'm not first, am I? in fact, I'm closer to 30th. Oh well, i'll think I'll quietly slide away from this talkback, and hope to god that nobody picks up on what an absolute fucking PRICK I am........

  • June 27, 2005, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Jollysleeve:

    by InBloom

    You, sir, are a comedy genius. I suggest we are like of mind, and should combine forces against the evil Powers of Imbecility!!!!

  • June 27, 2005, 8:31 a.m. CST

    I cant wait

    by Knight of Ni

    This movie could very well fullfill every expectation I have for a movie, namely, that of entertaining me.

  • June 27, 2005, 8:35 a.m. CST

    WOTW

    by Knight of Ni

    There has been so much hype for this movie, I am currently living in Spain and Tom Cruise recently made a visit here to promote it. In down town Madrid there is a 10 story high poster for WOTW blanketing one of the buildings, wrapped around the entire corner of the block. You just cant fight that kind of marketing. Let Wednesday arrive and fullfill my entertainment needs!

  • June 27, 2005, 8:38 a.m. CST

    I hate Spielberg.

    by Darksider

  • June 27, 2005, 8:43 a.m. CST

    so NO EMBARGO as long as it's a positive review

    by taquito man

    hehe

  • June 27, 2005, 8:47 a.m. CST

    i think this movie's gonna suck

    by dentity2000

    I donno man, I just don't trust this site anymore. I've been burned by this site more than ones, and because of that mistrust I have I will skip this movie and wait for DVD. I just don't. And jason, don't be a prick and return my fucking headset!

  • June 27, 2005, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Re: InBloom

    by jollysleeve

    Thanks, man. Same to you. Can't wait for this flick.

  • June 27, 2005, 8:57 a.m. CST

    I've seen WOTW....

    by bmsatter

    and it's pretty much like Harry said. Quite good.

  • June 27, 2005, 9 a.m. CST

    Big Bore

    by egelobird

    I'm so tired of alien flicks

  • June 27, 2005, 9:02 a.m. CST

    I am glad Spielberg is using "100% Real" Imagery instead of the

    by BurlIvesLeftNut

    You know because all that stuff from 9/11 was bull shit anyway, right? Harry, I love you man, but do you ever even read and try to understand what you write?

  • June 27, 2005, 9:02 a.m. CST

    Harry Knowles raped my childhood

    by Knight of Ni

    As long as I am being vocal, I have something to say to you talkbackers who are so negative about this site. Why is it that you continue to not only read it, but take the time to post negative comments on the talk backs? Is there no other place for you that is more to your liking? Granted I feel that there have been reviews I have not agreed with entirely, but if you really are getting burned so bad all the time, then one would think that you would have the sense to back away from what you perceive as fire. As it happens, I enjoy reading the reviews here at AICN, but if I did not, I would not come back and continue to read them. I am not saying that you have to agree with the review to post, I am more concerned with the talkbackers who repeatedly bash the entire site. Get a life more to your liking.

  • June 27, 2005, 9:10 a.m. CST

    Harry lost me at....

    by CyberBeavis1326

    The point he said he had a girlfriend in Queens. If you actually believe that, then you're a fool to believe anything he reviews. Harry's reviews are spotty at best. This is a fake review, cause he doesn't have sexual metaphors or other jumbled up wording that would confuse a normal person. Thus this review is either faked or planted.

  • June 27, 2005, 9:13 a.m. CST

    How come whenever a movie shows people dying it's automatica

    by performingmonkey

    Get over yourself people. As I have said previously, a lot of people will be frightened by this movie because of what America has become - a nation where many crazily think that something like WotW could happen to THEM at any moment, even though it's fucking fiction. Sure, 9/11 was anything but fiction, but you have to thank the Bush administration for milking the attacks for all they were worth, and getting much of America in a freaky fear-driven vice grip. Anyway...just because a movie shows 'ordinary' people running away from destruction or being killed, doesn't mean that it's referencing the horror of that day. As far as I'm aware, there were no tripods or alien ray beams involved in the 9/11 attacks (well, some of the more liberal-minded conspiracy theorists might think otherwise...). Maybe when someone makes a movie where terrorists fly planes into buildings then you can say it's a 9/11 reference. Just because a movie reminds you of something, whether you were directly involved in that something or not, doesn't mean to say it's literally going out to reference it. IMO Lucas DID deliberately reference 9/11 in Revenge of the Sith with the smoking Jedi temple. The shot seemed similar to various distant shots of Manhatten on that day when the towers were smoking. IMO Lucas shouldn't have done that because, in a way, it forever links that shot to 9/11, when Star Wars shouldn't be connected to the real world in such a way.

  • June 27, 2005, 9:15 a.m. CST

    this sounds like his review for Armageddon

    by egelobird

    now I'm worried about this flick

  • June 27, 2005, 9:19 a.m. CST

    by DancingBear

    BurlIvesLeftNut pointed out possibly the most curious thing I've read in one of Harry's reviews yet, aside from the cum-fest firecrotch orgy that was his review of Blade 2... "Imagery that I

  • June 27, 2005, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Knight of Ni

    by Azlam Orlandu

    Amen! -Az

  • June 27, 2005, 9:30 a.m. CST

    Azlam -?

    by OptimusPrimeTime

    "He still goes to the movies without tearing them apart piece by piece and pre-judging them before he sees them." Is this some over-reaching attempt at sarcasm, or have you just not seen any of Harry's comments on Fantastic Four. It's not /his/ perfect, ideal FF - including a Hell's Kitchen that isn't gritty enough - so Harry's priming the geek army to hate the movie, and I already know his review will be in that vein. For the record, I don't expect FF to be the be-all and end-all in cinematography, but I'm expecting it to be a decent popcorn flick. (And Harry....were the aliens sufficient to fill the 'hollywood monster' quotient, or does this film need werewolves too?)

  • June 27, 2005, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Right on BurlIves

    by Banky the Hack

    I was just about to post the same damn thing...

  • June 27, 2005, 9:36 a.m. CST

    No Spielberg movie gripped me as much as Duel

    by theoneofblood

    Man, that movie was flat-out awesome. My gut was knotted into a steel ball. The sound of that truck, the way it just kept coming and coming... too kickass. I'm gonna go watch it again.

  • June 27, 2005, 9:37 a.m. CST

    I can't imagine being scared by Duel.

    by Omegaman

    I thought it was funny. I laughed the whole way through that movie. The Dennis Weaver character is so funny, its funny watching him being terrorized lol. I dunno why, I think you call it schadenfruede, however you spell it. But I love that movie, one of my favorites, one of Spielberg's best imo. I doubt Im gonna be laughing through War of the Worlds though from the way it sounds heh. It sounds like maybe Spielberg made it a little TOO serious? Im not sure if Im going ot like a holocaust sci-fi horror flick. But then again, if the Dakota Fanning character gets terrorized that could be fun to watch heh. Cruise too.

  • June 27, 2005, 9:40 a.m. CST

    OptimusPrimeTime

    by Azlam Orlandu

    What people say and what they do. I never claimed Harry to be a person who is consistent at making the connection. My opinion of Harry is derrived from many of his writings. I may be wrong, but we all speak from our own perceptions of things. -Az

  • June 27, 2005, 9:52 a.m. CST

    Why is it always 9/11? Well...

    by Bones

    That was the last major attack on American native soil--so that is the closest reference that American reviewers had. The debris, the confusing and misleading reports, the panic--this is what people are talking about. My brother worked for the Justice Department in DC on that day, while I was stuck in San Diego...and there were erronious reports of various attacks on the entire city...that sense of panic is what I personally get from 9/11 and then the imagery and the tremendous sense of loss and anger at the deaths. Everyone else feels it in a different way. If you are in Europe, you have one the various bombings in the last 20 years, or World War II...I think Spielberg is talented enough to create something that will work by drudging up the sudiences personal fears. And as a side note--Adrian Brody as the Joker.

  • June 27, 2005, 9:57 a.m. CST

    "Ray’s a prick, an arrogant overgrown child"

    by sith-vol

    So for the most part....Tom Cruise is playing himself.

  • June 27, 2005, 10 a.m. CST

    WTF? that should say: "Ray IS"

    by sith-vol

    dont know where Ray’s came from...at any rate I hope this is good, I'd really like to see a good take on this story but all bets are off till I see it.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Already I'm sick of this movie..

    by pizzafling

    Its like every other disaster alien f/x movies recycled over and over, I'm just sick of it, god damit why do we always have to destroy the world. And to the post above, that's a good one. :)

  • June 27, 2005, 10:30 a.m. CST

    "This isn

    by Riccardogogo

    Cringe. Quick Poll: As a journalist, Do you ever consider comparing a stupid piece of fluff like War of the Worlds with the Holocaust to be: A) Deeply offensive B) A Worthless analogy C) A quote that they will never, ever put on a poster D) I don't think, Logorrhea E) A thoroughly apt comparison; 'cause like Tom cruise is fighting Tripods IN A FILM, and erm the other thing was over 6 million people dying IN REAL LIFE! Pratt

  • June 27, 2005, 10:40 a.m. CST

    Harry, you're supposed to talk about what you did in the 24

    by Forestal

  • June 27, 2005, 10:46 a.m. CST

    Riccardogogo, that's silly.

    by FluffyUnbound

    People compare fictional material to actual tragedies all the time. Jesus, Arendt and Sontag made fucking careers out of it. God knows how many PhD's out there were handed out for theses that relate the Holocaust to Euripides or old episodes of Star Trek to the Cold War or Vietnam.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:47 a.m. CST

    Rediculous!!!

    by matticus

    Many of you are just plain rediculous! Now that all these rave reviews are out all you can say is "I'm sick of alien movies." Are you sick of superhero movies too? There have been many more of those recently. Quit copping out. If you're sick of alien movies then quit talking about them in these TB forums!!! Idiots, gosh!

  • June 27, 2005, 10:51 a.m. CST

    what the F*CK does it take to get some of you morons interested

    by Captain Katanga

    I mean JESUS, to the people on here saying "still not interested" or the people just saying it will suck, seriously, just stop visiting this site, stop watching films altogether. I can understand if this simply isnt your thing, but to write it off without having seen it... FUCK, its just so fucking DUMB. I mean surely most of us grew up loving films like this, loving spielbergs early work? This sounds at the very LEAST a thoroughly entertaining film. SO, please, leave this talkback and go and watch Derek Jarman's "Blue" or Peter Greenaway's "the Pillow Book" and DONT COME BACK.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:52 a.m. CST

    See it first, you numbskulls!

    by matticus

    How are you "already sick of this movie"? No, it is not like every other disaster flick and many reviews have pointed that out. This is a legend (Spielberg) at his best. You should appreciate it while it lasts. A filmmaker of this much talent is rare and you should fricking enjoy it while it lasts ... numbskulls

  • June 27, 2005, 10:52 a.m. CST

    I'm actually thinking for the first time that Tom Cruise&#39

    by Film Whisperer

    A week ago, I would've said "no way", but after his most recent narcissitic rant on the TODAY SHOW, I hear many people saying they've finally had it and can't separate the man from the role (surely the death knell for a movie star). While the bo will be big, the expectations are so sky high that anything less than second to SITH will be considered a disaster.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Thank you Captain Kantanga

    by matticus

    That is exactly what I'm trying to say.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:54 a.m. CST

    I live in NYC, was fortunate enough to live through 9/11. If mem

    by Mr. Profit

    Unless Harry's GF was in Lower Manhattan then the scene she described was the sanitized version anyone could have seen on Television. There wasn't only ash and papers flying, but body parts, fire, and smoke. 9/11 was a scary moment in time. I was only born in 81, so the only thing that was bad that I saw before that was how crack came into the neighboorhoods and destroyed almost everyone and everything. My point? Don't trivialize 9/11 by saying a filmmaker like Spielberg made a fucking work of fiction like War of the Worlds look realistic like 9/11. Nothing can compare. Aliens did not attack us. It's annoying when people who were nowhere near NYC have these fake stories about how their grandmothers sisters nephew's dog Patches was a rescue dog in Tower 2. It's insulting. Just review the film and give the good points about it. No one trust reviews here anymore. I'm sure that Quint, Mori, and everyone else will say this film is the best film of the last 15 years. Come on, be real. It isn't hard.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:55 a.m. CST

    I knew it!

    by Legolars

    Thanks Harry for confirming for me that this is going to be the best summer movie of the year. Hell, I haven't looked forward to a film like this since Fellowship of the Ring. I have been living and breathing this film for months now. The best things of Revenge of the Sith was the teaser for War of the Worlds in front of it. I got my tickets and I'll be there on Wednesday!

  • June 27, 2005, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Oliver Stone A great director?

    by Krigan

    Ha Ha, Thats a new one.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Why all the negativity?

    by Croweyes1121

    I just have to ask a question. As a longtime lurker here on the boards and a first time poster, I really don't understand the overabundance of hostility toward Harry. In general, I find his reviews to be highly entertaining. I say entertaining because that's what I look for in a review. Entertainment. If I'm reading a review for a film, I've most likely already made up my mind to see the film. Otherwise, I wouldn't be interested enough to read the review in the first place. I think most people here would agree if they're honest with themselves. I mean, if Harry's review said this movie absolutely stunk, would any of us really not go to see it? People don't read reviews to determine whether they're going to go see a movie any more than they buy Leonard Maltin's movie guide to see what they ought to think about movies they've already seen. We read reviews to backup good vibes we feel toward an impending flick. We disregard the bad reviews that don't jive with that preformed opinion unless there's an overall concensus that forces us to decide whether the film is actually worth seeing. One review one way or the other isn't enough of a deterrant. And it shouldn't be. Which brings me to my other question. Why doesn't everyone always feel the need to slam every one of Harry's reviews and call him a plant. I mean, Jesus, it's a wonder the man has the self-confidence to even post these things anymore. All I ever read about his stuff is what a hack he is and how much of a whore for the studios he is. If you really believe that, folks, stop reading his reviews every time they're posted. Also, why this constant need by so many people on here to believe that every movie is going to suck before it even gets a release? I am sick to death of people who frequent movie-based web sites and who obviously have no passion for films anymore short of predicting how terrible they're going to be. Personally, I was here reading this review and reading these boards because I still LIKE movies and I actually want to SEE "War Of The Worlds". It's really easy to sit there and call the movie a festering turd when you haven't seen it yet, probably because Spielberg is directing and Cruise is starring. Forget that it may still be a great movie regardless, even for those of you who don't like those two guys. There are always exceptions. I hate people who have preconceived notions about everything. It is more than being closed-minded. It's believing that movies are going to suck based on nothing more than wanting to sound smart later when and if people are let down by the flick. Problem is, all it does is create contempt for the trollers out there like you who can find nothing better to do than trash an art form that people like me - and I know there are more folks like me out there - love and continue to be excited by despite all you naysayers. I'm going to hope that this movie rocks until I see it for myself and then I'll make up my own mind. I certainly won't allow you people to do it for me. Not any more than I plan on letting Hary do it for me. But at least Harry still gets excited about films. And plant or not, he gets me excited about them, too. That's why I'm here. That's why I read. And that's why I'm sick of you people.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Guy Fawkes

    by matticus

    Many actors have these kooky lifestyles there are just not brought out in the open. That's some bad PR by Tom's sister. I'm sure I wouldn't like most of the actors out there as people because of their estranged lifestyles, but that doesn't mean they're bad actors. That doesn't mean I cannot enjoy their movies.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:57 a.m. CST

    LOL, jollysleeve, nice posts man! Thx for the spoiler warning in

    by CurryIce

    'cause i haven't seen it yet and it sounds a little bit out of place BUT you got me with "This is DUEL Spielberg".

  • June 27, 2005, 11:11 a.m. CST

    About Scientology Tom

    by matticus

    You can still enojy him in this film because of the role he has. Like Harry says, most directors use him as the "All-American Guy", but the best directors use him to contradict that image. That's what Spielberg does here. Tom's playing a dick of a guy. Tell me now, who could better play that role than Tom, lol. Seriously though, Spielberg knows how to use Cruise.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:12 a.m. CST

    What was the last big movie that you didnt like?

    by AlwaysThere

    Because I certainly dont remember reading a negative review for a "big" movie in a long time.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:18 a.m. CST

    And stop lumping all TBackers together. Just because I said I am

    by Mr. Profit

    I am going to see the Fantastic Four eventhough I heard nothing but shit about it. But hey it may surprise me. The only reason I am not open to WOTW anymore is because of 1) TomKat 2) I disliked AI and Minority Report 3) Tom Cruise, a man who I once respected, and who not even a year ago made a kick ass movie (Colleteral) is acting like a fucking loco now.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:18 a.m. CST

    I take your point Fluffy, But....

    by Riccardogogo

    Surely you understand that there is a significant difference between Susan Sontag performing an academic deconstruction of a cultural text, and a journalist who just lazily throws the Holocaust into a review of a blockbuster. Similarly, a handful of undergraduate students reading the post-911 subtext of Terminator 3 does not a convincing argument make. Besides, if you must go down that route, surely

  • June 27, 2005, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Scorsese used Tom as a dick a loooong time ago. The Color of Mo

    by HypeEndsHere

    also, I have absolutely NO opinion of this film. BUT! Croweyes, I wasn't sure if I wanted to see Land of the Dead. I saw it based on 3 raves on this sight. "Fucking A he did", "He knocked it out of the park.", etcetera. so if you'll excuse me, i've got $8.50 worth of venting to do.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:25 a.m. CST

    site.

    by HypeEndsHere

    thank you.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Color of Money

    by Darth Busey

    This is a great film, that I find myself watching a couple of times a year. Cruise's character even out-assholes Eddie Felson, who was one of the original asshole characters in "The Hustler".

  • June 27, 2005, 11:34 a.m. CST

    H.G. Wells and colonialism

    by Film Whisperer

    Actually, didn't Wells write WOW as a critique of British colonialism? Spielberg's entire career has been built on paranoia (even 1941) and fear of the unknown. This isn't all that unusual a story choice.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:40 a.m. CST

    Who gives a shit about Tom Cruise and his personal life?

    by I Dunno

    Most celebrities are douchebags. That has nothing to do with their performances or the film itself. I can't believe people are saying things like, "well it looks like shit but I'll see it anyway" concerning Fantastic Four and are being stubbornly negative about this film, that so far ha sgood word of mouth. And what film geek is tired of alien invasion movies? Nevermind the fact that I can't even think of an alien invasion movie since ID4. Signs doesn't count.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:40 a.m. CST

    I've been dreaming about this movie. I cannot wait any longe

    by Proman1984

    I know I won't be let down. This movie will rule.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Isn't a "cool" fanboy movie I guess

    by BigTuna

    I laugh at people saying this film won't do well. It's going to be a fucking massive hit. You can all go ga-ga over Land of the Dead, but the general public wants to see "'splosions" and will see WOTW in droves while you people whine about Tom Cruise.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:45 a.m. CST

    WOTW interview with German newspaper

    by gobofraggleuk

    Please read this interview: http://tinyurl.com/9tnyz

  • June 27, 2005, 11:51 a.m. CST

    HG WELLS WROTE WOTW NOT SPIELBERG

    by Greenflame

    Sounds just like any other alien invasion story set in America. iF Spielberg had any respect for HG wells story he wouldn't have made this travesty.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:53 a.m. CST

    The Fantastic Four doesn't look like shit. But people are sa

    by Mr. Profit

    And I don't care about celebs personal lives, I could really give a fuck, but I dont like a person shoved down our throats. I have seen far too much of Tom Cruise since April. I was ready to see this film but I am suffering from TomKat fatigue and I'm sure the American public is feeling the same way. That doesn't mean WOTW will flop. If a weak film like The Day After Tomorrow made mad money last year, WOTW will make a fucking killing domestically and will also destroy the international box office. It's not that the movie isn't "Cool". The reason people are complaining is the media hype, the underwhelming trailer, and the way reviews are posted on this website.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:54 a.m. CST

    decent review, I'm fired up to see the movie...

    by TV CASUALTY

    ... and a much better effort than your Land of the Dead review. But every time you called Spielberg "Steven", I cringed. It makes you sound like a pretentious, name dropping dick.

  • June 27, 2005, 11:59 a.m. CST

    So What You're Saying Greenflame...

    by Rebeck

    Is you want to see England destroyed and nothing else is worth your time. OK. Hey, it's good to know even sci-fi geeks are jingoistic. Anyway, didn't Danny Boyle do that a couple years ago?

  • June 27, 2005, 12:03 p.m. CST

    I just don't know...

    by winemonkey

    ...is it worth not only paying for a ticket to see it, but paying for a babysitter to watch the boy while we go? Harry makes it sound like a life changing experience, but something just doesn't quite ring true about that review. I have always been a WotW fan (thanks to my dad) so I should be gagging for this, but I find myself feeling a bit cold. Am I blockbustered out? Or is it that, despite all my best efforts not to let personality get in the way, I am finding Tom Cruise waaaaay too freaky right now? These are just musings, but I really am surprised that I'm not more excited about this film.

  • June 27, 2005, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Mr Profit, what is your connection to the FF production?

    by FluffyUnbound

    I ask this for two reasons: First, because you seem to go out of your way to defend it against accusations that it looks like fucking pig excrement, which, of course, it does. Second, because you're so angry at Harry for not cutting the shitty FF production any slack, that you're going out of your way to attack the films that he DOES like out of what appears to be a weird type of spite. So, what, were you a PA or something?

  • June 27, 2005, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Hey Fluffy, Im not connected to it at all. I am not even defendi

    by Mr. Profit

    If I were connected to a film and worked in Hollywood I wouldn't be on AICN chilling in a talkback. I am actually a Benefits Administrator in an HR department in NYC. I am not attacking him, I am just suspect of his reviews. Van Helsing, Blade 2, The Matrix Reloaded, Land of the Dead. The only thing we have agreed on was Batman. He was and was everyone negative about FF and I was just pointing that out. And hey that film could be crap too. I wont know until I see it Wednesday at a sneak preview.

  • June 27, 2005, 12:14 p.m. CST

    And Fluffy, I am not the only one disagreeing with Harry. And at

    by Mr. Profit

    That isn't cool. What I am saying is be fair, be objective, and don't jizz about one movie and unfairly treat another like crud. When did the internet become like Fox News where one person says one thing and everyone blindly agrees and posts everywhere about how great something is?

  • June 27, 2005, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Mr. Profit

    by matticus

    "That isn't cool. What I am saying is be fair, be objective, and don't jizz about one movie and unfairly treat another like crud. When did the internet become like Fox News where one person says one thing and everyone blindly agrees and posts everywhere about how great something is?" Wait, isn't that exactly what you are doing in reverse? I see a lot more people disregarding any bad FF reactions, than trying to dismerit the good feedback for WotW.

  • June 27, 2005, 12:26 p.m. CST

    All I'm saying ...

    by matticus

    is see the damn movie before you bash it. That is why these comments are stupid. I want someone to see it first, and back up their negative opinions with points from the movie.

  • June 27, 2005, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Matticus

    by Mr. Profit

    If you re-read any of my posts here in this talkback, check to see if I said anything negative about WOTW. I only said I was less enthused to see it. I also did say that the film was going to make money. My only gripe was the way the review was presented and the track record of the reviewer. Either way I am still going to wait for what Rottentomates has to say. Again, I don't bash shit before I see it, unless Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan are involved.

  • June 27, 2005, 12:30 p.m. CST

    A more honest review from Howard Stern...

    by JohnnyTremaine

    ...who basically said that it's a pretty good flick with a not so good ending. No hyperbole included in his opinion. WOTW sounds like a rental. Wal Mart will probably sell this for $16 in December. I can wait.

  • June 27, 2005, 12:31 p.m. CST

    fair enough ...

    by matticus

    but yet there are still bashers ... I am not bashing FF before I see it either, I am just "less enthused to see it." I do see much more potential in WotW though... but that's just my opinion.

  • June 27, 2005, 12:39 p.m. CST

    No problem, Profit. My bad.

    by FluffyUnbound

    There have been those who have gotten angry at Harry for negative coverage of some beloved project and have gone off in response. I was getting that vibe from you but I guess it's all in my head. // By the way, to the person who says they're blockbustered out - I understand the sentiment. I think part of the problem is that there are a handful of blockbuster directors and a handful of blockbuster stars and the studios keep just shuffling their head shots and giving them to us in different combinations. Director careers and star careers are lasting too long these days. After this year, I hope Cruise is done, for example. 20 years of Cruise is enough. Spielberg should spend some time making console games or something, too. Spielberg, Cruise, Tom Hanks, Roland Emmerich, Nicole Kidman, Wolfgang Petersen, Brad Pitt, Renee Zellwegger, George Lucas, Harrison Ford, Oliver Stone, Will Smith, and Scorcese should all take five years off and collaborate on one gigantic unbelievable console game. Give the audience time to cleanse its palette with someone new. // That's right, bitches, I included Scorcese in there. I've Big Picture Scorcese'd out.

  • June 27, 2005, 12:43 p.m. CST

    "Smiley Joel Osment"

    by johnny5alive

    Not sure I've ever seen that kid in a movie, Harry. Where might I find him?

  • June 27, 2005, 12:44 p.m. CST

    about the Howard Stern comment

    by matticus

    I don't really hold any of his opinions on movies with relevance... but, he even said "really good movie, the ending kinda sucked but by then you don't even care." That doesn't sound like rental material to me.

  • June 27, 2005, 12:47 p.m. CST

    Well put me in a fat suit and call me Ron Jeremy

    by Fred

    I was expecting Harry's review of this film to have an over/under of at least 50 on the use of the word "metaphor".

  • June 27, 2005, 12:48 p.m. CST

    9/11 Get Over It

    by Harker-Writes

    Not everything has to relate to 9/11. Geez the US gets its kicked once and can never forget it. Best way not to get your ass kicked is to stop kicking other peoples.

  • June 27, 2005, 12:49 p.m. CST

    And another thing!

    by johnny5alive

    "I know RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK was in-between

  • June 27, 2005, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Harker

    by HypeEndsHere

    The employees working in the towers attacked no one. Fuck you you runny cunt. Sincerely, a resident of Brooklyn, NY.

  • June 27, 2005, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Harker-Writes

    by Rebeck

    Oh great, now the Anti-American assholes are all going to chime in. Shut the fuck up. They can't see the irony that they're hanging around an American website (yes, there's such a thing dipshits - there's plenty of room in cyberspace so if you hate us so much why are you here??) and clearly fascinated by US movies. I'm so tired of it. And I'm a fucking liberal who hates Bush!!! I'm so sick of these fucking holier-than-thou (usually British - sorry cousins, it's true) assholes who come on here and lecture us on our country when we're here to talk about MOVIES! Shut...the...fuck...up.

  • June 27, 2005, 1:16 p.m. CST

    ENGLAND DESTROYED

    by Greenflame

    What I'm saying Rebeck is that this would have been far more interesting had it been done like the book with the Victorian England setting. The aliens invade America thing has been done to death. i like films like Mars attacks, ID4 plus loads of others but this just leaves me cold as i'm sure it does other HG wells fans. The only ones being jingoistic are Cruise and Spielberg and that's coming from a Yank who lives in Britain.

  • June 27, 2005, 1:19 p.m. CST

    Ah, relax about the Stern comment. I know he's only a goofb

    by JohnnyTremaine

    I just meant that I liked hearing a review without a lot of hyperbole and the last place I thought I'd hear one was on Stern's show. Everyone that's upset, just relax; WOTW is still only a silly sci fi summmer movie made by a great director and starring a kooky, narcissistic movie star. Nothing more, nothing less.

  • June 27, 2005, 1:24 p.m. CST

    Well, I Disagree

    by Rebeck

    I think Victorian England has been done to death over the years. Many period stories have been made contemporary over the years, I don't see the big deal - including of course the George Pal film back in '53 or whatever. And you haven't even seen it yet, how do you know how effective it is? Besides which I think it's used in much the same way and in the same spirit Wells wrote it originally, as a critique of any kind of colonialism and imperialism. That's a CRITIQUE of American foreign policy, not a rah-rah cheerleading fest. Get your shit straight and maybe see the movie first before you get all outraged. "Mars Attacks" was a piece of shit - coincidentally written by a Brit. Maybe your new friends have made you a self-hating Yank to the point you can't enjoy a summer popcorn flick.

  • June 27, 2005, 1:29 p.m. CST

    inbloom

    by Bubastis

    Man, have you really nothing better to do than gripe about first posters? Seemingly not. You fucking suck. Either add something worthwhile, or fuck off. Me, i cant wait for wotw. And for once, i'm staying spoiler-free, so i'll read this review in full in a weeks time. But i sense a positive tone from harry, so that cant be bad... usually.

  • June 27, 2005, 1:53 p.m. CST

    I would kill Tom Cruise if it meant.....

    by Doc_Strange

    me and Brooke Shields could spend the rest of our lives together in the Blue Lagoon, ahhhh.

  • June 27, 2005, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Yeah, It's Either-Or...

    by Rebeck

    All civilization is clearly going to stop for the Live 8 concert. Nothing will happen on Earth while every human being sits in front of the tube, mouth agape, waiting for A-ha to come on. Whatever, dude. Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing Geldof is doing - but I don't see how it relates.

  • June 27, 2005, 2:05 p.m. CST

    ENGLAND DESTROYED PART TWO

    by Greenflame

    Rebeck since when has Victorian England been done to death. can you name me one alien invasion story set in England apart from Wells original story? Which has never been made into a big screen film. Wells was the one who wrote the original War of the worlds and it's about time some film company gave us a big bucks version of the story on the big screen. I ain't no self hating yank as you put it i'm a HG wells fan who wants to see the story done properly. Also I can almost guarantee you that this film is a pro war flick pretending to be anti war. Check out the insurgent, sleeper cell and other war on terror references. Subtle programming for the American people.

  • June 27, 2005, 2:16 p.m. CST

    So Subtle That Only You Get It Evidently

    by Rebeck

    That smacks of HUAC claiming that socially conscious films of the 50's were promoting a communist agenda. Pul-eeeeze. And while Victorian England has not been "invaded", it has had the first and most famous serial killer and a time machine (later used by the author himself) and the #1 vampire and the world's greatest detective and on and on and on. I think Victorian England has been pretty well-represented, even outside of Merchant-Ivory. Besides, isn't there another version on DVD right now, set in those times? Why aren't you happy with that? I hear it pretty much sucks, but at least it's faithful, right?

  • June 27, 2005, 2:17 p.m. CST

    Another great review for a film that allowed an AICN set visit

    by MikeCSVU

    Funny how any movie that AICN get to do an ass licking set visit to can guarantee a slavering review.

  • June 27, 2005, 2:19 p.m. CST

    Greenflame

    by Ingeld

    Have you seen "Five Million Miles to Earth" aka "Quartermass and the Pit." It was more or less an alien invasion story set in London. Not bad for its time. Also this years there was a low budget production of WOTW that was true to the time and setting of the book. While I am a fan of the book, it makes sense to me to reset it into whatever time period is contemporary with the movie. Well's important themes concerning the vulnerability of our civilization seems more relevant. The horror of seeing our civilization destroyed is lessened and distanced if the invasion is set over a hundred years ago.

  • June 27, 2005, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Harry once again makes a cock of himself

    by Kamikaze_Jones

    Harry, stop writing reviews. Just...stop. Let somebody else be in charge of that. Because you're so full of hyperbole and ridiculous overstatement with EVERY FUCKING REVIEW that you're making our boy Neil Cumpston look like a better reviewer. I mean, there's certain instances when its okay to say a movie was incredibly awesome, but you're the kind of guy who likes a movie in a moment, so he goes, "Yeah, Van Helsing is truly more perfect than God!" I'll wait for Quint or Moriarty, who I trust miles beyond Lunchbox here...

  • June 27, 2005, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Spielberg

    by Mafu

    Thanks for the review, Harry. I hope I feel the same intensity you did when I see "War of the Worlds." I stoppped reading your review after I read "Spoiler alert," though, since I want to know as little as possible about this movie when I sit down in the theater. Regarding the Holocaust and Steven Spielberg, I'm glad he's dealing with this material and using his feelings about it in recent work. I mean, humans have committed genocide and mass murder many times throughout recorded history, so why not examine the impact of such events on individuals and society? "Why We Fight," the episode of "Band of Brothers" in which the 101st Airborne discovers a concentration camp, is one of the most harrowing, heart-breaking film stories I've ever seen. Spielberg isn't evoking the Holocaust in his recent work becase he wants to be "taken seriously," he's doing it because 1) he's Jewish, and I'm sure he connects his existence -- at least in part -- to events that transpired in WWII, 2) he was moved by the survivors' stories, and 3) despite many people's attempts to prove otherwise, the Holocaust happened. The stories of people who survived the Holcaust are intense, horrifying, yet deeply human and in many cases filled with hope for the future. Not in some cotton candy, melodramatic way, but in a deeply felt sense that people can live through the worst oppression imaginable, watching friends and family members murdered in ovens and gas chambers on a daily basis, hoping against hope that someone somewhere the world cares enough to save them way. Most of you know all this; the stories and accounts of survivors are well-documented. But in recent films and miniseries, Spielberg has tapped into the drama of these stories, incorporating it into films he's directed or produced for television and the big screen. Many directors shy away from such intense material, opting to direct less harrowing screen tales, but Spielberg seems like he's come to embrace it. I applaud him for this. "Schindler's List" was a well-made film, in my opinion, but I felt it was only a prelude to stories like "Why We Fight." In addition, Spielberg helped found the Shoah Foundation, a non-profit organization that gathers and presents Holocaust survivor stories in order to promote tolerance in all areas of the world. Spielberg's put his money where his mouth is, and I'm sure he's been deeply affected by the shit he's seen and heard. I'm sure all his experiences played a part in his vision for "War of the Worlds." I'm excited to see this film.

  • You Did it with the new batman movie and with Spielberg's new movie. First of The new batman movie won't evan come close to making as much money as the first one did.And thats with ticket inflation. Second To sit here and tell us that Spielberg's new movie is so great and he has yet to really do anything recent that is just as good is insane. You have Lost all respect when it comes down to reviewing movies.

  • June 27, 2005, 2:32 p.m. CST

    ENGLAND DESTROYED PART 3

    by Greenflame

    Victorian England might well have been represented in other types of films Rebeck but there's never been an alien invasion film set in Victorian England. also Ingeld I ment to say an alien invasion film set in 'Victorian England' and not just England so I'm not talking about films like Quatermass etc. the straight to dvd Pendragon pictures film is a joke and most Wells fans have been slating it so no, i'm not happy with that either.

  • June 27, 2005, 2:43 p.m. CST

    quatermass and the pit - alien gold!

    by winemonkey

    Makes me laugh from start to finish. Love it. And to the US/ England debaters - chill. We saw Big Ben get destroyed in Dr Who so we know what it looks like. Setting this tale the other side of the pond isn't like claiming it was a group of Americans who found the Enigma machine. That screwed up some history papers over here guys, and that would be funny if it wasn't true.

  • June 27, 2005, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Wow someone at Cruises age actually has a kid this old in a film

    by The Founder

  • June 27, 2005, 2:50 p.m. CST

    Day of the Triffeds(sp) was set in England

    by JUSTICE41

    Dr Who?

  • June 27, 2005, 2:55 p.m. CST

    Queens, Harry?

    by fiester

    Your "girlfriend" lives in Queens now? Whatever happened to telling everyone she lived in Niagra Falls?

  • June 27, 2005, 2:56 p.m. CST

    Did You See...

    by Rebeck

    The British film on the Enigma story? Boy that was exciting stuff. Not at all like paint drying. A cracking yarn about how homely women are more trustworthy.

  • June 27, 2005, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Are the aliens Martians?

    by rev_skarekroe

    No? Then it's not "War of the Worlds."

  • June 27, 2005, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Vengeance

    by Film Whisperer

    Good to hear Daniel Craig quoted in Reuters as saying VENGEANCE isn't a Jewish revenge fantasy. Apparently, it takes a balanced look at how violence begets violence. Craig says the movie potrays no one as a winner. Undoubtedly, it will be controversial, maybe even the most controversial movie of the year. December's looking hot, hot, hot.

  • June 27, 2005, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Oh Rebeck

    by winemonkey

    you make me smile. The problem with that story is that it isn't very interesting to watch as a film, so a spicer, all American version had to be dreamt up. I really have no problem with WotW in the US, I just don't think I will enjoy this film. Saw the trailer on tv again a minute ago and it just seemed to be 'Cruise and his amazingly white teeth' (TM).

  • June 27, 2005, 3:11 p.m. CST

    fiester - Yes, Queens

    by HEADGEEK

    At the time I was dating my "New York Kitten" as she affectionately liked to be called I never specified where in New York she resided. But it was in Queens. As for her experiences on 9/11- she was in Manhattan when it happened, like many New Yorkers that work there, that live in the surrounding areas. She got stuck there due to the Subway system shutting down, and had to walk from Lower Manhattan, across a bridge (can't remember if she said it was the Brooklyn or George Washington Bridge). On the phone the next day - couldn't reach her day of as the lines were so fucked due to everyone and their brother calling in to that area to check on loved ones - she told me about the ash falling from the sky and how even in Queens you would see papers falling from the sky from the event. --- I read other reports regarding the acidic smell of pollutants combined with the smell of burning flesh --- and still other horrors from the area that day. Now Steven doesn't exactly copy any of that imagery - nor the stuff I saw on TV that day, what he does is he adapts what we learned visually from that horrible day to what Wells described in his book and Welles described from his Radio Adaptation. The results are quite powerful. Actually - I'm quite anxious to see it again in a couple of hours.

  • June 27, 2005, 3:15 p.m. CST

    help?

    by MartyfromWales

    sounds like a great movie..1 thing..i thought i had heard that this was the 1st of a trilogy? doesnt sound like it in the review..anyone like to confirm one way or the other. Thanks M

  • June 27, 2005, 3:18 p.m. CST

    Listen, Cruise Is An Irritating Fuck

    by Rebeck

    On that I think we have international agreement. I was completely disgusted by his latest Scientology rant and telling Matt Lauer "I know, you don't". He obviously thinks he's all the heroes he's portrayed and no one can tell him differently. But this is a Spielberg film and it is the first thing all year to have me excited about movies again. I may be disappointed, but I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

  • June 27, 2005, 3:23 p.m. CST

    Cruise and Scientology: Hilarious article

    by The Colonel

    http://www.intrepidmedia.com/column.asp?id=2215 The guy is a LUNATIC. But this movie STILL looks AWESOME.

  • June 27, 2005, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Re: HEADGEEK

    by fiester

    ...just a li'l good-naturued ribbing there, HG (along with a BREAKFAST CLUB--or was it SIXTEEN CANDLES?--reference). Pax.

  • June 27, 2005, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Howard Stern's take

    by HEADGEEK

    I saw the film with multiple people yesterday and there were a few with Howard Stern's take - including a 12 year old girl. The commonality I've found with people of that opinion is a complete lack of knowledge of the source material... be it the book, radio play or Pal film. The "weak" ending is Wells' ending - and for the life of me, I haven't heard a single better ending. Didja want someone load a virus into the tripods that made them all fall over. Or maybe, Cruise shoulda taken over a tripod and fight all the other tripods. Or maybe it just end with Cruise being the last man on earth. Or what? Wells' ending was the perfect anti-colonialism ending. The cautionary message that trying to inhabit and take over any place that isn't your own will result in failure... and sometimes it could just be something as simple as the water having something you're not used to. Sure that ending doesn't leave room for a Death Star/Shark explosion, but ya know what? So what? This is the end of WAR OF THE WORLDS. Anyone familiar with the material should absolutely love it.

  • June 27, 2005, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Jesus..... say "Steven" one more time why dontcha

    by Incrediburgible

  • June 27, 2005, 3:40 p.m. CST

    In the House

    by Mafu

    Hey, the HEADGEEK is in the house. This is new -- for me, anyway. It's cool to read your responses to questions and criticisms right after you post a review. Are you nervous that us talkbackers will turn into assholes and pull you into a knock-down, drag-out catfight over some small detail? Just wondering.

  • June 27, 2005, 3:41 p.m. CST

    Cruise Is In Career Meltdown Mode Now!

    by genrefanboy

    Lets face it. Up until a few months ago he was an A list star & could get any movie geenlit. Now after MI3 I should imagine it would be hard for him to get any studio execs to have him in their film as he has become such a liability with his rantings etc etc. Paramount must be especially nervous right now as WOTW & MI3 are about $500M of investment which do not look particulary safe @ the moment. Watch Paramount cancel or renegotiate MI3 if WOTW bombs (and it just might because people are really sick of Cruise & his ramblings now). If Cruise shut up from now on he may about just get away with it and it will go away like the Eddie Murphy Transvestite Hooker scandal did or the Hugh Grant/Divine Brown scandal. If Cruise continues on his current path he will join the Stallone club for ex A-listers! Perhaps he could get his own scientology TV show in prime time. Now that would be funny!!

  • June 27, 2005, 3:43 p.m. CST

    Tom Cruise

    by HEADGEEK

    You do realize that if you don't watch the shit shows or the tabloid fucking newspapers that all this "Tomkat" nonsense has happened on - that you wouldn't have to see his personal life discussed. But if you tune into Talkshows be they Late night or Early Morning or fucking Afternoon crap like Oprah - then you're going to have dumbshit thrown at your eyes and ears. Who cares if he's seeing Katie Holmes? Who cares if it's set up? Were you dating her? Did he cock block you? If you could date Katie Holmes wouldn't you? AND WHAT THE FUCK DOES ANY OF THIS HAVE TO DO WITH MOVIES? This is why I don't delve into the personal lives of actors or actresses or directors. I simply don't care. *Why do I bring my personal life into my reviews then?* Aha! That's because I prefer to write from my own experiences. And because I feel that personally relating to material is far more personal than fighting relating to material and trying to talk about material from the vantage point of being above it all. If I see events on screen that metaphorically relate to my life, that's how I discuss film. And I will not change that for anyone. There's hundreds of critics that write bookreport reviews that take you by the hand and report what they saw, step for step - then give 3 paragraphs of criticism after completely spoiling the film experience. If you don't like my writing style - then fine - read Quint or Moriarty or any number of other critics online. BUT - I will say, if you allow the baggage of this recent onslaught of Tom Cruise insanity to steer you away from enjoying this movie, then you've let the tabloid fucking mentality of this world corrupt what would otherwise be one of the best film experiences you'll have this year.

  • June 27, 2005, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Amen, Headgeek

    by Rebeck

    Not to be an ass-kisser, but I totally agree. Remember when "Entertainment Tonight" was actually about the making of films and TV? You know, instead of Paris Hilton's fucking engagement ring!!!!

  • June 27, 2005, 3:50 p.m. CST

    I Think This Will End The Attendance Slump.

    by NeoAngelus

    I just get that feeling. Spielberg and aliens is always a smash. The only wild card I can see to ruining its chances is Tom Cruise and is comeplet overexposure in the public eye. Not to mention his antics on Oprah and the Today Show. He's making a fool of himself, and that might backlash on the movie. - n/a

  • June 27, 2005, 3:51 p.m. CST

    Headgeek/Tom Cruise

    by genrefanboy

    But Harry there has been so much bad PR on the subject how can you disconnect from that when you see Cruise on a 50ft high screen??

  • June 27, 2005, 3:56 p.m. CST

    I'm with Headgeek

    by The Colonel

    Sometimes stuff like that does effect me, but usually that's psycho-Jesus stuff. But whatever, if this movies are good, I couldn't care less if Cruise is really gay or whatever. But, I do think it's an issue if Cruise starts putting personal agendas into his movies. Then he's fair game. But I don't really think anyoneis at the point where they'll boycott Cruise's stuff just cuz he's loony. If he goes on a genocidal rampage, or starts punching pregnant girls in the stomach or something, then yeah, time to back off supporting him. Otherwise, he's just a kook who want to entertain the NICE PEOPLE! And often does a good job at it. His Scientology is too TIGHT!

  • June 27, 2005, 4 p.m. CST

    Headgeek you're right

    by winemonkey

    and I really don't want Tom's personal life to affect my view of the film, but all I see of him over here is in a gossip mag or on tv getting squirted in the face by channel 4. He doesn't come across well in interviews and when i saw the trailer all I could focus on was him - and naturally it made me think of the other stuff I had seen him in recently, which was gossip, which made me squirm, which made me focus on Tom again (and his 'amazingly white teeth') and stopped me appreciating the little bits of the fil I was getting to see in the trailer. Why not cast an unkown in the lead? Give us a break from the 'chosen few'. One of my favourite films of all time is 'Withnail and I'. No aliens, no explosions,no megastars, no huge budget, no big ideals, no big bullshit. At the moment,andhaving not seen the film, it is difficult toseparate crazy Tom from WotW magic...and I want it to be magic but I really worry that it will leave me...unfulfilled.

  • June 27, 2005, 4 p.m. CST

    The ending was perfect it just got there too fast.

    by bmsatter

    The ending was Wellesian perfection. My only complaint is that we got there too quickly. Another 8-10 minutes of development leading up to the ending between NY and Boston would have sufficed. And the brass/timpani/percussion orgy that John Williams concocted again establishes him as the premiere innovator of his field.

  • June 27, 2005, 4 p.m. CST

    Coverage

    by Mafu

    Most lowbrow media outlets, including MTV, ET, Access Hollywood, and daytime television for women, focus entirely on the private lives of Hollywood celebrities. Tom Cruise created a sensation, in my opinion because he's dating someone who's 26 instead of someone closer to his own age, so the talk shows go all high school grapevine with it, titillating housewives across America. I hate it too. But I don't expect the storm to abate any time soon. In fact, if "War of the Worlds" opens to big numbers, which I hope it will, the storm could get worse. Whatever. It'll cool down at some point soon.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:01 p.m. CST

    *the Christian Bale Shanghai Trauma* - what does this mean ?

    by Gus Nukem

    huh ? to what does HK refer?

  • June 27, 2005, 4:03 p.m. CST

    Empire of the Sun

    by winemonkey

  • June 27, 2005, 4:04 p.m. CST

    If WOTW is so earth-shakingly good then explain why Dreamworks/P

    by Buck Turgidson

  • June 27, 2005, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Yes! That's how I feel too.

    by HypeEndsHere

    Look, I may be going out on a limb here, but Hitler was a jerk. Fine. I said it. But, I don't want to look at that. I examine his work as the art critic I am. If you people want to be all obsessed with WWII or somesuch, call Eli Weisel. But I write about how his painting and design affect me.... lighten up. it ain't art. it's War of the Worlds.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:12 p.m. CST

    Why I won't see it.

    by fiester

    It has nothing to do with Cruise being a nutter. I just don't think this particular story needed a remake in any way, shape, or form. INDEPENDENCE DAY and scores of other alien invasion flicks have covered this subject ad infinitum. So what's left to recommend it? Spectacle? CGI? Cruise? None of these things appeal to me. Cruise I find less and less appealing in action flicks, although his turn in such flicks as MAGNOLIA and COLLATERAL were especially effective (until COLLATERAL imploded into a hackneyed cliches and an over-reliance on coincidence in it's last act, but that's another story). I though MI was dreck and didn't even see MI:2. But apparently I'm not representative of The General Audience, at least according to today's Slate.com article on The Cruiser. But this movie will keep until I'm flipping through channels some sleepless and there's nothing else on.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:12 p.m. CST

    sorry, Gus Nukem, to be more clear

    by winemonkey

    I think he was referring to the film Empire of the Sun, which stars a young Christian Bale undergoing many wartime traumas in places which include Shanghai. He sings beautifully while he goes about it, but it is all pretty nasty.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:13 p.m. CST

    HypeEnds

    by The Colonel

    A better comparison would be Leni Reifenstahl and her work. On an aesthetic and technical level, incredible, visionary, amazing. But it's propaganda for a lunatic and promotional material for mass murder and racism. At some point she must have had a moral objection to it. But, REGARDLESS, what is Cruise doing aside from being an ass and dating a younger woman, of LEGAL age? I HATE Scientology but last time I checked, to paraphrase Mr. Cruise, "My client is a moron but that's not against the law." Besides, the Navy doesn't hang people for yardarms anymore. Cruise is obnoxious, perhaps delusional and deranged, but he's not a criminal. Settle DOWN. Rail against the Powder guy (what, Victor Salva or something) for molesting kids and then shooting Sean Patrick Flanery in all his provocative pale nakedness. Or Larry Clark for shooting borderline pedo-porn.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:19 p.m. CST

    If you went to high school with a giant douchebag and found out

    by Garbageman33

    Then again, I guess most high school productions don't have all kinds of cool explosions and aliens and shit.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Do what you came to this site to do, which is..

    by PrivateJoker

    It's interesting reading some of the ranting and raving on irrelevent subject matters. And it amazes me how influenced a lot of you are by the gossip columns, whos purpose is to come up with any trash so that you watch their programmes, read their web pages or buy their magazines, get hooked into the whole thing, talk about it with all your friends, who will go out and do the same thing you did. So forget all the rubbish and do what you came to this site to do, which is to read the reviews (positive or negative), watch the film if you want and decide if it was worth your admission fee, and only then should you bitch.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Garbageman

    by The Colonel

    TOUCHE! Awesome post.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:28 p.m. CST

    When I was that age I would have wanted..

    by winemonkey

    ..to be in it Garbageman, regardless of the douchebags involved and their respective sizes. And lets face it, if I had the chance to star in a Tom Cruise film now I wouldn't say no because I think he is insane. I guess if I had a fortune the size of his, and was as short as he is, I would have trouble fitting in as well. Still doesn't make me feel good about the film though. I will go and see it, if I didn't care I wouldn't be doing this, but I can't shake the feeling that it won't be worth it.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Not seeing WAR OF THE WORLDS because of INDEPENDENCE DAY, MARS A

    by HEADGEEK

    And as I look at that comparison - I realize that the bad fantasy comparison is SO MUCH WORSE than the 'Alien Invasion' comparison. You're right - Alien invasion flicks have been done well - even when they were bad. There's an infinite variety of stories that can be told in any genre or sub-genre. That's what I love about film. I love Hitchcock films because they are all essentially exploration in the genre of Suspense. I love John Ford films especially his explorations of the Western genre. Like George Romero with his Zombie films - I love that each one has a different undercurrent - Civil Rights, Consumerism, isolationism and Class warfare. Well - this is Spielberg's 3rd exploration of Aliens. The first was the fascination of contact. The second was with interaction. This time it is a radical departure... Surviving and staying human at the end of the world. This isn't the shut in isolationist approach of SIGNS. This isn't the Militant rah rah America of ID4. This isn't the satiric black comedy of MARS ATTACKS! This isn't the Red Scare of INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS. This is about the immediate and panicked response to imminent annihilation. Told with a breath-taking use of of innovative cinematic techniques and fantastic acting.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:32 p.m. CST

    is it 'cross your heart' fantastic acting Harry?

    by winemonkey

    I want to believe!!

  • June 27, 2005, 4:33 p.m. CST

    and Willow had its moments.

    by winemonkey

    I'm not joking. I was 12 and I thought it was the badgers nadgers.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:34 p.m. CST

    On Tabloid Culture.

    by JohnnyTremaine

    Headgeek is completely spot on in his comment where he states that if you avoid the junk food tabloid material, then you'd be spared the cringing horror that is TomKat. I will say this about Cruise: yep, he's lost his marbles and shown himself to be self-important and arrogant, but at least by showing us his real self he's helping to undermine the faux-reality that Access Hollywood, Extra and MTV like to promulgate.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:36 p.m. CST

    Promulgate?

    by winemonkey

  • June 27, 2005, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Tim Robbins

    by libby mae brown

    Nothing about Tim? I thought I detected a lame Tim accent in the trailer, but I will see it anyway.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:39 p.m. CST

    'cross your heart' fantastic acting

    by HEADGEEK

    If by that you mean cross my heart and hope to die if it ain't Fantastic Acting... then yes absolutely. If by that, did I actually cross both hands over my heart due to being emotionally moved by the performances... then, yes, absolutely. I also clutched my hands on either side of my mouth & nose in horror a couple of times... Clutched the sweetie's hand a couple of times, she grabbed my arm a few times. My nephew, who was sitting with his grandfather actually bit his own arm at some point during the film because it was so intense. I actually expect this film to give the young and impressionable a phobic reaction to Lightning.... the same way that JAWS scared a generation from swimming in the Ocean.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:44 p.m. CST

    In that case I will quit harping on...

    by winemonkey

    ...and go to bed happy in the knowledge that while the boy is under the watchful gaze of the babysitter my man and I will go and watch a film that should send my doubts and fears flying from the theatre. I'm not joking about the coverage Cruise gets here in the UK though. It is nothing but insanity and gossip.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Yeah, winemonkey, 'promulgate' just strangely popped int

    by JohnnyTremaine

    For only a couple of semesters years ago, I was an English major. Maybe it re-surfaced from there.

  • i've been coming on this site for years, reading virtually every story and talk back. Not ONCE have i ever seen Harry include himself IN the talkback (let alone 4 seperate times). His need to defend everything he said with "HEADGEEK" shows that he truly stands by this film. i personally can't wait for it...unless of course, "headgeek" is just some other guy pretending to be harry, in which case i'm a fool

  • June 27, 2005, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Its a good word.

    by winemonkey

    It makes a strange sense. I think we should all take a leaffrom Shakespeares book and make up words when we cam't find one that fits. Especially when our bloody space bar is broken....just excuse me while I throw this cursed machine out of the window.....

  • June 27, 2005, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Re: HEADGEEK

    by fiester

    The difference, for me, is the difference between genre and remake. I know this story already. I know how it ends. Everything in-between is just so much CGI and explosions. Big whoop. The problem with the BIG SUMMER MOVIE is that they all tend to blur into one another. I'm sure there are a few interesting small asides given that it is a Steve S. flick, but it's just a big popcorn movie remake of a movie I've already seen: I don't even see any new iconic potential here. Tripods? Seen 'em. Destruction of city. Yup, that too. At least if I go see something like LAND OF THE DEAD I'll get to see some genuine risky film-making and an outcome that's fresh and new. I dunno, man...maybe Stevie's lost his fastball...I know the critical darlings are still gah-gah for him, but he hasn't done anything that sizzled for me since Jurassic Park--and that was only because of the groundbreaking FX. People who champion such drivel as CATCH ME IF YOU CAN, THE TERMINAL, and AI ought to have their heads examined. He's like some once great and gritty band that now put out these highly polished and impeccably produced studio albums that are not bad, but just sort of...lame. Think U2 or Aerosmith circa 2005. But...whatever...I'm sure it will do $500 million or some other obscene figure. As one talkbacker succinctly put it "it's got aliens and 'splosions and stuff". But I would see Fantastic Four over this. It may very well end up being wretched, but at least it will be interesting to see how the wretchedness unfolds.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:55 p.m. CST

    I'd just like to add....

    by fiester

    Xemu should get his own column. I'd love to read his movie reviews. Heh.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Knobules has hit the nail on the head!

    by BennyPalpatine

    As far as Cruise goes, it's not the crazyness of what he is saying, but the sheer arrogance of the man. I feel that he's on an ever-quickening trip to the funny-farm. Does this make me want to boycott the film, HELL NO. I've been looking forward to this for too long, I've loved the Pal version for about 15 years, and my fingers are crossed that this will be great. However, I must point out that everyone knows about Cruise and his antics, one doesn't have to watching crappy daytime TV to know whats going on. I don't watch that shit, but I've picked up bits here and there from the net. You can't escape it, I'm afraid. However, depite my presence on the other thread, I really don't give a shit about the guy, or his 'relationship' with Katie Holmes. Loads of us on said thread are simply pointing out, as Xemu has (oddly) done here, that Scientology is whack-job cult. However, I do agree that all this should have no effect in an ideal world, but things aren't perfect.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:57 p.m. CST

    Theater or DVD

    by Greased Deaf Guy

    Is anyone else finding themselves being a lot more selective over what movies they see in theaters these days? I used to go all the time but now that matinees run $6.75, I hardly go at all -unless something really gets me excited. I might go see this since I think it'll be more of an experience in theaters than just watching the dvd.

  • June 27, 2005, 4:57 p.m. CST

    McLuvin - on me never posting

    by HEADGEEK

    Actually I do it every blue moon. Usually when I have a day that isn't insanely busy and I can find my password to talkback - and when I'm fucking slapped on both cheeks in love with a film. Usually - I'll post responses to talk backs at the end of articles if motivated. But usually I feel that TalkBack is the domain of you readers - and I figure that me coming in here is like your parents going in your room to share your porn with ya. Just uncomfortable... ya know?

  • Then don't read it in the first place if you don't respect his opinion. I think it being a better experience than RotS might be pushing it but then I haven't seen it yet.

  • June 27, 2005, 5:06 p.m. CST

    Fiester - You don't know the story

    by HEADGEEK

    Believe me. I've read Wells' book about 4 times in my life, I listen to Welles' radio play a few times a year - and always on Halloween. And I see Pal's version a couple of times a year. While the structure of the story and events is 'essentially' the same. The characters and specific dramatics are not at all like the previous films. What makes this film special isn't just fx and sound design - though both are extraordinary. It is the application of dramatic technique, accomplished acting and the real world reality layered into a story that was originally set in Victorian England. NOW - this is one of my favorite science fiction tales - but not seeing this because you love George Pal's version or the Orson Welles radio play - is like not seeing John Carpenter's THE THING because you loved the old Arness THE THING. It really is that different. There is no, "Everybody knows what the white flag means" scene. There is no big communal praying in a church scene. There is no watch the Atomic Bomb not work scene. There is no scientist or military prep scene. This is a completely different and original take on the material that is totally different from any prior treatment of the material.

  • June 27, 2005, 5:17 p.m. CST

    Katie Holmes

    by Incrediburgible

    How old is she, anyhow? I thought she looked like an exhausted jowly hag in Batman. Totally hagged out. Like OLSEN Twins hagged out. She should get more sleep or something.

  • June 27, 2005, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Just checking Harry---

    by ZeroCorpse

    I'll take your word on this, and completely ignore my hatred for Tom that has grown out of his radical behavior of the last year, if you can promise to me- to us- that you're not plugging this because you've become a Scientologist or something. So are you, HEADGEEK, a member of the Church of Scientology? I suspect not, but you never know...

  • June 27, 2005, 5:22 p.m. CST

    Web Guy riding the Head Geeks strawberry nipple ...

    by docfalken

    I was lucky enough to see the film yesterday with Mr. Knowles and crew, and it was excellent. I'm not a film savant like the writers here, so I don't have a library of DVDs running through my head that I can call upon. But damn, it seemed that Spielberg and crew, went so "big" on this flick. Best looking, realest and baddest ass alien invasion you've ever seen. Cruise (regardless of his personal life) is a master. Physical like no actor this side of a younger Harrison Ford. Like Rip Hamilton, Cruise does so much "without the ball" that his commitment to the character goes all the way. Dakota Fanning is going to be a pleasure to watch for the next 60 years. She still needs that "Taxi Driver"-role that will launch her into super orbit. I just hope that she doesn't Disney-fy herself and join the teenybopper union. Can we already get this kid a Kennedy Honor? She's a national treasure. This movie rox.

  • June 27, 2005, 5:23 p.m. CST

    is it me, or has being a producer actually helped harry's wr

    by doc_manhattan

    maybe it just seems that way. or maybe he just never felt the need or courage to articulate and discipline his thoughts here before, I don't know...

  • June 27, 2005, 5:28 p.m. CST

    ***POSSIBLE SPOILERS***

    by BennyPalpatine

    Just read a similarly growing review on CHUD, where one section of Devin Faraci's review caught my intention. Here it is: "There

  • June 27, 2005, 5:29 p.m. CST

    I Haven't Agreed With Harry On Many Movies...

    by Rebeck

    But I would take his opinion - and the positive feeling and enthusiasm and passion for film on the whole he shows every day here -long before I would ever listen to some of these cynical-ass bullies who can only feel better about themselves if they attack Harry. Yeah, I'm sure you're all fucking Greek gods physically and you have women lined up at the door. Uh-huh. Turdburglars indeed. I think that has to become the name for all of you guys.

  • June 27, 2005, 5:29 p.m. CST

    NINTENDO and Turd Burgler

    by HEADGEEK

    Whatever - you both seem to have your heads searching for internal peanuts... and that's completely your right. Turd Burgler - Absolutely - I started reviewing films to get into movies free - though even if I wasn't reviewing movies, I'd get into all of them free because here in Austin - ticket drops for promotional screenings are easy as hell to get, and that's what I did for the 6 years prior to creating this site. Now I don't need passes, I'm on some magical list. Really is a sweet deal. Though now it has nothing to do with monetary needs - I can afford to pay for every film, instead I pay for all the repeat screenings and for tons of dvds (in addition to the review copies I get) - Yes I am an Eagle Scout. Yes, I have had more girlfriends than anyone I know. Am I proud of this, not really. I'd rather be have a single girlfriend that I then married, but my life hasn't allowed me to be the sort of boyfriend I wish I could be to be as nurturing a partner as I want to be. Main reason - I'm more dedicated to my career - the old story. As for negative reviews? Gosh - I tore MONKEYBONE to death - even though I was in it. Tore ROLLERBALL to shreds even though John McTiernan flew me on his private jet to New York and put me up in the FOUR SEASONS for 3 or 4 days, I really tear into stuff just a few times a year. Usually - and especially as my time becomes more and more filled with my producing duties, I tend to just spend the time reviewing the films I'm passionate about (positive or negatively) For example - I wasn't head over heels for BEWITCHED - just thought it was ok for a Nora Ephron flick. MADAGASCAR - I thought was passable kids entertainment with the Lion's Larry Talbot moments being the jewels of the film... but felt the Chimps were criminally cut short and that every animal other than the main characters were vastly more interesting. With films I'm not passionate about - I tend to not waste my time on them. They wasted enough of my time in the theaters - and then I tend to post other's opinions that match my own that I get sent in. That way you people are warned about the film.

  • June 27, 2005, 5:30 p.m. CST

    Damn crappy typing

    by BennyPalpatine

    I meant to type "Oh and sorry if I broke any sort of protocol in quoting another, 'rival' website. I'm a newbie"

  • June 27, 2005, 5:33 p.m. CST

    " I thought she looked like an exhausted jowly hag in Batman" de

    by performingmonkey

    How else d'you think she got through all those fucking seasons of Dawson's Creek? But hard drugs have the tendancy to take their toll on someone. I predict she'll be out of movies by the time she's 30. I'd still fuck her though. Over and over again. But then I'd be bored by her blandness. Cruise and her is just a fucking stunt to raise both their profiles at the right time.

  • June 27, 2005, 5:38 p.m. CST

    Well - Off to see the film again

    by HEADGEEK

    It's been a pleasure killing time with you "rabid weasals" as Frank Darabont calls Talkbackers. heh. Personally, I've never understood people's hatred of Talkbackers - even "the assholes" - We've all been cynical disbelieving sonofabitches at some point in our life. I love TalkBack and read it all the time. And I very rarely am the one actually banning people. People that make fun of me just make me laugh. My life is too good to take it seriously. As for the Talkbacker asking if Producing is changing my take on film. It absolutely is. My experiences on JOHN CARTER OF MARS is teaching me so much about the process of adaptation. And GHOST TOWN is just revelatory due to seeing what a great writer has done with my notions - and how wonderful the act of collaboration is.

  • 'Cuz remakes don't get any better than that. All right, man, I'll try to remain open-minded..but first I'll wait and see what a few major media reviewers have to say and try to cull a general vibe from the aggregate. I sort of agree with what someone above said about movie ticket prices these days. It's up over $10.00 now where I'm at--and, yeah, that's not a whole hell of a lot, but when you consider that you can rent the flick for $3.00 if you wait a few months, take it home and watch it at your leisure with as many friends as you like--hell, for as little as $25.00 you can sometimes buy the damned DVD!--it makes you stop and think. Crap on the TV doesn't seem half so bad as watching crap on the big screen. It's a crummy feeling walking out of a theater and thinking "Gosh that sucked arse." Another thing is that big budget movies are starting to just sort of piss me off for myriad reasons--so that I want to see them fail if only to force a little change in the SOP of the major studios. I can't tell you how many times I'm wandering through the rows at the local video place and thinking to myself: "Who the hell do they make all these movies for? What's their idea of audience? 'Cuz it sure as hell ain't me." And I'm fine with flicks that are not made with an audience in mind--I prefer it in fact. I'd like to see them give someone like Edger Wright 1/20th of what it cost to make this flick and let him do whatever he wanted. Not good business, but maybe good art. The unholy combination of the two is advertising--and that's what so many of these big budget flicks have come to resemble.

  • Wait...I can't see it... CONSPIRACY!!!!

  • June 27, 2005, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Its official... CHUD has a good review

    by BurlIvesLeftNut

    Which means this movie is going to suck.

  • June 27, 2005, 5:51 p.m. CST

    thanks HEADGEEK

    by McLuvin

    ...for filling me in as to why you rarely join talkback and for also addressing me personally. It's a bit of a comfort to know that while a lot of us don't agree with you on different reviews, issues, and oppinions, you still make time to join in these geekishly glorified arguments.

  • June 27, 2005, 5:54 p.m. CST

    thanks HEADGEEK

    by McLuvin

    ...for filling me in as to why you rarely join talkback and for also addressing me personally. It's a bit of a comfort to know that while a lot of us don't agree with you on different reviews, issues, and oppinions, you still make time to join in these geekishly glorified arguments.

  • http://www.rebel-rouser.com/Trailers/Korea/LadyVengeanceTrailer2.wmv

  • June 27, 2005, 6:01 p.m. CST

    "Kicking It with Optimus Prime"

    by docfalken

    New film directed by the Hughes Brothers. Straight from the ghetto. Complete with Transformer crumpin'. Yeeeeaahh!! I apologize for being off topic. Now back to the conversation about the racist space aliens.

  • June 27, 2005, 6:08 p.m. CST

    Xemu!

    by fiester

    ...you broke character a bit too much for my liking in the middle of that last post, but you finished strong!

  • June 27, 2005, 6:08 p.m. CST

    Seeing it tommorow

    by Archduke_Chocula

    Having spent the week watching some of Spielbergs biggest and best I can't wait....

  • June 27, 2005, 6:14 p.m. CST

    People Making Fun of Harry

    by fiester

    It's just a goof-thing guys do with their chums. A weird kind of tribute even. I'm pleased to see you have a proper perspective on the bile we spill--but I still think some of your reviews could use some intro trimming. Try to keep 'em under 2,000 words, keep the spotlight on the flick, and start an seperate section for the more personal essays that don't need to be film-centric but can touch on autobiography, genre, actor, etc. Now everyone go fuck a donut.

  • ... and so is Spielberg. Obnoxious, self-centered and stuck in a nowhere life obsessing over former glories... sounds 'All-American' to me.

  • June 27, 2005, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Wha'd I Tell You?

    by Rebeck

    See above.

  • June 27, 2005, 6:28 p.m. CST

    PS...

    by Ribs

    ... before I get flamed for being anti-American, lemme just say that I am, in fact, not anti-American. I'm just not all that big on the particular direction American society is going these days.

  • June 27, 2005, 6:39 p.m. CST

    Mr. Hollywood

    by Waff

    I've pretty much blocked this movie out. Not because I think it will suck, but because nothing about it has even caught my attention. I think it all has to do with Cruise. I barely register Cruise's antics. Homles either. I saw the Oprah appearence and really didn't think a damn thing of it. I see him hyping his movie and find myself hearing words, but not really listening to what he has to say. The man could be sitting beside me, offering me a leading part in his next movie and I really don't think I'd notice him. He's just there. Cruise is good at flying under my radar. Nothing about him is memorable. He is Mr. Generic. Good title for his next movie.

  • June 27, 2005, 6:39 p.m. CST

    HEY HEADGEEK! READ UP: Some FUNNY stuff about Cruise and Scient

    by The Colonel

    http://www.intrepidmedia.com/column.asp?id=2215

  • June 27, 2005, 6:40 p.m. CST

    An excerpt:

    by The Colonel

    I used to like Tom Cruise. Check out his resume: Risky Business is something of a classic. His drunk scene in A Few Good Men is intergalactically awesome. He put forth a truly fantastic performance in Magnolia and God knows he

  • June 27, 2005, 6:41 p.m. CST

    Sure fire kick ass movie.....

    by Madmacks

    So all of you quit ya bitching, go and see the movie or shut up your all like a bunch of old ladies. The movie will kick ass and make millions!!!!!!!

  • June 27, 2005, 6:46 p.m. CST

    WineMonkey...

    by Ribs

    ... "Will you stop saying that, Withnail! Of course he's the fucking farmer!!" You're the first person in the TB's I've ever heard mention 'Withnail and I'. If anyone out there hasn't seen this movie, seek it out. It's hilarious and horrific all at once.

  • June 27, 2005, 6:52 p.m. CST

    Goddamn

    by YouInRawbIns?

    I've never ever trusted Harry's reviews, but always enjoy reading them. Part of it is the puzzle solving part of my brain that requires me to understand certain sentences, but the other part is genuinely interested in what he has to say. And he's the only one left on this site who can speak his mind, unlike Mori, who would be too afraid to burn someone that could potentially help him later on in the 'biz. Confusing and good review, can't fucking wait.

  • June 27, 2005, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Thanks, Ribs

    by Rebeck

    Thanks for clarifying yourself. Because someone who goes out of their way to say that "All-American" (or just ALL Americans?) is synonamous with obnxious and selfish... You know, some crazy people might make some wild leap and think you were anti-American. Thank God you cleared that up. You pale soft passive-aggressive English turd. Oh I'm sorry, I hope you didn't take that wrong.

  • June 27, 2005, 7 p.m. CST

    Synonymous

    by Rebeck

    Americans are terrible spellers too.

  • June 27, 2005, 7:15 p.m. CST

    yeah gonna see it - not cuz o this

    by flipster

    looks good - I was worried about the wuss factor w/the actor and director but decided that it was best to check it out, Frankly I doubt it will be brutal though. Talk about overselling. We'll see...

  • June 27, 2005, 7:21 p.m. CST

    Stop reading tabloids and read a book you idiots

    by andrew coleman

    I want to see this movie because I liked the book. If you care about Cruise's personal life to the point it effects what movies you see, you're an idiot. How about you read a book instead of reading People Magazine and watching Opera. Don't you guys have jobs what are you doing watching Opera?

  • June 27, 2005, 7:32 p.m. CST

    BurlIvesLeftNut

    by AlwaysThere

    I hope you were been serious because CHUD is a worthless site.

  • June 27, 2005, 8 p.m. CST

    I've seen it

    by Bender-Wiggins

    Saw it a few days ago and trust me, it's not that good. Very uneven and as soon as Tim Robbins turns up it's pretty much all downhill. At the screening I was at, almost nobody loved it. Not bad but a solid seven and to say it's one of the best things Speilberg's done is to know jack shit.

  • June 27, 2005, 8:18 p.m. CST

    Kong Trailer.

    by jimmy_009

    Man I was really digging on seeing this movie, but those effects look like crap. Kong looks just like that monkey from Mighty Joe Young. Not impressive at all. Damn it. Usually the effects look better when you actually see it in the theater when it comes out, so I'm hoping that's the case. I'm sure the movie will still be good, but this trailer was a real downer for me.

  • June 27, 2005, 8:27 p.m. CST

    ALL AMERICAN GUY ROUTINE

    by Greenflame

    You gotta laugh. Spielberg and Cruise are tryin to make it sound as if this Ray character is something special, but as Ribs said Cruise is just playing the usual all American guy/hero who battles against the odds to save his kids routine. What a cliched load of old rats poop. and that's coming from a Yank!

  • June 27, 2005, 8:35 p.m. CST

    AlwaysThere

    by BurlIvesLeftNut

    I like CHUD, but the people who run it are so sure their opinions are the only ones that count that it humors me to no end. I realized that I had the exact opposite opinion of them of everything after reading their Batman Begins reviews. Some of what they said had merit, but most of their complaints were ludicrous. Like I said, I like the site, but they need to fucking get over themselves.

  • June 27, 2005, 8:45 p.m. CST

    Am I the only person to notice...

    by BV

    ...that the tripods have three-toed feet, like the hand gripping planet Earth on the poster?

  • June 27, 2005, 9:29 p.m. CST

    I didn't mind the CGI in the Kong trailer, but I don't s

    by FluffyUnbound

    Awful, just awful. A real "Brendan Fraser in Mummy Returns" feel coming from Mr. Black. And when did Hollywood forget how to do period work? This movie, Cinderella Man, and Seabiscuit just DO NOT LOOK like the 30's to me. It's not like I was there or anything, but there is just such a horrible sense of falseness, like the set dressers didn't even try. And why does this generation of actors look so absurdly out of place in that context, when as recently as the making of "The Natural" you could seemingly throw just anybody up there on the screen, call it the 30's and have it work?

  • June 27, 2005, 9:52 p.m. CST

    capt's log ... Bring out the Borg

    by JeanLuc Dickhard

  • June 27, 2005, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Fluffy, it worked in the past due to something called acting abi

    by JohnnyTremaine

    A lot of our modern actors are just blocks of wood which no amount of Model-T's and fedoras worn sideways will make us believe in a 1930's or 40's America. When you see a lot of today's actors in a period setting, they often don't ACT period. All they do is wear the wardrobe and say: "it's 1930!" I will disagree with you on Seabiscuit. It had a fantastic screenplay (not many of those these days), had some fine low key performances and was directed without an overbearing-look-at-me-ma-I'm directin'!-I'm directin'!-style. Seabiscuit was an out of left field boxoffice hit which played and played due to the sole reason of great word of mouth and any prospective film student would do well to study its success. In fact the best films to study ARE the sleeper hits rather than the ones that have the big push carpet bomb marketing behind them.

  • June 27, 2005, 9:55 p.m. CST

    Seems telling

    by flossygomez

    that Cruise with his enlightened audited clear thetan self knowledge has so much darkness in him. Just see him as Lestat, the darkness must come from somewhere, cause it sure did a good job. This isn't a complaint, I thank God for the demons that come out of this man sometimes. As tired as I get of his generic American everyman image, every once in awhile, he really amazes me.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Nintendo I concur completely. What the fuck happened to the days

    by IndustryKiller

    Why is EVERYTHING all of the sudden a flawless masterpiece? I cannot remember the last time Harry or Moriarty gave a major film release a scathing review. Star Wars Episode 3 and Batman begins are incredibly flawed pictures but everyone wants to ignore the shortcomings out of some sick need to love them. Why? They aren't great films. Unless we are vocal about that then studios will keep giving us mediocrity. I mean the suppsed genius of Episode 3 has more or less been forgotten already by the world at large and Batman Begins isn't exactly breaking any records. I think sites like this one, while providing an excellent service of tracking rumors, also made the geek community grow outside of film fans and started to attract a more mainstream audience of casual fans. All that gets those of us who demand a little more from our comic book and sci fi films is fucked.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:09 p.m. CST

    I agree about the CHUD guys...but wait till MEG comes out.

    by Triumph poops!

    Overall I check CHUD like many other places for any new, stray movies news, but I'd have to agree with others here that any review or commentary they do these days just exudes this slimy, arrogant, used car salesman attitude of "Of course we're right! We're ALWAYS right and don't you dare question us!" I mean, at times there really is a sort of insufferable prick mentality that pervades the air, which was evidenced by some of their truly lameass comments on BATMAN this summer or SITH. On the flip side, look for payback to be a bitch: let's see how genuinely honest they cover MEG and showcase their real journalistic ethics if it turns out to be an utter dud given that one of their own is producing it...

  • June 27, 2005, 10:12 p.m. CST

    This isn't a hater-jab at the Kong trailer, but wasn't t

    by JohnnyTremaine

    When I watched it, it just didn't look right. I guess it could have been the FX. But even the scenes with the actors didn't look right. Was this shot maily in front of a green screen? It seemed to have that weird look that SKYCAPTAIN did. Maybe this is something that Mr. Jackson and crew can fix in post production?

  • June 27, 2005, 10:20 p.m. CST

    Harry's giving this a thumbs up ?

    by Hardman

    Well, I guess I'm curious to see it now. Pretty rave review, best film this year.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:30 p.m. CST

    Liked the Kong trailer

    by IndustryKiller

    I don;t think enough directors these days are daring to create the fantastic world that Jackson seems to have set up here. I'm a sucker for creatures though. And thank God at least there is one director out there who can direct an exciting balls to the wall action sequence instead of copping out with qucik video edits. Although none of that matters if the plot doesn't unfold correctly. The two things I'm nervous about is that Jack Black, while a bit restrained, still seems to have a bit too much Jack Blackness to him. A little too goofy to be a visionary filmmaker. Also Kong looks a bit short in those city scenes, but that may have been the camera angle.

  • June 27, 2005, 10:49 p.m. CST

    huh??

    by Pallando

    Harry had a girlfriend?!?!?

  • June 27, 2005, 10:54 p.m. CST

    i can't understand the second paragraph

    by damorend

    at all

  • June 27, 2005, 11:47 p.m. CST

    We're not ready for this? it's a science fiction movie,

    by Windowlicker74

    jeez, Harry when will you learn to quit the hyperbole? BRING ON THE TRIPODS!

  • June 28, 2005, 12:32 a.m. CST

    Miscellany

    by Archive

    Darth Busey is the funniest username in the history of the internet. Hyperbole? Maybe not. In general, I'm with Crow's Eyes. Harry is the kind of guy that can consistently make a movie more fun than it otherwise would be, and he's done that for me countless times. Sometimes I enjoy a film just because of the good mood he put me in prior to seeing it. Harry, I'll be returning the favor in the best way possible. And you'll like what's coming. Man, that sounds so wrong I can't bring myself to delete it.

  • June 28, 2005, 1:37 a.m. CST

    JohnnyTremaine

    by AlwaysThere

    Youre right on target pal. The effect look just like Sky Captain. The backgrounds look ood, the lighting is way too bright and the actors just look out of place.

  • June 28, 2005, 1:41 a.m. CST

    feister

    by BAMF

    "...first I'll wait and see what a few major media reviewers have to say and try to cull a general vibe from the aggregate." sheep.

  • June 28, 2005, 2:13 a.m. CST

    Nintendo

    by Azlam Orlandu

    Did I strike a nerve in the past? You seem to have it out for me considering the vast amounts of posts pushing their opinions much more intently than mine was taking up the space before your post. Timely of you. You can rant, rave, jump up and kick your feet like an infant all you want, it only serves to let everyone else know your frustration level in trying to break my intent. I don't need to answer to you, nor do I fear your "fresh" arsenal of insults stolen from middleschoolers. Say what you will, you're just another faceless-entity spouting profanities on the internet. You guys are a dime a dozen and the only ones who come to your side are the other repeditive denziens just like you. Enjoy living the parasitic, life-sucking existance you choose for yourself, for it's a lot easier than actually trying. Harry's a nice guy. Just because you disagree with how he reacts to films doesn't make him a bad guy or a criminal. How does Harry's so-called "overhyping" of a film hurt you? Do you act this way towards people in your personal life everytime they get back from the theater and are a bit overly excited about the experience for the first two hours? Just curious. I expect to be received with a flury of insults stripped from the latest Eminem album, but then again you might actually try and surprise me. I'm not going to get my hopes up though. -Az

  • June 28, 2005, 2:19 a.m. CST

    Azlam Orlandu

    by Ribbons

    I'm fine with the way Harry gets into films, I have to say as someone who considers myself a member of this little TalkBack "community" though, it puts a looooot of pressure on you to like the films he likes. I actually do end up coming out of films he's recommended that I wouldn't have seen otherwise grateful for the heads-up, but I know if I don't absolutely love 'Domino' after I see it I won't really be able to say something to that extent in TalkBack without at least someone giving me shit for it. Either that or I have to apologize for or sugarcoat my opinion preemptively. I'm well-aware that it's his site and he's allowed to share and cultivate his own biases, which is why I don't really complain about it, and I don't generally get a "bad guy" vibe from him, but the way he gets behind or against films can definitely make certain people hostile towards dissent.

  • June 28, 2005, 2:30 a.m. CST

    By the way...

    by Ribbons

    ...it's not like we as TalkBackers don't engage in the same absolutisms that Harry does, nor do we seem to have a problem with disagreeing with him. I'm not saying he's not allowed to, or even that he shouldn't, write about film the way that he does. But I DO know what it feels like to be made uncomfortable by it. I didn't read any other posts on the TalkBack besides for yours so I don't even know if that's what Nintendo was talking about when he said Harry liking films "hurt" him. I'm just gonna shut up now.

  • June 28, 2005, 2:31 a.m. CST

    Steven Spielberg Has To Stop Saying "Post-9/11". And Tom Cruise

    by Flim Springfield

    And I need to stop reading publicity articles for this movie. They're having a negative effect.

  • June 28, 2005, 2:58 a.m. CST

    Gah.

    by Ribbons

    Just... ignore all that shit I just said. Or make fun of me for it if you want, whatever, but I'm sorry I even wrote that shit. So pay no attention to them or some such.

  • June 28, 2005, 3:24 a.m. CST

    Ribbons

    by Azlam Orlandu

    No reason to make fun of you or ignore your posts. All you're trying to say is that you have an open mind. You don't need to take a firm stance on anything in these posts if you want to. In fact being someone who is either on this side or the other who ignores the gray area simply shows lack of perspective on their part. Opinions are always effected by many elements and those elements are different for every single person on the planet. How can anyone state their opinion is the "golden" opinion? That just shows arrogance on the part of a poster whos opinions should be severely scrutinized as to why they came to such conclusions. I'm very open-minded about things and I like to give people the benefit of the doubt. Rushing to condemn people doesn't do anyone any favors. In the same light I have zero tolerance for those who piss on others because their opinions are not favored by their horde. There's no way I ever in a million years give these people an inch, because even if they have valid points you're not doing them any good by feeding their elitist rants. Besides, they seldom provide any valid points on why being negative is helping anyone. They can say, "We need to stop the crapfests before they're made. We shall be heard." But the fact is that they go about it in such an immature way, screaming and insulting everyone to the point that their attitude overshadows their intent, no matter how valid/invalid. When was the last time anyone ever got a job by saying, "You better hire me you fucking shitlicking Lucas-loving fag girl!" We all know how the real world works and I seldom see any internet tough guys out there. Unless you learn how to punch me through my cable modem it's facts not insults that are going to affect me. Some of you make it very easy to not only defend myself opinion, but reveal your characters for what they really are. Most of the time you do the job yourselves. To the rest of you who are level-headed people just trying to share your ideas with people of similar interests please don't let these guys walk away like they've won anything, because they haven't. -Az

  • June 28, 2005, 3:39 a.m. CST

    psychology a pseudo-science?

    by shatfanat

    This from a guy who practices a "religion" created by a science-fiction writer. GET A FUCKING CLUE, TOM...scientology is a pseudo-religion. P.S. - Charles Manson bought into Scientology and renounced it BEFORE he started his own homicidal "religion."

  • June 28, 2005, 4:16 a.m. CST

    shatfanat

    by Azlam Orlandu

    What's your point? Or are you just trying to be an asshole to just to be one? It's not a prerequisite in posting here you know. Why all the bitterness about Scientology? What did they do to you? Or are they just an easy target? I'd really like to know why people hate them so much. If anyone can come up with a valid argument I'd be taken back. People lash out at things they fear and fail to understand. Where's the Scientology forum that's full of shit-talking know it alls who bash movie fans? They could probably care less about you, and you should follow suite in their reguards. -Az

  • June 28, 2005, 4:17 a.m. CST

    Tom Cruise: "...His ability to project a complete lack of empath

    by Eugene O

    Yep, that describes him.

  • June 28, 2005, 4:35 a.m. CST

    Azlam Orlandu

    by shatfanat

    Jeez, Azlam, just illustrating what I perceived was a well documented and newsworthy point. Tom Cruise recently used a publicity interview to espouse his beliefs in what he calls his "religion," and I was merely responding. No need to get all agro. I never used the word HATE. That's you putting words into people's mouths and subscribing intentions to people's behaviors. You don't know me at all, so don't just presume that I was being an asshole. Believe me, if I was trying to, I'd have bigger people than you complaining because it would be loud and frickin' clear that I was trying to be an asshole. If you want to criticize people who "lash out at things they fear and fail to understand," focus your attention on the person who claims that his intense studies of a thoroughly documented discipline reveal nothing but fraud and deceit. I'm less critical of Tom Cruise for his belief in Scientology (hell, I can't prove half of the things that I believe in on faith alone), than for perverting the platform he was originally given to promote a movie and turning it into a way to promote a religion that, undeniably, WAS INVENTED BY A SCIENCE-FICTION WRITER. Once again I say...pseudo-religion.

  • June 28, 2005, 5:08 a.m. CST

    Azlam

    by Knight of Ni

    You seem like a level headed individual so if you really want to know what so many people have against Scientology why dont you do a bit of research and see for yourself how it is in manys ways well dserving of the fear and loathing it receives.

  • June 28, 2005, 5:16 a.m. CST

    Nintendo

    by Knight of Ni

    Thanks for singling me out and calling me a dickhead, its always nice to be noticed. Like I said, I dont always agree with Harrys reviews, but I do ENJOY reading them whether he is right or wrong. My previous comments were directed towards talkbackers who bash the entire site and claim to disagree with everything, and to have suffered unduly as a result of reading the reviews Harry writes. Let me reiterate that if this site really is as offensive to you as you make it out to be, why not find a site more to your liking to get your information from? Observe, I have written a non bitter post and I have not resorted to childish name calling or profanity to make my point.

  • June 28, 2005, 7:13 a.m. CST

    Fox 5 reviewed WOTW and said it's fantastic with a weak endi

    by Mr. Profit

    I may see this now. And the Kong Trailer made me want to see the movie. Before I could give a fuck, but man it looked pretty good. I'm sure some of the effects will get straightened out by December.

  • June 28, 2005, 7:32 a.m. CST

    Why all the negativity? Here's why!

    by fertilecelluloid

    The insane talkback sections of this crazy website are bursting to the seams with negativity because, very deep down, the negative talkbackers hate the filmmakers because they're on the INSIDE and the negative talkbackers are on the OUTSIDE. That's it! It takes incredibly hard work and many, many years to be a filmmaker with moderate or major success. The negative talkbackers don't want to acknowledge that. They HATE the filmmakers because they're doing what the negative talkbackers aren't doing. It's easier to destroy a film in writing than construct one with talent, time, relationships, persistance and money. And if one can reduce a work of art to ashes, that person can possibly feel better about their own lack of achievement. I like this site, but the negativity is sometimes so overwhelming that it totally confounds me. There isn't a scales big enough to weigh the Jealousy on these talkbacks. On the other hand, there are also many intelligent, insightful and perceptive contributors who do not feel personally affronted by the achievements, good and bad, of others. I come here for those people.

  • June 28, 2005, 7:43 a.m. CST

    Rotten Tomatoes Reviews

    by Neary

    100% so far on Rotten Tomatoes out of nine reviews. Looking damn good from a critical standpoint.

  • June 28, 2005, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Ya know, for all my doubts, I'll still go see this in the th

    by JohnnyTremaine

    Besides this weekend is the Fourth of July; time to spend eating barbecue, chasing girls, drinking with buddies and hitting the beach.

  • June 28, 2005, 8:59 a.m. CST

    You are very bad writer

    by tb1212

    I have never read a more poorly written review in my entire life. Please work on your writing skills. I would never trust anything I ever read by you.

  • June 28, 2005, 10:02 a.m. CST

    Dex Luthor

    by Rebeck

    My title about Asians driving was what's called IRONY. Look it up. It was a joke made at the expense of Nintendo who made that racial comment about Blacks not being able to direct action. I swear some of the people on this board are beyond stupid.

  • June 28, 2005, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Archive

    by Darth Busey

    Was that a compliment or an insult?

  • June 28, 2005, 1:02 p.m. CST

    "...my "New York Kitten" as she liked to be called..."

    by JimboLo

    Damn, now I'm imagining you in that Tigger outfit again, Harry!

  • June 28, 2005, 1:06 p.m. CST

    But, seriously...

    by JimboLo

    Harry, you tell us not to read these dipshit magazines or watch these programmes, but I am a film fan and love watching stuff about upcoming films. The problem comes when an egotistical dwarf comes on and, instead of publicising his film like everyone wants him to do, he uses his position in front of the camera to spout views and opinions no-one wants to hear. Actor = Sell your product. You are famous because of your acting, not because of your goddamn girlfriend or religious beliefs. It really is abuse of power. And if I was Spielberg I would be VERY pissed off.

  • June 28, 2005, 1:48 p.m. CST

    All Hail Xenu!

    by Brock Samson

    He's back! In Tripod form!

  • June 28, 2005, 2:01 p.m. CST

    KONG LOOKS GREAT, WOTW LOOKS CRAP!

    by Greenflame

    I've seen the trailer for Kong and it looks awesome. Jacksons got more talent now in his left eye than Spielberg and it's a shame jackson ain't making War of the worlds. Peter Jackson would have done HG wells story full justice instead of the dire Cruise ego trip we're getting.

  • June 28, 2005, 2:10 p.m. CST

    War of the Worlds

    by beldens

    Saw "War of the Worlds" last night...a desperate movie made by desperate people trying to cling to their respective careers. The movie is a clunker at every level and is a sure fire financial disaster. Plot? Why bother? Tom Cruise as a father, why, that's no stretch! The end of the world and all its calamity occuring in one day's time? A walk from New York to Boston in a day? Was I the only person who noticed Gene Barry from the original movie at the end? I've been around this business a long time and understand the sycophantic support people like Harry and their ilk give to filmmakers like Spielberg and Cruise, but guys, you picked the wrong movie with which to suck up. "The War of the Worlds" will be remembered only by the punchline it most certainly will become.

  • June 28, 2005, 2:11 p.m. CST

    Damn.

    by Malx

    I first started coming here in 1998 and I think this is the first time I've ever seen Harry actually responding in a talkback. That's either a very good sign for the movie, or a very bad sign for the "somebody's underwriting this glowing review" camp. Do I doubt the quality of this film? No - history has shown that betting against Spielberg is a fast way to lose your shirt, and here he's got a compelling tale of almost primordial resonance coupled with ultramodern special effects. As much fun as it is to watch Cruise self-destruct daily on the talk shows, even he can't sink this puppy. But I also remember the glowing reviews for The Phantom Menace and Godzilla, so I don't think we should be in a rush to get all hot and bothered just yet.

  • June 28, 2005, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Nintendo = Parody Poster.

    by FluffyUnbound

    A very good one, too. He straddles the line between stupid and incoherent just well enough that it's hard to detect the underlying irony.

  • June 28, 2005, 3:10 p.m. CST

    you IDIOTS bitching about his personal life

    by Your Mom's Tit

    I swear to god. You dumbshits are pissing and moaning about his lovelife being everywhere for display, and how sick you are of hearing about it. You know how to stop it? QUIT FUCKING TALKING ABOUT IT!! Especially this horrible, one month old nickname "TomKat". You're all bitching about it. It's like blacks bitching about people using "Nigger". Guess what, if YOU don't use the term, then that's one less time it enters the conciousness of the rest of the world. Eventually, it MIGHT fucking die out. Jesus H. Fucking Mickey Mouse Christ, I wanted to read the opinions of fellow movie viewers about the biggest film of this year so far. Not sift through 1000 ignorant fucking whine-fests about ONE of the actor's actions.

  • June 28, 2005, 3:23 p.m. CST

    Tom Cruise - W**ker or Saint?

    by Floyd_Dylan

    He's just gone from cool actor to complete w**ker. He's just flipped out totally, he's so convinced that he's right and that his cult faith is accurate, that his words can cause more harm than he can imagine. It would only take one person who suffers from a mental disorder such as schizophrenia to think, 'wow Cruise is right', and not take anymore prescribed medicine, and then ends up murdering someone out of paranoia. I'm only going to see War of the Worlds just because it's a Speilberg flick, but after that I'll just flat out refuse to see any his movies.

  • June 28, 2005, 3:23 p.m. CST

    BTW, Rebeck...

    by Ribs

    ... I'm not English, I'm from Montana.

  • June 28, 2005, 3:27 p.m. CST

    Book was great, movie will be too

    by andrew coleman

    I like the fake reviews posted that just bash the movie because of Cruise. Movies are beyond one man idiots. If you're that stupid to make assumptions on people and movies based off of Opera and magazines, just don't ever leave your house again thanks.

  • June 28, 2005, 4:34 p.m. CST

    Doesn't matter how good it is

    by Manatee

    At some point, Spielberg will do some crappy Hollywood/sappy thing and ruin the whole damn thing. He sacrifices the integrity of the movie for pandering to the audience every time. No more money for you, Stevie.

  • June 28, 2005, 4:42 p.m. CST

    BOOK WAS GREAT

    by Greenflame

    Spectre how do you know that those reviews are fake? they seem perfectly genuine to me and the fact is Cruise alone is enough to stop a lot of people seeing this along with that Dakota Fanning [ and the fact it's got virtually nothing to do with HG wells original story]. he's a mediocre actor who's only become big because he's popular with female moviegoers and is a heart throb. apparently the movie revolves mainly around him which is no surprise. The movie seems to be more about him than war of the worlds.

  • June 28, 2005, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Ah, lay off the Berg.

    by JohnnyTremaine

    I have a buddy, a Spielberg fan, who encountered SS and his wife in Manhattan a few years back, and by all accounts he was one of the nicest dudes you could ever meet. I'm sure there are plenty of pompous jag-offs in the movie biz (I'm looking at YOU, Mr. Cruise) there's no need to rip on a seemingly good guy.

  • June 28, 2005, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Could've seen it yesterday . . .

    by SpikeZoft

    but my brother's graduation got in the way.

  • June 28, 2005, 4:55 p.m. CST

    fertilecelluloid..

    by whatyoufear

    .. the douche's douche.

  • June 28, 2005, 4:56 p.m. CST

    thanks headgeek for answering, here's another question for y

    by doc_manhattan

    has anybody optioned your story of becoming a producer after just being a filmgeek in austin for a number of years? I know I symphatize heavily with the theme of having all this pent-up potential for so many years and then finally getting your chance to, you know, create something, amount to something. the characters could be great, the dialogue as well, and to me even the settings and surroundings of the story should make for interesting and fresh visuals. maybe hard to do a really dramatic three arc story on it though, but I mean, somebody optioned that uhm flower book that became Adaption, so..

  • June 28, 2005, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Kind of lame

    by leolo

    Let

  • June 28, 2005, 5:08 p.m. CST

    Montana?

    by Rebeck

    Ehh. Same difference. Then why not just say so instead of saying you're 'not Anti-American'? I still disagree with what you said. I may hate our idiot president, and think we're going to hell in a handbasket right now, but I do love this country. You and I are both free to say it's seriously fucked-up right now, but I draw the line at saying that the very definition of "American" is so negative. Half of this country isn't happy with this idiot.

  • June 28, 2005, 5:10 p.m. CST

    Correction

    by Rebeck

    No - from recent poll numbers, more than half. If only we could kick his ass out early.

  • June 28, 2005, 5:14 p.m. CST

    Another Rave - From Variety

    by Rebeck

    http://www.variety.com/VE1117927497.html

  • June 28, 2005, 5:21 p.m. CST

    Here's a REAL review of WOTW

    by JohnNada

    Here you go folks! http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/waroftheworlds.htm What Harry tried to mask (and this is the general feeling of the film) is that it is a masterpiece until...you guessed it...Spielberg throws in yet ANOTHER happy ending for no reason whatsoever! Why does this guy keep doing it? I swear, If you switch off AI and MR 15 minutes before the actual ending then they're masterpieces, it just seems the guy hasn't got the balls to take his dark films through to their logical conclusion. Oh well...maybe I'll just walk out of the cinema 15 minutes early for this one with my feelings not tarnished.

  • June 28, 2005, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Well Variety Loved The Whole Damn Thing

    by Rebeck

    Including the "subdued" ending. How do you know what the real review is until you see for yourself? But hey, way to make up your mind before you see it.

  • June 28, 2005, 5:41 p.m. CST

    My confidence level for this film is rising again.

    by FluffyUnbound

    At Rottentomatoes the only really negative review is Frank Swiatek's, and it's hard to take a reviewer seriously when they apparently don't know the difference between the words "misogynistic" and "misanthropic". That's an AICN-level vocab mistake, Frank.

  • June 28, 2005, 5:42 p.m. CST

    Well Rebeck, because...

    by JohnNada

    ...I was excited as fuck about this film...still am...I know it's going to be almost perfect as it's Spielberg. However, the only requirement would be to not tag on these shit happy endings for no reason. I swear man, how tagged on do the endings for AI and MR feel? It's as if he's shit out of what needs to be done at the last minute, I'm starting to think it comes with age. :( But yeah, all I've wanted to know about this film is does he follow the bleakness and hopeless feel of this movie (i.e. not another ID4 virus ending) through to its logical ending? As in, couldn't it just be uncertain for once? Or not look good for the future? Or we win the day but at a price? Hell no, from the sounds of it Cruise's character doesn't lose one fucking family member, and they all go and live happily ever after in the suburbs! Does that not already sound like the same cop out that we've witnessed in AI and MR already? That's why I'm talking down on it, because it was my one concern for the film and it seems it has become a reality...I hope I'm proved wrong come tomorrow but I doubt it...

  • June 28, 2005, 5:55 p.m. CST

    deal with it

    by forget_about_it

    These two men make millions of dollars per movie, and for good reason. They both know how to make movies that don't suck. This song is going to be the next hit in the US!!! http://www.megaupload.com/?d=20YNBAH2

  • June 28, 2005, 5:58 p.m. CST

    Scientolgists

    by Azlam Orlandu

    I will never fear a group of people who are simply doing things their own way in a country where they have every right to do so. I just don't care what they're doing. I still stand by my opinions, which in turn means that I've been put in my place, well then I'll gladly stand there. There's no further need for me to waste my time with the one-sided and stubborn banter taking place in this thread. I've said what I came here to say and my mind hasn't changed a bit. -Az

  • June 28, 2005, 6:04 p.m. CST

    I Have To Admit I Honestly Thought...

    by Rebeck

    That at least the older son would die. (After all, that's what's happening in the real world) It would be bittersweet, but still a happy ending if he saved the young girl. I see your point, Nada. I'm seeing it first show tomorrow morning, so I'll just have to see and talk about it later.

  • June 28, 2005, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Staying True to the Source Material

    by docfalken

    I think it is interesting that Spielberg would get kicked in the balls for sticking with the story. The story does have a high cheese-factor with the ending, but then so did the LOTR movies. I mean how many time did they have to bumrush a castle before they were done with the bad guys? I think WOTW does a good job with the ending and especially how Ray is able to see the good, bad, and unfulfilled potential of his own life being changed through his son. I thought that was better ending than milking him for fertilizer.

  • June 28, 2005, 6:50 p.m. CST

    Do You Think That Tom Cruise Really Loves Katie Holmes?

    by ZombieSolutions

    hey, another car bombing in Iraq today. man, we're really getting our asses kicked! isn't it weird how we're making movies about being the innocent victims of an imperialistic invasion, when we're the ones who are doing the occupation thing now, and losing? weird, right? technically, you know, the US are the tripods and Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning and whoever esle are like Iraqi familes. ironic, no? so, does the common cold kill the aliens in WOTW? common cold. wow. who woulda thunk it. maybe it should be a deeply entrenched and highly motivated insurgency that does it. see how that plays out.

  • June 28, 2005, 7:52 p.m. CST

    Good reviews across the board. I am down with it now.

    by Mr. Profit

    Tom needs to stop acting up though.....

  • June 28, 2005, 8:10 p.m. CST

    STICKING TO THE STORY, MY ASS!

    by Greenflame

    The reviewer who's slating Spielberg for sticking to the story too much needs his ass kicked and I have a hard time believing that reviewer is real. Spielbergs War of the worlds is nothing like the book except for a few tripods and other token nods from the book.

  • June 28, 2005, 9 p.m. CST

    NYTIMES kinda liked it

    by Film Whisperer

    They said it worked as entertainment, but was pretty disposable, good, not great Spielberg.

  • June 28, 2005, 11:48 p.m. CST

    Just talked to a pure hater and he even liked it

    by andrew coleman

    Friend of mine came back from the screening tonight and said it was great and he hated Batman Begins. Haters can lick my nuts because this movie is gonna rock hard.

  • June 29, 2005, 12:03 a.m. CST

    war of the worlds

    by schots

    Am I the ony one who thinks this is yet another Spielberg misfire? I'm afraid not. Where has Mr. Spielberg been hiding the last decade? I left the Dutch premiere feeling miserable and angry, as I always do when I think a great director has blown it. What a truly underwhelming experience this was! What a bleak and unnessecary piece of summer fare this has become. And we already h

  • June 29, 2005, 1:09 a.m. CST

    schots

    by matticus

    Hmmm ... well, seems you have some sort of a grudge there. Why must you soak your opinions in an anti-Spielberg bias? It sounds like you were expecting the greatest movie of all time. That's just not fair. I'm back from seeing it for the first time and I can say of course it wasn't the greatest movie of all time. But, what it was, was an amazing spectacle, an entertaining thrill ride, and a remarkably tense experience. This movie was not as deep as excellent movies are... but, have you seen a movie more deep with as much of a thrill factor? I think some of the backdrop had to be sacrificed to make this movie what it was intended to be. It was intended to terrify, unnerve, and thrill; and that it did. You gripe about the fact that the tripods were buried under the Earth surface, but that was Wells' story. Did you expect Spielberg to change that crucial part of the story? You know how many more people would've been upset by that. Fact is, this was an incredibly difficult task to resurrect this story into a modern setting so that we can experience the same terror Wells intended us to feel when his book was written. Nobody could have done a better job. I am absolutely 100% sure of it.

  • June 29, 2005, 3:32 a.m. CST

    Nicely put matticus

    by andrew coleman

    Completely agree. I love the book and I in no way expected this movie to even touch how great Wells version was. Since it was set today instead of in the 1890's some things had to be changed. I just think the movie will be a good time at the movies, I also think people are being a little too hard on it. Or even out to get it with bad word of mouth and what not before even seeing it.

  • June 29, 2005, 4:11 a.m. CST

    "I left the Dutch premiere feeling miserable and angry"

    by Black Jesus

    if you feel miserable and angry after seeing a damn movie you need to get a grip and not take this shit so seriously.

  • June 29, 2005, 4:24 a.m. CST

    Sorry if I'm repeating anything...

    by halfmahalfn

    So I saw the thing earlier today. Went off, had some drinks with some buddies, and came back to check what everyone's been saying about it. Is NZ one of the first countries for it to be released in? Seems very few people have seen it yet. And this has been a pretty weakass talkback because of it. But enough waffling. Yeah - I pretty much liked it. The animal side of my brain dug the splosions an' shit. The amount of shit ruined in this film is just, just... fucking... art. The other side had a few problems - SPOLIERS a coming... Here's the first big bad tripod making it's entrance. We've already discovered that everything technological has stoppped. I mean everything - clocks, TV's, cars. And this tripod is rising up off the street and, pretty much front and centre in the crowd scene, there's the one dude with... a handycam. He's watching the screen and getting a grand ole shot, obviously. And this films ending sucked such massive, tripod scale ass as to wish it away as some kind of bad sleep-depraved dream. Next to the Tim Robbins character - who should have been played by a relative unknown. I like Tim - think he's a very fine actor. But with all this mayhem going on two characters run to this house. And by this stage you're getting pretty immersed in the whole "we are all but faceless rabble shuffling to our doom" mindset. And then.. hey it's Bob Roberts! (Although this is made up for somewhat with the character's exit.) So it's well worth a look. The sense of foreboding was pitch perfect throughout. Wait till little Dakota is down near the river and she sees what's floating past. Or when the train lights are going... Yeah - the Spiel nailed some scenes down so fresh and so clean. However, despite the gravatis of the movie, the nice little acting turns by the kids, the total believabilty of the main character... I was still left cold. Guess I just like my action films big, dumb and full of very little. Had more fun with ID4. Enjoyed that film with only the animal side. Makes more sense sometimes...

  • June 29, 2005, 6:24 a.m. CST

    Has Harry ever seen a movie he didn't like?

    by Drunken Rage

    He was raving about the "Herbie the Love Bug" DVD boxed set a couple of weeks ago. Clearly, his taste is up his ass. Raves for "Phantom Menace," "Van Helsing" and "Land of the Dead" come to mind.

  • June 29, 2005, 8:10 a.m. CST

    saw it and ...

    by Duncan_Idaho72

    its damn good. When those Tripods are attacking in that first encounter I'm hard pressed to remember another movie with that frightening thrill of being chased by certain death. It's that good. The movie moves at a fast pace and allows you to catch your breath in the basement scene (that went on and on and on and on...). But that is not really a big complaint though. The ending is abrupt though. (minor spoiler???) It's a happy one and it felt as if Spielberg didnt know exactly how to end it, kinda felt like a last minute add on, but that is what WOTW is all about though (the destruction of the Tripods). Go see this movie. Dont wait for video, the sounds and the thrills are worth it.

  • June 29, 2005, 8:46 a.m. CST

    War On Terror Allegory?

    by ZombieSolutions

    yep. the Aliens represent the Imperial American forces and Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning are an Iraqi family. think about it. an unprovoked attack, massive civilian casualities, harvesting the land for resources, etc. it would be cool if the Aliens were beat by a deeply entrenched and highly motivated insurgency rather than the common cold. more resonance what with what's going on in Vietn-uh, i mean, Iraq. hey, isn't that weird that Rumsfeld was a bigwig involved with Vietnam too? wow.

  • June 29, 2005, 9:42 a.m. CST

    Good Point, LLAC5 (IILAC5?)

    by ZombieSolutions

    and that could tie into how the current administration poopoos the insurgency even as it is winning -- as if they were merely "harmless" microbes, a minor "virus," nothing more than a cold. while the military leaders keep saying that no, the insurgency is as strong as ever and are getting stronger by the day -- basically, that the "virus" of the insurgency is growing stronger and kicking our asses 8 ways to Sunday with no end in sight. i wonder if Spielberg realizes this? that it's just nigh impossible to see Imperial America as an "innocent victim" when clearly it is the aggressor in the current scheme of things. invert the popular (and utterly misinterpreted) understanding of the Endless War and it all becomes painfully clear that the US are the badguys. the US are the shadowy mechanical technocracy come to kill innocents in order to harvest their resources. and the civilians in Iraq are Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning having their lives destroyed for "freedom." has it really only been 30 years or so since Vietnam? wow. popular memory sure is short. wonder how long will it be before the US is forced to leave with it's tails between it's legs AGAIN?

  • June 29, 2005, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Would have really liked to see this film handled better.

    by SCYTHEOFLUNA

    The film should have been left in the time period that Wells wrote it in. The book took place not long after the industrial revoloution. We didn't have machine guns or nukes, and the story seems to be more menacing in it's original setting

  • June 29, 2005, 1:01 p.m. CST

    The Happy Ending All But Killed (or at least Defused the Urgenc

    by ZombieSolutions

    as gifted a pop-director as Speilberg is, he just can't seem to handle dystopia. everything has to end up happy-happy. yes, of course, Steven, the family-unit will save us all! skyrocketing divorce rates and general nuclear familial disintegration/breakdown notwithstanding, it's the nuclear family that makes it all better in the end. of course! the disease is the cure! all evidence to the contrary of course. still, you gotta love the guy. even when he's ludicrous (which is pretty much always), he has an uncanny knack for pushing the popular consciousnesses buttons perfectly. Spielberg is like Kubrick's happy-go-lucky (and maybe slightly retarded) little brother -- Kubrick gives you the cold hard truth regardless of how much it hurts, Spielberg wants to be everybody's friend and make everything happy: even if that means twisting reality to the point of absurdity.

  • June 29, 2005, 1:59 p.m. CST

    What is it with aliens and POOR planning?

    by MajorOcelot

    I knew the movie had to end the way it did but it felt very rushed and why was Otto and her entire family all wearing their Sunday best like they just got done having family dinner? I am very pleased that Steven didn't follow their story for the whole movie. That's great the son was still alive but I just don't get how this nice section of Boston was left untouched by the merciless brutal tripods. I was very entertained by the movie but I think the ending should've been more thought out.

  • June 29, 2005, 2:28 p.m. CST

    matticus, Black Jesus

    by schots

    Hello? Is ANYBODY picking up on what I'm trying to say here? As I already stated, I still think he's the greatest storyteller among directors alive today. I just think that he's out of touch with reality. A great mind like his SHOULD be pushed and pushed again to deliver a better picture than just popcorn fare like this. Why do you think JAWS turned out so great? Because he was PUSHED by his producers, the location, his actors and his editor to not give up so easily. THAT's the real reason why that film is still so watchable today. These days nobody has the courage to stand up to Spielberg and say that he's delivering mediocre stuff, while he could be making CLASSICS over and over again, if he would just leave the pallisades once in a while! And if he has become too lazy to do so, he should concentrate on small stuff, and leave the truly classic stories to a more energetic generation of filmmakers. PS Matticus: I'm sorry Mister, but in the original story the tripods DO arrive from the sky" PPS Black Jesus: "get a grip". What do you mean by that? This A FILM SITE! Anybody who does not want to join a film discussion shouldn't be reacting here!

  • June 29, 2005, 3:08 p.m. CST

    jackass actors

    by THX-1138

    Tom's antics make paying to view this flick more difficult by the day...

  • June 29, 2005, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Cruise, that M-Fer

    by UTWAS

    Just saw the flick, and it is one of Spielberg's better recent films. Definitely a step above A.I. and Minority Report. Cruise is an established actor and is quite good in the role, but I'll be damned if every time I saw him on screen I thought of him jumping on Oprah's couch or bitching out Matt Lauer . Damn him for ruining a pretty good movie. Damn him also for securing Katie Holmes -- watch the last 15 minutes of "The Gift" to see her in all of her glory. Watch it while jumping on your couch and taking vitamins.

  • June 29, 2005, 3:49 p.m. CST

    the ending ((SPOILERS))

    by calami-shami

    ((SPOILERS)) ((SPOILERS)) ((SPOILERS))I didn't like the ending. Not the end the aleins met but the ending for our main characters. I think Ray should have been left all alone in a ditch, half-crazed and near feral like Tim Robbins character. Yeah let the aliens die and the world spared, but it would have been poiniant (spelling?) to have Ray lose his family just as he's learning how much he needs them. Everything else was cool

  • June 29, 2005, 3:54 p.m. CST

    speilbergs problems

    by calami-shami

    I think the things that have gone wrong the the last few speilberg films is due to his process of making a movie. I hear he shots very quickly, just blasting through production. Its worked for him in the past but he needs to slow down now and take more time on his films. If he had he could have worked out the kinks.

  • June 29, 2005, 4:03 p.m. CST

    the most overhyped movie since titanic...

    by silverdog

    Not bad, but nothing to make such a big fuss about... and dakota fannig should give tom cruise some acting lessons as a wedding gift (!good lord,he needs them!)..

  • June 29, 2005, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Re: schots

    by Black Jesus

    I'm just saying... it's only a movie. It's not the end of the world (no pun intended) if it's not the best thing since sliced bread. I personally haven't seen it yet, but I'm going tonight and if it turns out to be not that great, then it's no big deal. No need to get angry about it or anything.

  • June 29, 2005, 5:14 p.m. CST

    can we really trust Harry any more?

    by v1cious

    i mean this is the same guy that praiseed "The Matrix: Revolutions", even Moriarty disagress with his opinion.

  • June 29, 2005, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Big WOTW Novel Fan

    by meowth49

    I saw the film last night and was blown away finally seeing the tripods in all their glory pummelling everyone and thing. But I reckon Spielberg should have stuck with the story, that being a Martian invasion in Victorian England. The terror in the novel is that people simply cannot fight back due to being totally overwhelmed by the alien technology. The contrast of the two different worlds is what makes it so powerful, the progression in the Martians efforts & the diversity in the characters the hero meets. Also how the book is so good at explaining everything in some sort of scientific detail. The movie takes lots of things from the book (red weed, tripods, heat ray, baskets, the ships, the blood-sucking) but takes it and morphs it in a strange way, as if to just cram it in the movie to make it be like the book. For example, the red weed. In the movie it is basically obsolete. In a seemingly useless scene the tripods are

  • June 29, 2005, 6:08 p.m. CST

    Anyone explain why the guy's filming the tripod with a video

    by halfmahalfn

    Gots ta agree with Moviemack about the crowd standing around during the earthquake scene. What a fucked up moment in the film. But, for the most part, the panic and terror was right. Someone here has been saying how Ray doesn't show any "real" terror during the initial attack... he came home and hid under the table!! Basically ignored his kids cause he was too fucked up by what he'd seen. And what the fuck is "real" terror? And Mack, after all your over-hype leading up to it's release, did you ever post your review of Batman Begins?

  • June 29, 2005, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Dunb crowd

    by Rupee88

    Yeah, I was thinking the same thing...there's no way the crowd would have stood around the "earthquake" and tripod that long before starting to run. Also, Ray always seems to be able to find a lane to drive his car, despite the highway being clogged with vehicles and a neighhborhood being blanked with airplane wreckage..dumb. And the last thing that jumped out as absurd was when one row of military guys was holding back a huge mob of people surging towards the ferry...that mob would have overpowered that one row of Army guys in one second...actually most of the mob scenes in the film were way too "orderly"...you didn't see people getting trampled and crushed, which would have been the case. Anyway, despite these lame part, I still enjoyed the film because of the awesome visuals of the tripods kicking ass.

  • June 29, 2005, 7:25 p.m. CST

    meowth49

    by Dave Bowman

    Just wondering...how do you see the actions of Australians differing from what you saw in the movie?

  • June 29, 2005, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Jackasses are never happy with any film

    by Saxster

    I'm seriously sick of the people that come here and don't know a great movie when they see one because they live apparently in some ego-realm all their own. If you know so much, go become another Spielberg. War of the Worlds is a MUST SEE movie. Anyone that tells you differently is a jackass.

  • June 29, 2005, 8:39 p.m. CST

    I just saw the film, and the one thing I can't get out of my

    by Red Raider

    ...is that horn the tripods would blow everytime they would begin to attack. That sound made them, for me anyway, that much more menacing and scary!

  • June 29, 2005, 8:58 p.m. CST

    Ebert doesn't know shit

    by I Dunno

    Whenever he review a sci fi movie he harps on some goofy logistical error that he thinks he's found that turns out to be just the result of him not paying attention or not getting the point.

  • June 29, 2005, 9:13 p.m. CST

    Tripod horns

    by meowth49

    the noises the tripods make are out of the book, its how they communicate to each other. but in the novel its described as a heavy high pitched call. still meant to chill you to the bone

  • June 29, 2005, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Cruise's performance

    by syetter

    I saw it and I liked it. Like Harry, I love movies and I've always loved Spielberg movies. The movie was focused on Tom but that didn't bother me. I feel he is a great actor. (Spoiler) The mob scene where he is held at gunpoint for his car was wrenching, almost scarier than the tripods. I felt his fear, of being shot, of losing his little girl, of the mob tearing him apart. Very convincing and well done. (End spoiler) I've been coming to this site since it's beginning because I love movies. Thank you Harry.

  • June 29, 2005, 9:32 p.m. CST

    Whatever happened to that other "WotW" project?

    by caipirina

    Did I just dream that? Or was there, many years ago, some unknown guy who got the rights, planned a remake, set in victorian england, and Harry was even rumored to die a gruesome death in it ... The last I hear was that it was shelved after 9/11 And then i hear its a spielberg/cruise project .. besides .. the movie opened today even in Fiji and I attended the first screening .. besides a nasty audience and a failing soundsystem, I was very impressed!!! the trailers have left me fairly cold .. but the movie .. very cool indeed !!!

  • June 29, 2005, 9:38 p.m. CST

    the audience

    by syetter

    By the way the audience was deathly silent at the end of the movie. We all walked out of there not saying a word. We did not have the Kong trailer but we did have the "Transporter 2" trailer. It kicks ass.

  • June 29, 2005, 10:32 p.m. CST

    Quit it, already!

    by RetroActive

    Stopbeating the drum for all of the "metaphors for war"/if you don't agree with me, you're a buffoon" raggers. MSNBC, FOXNEWS, & CNN all have blogs for that so peace! As for Dakota... Man, I wanted the tripods to zap her into a regular little girl. Coupla points... 1.) The movie was just okay for me. 2.) Cruise was better than he usually is so that was tolerable. (Dakota still bugs me.) 2.) Now I know what happened to Tim Robbins' character in Mystic River after his stabbing...he dug a hole from the river to a farm house outside of Boston to recover, only to be murdered AGAIN by another angry, short dude wearing a leather jacket. 3.) Lots of cool scenes + lots of silly scenes + major plot holes = "meh" 4.) Tom Cruise looked very, very short in this movie. 5.) I don't think there'll be any sequels. 6.) Win, lose, or draw...ID4 was an awful movie because, a.) Randy Quaid was in it b.) Will Smith knocked out an alien with one punch c.) Bill Pulman was a former ace pilot for the military?!! & d.) Randy Quaid was in it 7.) When is someone gonna show me an alien I haven't seen before? These guys looked like a goldfish after it gets those lumps right before it croaks...and pick arms/hands that don't look ET-ish, please 8.) The aliens can use lightning flashes to rocket pilots through the ground into their tripods, but need a colonoscopy-like probe to look through basements for survivors? Even our military has infrared/thermal imaging systems. Come on! That is all. G'night.

  • June 29, 2005, 11:30 p.m. CST

    I JUST saw the film...

    by uberman

    Stunning. Awesome. Terrifying. This movie quite simply stunned me. This has as much impact as JAWS did for me all those years ago. This is simply the BEST sci fi/adventure/horror film since ALIENS. Fantastic. Forget about actors opinions, just see the movie. It literally will shake you to your core. I cannot sya enough about how fantastic this movie is. I love Ebert, have nopt read his review but here its not positive. If that is true, then Ebert is dead. He could not possibly have seen this movie. 5/5 stars for me.

  • June 29, 2005, 11:54 p.m. CST

    Yeah, those Tripod "horn" sounds were killer

    by Rupee88

    By the end of the movie, I was conditioned to really fear that sound...the sound designers deserve kudos for this one. They really did make the aliens much more menacing.

  • June 29, 2005, 11:57 p.m. CST

    Iconic images

    by Rupee88

    I saw this about 12 hours ago and I can't get many of the images out of my head. I don't remember much of the story or "family crap" that Spielberg loves, but I do remember the tripods wreaking havoc and the vicarious fear I felt...overall, I gotta give this movie a thumbs up for sure. On the popcorn movie scale, I'd give it a 10 out of 10....as a drama, maybe a 5 or 6, but that didn't matter here...even a weak script could not keep this from being a powerfully affecting film.

  • June 30, 2005, 1:21 a.m. CST

    WotW

    by kmichael

    WOW!! The first hour of this movie just floored me. I am talking real mental anguish - pulse racing - slack-jawed - you know what I'm saying. I was hoping for a break in the action (perhaps some "family therapy" between Ray and the kids under some bridge or something). But, man, Spielberg kept pouring it on. I will definitely be a repeat visitor to this one.

  • June 30, 2005, 2:21 a.m. CST

    MovieMack ...

    by BonnieSituation

    ["As Speilberg throws every one of his cliches at the screen, hoping they stick. I'm sure the crowds will eat it with a spoon - they demand nearly nothing, after all. But if anybody can sit through the blood-splatter scene (complete with fake livestock carcasses thrown about for Tommy Chemical Imbalance to hop over) without laughing, then more power to them. Morgan Freeman impersonating Orson Welles is worth a chuckle too."] ... Jesus, could you be any more fuckin cynical? I wouldn't call myself a huge fan of Cruise OR Spielberg, but I still got throuh this movie without noticing any of the petty shit you've mentioned. But then, I guess I'd have to be desperate to find something to bitch about.

  • June 30, 2005, 2:32 a.m. CST

    normally...i really hate Cruises acting but..

    by Tim-Mighty

    ..here he has more than his three usual face expressions. The Aliens remindet me of one figure in that lame SciFi Show Farscape... That Movie was good...what a suprise.

  • June 30, 2005, 2:39 a.m. CST

    ooooohboy

    by Magnethead

    I really dug this movie. and what I didn't like, who friggin cares. people bitch too damned much. I'm going ot see it again.

  • June 30, 2005, 2:55 a.m. CST

    Honestly, I was bored...

    by Mt. Top

    Blame it on all the reviews I read, but I was bored through most of the film. I really tried hard not to read any reviews with spoilers beforehand. But even the barebones reviews pretty much spelled out the big scenes. So, there wasn't much that suprised me. I'm a bit pissed that I read any reviews beforehand to tell you the truth. You can never trust a stinking critic. They always have to spoil things. What I want to hear in NOT a description of the damn movie. Shit man, anyone can do that. What I want to hear is HOW the movie AFFECTED you. Now that's cool. If you can paint a picture of how the movie rocked you without outlining the film, you've written a good review. Anyway... there were still a few moments where I was like 'Holy Crap' that's intense. Just not enough. And many cuts from excellent CGI to 'real' stuff screamed, "SET! THIS IS A SET!". Even the airplane set was a totla waste of money as it was obviously a "SET!". Almost as bad as those old cowboy movies where they're sitting 'outside' around the campfire and you hear their voices echoing around the room. Another thing that annoyed me was in jerkiness of many scenes. Okay, we're running for our lives. Okay, now lets go right to sleep. No talking. We just all fall asleep on queue within three minutes. Don't worry that there are machines just outside that will kill us as soon as we close our eyes. Blech. My only hope is that the dumb thing will get better with repeat viewings - which it probably will thank God. Oh, and BTW: there are NO ALIENS. If aliens show up you can bet your bottom dollar they are fallen angels trying to decieve us. Period.

  • June 30, 2005, 3:38 a.m. CST

    great film *spoilers*

    by wongo1

    amazing visuals. cool concepts (i especially enjoyed how it showed some of the fighting between the people... like the hordes of people trying to get their van.) the ending was a bit (oh it's over?) but i like the idea of how the aliens go down (i hadn't read the book before) - there's a lot of depth there to think about on many levels actually. there are some unbelievable things like the way they all come together at the end. also i found it very weird how the son wanted to fight and whatnot. just bordering on mentally retarded. i didn't buy that part of it. but oh well. i also didn't feel tim robbins character add much to the film... those flaws aside this movie had some of the most intense amazing scenes i've ever seen. i have a hard time imagining how cynical one has to be to not be floored by some of the stuff in this movie. when the laser beams are turning people to dust all around... that's just some good biz. the tripods were awesome. just astounding visuals - maybe the best special effects i've ever seen. and done with such taste - not over the top. real.

  • June 30, 2005, 3:42 a.m. CST

    The alien's defeat was fine, but I was disappointed with the

    by Starkiller1

    Spielberg kicked ass with this one, but he just can't leave anything dismal and dark. Take note from Lucas: dead kids can make a movie.

  • June 30, 2005, 3:42 a.m. CST

    Mt. Top

    by wongo1

    "Oh, and BTW: there are NO ALIENS. If aliens show up you can bet your bottom dollar they are fallen angels trying to decieve us. Period." holy shit there's some crazy motherfuckers in this world. --- oh and dakota fanning was excellent.

  • June 30, 2005, 3:45 a.m. CST

    spoiler - starkiller

    by wongo1

    i agree about certain people arriving alive at the end. that was just... from what we had seen it was so incredibly inprobable. it just didn't fit. also the way they (the family in boston) seemed so unaffected by everything... just chillin in their nice ass house. what was that biz about. i mean maybe they just lucked out and the aliens didnt zap their house.

  • June 30, 2005, 5:57 a.m. CST

    I like Harry's reviews

    by Mt. Top

    That crap I said about critics wrongly outlining every movie they review didn't apply to Harry. Oh.. and I did think the tripods were pretty sweet. I just wish they would have **SPOILERS** killed Tom and his daughter... and then Tim Robbins could have climbed up from the basement barely alive, and wreaked almightly havoc. Now that would have rocked baby.

  • June 30, 2005, 6:31 a.m. CST

    sucka

    by ALUCINOR11

    wow

  • June 30, 2005, 6:46 a.m. CST

    WAR OF THE WORLDS spoiler*

    by ALUCINOR11

    what an amazing movie the ending is perfect I can't believe they would ever deviate from the book... spielberg just can't win with people I swear. Read the book and the ending right down to him seeing his wife again well ex wife anyway is right there...been there for 100 friggin years

  • June 30, 2005, 7:20 a.m. CST

    Tripod horns and lightning storms...

    by Legolars

    I saw the movie yesterday and I thought it kicked some serious humanoid ass. The Tripod horns... chilling. What great sound design. The wide shot of the Tripod on the mountain looming over the village and the people at the ferry...classic. When I left the cinema a great thunderstorm had begun and all the moviegoers just stood, waited and watched the lightning, laughing with each other. The movie has made an impact and everyone enjoyed it.

  • June 30, 2005, 8 a.m. CST

    ZombieSolutions= the village tool

    by classyfredblassy

    just loved it when extreme liberals take something out of context and use it for a metaphor against the US war on Terror. Clutchmonkey is oh so right in his posting. Even the tag line for the movie "They are already here" is reference to sleepers cells of islamic terrorist in America. The so called "Students" and their buddies waiting for there chance to strike. The angry muslim crowds in the middle east love to protest americans in their "Land", but really, how many of those self-centered assholes are living in America now? With no intention of doing anything that would a postive for the society as a whole. Their just here to take advantage of our system and openness, and then cry "Racism" when they get caught red-headed plot to kill people (http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/08/terror.probe/index.html). ZombieSolutions and the rest of the useful idiots take the saying "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" to what could be a tragic extreme. I have news for you buddy, Osma and his buddies who just assume caught your throat then look at you. In many ways, the far left would be one the first targets of Islamo-facists if they have they chance. The causes the left champoins, like gay marriage and secularism, is more offensive to them than Christianity. "War of the worlds" if anything, is a reminder of for a brief time after 9/11, all types of people pulled together. That we all had the same enemy. And the aliens do in fact equal the islamic terrorists. As the head of C.A.I.R (the american arm of Hamas) said "Islam is not here to be the equal of other religions, it is here to dominate them." Sounds like the aliens to me.... Akbhala Akubar!!!!

  • June 30, 2005, 8:40 a.m. CST

    OK ...

    by Shan

    ... what's the general consensus?

  • June 30, 2005, 8:42 a.m. CST

    OK ...

    by Shan

    ... what's the general consensus?

  • June 30, 2005, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Harry's BEST REVIEW EVER!

    by Kentucky Colonel

    My god, I thought his Revenge of the Sith was one for the ages, then there was Batman Begins, and all those Kong tidbits...but he has outdone himself once again! At this rate, he'll be bigger than Jesus in no time!

  • June 30, 2005, 9:17 a.m. CST

    Great review, Harry! You hit it spot on!

    by Colonel_Blimp

    This movie was just brilliant. Gutwrenching, intense and believable in the same way that nightmares are believable when you are dreaming them. That's what this movie did the most for me, it encapsulated the feeling that I'm having a nightmare more than any movie I've ever seen. And there are so many haunting images (SPOILERS FROM NOW ON): The moving church, the planecrash, the burning train...And the acting is great. I actually, despite myself, completely forgot that it was Tom Cruise I was watching. I can buy that some of you felt the basement scene was misplaced, but to me it was terrific. The scene when Tim and Tom are wrestling in silence over the shotgun is pure genious. What I can't get is why you virgins-till-you-die criticize the ending. First, it's EXCACTLY the same as in the novel, so at least you could blame Wells instead of Spielberg. Second, the final scenes are very well handled, with surprisingly little sentimentality. It's not like there are tearstained closeups and a thousand "I love you dad"s and Miranda Otto dumping her husband and getting back with Cruise and telling him that she's carrying his child. The ending was subdued and elegant, and the only reason you wankers don't like it is because you are biased against Spielberg's endings. Drop it! This movie is amazing, and this is a fantastic summer for mainstream movies, darker and more mature than any of you have any right to ask for. Be grateful. Dixi.

  • June 30, 2005, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Cameos

    by tomokato

    Has no one noticed the briefest of cameos at the end by Gene Barry and Ann Robinson as Ray's former in-laws? Thought it was a rather elegant and nice touch on Mr. Spielberg's part.

  • June 30, 2005, 11:01 a.m. CST

    "Osma and his buddies who just assume caught your throat then lo

    by FluffyUnbound

    It's possible, I guess, that this is some kind of bizarre uber-typo - but something tells me it's not, and this is what the poster thinks the expression actually is.

  • June 30, 2005, noon CST

    Head Geek you're not entirely right about this.

    by Hervoyel

    I don't watch Oprah and I steer as clear of the gossip mags and shows as I can but Tom's personal life is something I've become aware of while honestly trying hard to avoid it. When a story like the one that's developed around Cruise/Holmes reaches a certain size it begins to bleed over into the regular media, and then it becomes the subject of office conversation, forwarded email jokes, and of course internet message boards. It's not just the handful of gossip hacks pushing the story anymore. Now it's the guy in a cubicle two rows over who's forwarding a funny scientology story. In short it gets big enough to start putting out it's on gravity and it sucks everything else in and we hate it (and them) for it. We hated Ben and Jen and now we hate Tom and Katie and there's going to be spillover because of that. I enjoyed Batman Begins but everytime Holmes stepped onto the screen I thought about all the crap I've had put in front of me about her and Tom. It detracted (in a miniscule way of course) from the movie. I expect Tom's presence in WOTW to do the same thing. It's not just "don't pay attention to that stuff and it won't matter" though. It's reached saturation level. We can barely keep it at arms length now and it will stay like this until the gossip crowd has gorged on the story to the point of not caring anymore. Then it will go away. Thank God.

  • June 30, 2005, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Tougher than Shindler's List???

    by -guyinthebackrow

    Harry, you're insane! And wrong. And the effects looked rushed. The acting by those soldiers was horrible. The rest of the actors did fine work. The ending sucked. The narration was stupid and meaningless. That kid is dead! When he shows up everyone laughed. Dumbness! Not a bad movie. Not a good movie. Just... disappointing.

  • June 30, 2005, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Spielberg's Endings Just Kills Me!

    by christianvu

    The horror...War of the Worlds was a kool film until the ending! Harry...please explain the ending...his family all lives without a scratch on them, even the Grandparents! His son actually made it too. One billion people died and all of his family survives...give me a, all Spielberg just kill me now. Your movies have all been decent until the last 30 minutes...A.I., Minority Report, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, etc....

  • June 30, 2005, 1:42 p.m. CST

    by gama

    This film had more holes than Edam 1) Electrical interferance wipes out cars, T.v, lights and wrist watches but not some guys digital camera. 2) If these aliens have been planning this atack for centuries then why not pop up back when the only defences were spears and flint axes. 3) And what's with the grenades blowing up droping the prisoners 10 storeys onto a dead tree in what resembles a hamster ball with no aparent injuries.

  • June 30, 2005, 1:53 p.m. CST

    classyfredblassy

    by BonnieSituation

    Buddy ... follow me over to http://www.itshappening.com . You'd fit right in over there - I go by "EbolaMonkey". Check it out.

  • June 30, 2005, 2:07 p.m. CST

    I thought the fact that the aliens died at the end like the orig

    by iamnicksaicnsn

    Definitely deserved some models or puppets... ALL SPOILERS!: The aliens are too cute, we should have never seen them, they acted like they were little ETs. When the alien has the bike fall on him, i was thinking "aww, he's curious about people..." not, "OH MY GOD THEY ARE KILLING MACHINES." The Pods were freaky enough by themselves, and showing the aliens took away from what we thought was a cold and uncaring species. Who the hell was that woman and her daughter when they were trying to get on the barge, and what was the point of having us introduced to her, and then her disappearing 5 minutes later? WHY THE HELL did the son survive??? When I was watching it, I was thinking to myself, "well, ok... so they meet up with the family... i guess i can accept that since it looks like the son's died, that shows a little balls from Spielberg..." AND THEN THE FUCKER POPS UP AGAIN!!! It was so quick! We don't even really get to see any evidence of Tom Cruise's true redemption! WHAT I LIKED: Tim Robbins, 9/11 Imagery, Iraq War references (just for the hope that someone might come away thinking about what the hell is going on in the world today), the fact that i was stuck in my seat, unable to move for the first 95% of the movie, the blood-fertilizer.

  • June 30, 2005, 2:44 p.m. CST

    Thought it was fuckin terrific.

    by chickychow

    Yeah, the end is a letdown, but this movie rocked me. I've been disappointed by everything this year, Star Wars, Batman, Sin City, etc... This is a summer action movie with BALLS, a visceral and intense viewing experience. Kiss your own asses, naysayers, it won't get much better than this.

  • June 30, 2005, 3:16 p.m. CST

    M. Night and Spielberg discuss War of the Worlds

    by MattyBoomStar

    exclusive interview at www.WhiteEyeLid.com

  • June 30, 2005, 5:07 p.m. CST

    I've read the book, I've heard the radiocast...

    by thereisanother

    ...and I've now seen the movie, and I have to say the ending works best in the first, is ok in the second but is AN ABSOLUTE FREAKIN COPOUT here! (spoilers ahead, obviously) The first 30-45 minutes of the movie provide fantastic, terrifying eye candy, surprisingly good comic relief and armrest-gripping suspens, but the film starts to lose its momentum when Robbie runs over the hill. Instead of creeping us out, the shell-shocked ex-ambulance driver gets laughs at the introduction and you never learn enough about him to feel the sympathy that would make his death meaningful, the snake+martian search scenes are lifted *directly* from the Velociraptor scene in JP (something a buddy of mine confirmed, so I know it's not just me) and Cruise blindfolding the little girl felt very contrived. But my biggest beef is still with the ending. Again, I've read the book. My dad was a huge fan of the radiocast and I've listened to it several times. Granted most of my exposure to the material was during childhood/youth so my experience was a little light on the deeper themes like the anti-colonialist bent commented on extensively here, but it's not like I didn't realize it later in life. Bottom line when I heard Speilberg and Cruise were making a summer blockbuster out of the material I was cautiously optimistic; but the question that kept going through my head was "What ending have they thought up for it". it NEVER crossed my mind that they would try to use the "martians are allergic to water" (bugs in the water, same thing) because 1) It'd just been done in Signs for chrissakes 2) You can't establish the invaders as our complete technological superior, and claim they've been planning an invasion for THOUSANDS OF YEARS more (timeframe needed to bury the tripods without human record being made of it) and yet somehow they fail to account for something as COMPLETELY BASIC as life support systems for the invading army. Of course when Wells wrote his masterpiece (1898) and Welles did his broadcast (1938), the general awareness of the logistics that go into interstellar travel was, to put it mildly, not well developed...so the plot device seemed believeable. But Speilberg should not have expected an audience in 2005 to be as naive. Afterall, us simple-minded monkeymen had the common sense to put spacesuits on the first moonwalkers and keep them quarantined for months after their return to prevent any space cooties from decimating our population. So...if the attackers possess superior intellects and had an interminable amount of time to plan their attack it's just too much disbelief for me to suspend to assume they would not have idenitified and corrected for basic environmental factors. (And that's not even pointing out the obvious: if they were here 10,000 years ago to bury the tripods WHY NOT TAKE OVER THE PLANET THEN? Alternatively, why wouldn't they have picked up on the fact that they couldn't handle our bugs/water and either A) adjusted for it or B) decided we weren't worht conquesting in the first place.) An implausible ending is one thing, it is a movie about an alien invasion afterall. But an ending that breaks the story's own internal logic and demands we just turn off our brains or set them back 100+years is unforgivable. This movie is Netflix worthy, and possibly matinee-ok but nowhere near Close Encounters or Raiders or the constant barrage of *** and **** ratings its getting. Someone clue me in if I'm missing the obvious.

  • June 30, 2005, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Get off Harry Movie was great

    by dcroswhite

    I saw WOTW last night, the aliens were believable, the ending was ok. The duaghter was great. Tim Robbins was creapy as all out.

  • June 30, 2005, 8:24 p.m. CST

    Landoasskissian

    by Starkiller1

    Sorry, not in the wrestling divas newsgroup, but I was an extra in WOTW.

  • June 30, 2005, 8:47 p.m. CST

    Great film with a HORRIBLE "kid friendly" ending.

    by Doom II

    Over a billion people are killed by these things, but Tom's entire "extended family" survives. No one is even injured! Really poor conclusion with the family reuniting.

  • June 30, 2005, 10:14 p.m. CST

    The Titanic was sank by an iceberg!!!

    by JorgeHP

    And the big bad Aliens were killed by God's smallest living creation. That'll teach 'em for destroying God's Church!

  • June 30, 2005, 11:52 p.m. CST

    9/11

    by I Dunno

    Well, having terrorists in a movie is competly out of the question but now we can't even have an alien invasion story without people screaming, "9/11!! 9/11!!" That's bullshit. All roads don't lead back to 9/11. people. Get the Goddamned over it. Christ. ID4 would never get past the studio pitch today.

  • July 1, 2005, 12:52 a.m. CST

    I would rank this film at #10 on Spielberg's filmography!

    by IMAXIMUS

    Those Alien tripods were visually stunning and terrifying. They were some of the best work ILM has done since Jurassic Park. The aliens looked like miniature versions of those aliens in ID4, but were more intricatley detailed. Tom Cruise gave a good performance, but not his best work. Dakota Fanning stole the show by giving an emotional performance more so then Drew Barrymore ever did in ET.Tim Robbins character was not really needed, but was a good representation of the paranoa that had stricken the world. Morgan Freeman is always a good choice for a narrator, I kinda wished they used more narration like they did in the orginal film. I wonder how this film would have turned out had Spielberg decided to go by the real HG Wells novel? It does not get dull and remains intense through out, but emotionally not as powerful as Close Encounters or ET. But hey, as long as we get to see one Spielberg film per year then I am satisfied.

  • July 1, 2005, 1:22 a.m. CST

    Great Movie!

    by Herr Hauptmann

    Great movie! Regarding the ending, even a technologically superior race can make mistakes. Maybe their ancestors (the ones who buried the tripods) were immune but lost that immunity afer thousands of years. And they did not invade during that time maybe because their own homeworld was still a pretty decent place to live. Just a thought. Peace!

  • July 1, 2005, 2:01 a.m. CST

    War of the Turds...!

    by MikeyW

    What movie did you guys see!!!? I jus' saw it...an' it was another big hollywood "so what?" movie.At what point was a world-wide attack conveyed!!!!!? A street full of people yet the tripod gets one or two here and there instead swaithing the street in human killing laser-beams!!!An' that part towards the end after the girl goes missin'....What did they do,dress-up the set from the Munchkin village in Wizard of Oz!!! hollywood can't get away with "indoor exteriors" anymore...jus felt very small-scale for a movie that was promoted as a war of the worlds.A big floating "turd" as usual from the jews in hollywood

  • July 1, 2005, 4:22 a.m. CST

    Not as bad as others say it was...

    by Herr Hauptmann

    The movie was being told in the point of view of a family trying to survive, so the big Armageddon-type conflict was not shown. I truly understand this because this was the concept of the original story, as written by HG Wells. I, for one, would have preferred to have seen a battle between the tripods vs. an entire US armored division, I understand the concept Spielberg was trying emulate, so despite the lack of a big and visual battle scene, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and would recommend it to any sci-fi fan. Peace!

  • July 1, 2005, 6:25 a.m. CST

    bore of the worlds

    by uwe bolls talent

    The first hour was so good everything you expect from spielberg and truly scary much more so than the recent crop of horror films.Then it just went tits up and became boring tim robbins as a over zealous patriot how cliched and that ending fitted the 1950s version perfectly but come on we need more bang for our bucks these days will be seein it again though for that first hour

  • July 1, 2005, 6:39 a.m. CST

    Best description for this movie: FAN-TARBAGE!

    by Napolean Solo

    Brilliant start, but with all Speilberg films of the past 10 years... No finish!

  • July 1, 2005, 7:36 a.m. CST

    Couple things that would have improve it...

    by Mt. Top

    **SPOILERS**

  • July 1, 2005, 7:45 a.m. CST

    Couple things that would have improve it...

    by Mt. Top

    **SPOILERS** TC should have picked up a shovel and IMMEDIATELY smacked Tim Robbins on the head when Robbins started babling loudly. Right in front of the daughter. That's what any normal father would have done. That scene went on way too long. The aliens would have heard Robbins by the time TC finished warning his daughter not to look, blah blah. Just, really unrealistic. His descision in real life would have been a snap judgement. Spare the daughter's life THEN worry about her feelings. Another thing that bothered me is when the daughter just stood still below the tripod. It would have been far more terrifying is she'd been screaming her guts out and running for her life. A couple of missed opportunites there to really crank up the terror level. The first blood sucking scene wasn't done that well either. Robbins' reaction was pretty lame acting. He should have been absolutely freaking out. Didn't like the 'cutesy' aliens playing with the bicycle either. Make them terrifying, or don't show them at all. Anyway, that's how it should have been done because I SAID SO. lol

  • July 1, 2005, 11:59 a.m. CST

    This isn't THAT bad...

    by Spaced_Invader

    So there I am watching Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" with a bunch of swells at the movie's premiere in New York City. The film is a sci-fi extravaganza where Spielberg takes the basic premise of the 1898 H.G. Wells novel, borrows freely from his previous suspense films "Jaws" and "Jurassic Park," and creates a special effects bonanza that is bound to please a mass audience hungry for thrills and chills. But, early on in the movie, something stranger than gross-looking aliens chasing humans all over the place emerges. A rather populist political subtext takes shape that is somewhat surprising, coming from a Hollywood insider like Spielberg. "War of the Worlds" parallels the attack on 9/11. Narrator Morgan Freeman opens things up by stating that forces with "envious eyes" have targeted earthlings for destruction. They simply want the planet for themselves. No one is safe, no target off limits. Civilians are routinely destroyed without reason or rational explanation. Sound like anyone we know? Osama somebody? The actual first wave alien attack comes from the sky, just as 9/11 did. Then it's a grind-it-out process as the invaders stalk humans. Some of us fight back, some of us run. At one point in the movie, one of the characters makes the point that an occupying army can never win. Iraq reference? Sure it is. The messages in the film, however, are not overtly political. There is no left-wing, right-wing thing going on. Tom Cruise cruises along without much point-of-view other than to save his kids from the alien killers. Spielberg is not Michael Moore. His aim is to entertain and to make a few a subtle points that do not intrude on the suspense. By the way, Spielberg is right; history shows that occupying armies cannot win in the long run. This is the first post-9/11 movie I've seen that is actually influenced by the death and destruction visited upon us by the Islamic killers. It was clear to me that Steven Spielberg is teed off about what the terrorists are doing. His view is reflected by Cruise's teenage son who desperately wants to confront the aliens and kill them. The boy seethes with anger throughout the film because of the alien barbarity. Good for him. So this isn't the usual Hollywood cheap shot leftist propaganda. "War of the Worlds" actually reflects the view of everyday Americans, rather than a few Beverly Hills pinheads. I liked the movie for that. In the end, the aliens are actually confronted by God, if you can believe it. Another huge departure from the Hollywood playbook. I'm not going to dent the suspense and tell you more, but trust me, the ACLU will not like the film's conclusion. The downside to "War of the Worlds" is that it's kind of loopy in its execution of the story line. The special effects overshadow everything and the resolution of the basic plot would make Mr. Welles shudder. But you might like the tone of the film, and if you crunch enough popcorn you might even swallow the thesis that Tom Cruise and his 11-year-old daughter are able to walk from New Jersey to Boston without changing clothes. Strange things happen when aliens invade. Even in Hollywood.

  • July 1, 2005, 12:02 p.m. CST

    I freakin loved the movie

    by captain rentboy

    I saw the film here in the UK last night,& thought it was bloody amazing.(8.5/10)As mentioned elsewhere on the site some of the seemingly non fx shots in the film were mighty impressive,(camera panning in,out, and around their car as they travelled along the highway)And that shot when Dakota looks behind her as they're getting on the ferry,and the tripod is just watching them from the hill behind the trees was pretty darned chilling.My pantilooms would have been instantly filled with cack had I seen that.Ohh and for the guy moaning about the aliens playfully messing about with the bicycle wheel,I thought it was pretty cool that they included that,as it's mentioned in the book that 'the wheel' had not been a part of the alien's evolution on their home planet,so it's only fair to assume that they'd have a lil spin of one when they first see it.

  • July 1, 2005, 12:58 p.m. CST

    House Hunting

    by OptimusSly

    Just to clarify, the aliens did not destroy the home of Ray's ex wife because it was in a nice part of Boston and they planned to move into that neighbourhood.

  • July 1, 2005, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Harry, I couldn't agree more.

    by TheSeeker

    Yes, yes, yes. Through much of the 2nd 3rd of the film, I sat riveted, tears in my eyes, not for sadness so much as trauma empathizing with those characters - I felt totally transported into a terrorist-like situation - so real, so helpless, just getting fucked, life getting ripped apart ruthlessly, mercilessly, and not a goddamn thing anyone can do about it -just cruel fucked up pandemonium all around and you're just totally fucked. But survival instinct is part of you, so you run, you run and you run, and you run, swallowing in the very back of your throat, yelling, confused, angry, in shock without knowing you're in shock, being gut rup traumatized, and not knowing it because all there is is running. Wow.

  • July 1, 2005, 4:36 p.m. CST

    christianvu, you are wrong

    by d8cam

    A billion people didn't die at the hands of the aliens. They were talking about the billion deaths since the beginning of time that helped us gain immunity to diseases.

  • The best work ILM has done since Jurassic Park. This was not Tom Cruise's best performance but still delivered. Dakota Fanning stole the show and does a better job when it comes to being terrified than Drew Barrymore could ever do at age 5. Tim Robbins part was not needed but was a good representation of the paranoa thrust upon the entire human population. Maybe this should have taken place in 1896 rather then present day. Morgan Freeman should have had more narration throughout the film. Does it come close to the emotions we felt when watching ET or Close Encounters, NO, but still jaw dropping.

  • July 1, 2005, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Oh my God!!

    by chimera2_4

  • July 1, 2005, 6:11 p.m. CST

    Special FX, Score, Timing...

    by mike denly

    now, I liked the movie. and i was surprised to have enjoyed myself so much, but there are some flaws that are just unavoidable. First off, you have, in my opinion, the King of interactive sets. Jurassic Park, Jones, Jaws, what have you. Now, why sacrifice that edge that works so well for some rehashed ILM? Granted, the "crane" shot on the van down the highway looked Phenomenal (i'll be the first to admit it), but the cracking of the pavement, the ferry, there was a lot of soft animation that held me back from enjoying myself. As for the score, you have Williams, Amazing at creating solid themes. I didn't get a single feel for the music, and a theme like so many of his others would have done much better. This felt more like Hans Zimmer was at the helm. My last winces came to swimming right to shore from the ferry, mysteriously making it to Boston without car in I don't even know how long, and all of the sudden the Aliens are Dying! Even Signs settled the conflict at a smarter pace. And only laughter came from Morgan Freeman.

  • July 1, 2005, 6:17 p.m. CST

    i just saw the movie..................

    by chimera2_4

    OK, I have just seen the movie and I agree with harry that this is the best film I have seen all year, this includes Sin City by the way! Warning, this is not a spoiler free message. This film certainly became a human holocaust, I found so many references to refugees and concentration camps, none more shocking than the scene of the runaway train. The metaphor of the people being carted away to concentration camps in the trains in WW2 was so intense. As for the tripods themselves, they looked like daddy long legs to me, that eerie hovering...And the sound! I loved the way that the camera only really looked from Ray's vantage point at these creatures, seeing them from the ground 150ft up, through the mist and cloud it looked like the most realistic piece of CG I have EVER seen and that's what made it so horrifying. Then there were the clothes falling from the sky. Wasn't there a holocaust reference to clothes falling around the Jews somewhere. The way the clothes kept on going as their owners were literally blown away. That whole piece from the lightening striking to them arriving at Tim and Mary's house felt to me exactly the same as the scene from Saving Private Ryan where the soldiers were storming the beach. It was that same kind of intensity because it was so claustrophobic and close to the character of Ray. The scene of the bodies floating down the river was probably the most terrifying to me. I don't know what it was, I think the previous 45 mins of the film had worked my usual calm exterior to mush so that when I finally got to that moment, I was shocked and terrified. I didn't quite understand the ending and how the aliens died but I guess you weren't supposed to. I though it would have been really interesting if it had been the birds that killed the aliens. Haven't scientists spoken of birds actually being the master race as there are so many of them and they are so self sufficient. I started to wonder whether the tripods' sound of a 'foghorn' didn't have some relation to the birds and...well at this point in the film I was thinking anything so rational thought had escape through the cracks in my head from the teeth clenching moments in the first hour. At last I cannot leave without saying how great it was to see that moment at the end with the alien hand. I loved that moment in the original movie and this one would have been incomplete without it. Thank you for reading my ramblings.

  • July 1, 2005, 8:01 p.m. CST

    NEWS FLASH: Wood-Man Repents, Eats Crow (SPOILERS)

    by TheWoodMan

    ***SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS*** I've shit-talked this movie in the TalkBacks before so I wanted to come on and post a COMPLETE AND TOTAL RETRACTION. I stand by my assertion that 95% of revisions, redactions, & re-imaginings result in really repulsive, revolting refuse... but this is one of the ones that got through. An awesome fusion of the Wells book & the Pal movie (I'll have to go back and listen to the radio play to remember what Spielberg lifted from it). Setting it in the present worked. So I was wrong... so what, big deal. "Good job!" to everyone involved. From the book: the ferry standing in for the Thunder Child; the bizarre sound of the War Machines' vocalizations (not as weird as "ul-la, ul-la, ul-la", but heart-stopping nonetheless; human cattle picked from the ground by tentacles, tossed into cages, and processed into food & fertilizer; the paranoid psycho-nut in the basement of the ruined house. The Red Weed ruled... would've loved to see the Black Gas at work in this movie but you can't have everything (note to Spielberg: there's always the extended edition DVD). The Martians were more-or-less straight out of the book, minus the problem with Earth's gravity... I guess they've been working out for the last century. The bio-mechanical nature of the Tripods, original and creepy as Hell without falling back on ripping off Giger. The birds flocking around the Tripods' hoods... nice. From the old movie: Mobs of crazed humanoids trying to seize anything that'll move, this time with the viciousness & mindlessness turned up to 11; almost the whole basement scene; the hatch of the dead War Machine opening & the hand flopping out... even as a kid I wished Pal had shown the Martian's face, the glow in its tri-eye fading out as it expired. This goes one better, with the invader sputtering & cursing Mankind with its final breath. Fuckin' "A". If you see Spielberg, tell him this is the best thing he's done in a generation. Even the ending didn't bother me, hateful cynic that I am. (END OF SPOILERS)

  • July 1, 2005, 8:27 p.m. CST

    Oh, and by the way... too bad about Somerville (BOSTON AREA SPOI

    by TheWoodMan

    *MORE SPOILERS* Judging from the aerial shot at the end where you can see the Lenny Zakim "Freedom Bridge", the Martians were working towards downtown Boston from the north-northwest and had already reduced East Cambridge & Somerville to a charred wasteland when they began keeling over. Too bad they didn't approach from the west, giving the spoiled brats at B.U. & B.C. a taste of the Heat Ray, then wiping out Preggo Eowyn & all the rest of the yuppies in the Back Bay. But then we wouldn't have gotten the patented Spielberg Happy Ending that everyone's loving so much. (END OF SPOILERS... for real this time)

  • July 1, 2005, 8:37 p.m. CST

    The Ending

    by Jiggaman671

    Sorry this took so long but I'm in Guam and just had the chance to see this last night... I disagree with Harry saying the ending referrencing God doens't work... I think it does... The God I read about in the bible always sets up boundaries for his creations... example would be Adam and Eve and the tree in the garden... consequences for crossing the boundaries... Even if these aliens were God's creations too... Earth could be that tree they were not supposed to eat of... Whether you believe in a god or not doesn't matter to me, not trying to persuade anyone... just posting my OPINIONS... whether you think they suck balls or not

  • July 1, 2005, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Your all getting too technical over this. ITS A MOVIE!

    by KongMonkey

    Summer movies of this type are made not to enlighten our mislead minds or to teach us moral ethics and why we need to be good little boys and girls. There good ol' fashion FUN! Granted Wells was targeting the whole british colonialism issue with his book. As far as that is concerned, this film deals with the modern issues and thats it. Terrorism is obviously the first thought on a lot of minds whenever they hear an explosion or see something "foreign" causing damage. However, I could have cared less whether or not they even mentioned terrorism in this or not. I don't take films that damn seriously. To me, movies are entertainment. Nothing more, nothing less. Ever since I first read WOTW I have been dying to see tripods letting forth their "aloo's" and incinerating great scores of people in a very visceral realistic way. Geroge Pals version is fun, but the lack of tripods is what got to me. The machines in that film didn't scare me none, and I laugh everytime the fat mexican say "Everybody knows when you wave the white flag, you wanna be friends." And of course: "Wait a minute, Bombs don't unscrew." This film had moments like this, like the peanut butter/window scene, or the "he took your car and left" look on Toms face. Its got comedy and terror, things that refect our every day life. Pal's version was good. But now I can safely say that Speilberg has given me what I wanted. Rampaging tripods cremating civilization. BTW: At first glance of the aliens, they sort of resembled the tripods, as if they had designed their own war machines around their own physicality. Much like the big headed squids in the novel. There wasn't anything that bothered me about this film, even though I wouldn't mind having seen that huge ass battle over the crest of that hill before the one tripod fucks every human defense up in one great big fireball. Or maybe the full on destruction of at least one recognizeable building of some sort. Only question I have :: Intergalactic race of creatures carries out an ancient plan with ancient weaponry. I'll buy that, since the ancient weapons are still more advanced than our own. We got the tripods yeah, but where the hell are the flying machines? A full scale invasion would be pointless without them. We know their there, cause thats what the little lightning riding pods came from(unless it was some kind of wormhole opened up.) Would have been nice to see at least one flying machine, but the film does fine without it. Anywho, just my thoughts. Great fucking film in my opinion.

  • July 1, 2005, 10:40 p.m. CST

    Robbins drinking Peach Schnaps! Just like Warp 11!

    by warp11

    In the movie, Tim Robbins has a case of Peach Schnapps down in the basement. Peach Schnapps is the drink of the band Warp 11, the Star Trek band of you CA. I heard there was someone associated with the film that knew that and that is why Peach Schnapps is in the film! Crazy!

  • July 1, 2005, 11:21 p.m. CST

    God could come down and give us all our instant wishes and talkb

    by Mista Mann

    Haha, talkbackers crack me up constantly. Spielberg is one of the greatest directors for showing how real people would act. What do the talkbackers say? Unrealistic activities. Alright... Spielberg ends exactly like the book-disease wipes out the aliens and we get a "happy ending". What do the talkbackers say? "Another lame cop-out happy ending from Spielberg." Ooookaaay... Spielberg gives us one of the most intense movies ever, one that honestly makes you feel like you are there running for your lives with these people. What do the talkbackers say? Boring, lame, cheap thrills, done before, blah blah blah. Yay. I love you guys so much. I thought I was a complainer but you, you guys... *shakes head in amazement* You guys are the masters of complaining about great things. My hats off to you all. Now fucking die.

  • July 2, 2005, 3:48 a.m. CST

    Spielberg hack job

    by Mt. Top

    Spielberg is highly capable of making whatever quality of film he wants. Obviously, after vomiting over the dailies of Tim Robbins, Spielberg said, "To hell with it." and wrapped it up as quickly as possible. He probably didn't even visit the editing room.

  • July 2, 2005, 7:53 a.m. CST

    Spaced_Invader

    by Spamgelus

    "By the way, Spielberg is right; history shows that occupying armies cannot win in the long run. This is the first post-9/11 movie I've seen that is actually influenced by the death and destruction visited upon us by the Islamic killers." And here I thought WE were the occupying army post 9/11. Silly me. I must be one of those "leftist propaganda pinheads" you speak of and not an "everyday American." Thanks for schooling me.

  • July 2, 2005, 5:48 p.m. CST

    Just saw it...

    by F69

    I've really enjoyed all the films I've seen so far this summer, ROTS was a proper Starwars movie (best since Empire IMO), Batman was a proper Batman movie (finally we've got the DARK knight) and Sin City couldn't physically have been any closer to the source material without them simply filming each page of the comic in turn. I think this has been one of the best Summers in years but, for me, WOTW leaves all those films in the shade. It completely blew me away, the imagery, the effects; the CGI is probably the best I've seen. It seems every time we see the tripods it's from a shakey, handheld point of view which is always the hardest kind of shot to intergrate CG into. But when it's pulled off like it is in this movie then it complete sells it. It's so realistic that when I came out of the theatre and looked at the horizon in the distance I could just picture what it would look like if there really were an alien tripod out there. I really, really loved this film, for me it's Spielberg's best since Jurassic Park (I know that people have differing opinions on that film but when I saw it as a 13 year old it just completely changed my understanding of how real and scary and emotionally gripping a movie could be). The CGI in WOTW was great, the acting great, sound design (that sound the tripods make- chilling) great, the music- okay there was no John Williams iconic theme tune but that wouldn't have been right for this movie, just like it wouldn't have been right for Saving Private Ryan. Man, I can't wait to see this film again.

  • July 2, 2005, 11:10 p.m. CST

    I loved it but...

    by RowanM

    For the love of God Steven, you're churning out movies by the bucket load. Slow down before you give yourself a coronary. The premiere hasn't even finished and you're already starting on your next film? Jeez.

  • July 3, 2005, 1:08 a.m. CST

    Tim Robbins Character is supposed to be President Bush.

    by Rayhad Jackson

    Liberals are sly little foxes. I loved when the Tim Robbins Character smashed Tom Cruise with a shovel and how he was retarded and wanted to fight the Aliens with axes and shotguns. Tom Cruise killing Tim Robbins means that Speilberg has endorced the killing of President BUSH.

  • July 3, 2005, 2:28 a.m. CST

    Tom has a beer and cheats on L. Ron Hubbard

    by LargoJr

    Very fun film, despite the gigantic plot hole. I admit, I enjoyed the shit out of the movie. It was fun to watch, and the family interaction made it even more so. However, I need to point out something that was bugging me much like a jagged pebble in my shoe. No matter how much I tried to shift or move it, I just ended up getting poked. It was implied that the tripods were buried here for ages, possibly millions of years, in a plan for apparent 'long-term' harvesting. Now, since such effort would prove horendously wasteful if employed soley planet by planet, waiting for each to reach fruition before moving on to the next, it's FAR more likely that hundreds, perhaps even THOUSANDS of worlds would be processed at the same time. Now, if a race or species organised and advanced enough to have survived MILLIONS of years and yet still retain the same goals and agendas as before... isn't it a bit shortsighted to not consider alien or incompatible contagions in the environment as the intended terraforming plan aproached maturity? The idea is almost laughable. I mean, next thing you're going to tell me is aliens who's only weakness is water arent going to notice that 3/5ths of the surface of the planet they are invading is covered in the stuff..??? um.. I mean. heh.. never mind.. nobody would be THAT stupid... would they?

  • July 3, 2005, 5:44 a.m. CST

    you guys are so anal.

    by Colonel_Blimp

    the technicalities of the alien invasion are completely irrelevant. just because we aren't provided answers in the movie doesn't mean there are no answers in the reality of the movie. much as in real life, a lot of things happen that makes no sense or seem really stupid because we are missing a lot of facts and seeing it from our narrow perspective. had it been the aliens explaining their thoughts and what went wrong and so on, yes, you could attack them as plot holes, but as all the information we are getting is from people in the movie who are just making assumptions (they've been planning this for a million years is just a guess) you have to believe that there are perfectly good answers to all your questions that we are just not privy to. besides it makes more sense and is better that any other alien invasion movie I've ever seen. anyone disagree?

  • July 3, 2005, 7:56 a.m. CST

    I guess I am dissapointed

    by Vodoley

    WotW is quite a Spielbergian film. It has some Spielbegrian terrific moments (the first tripod, the river, the ferry), and Spielbegrian humour. But the original book, which I consider as the only worthy source material, is allmost fogotten, exept for the ending and basic plot lines. By the way the book was about one single man, surviving and suffering during the invasion, his reactions and his thoughts. It is the biggest part of the story that has been sacrificed to the unnecessary lonely kids-divorced father plotline. But that is the directors choice, I am only saying that there is really plenty of human drama and terror in the original story without additional characters. The design of the aliens was surprisingly unoriginal and reminded too much of ID4. What's the problem with imagining something different? Again I am talking only about the flaws of the film, and that's not the end of them. But I just find that the pluses of WotW (the overall design, clearly the use of TV reports of 9/11 for achieving a more realistic imagery, the tripod horn sound, the quite acceptable acting) do not compensate the sense of mistake that I got from this film. Not a life changing expirience and not even an outstanding Spielberg film but an ordinary summer blockbuster. Pity.

  • July 3, 2005, 9:13 a.m. CST

    I just saw Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS...

    by Pan_Krator

    ... and while I enjoyed the movie, a few things about the movie audience bugged me: 1. A teenage girl sitting next to me started to read and send text-messages on her phone *during the movie.* (She protested audibly, in that withering who-do-you-think-you-are manner typical of teenagers, when I whispered to her to shut off the phone and be quiet.) 2. At one point, some jerk shone a red laser-light at the projection screen. 3. People laughed at some of the atrocities and when the little girl was traumatized. This confirmed the research study I've read: that teenagers in general are psychopathic personalities... and I think they would act just as irrationally as some of the characters in the movie did, if they were thrown into a war situation. If "real people" are like the people who go to cinemas, we shouldn't complain about the portrayal of humanity in WAR OF THE WORLDS...

  • July 3, 2005, 10:10 a.m. CST

    WOTW!

    by highsociety

    Yeah, I saw this film. It was so-so. Nothing special. And if anyone wants a free DVD of my movie called Opie Gets Laid send a mailing address to: witrack@aol.com

  • July 3, 2005, 10:34 a.m. CST

    SPOILER -If this is the best Speilberg can do. . .

    by TrickyDicky

    I'm not only disappointed with this awful movie, but in Harry's review. I only went because of his review. I had already decided to pass it up. So I'll be sending a reciept for 15 bucks in hopes that I'll get my money back. So now where can I start. . . Horrible Acting, Poor Story line, Implausible writing, poor editing. . . . Lets see, from the beginning. The main character is a little sh*t. Not a bad guy, but nothing of any redeeming value. He's a bad father and a slob. No good qualities. So we have to now find some type of catharcism with this moron. Tough to do, but I degress. You then hear and see the worst storm ever. Your electricity goes out. You go to the clock radio.. . dead, you open the fridge. . . dead. the lights are out and you walk into the other room and you hit the light switch. . . the camera immediately jerks to the ceiling fan to show you its not work. . .(who directed that sequence?) I got it already, the electricity is out. Then you run down the street to see this hole begin developing. Instead of running a safe distance away, you stand next to it as it grows. You take one or two steps back, all the while this hole is growing. Nobody is running away yet. Then this monster comes out of the deep and starts killing people and gees, now its time to run. So you go home, and wash up. I mean, gees two blocks away is a 200' killing machine, but I've got time to wash up. Then you run out the door. You see people running in all directions, but fortunately, your friendly neighborhood garage mechanic has taken your advice and put a new solenoid on a car, while hundreds of vehicles are stranded out in the street. The mechanic is oblivious to the mayheim. He just wants to get this car ready for the customer. Gees' look out in the street. . . business is a boomin'. Then you start driving. . . to the home of your x-wife. You know the one that is a good parent. You bring the box of food, aka ketchup and mustard, into the house. and instead of looking for fresh food in the refrigeratior or cupboards, like she would have a well stocked kitchen. . . you instead make peanut butter sandwiches. Of course this di*k for a father, doesn't even know his 10 year old daughter has an allergy that can kill her.... Oh, the best part though is. He finally gets to a place to rest and it has electricity. Does he turn on the TV? no, radio? no. He just runs to the basement to hide. Then less than 24 hours after the attack has begun, T.V. journalists are scrounging around among the dead, ripping open an airplane crashes' food containers. Boy, these people were hungry. Oh and my favorite part. the Journalist opens the door to her TV van one more time and asks him if Cruise is the sole survivor of the plane crash, he says no, and she says too bad, it would have made a great story.. . Thats right, the end of all mankind is coming and you want to do a story about a plane crash. . . The stupid implausiblities continue, but I'll just leave it at that, except to say, my wife got it right. She said it was like a bad dream. You keep seeing and hearing things that don't make sence. You wonder why obvious errors in reasoning aren't being considered but in your dream you are forced to accept these "facts" as true and without questioning. I would say it was just like a dream, only worse a nightmare, cuz I couldn't get up and leave the movie. And finally, it shouldn't have been PG-13. It was much more terrifying at times. Dead bodies floating around. People having their blood sucked from them and sprayed across the landscape. So, thats my opinion. . . So Harry, where should I send my request for a refund. TrickDicky

  • July 3, 2005, 3:31 p.m. CST

    Tim Robbins

    by Marge

    Wasn't Mystic River Tim Robbins last big movie before War of the Words? Granted, he only appears in this for a short period but I just have one question: Why has Tim Robbins been murdered in the last two movies he's been in, just wondering? Does Hollywood have a beef with Robbins or something, or is it just weird circumstances?

  • July 3, 2005, 4:44 p.m. CST

    Like Batman Begins, a pretty good movie overrated beyond belief

    by Funmazer

    Jurassic Park + Twister = War of the Worlds. I swear Spielberg took his old JP storyboards, erased out the dinosaurs, drew in aliens and shot the thing. It's nice to see a movie dare to be so dark but there's enough stupid plotholes (invicible video cameras/shitty 1984 Caravans and loading 1 shotgun shell only after 3 aliens sneak into your basement) that I just didn't care. And I know this movie is about a guy's family but come on - in that one scene go over the hill and show us what's printed on the ticket stubs we paid for: THE WAR OF THE WORLDS. You want good Spielberg sci-fi, watch AI. This is recycled leftovers.

  • Special FX are awesome and deserve a nomination. Kudos to Murren for once again proving that he is the master of his domain and without him ILM is lost. Close Encounters and ET are much better films. Minority Report was a better collaboration for Cruise and Spielberg.I am looking forward to Spielberg's Munich project. Dakota Fanning is the best child actor on the market today and Tim Robbins was not needed. Disturbing at times, even shocking for an alien invasion movie that normally does not deal with such intense subject matter.Itis not the type of film that does repeat business. Overall I still feel that the original film stands on its own.

  • I've heard some people say this movie was political. From what, Robbin's 'occupations fail' line? I didn't like this movie because it had this HUGE political statment all set up ready to go, and no one had the balls to pull it off. I almost feel that the ending was changed to the traditional 'safe' ending from what it could, should have been. Okay, here's the deal. The machines are shielded, unstoppable, and eating people. Robbins says some were stopped somehow in Japan. Now what is Japan? Home of the Kamakazee. Moving on, we've got Tom in the cage getting eaten with a couple hand grenades on him. He's saved, but the bombs are ingested and boom, dead aliens. So now here's where the big political statement gets made, but only if you've got a pair of grapefruit size cajones swinging down by your knees.................................... To kill aliens you need to get a bomb inside their shields. And they eat people, bring people into their bellies, get a bomb into their bellies by having them eat a bomb, a human bomb!.................................................................That's right, the aliens get stopped by SUICIDE BOMBERS strapping up and feeding themselves to the aliens. How are we getting our ass kicked in Iraq? Suicide bombers. How do we win the war against the aliens? Suicide bombers!!! Now THATS a political statment. Fuck you Tim Robbins you hack.

  • July 3, 2005, 6:51 p.m. CST

    interesting point, norm

    by Colonel_Blimp

    but I fail to see excactly what the political statement is. could you embellish?

  • July 3, 2005, 6:58 p.m. CST

    tricky dicky, either you are some sort of mutant

    by Colonel_Blimp

    with incredible powers of empathy and clairvoyance, seeing as you are able to know EXACTLY how everyone should and would react during an alien invasion, or you are so full of crap and have your head so far up your ass your mouth magically spews shit instead of words. nice resume of the movie btw, what is this, fourth grade "write about a movie you've seen"-excercise? wanker.

  • July 3, 2005, 7:14 p.m. CST

    From the trailers, I knew this would be some kind of combination

    by AntoniusBloc

    Aside from the great special effects, War of the Worlds is a mediocre film that steals a lot from previous ones of its genre. As mentioned in various posts above, there are way too many implausible moments, and inxplicable actions by the characters. The ending also comes out of nowhere, and was never really 'set-up' or built up to, applying to both the conflict with the aliens and the conflict of the characters. Not good story-telling. I disagree with one post above that calls Batman overrated. Batman Begins is still the film of the summer and its praise is well deserved.

  • July 3, 2005, 7:58 p.m. CST

    They rushed the invasion??? Tim Robbins seems to think that they

    by SingBlueSilver

    Surely if you spend a million years planning something then you would cover every outcome. "Wait a minute guys, what if we arent immune to their little bacteria and stuff? Shouldnt have an answer for every contigency? And if there are things we are unsure of we will just wear exo-skeletons or something just incase? I mean we have been planning and studying this world for near a million years now, yknow. "Nah, dont worry, lets just go down and explore old houses with no suits and drink from old broken taps" The one thing this film showed was the age of the story. An alien exploration 'eye' that doesnt have a heat sensor? Wait a minute, surely being that advanced, the tripods would have a heat sensor which would pick up Tim Robbins and the other two? "Yup there are three humans in there, go and kill them would ya?" "No, i have a better idea, il put our camera thing down there with two lights either side, so it can light up the dark! That will have a much better chance of finding someone!" This movie, this story, in this day and age has so many flaws and holes its hard to take it seriously. Do you really think that no one would have picked up massive tripod things buried all over the world? Thermal scans?Constant satallite imagery? Building development? Such a dissapointment. Completely retarded.

  • July 3, 2005, 9:35 p.m. CST

    "Spielberg thrives like he hasn

    by Orionsangels

    Your review sounds like a lot of hype, like you were paid to say all that. It's true. Either that or you wanna believe in the movie so much. You're seeing what you wanna see in your own mind. Because this movie was just ok. My reaction to seeing this film was, eh. It had a few good moments. ILM did some nice work, but I noticed sometimes when a special effect was about to appear. The actors looked like they were standing in front of green screen. It has that, we're standing in front of a moving film quality, like Titanic had. The aliens themselves look like the cousins of the ones in Independence Day. What happened to movie scores? They're not as good as they used to be. It's barely noticeable here and this is John Williams we're talking about. I did like that horn sound the aliens produce whenever they're about to attack. Brandsmart employee's are going to love it when they have to show off surround sound to customers. Dakota Fanning was cute and funny and Tom was good as well. My sister cried during a certain scene. I just didn't really feel this movie. It doesn't have that Spielberg magic and I'm tired of Spielberg movies in washed out colors. Just use normal color. If you know the story of WotW. The ending was predictable and ubrupt. When all is said and done. I was never into this film. It didn't rev my engine. I mean what really happens in this movie can be described in a few words. Dad and his kids runs away from aliens, drive care, get on ferry, hide in basement with some nut, get caught by the aliens and espace. family hugs. we're all happy. Now look at Close encounters, that movie has so many layers and in two hrs spielberg makes the movie seem like 3hrs. so much happens and williams music warms your heart. it's magical. this movie has nothing of that. it leaves you blah!

  • July 3, 2005, 9:49 p.m. CST

    the political statement.

    by darthmatt1988

    I don't know about political statements so far as suicide bombings go. I know the major political statement of of the HG Wells book was "don't judge the Martians too harshly." He was saying basically, the way the powerful nations of the world view the rest of the Earth's population as inferior is the same way the Martians feel about us, and while say America goes to the Middle East and violently takes over a country for oil and sees nothing wrong with it, the Martians come to Earth violently take over our planet for air, water, and warmer weather, and also see nothing wrong with it.

  • July 4, 2005, 12:43 a.m. CST

    I agree Funmazer, like Ebert's love fest with Spider-Man2. O

    by Orionsangels

    Superman the movie is the best superhero movie ever made, end of story.

  • July 4, 2005, 2:17 a.m. CST

    You Can Tell Exactly Who Read The Novel...

    by Ktak

    ...and who didn't by the responses to the movie's ending. The narrator (main character) in Wells' book is miraculously reunited with his family (wife) at their home in the end. Period. Wells intended it to end on a hopeful note, so get over it. Was Spielberg supposed to change the ending to appease a few geeks' pretentious obsession with "darkness?" The point of the story for me is being swept to the brink of hell and suddenly finding yourself pulled back, to be blessed with the chance to see your life with new eyes. This is exactly what happens to Ferrier. The final passage from the book says it all: "And strangest of all is it to hold my wife's hand again, and to think that I have counted her, and that she has counted me, among the dead." Pretty hard to capture this mood with Ray or his son rotting in a ditch isn't it? Oh, and to throw in a Star Wars reference before I go, didn't the bellowing horn sound made by the tripods sound a lot like the Jango Fett's Seismic Charges in Episode II?

  • July 4, 2005, 3:56 a.m. CST

    Brilliant !

    by KINOBICK

    I loved it, every second was a 100% pure movie experience. I haven't felt like that since I went to see Jurrassic Park. Batman and Sin City were excellent but War of the Worlds has stayed with me since I left the cinema two days ago. Personally I cant and don't want to pick at one thing about it.

  • July 4, 2005, 3:57 a.m. CST

    war of the cinema -also in other talkback

    by darthclaw

    If you did not see the 1957 war of the worlds, watch it, Listen to orsen wells master piece of radio theatre, both of those gave me chills, to the core of my being, this new one was good but not chills like that, my reason, I thought it is acted well, directed well, the effects are good, but the effects are not (real) I see the false in the cgi, no matter how good it is cgi will always be inferior to good old fashion animatronics, animatronics and puppets and makeup are real, the obey all the known and unknown(but real non the less), laws of physics, real stuff moves in the real world the right way, cgi does not, it never will, good example of what I am saying, before Newton, people did not know what gravity was but if people before Newton saw (those law of physics broken and imitated by computer) they would have thought it looked bad, shocks and scares and awe came from the classic films you guys have talked about raiders, jaws, ce3k, yes they used process to composite shots together, but it was shocking because it was real- no one will ever be scared by a cgi image, Bruce was scary because he was real, (if you don

  • July 4, 2005, 4:08 a.m. CST

    Darthclaw??????????

    by KINOBICK

    What are you going on about. I agree to a point, too much crap CGI does get in the way, but please wake up. The Shark in Jaws is not real, most walls in films are not real they are sets in big warehouses with lighting rigs and cameras. I don't want to spoil your perfect view of cinema and like I said I do agree to a point but I was on the edge of my seat the whole time in War and when Ray was running from the tripod i was fucking running with him. I have respect for the original version too but please dont tell me that all you can honestly say after seeing that film is the effects were crap.

  • July 4, 2005, 5:21 a.m. CST

    reply to kinobick and to clarify

    by darthclaw

    No I don

  • July 4, 2005, 7:26 a.m. CST

    So why is every King Kong remake overrun with posts whining that

    by minderbinder

  • July 4, 2005, 8:56 a.m. CST

    Reply to Darthclaw .....

    by KINOBICK

    Thats fair enough, I totally aggree about the Yoda point. The Jabba scenes in the new Star Wars films reall piss me off too. One thing that really stood out for me in Hitchhikers Guide was the fact that the Vogons looked wet and greasy, like you said the 'mass' point is bang on. And the moment Revenge of the Sith died for me was when I bought the game for my X-box and was really unimpressed with the cut scenes due to the fact that the line between game and actual footage was blurred to much. In Empire magazine this month Spielberg critices Ridley Scott for showing his Alien at the end of the feature with Spielberg saying something along the lines of how in seeing the arms and legs of the Alien in full stance ruined it for him and that the realisation of it being a man in a suit kinda ruined it too. I suppose the same can be said for seeing digitaly created ones to.

  • July 4, 2005, 3:09 p.m. CST

    What H.G. Well was trying to say...

    by No_Dumb_Yank

    First let me just say that this was a brilliant movie, very intense and captivating. Now onto other matters. I can

  • July 4, 2005, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Signs

    by MR2

    I'd say Shalaman had a greather influence on this file than the likes of "Independance day" E.g. A family of grumpy disillusioned dad, pissed off son, keystone daughter and it's completely from their point of view, no Pres, no Thunderchild. OK, I can see, and delight in, Spielberg's referencing of the past, Pal's WOW, Invaders from Mars , even Mars Attacks!, just a bit amazed he decided to give a nod to Signs

  • July 4, 2005, 7:20 p.m. CST

    A Letter to the Alein High Council!

    by Lighttman

    Dear Alien High Council President, I am a lowly pilot that was deployed to "Earth" via the lightning to get rid of the humans. However, I found that my deadliest ray guns failed on cotton clothing, but surprisingly melted steel and humans with high accuracy. Despite being bullet-resistant, I think our tentacles should be made axe-proof. Just a few more points, sir. Also, we seem to have some difficulties with our human suction device, as a few people apparently figured out a way to defeat one, by simply "holding on" to each other. I propose we execute humans on mass instead of individually killing them with our mightiest "anal probing tentacles." Also, I request we re-calibrate our targeting mechanisms as one human easily seemed to dodge every single death ray at him. Perhaps we should also make our 120 feet tripod walkers outpace a 2-legged 6-foot tall human. We seem to have great difficulty catching people. From captured earthlings, we

  • July 4, 2005, 8:42 p.m. CST

    There was no Kong preview at my showing!

    by Heffaloo

    Bastards! And Tom Cruise did horrible acting in it. The movie looked great, but there were too many holes.

  • July 5, 2005, 4:09 a.m. CST

    Clutchmonkey, let me reiterate my point.

    by No_Dumb_Yank

    The point of my previous post was to illustrate the fact that WOTW, the novel, made many statements, one of which was the ill treatment by imperialistic powers of technologically lesser societies. This movie is based on the novel. It has been updated for the audience of today, but the underlying concepts remain the same. There is no way you can compare the aliens in this story to the terrorists of today. Let

  • July 5, 2005, 3:25 p.m. CST

    WOTW2

    by Thing-Fish

    It would have been great if mankind, after having been subjected to various alien terrors and mass murders, including alien-installed, alien-supported oppressive regimes, managed to strike a small blow back at the alien homeworld, killing a handful of aliens. Then the alien powers that be would proclaim that their society is under attack by evil terrorists who are vile opponents of civilization itself, and use this to intensify their imperialist oppressive war against humanity, meanwhile denouncing the pacifist elements of the alien society for lack of patriotism and exposing the alien home world to danger. If only.

  • July 5, 2005, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Spaced_Invader

    by Kaitain

    1. Ummm, so is Spielberg comparing the aliens to terrorists, to the US military or to both? 2. "The resolution of the basic plot would make Mr. Welles shudder", would it? Is that Orson WELLES or H.G. WELLS? Assuming you mean the latter, why would he shudder at a plot resolution that he invented and put in his own story? Is it fair to assume you have never read the book?

  • July 6, 2005, 3:19 a.m. CST

    Good points, Kaitain

    by No_Dumb_Yank

    It

  • July 6, 2005, 6:15 a.m. CST

    War of the Shite

    by Brit Pop

    Power corrupts, does anyone remember a hotheaded young film critic whose website, AICN, was the best place to get honest (sometimes brutally honest) reviews of films? Well those days are over - all reviews now are sycophantic rants that secure Harry and the boys the Hollywood plaudits they seem to desperately need more than the loyalty of the fans they bleat out this trash - WAR OF THE WORLDS WAS BORING, IMPROBABLE AND DOWNRIGHT DISSAPOINTING! FACT!

  • July 6, 2005, 7:22 a.m. CST

    Brit Pop, what did Dirty Harry once say about opinions

    by No_Dumb_Yank

  • July 6, 2005, 10:35 a.m. CST

    Plain & Simple, It was great.

    by NeoGomorra

    I saw it on opening night with my girlfriend and I'm just now getting back the feeling in my left arm. I have not felt nervous in a movie since Aliens. I also took my family and friends to see it and they all loved it. Funny enough both nights we had to drive towards a storm to get home. Needless to say everyone was making comments about it. Another detail I'm happy about this movie is the sound effects. I wonder if this will get an award for "best sound".

  • July 6, 2005, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Spoiler ... don't read .... Spoiler ...

    by riskebiz

    Tom Cruise's son should have stayed dead. I think it was too Spielberg to have him magically be okay at the end. He stepped into the abyss and should have never come out of it. That was the only fault in the film to me ... and a big one. If he had died like he should have, the film would have had extra weight to it. Instead ... Cruises entire extended family miraculously survives. I think it was wrong to have made that choice in this film.

  • July 6, 2005, 4:07 p.m. CST

    Greetings Clutz Monkey

    by No_Dumb_Yank

    Dakota Fanning

  • July 6, 2005, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Was Xenu behind the attacks?

    by CloneSaga4Life

    Dod Steven discuss the script with Tom Cruise? Were the evnts of the movie part of Xenu's plans to end all of the human progress brought about by L. Ron Hubbard?

  • July 7, 2005, 6:54 a.m. CST

    Me scared? LOL!

    by No_Dumb_Yank

    And now you

  • July 11, 2005, 6:57 p.m. CST

    War of The Worlds Fatal 3rd act!

    by reddmadder

    Hi, This is just my own opnion ,so those of you who've seen and loved Spielberg's latest don't be offended.If ever there was and is a genuis of cinematic storytelling it's Spielberg BUT I was so pissed at the choices he made in the telling of this tale that I find it almost unbelievable that anyone would give this film a great review. First I have to say I'm a big fan of the George Pal version and quite honestly that film,regardless of the bad special effects(by today's standards)had a far greater emotional impact on me,for the following reasons. Spielberg starts off the film (as did GP's version) with an voice over prologue about how our planet is going about our daily buisness without giving much thought to who out in the universe might be watching etc.(I though a rather lackluster reading by Morgan Freeman) 1.First of all I really didn't care for the stock footage of street scenes ,cities and the cheesy dissolve from the red planet to the red stop sign. If you recall GP's version had these very cool looking shots of the universe along with the narration.In my mind ,with the technology of cgi (computer generated effects)Spielberg could have created some really outstanding scenes of stars.black holes,strange landscapes ,etc, that would have been far more interesting.At this point he also introduces this animated virus cartoon which means absolutely nothing...yes I understand it's a bookmarking the end but IMHO so unnecessary and so badly rendered. 2.Ok let's get to the real problem...the film just about dies as soon as the Tim Robbins character is introduced.In my view there is no reason for him to be there,in fact,it's silly for him to pick out of a crowd of hundreds Ray and his daughter,in fact thay even had to have the character explain his action to the audience ...Tim tells them that they looked like they needed help or that he looked like the type that could help him,I don't recall the exact line but it was all too convenient. 3. So how does this character ruin the film ? Well let's see what the character accomplishes in the scene i.e. why is he there? In my mind for only 2 reasons. 1. To have Ray fight with someone while the Aliens are searching the basement thereby creating conflict and suspense...valid enough. 2. To show how Ray will do anything to protect his daughter,in this case kill the character,and be in conflict within himself for doing so. So in my view reason #2 is totally unnecessary,since we already know Ray would and is doing all that is possible to protect his daughter...so at this point it's a useless moment,albeit a well acted one by Tom, but nonetheless wasted. Now, playing monday morning quarterback,imagine this scenario instead. Ray and his daughter stumble onto the basemant themselves. They find a newsman ,we would need to cut the earlier scene w/the camera woman showing Ray the tape...not a big loss since we already have seen what the tape shows... namely the tripods invading earth we also learn that they are in other countries. OK we could pick that info easily w/ a character whose radio is working.In fact it could have been an ambulance instaed of a tv crew at the aieplane crash site. Back to the basemant,so Ray finds a wounded newsman with a rigged up tv monitor. So why a newsman? Well one of the bigger problems with the 3rd. act is that 1. it's too long in the basement and more importantly we are so involved w/Ray's internal struggle we lose all sense of what's happening above ground i.e The War of The Worlds! We don't get any information about the scope of the attack.I mean when your ad campaign (which actually borrows from Ben Hur) depicts the the title of the film in tall mountainseque(is that a word?) letters ,you'd expect to see some action on the globe wouldn't you?No, Spielberg stays inside the basement and to his deterement slows down the great pace he had going. Imagine Ray and the guy getting their info(about other spots around the world) via a badly damaged,static monitor,they think they hear that the govertment is in coundown mode to detonate a nuclear device which so happens to be just within their circle of safety.The aliens begin to enter the basement at this point,Now we have a confllict suspense scene that underscores what's above ground and what's happening to our characters below with a coundown that could mean death either way. We also have a clear sense that this could really be the end of the world. Think of how effectivetly M.Night Shyamalam uses the tv footage of the sauces over Buenos Aires in "Signs". Or the birthday party footage where we first get a glimpse of the alien via a shakey hand held videocam.BTW "Signs" IMHO is a remake of Hitchcocks "The Birds" only with aliens. If you see the film within that context it's very obvious,but that's another thread. So now let's say we're cross cutting between the plane and the intruding aliens,everyone's nervous ,do we run for it or stay? Either way, we're trapped...could be a nice little set piece for suspense. An alien touches the daughters hand,she screams,Ray takes out the axe or gun and starts shooting the bomb expoldes the aliens disappear in a flash,the earth is shaking acomplied by a blinding white light. The tv guy gets killed from falling debris,Ray decides to get out of the basement and see what happened. Time for a really grand wide effects shot.Ray and his daughter make there way up the hill and see the large mushroom cloud ...Ray realizes his son is dead(this is the emotional beat that needed in place of the one where he kills Tim) and in fact he is. After the smoke clears we see the tripods still standing unharmed w/ a protective glow surrounding them. Ray finds out by talking to a nearby soldier that they're retreating... they have to go now! Ray and his daughter head into one of the army vehicles. All of a sudden the jeep is picked up by one of the tripods Ray w/his daughter grabs onto the alien tripods arm ,the jeep falls ,they get thrown into the cage. When Ray is sucked up it would have been much better had someone reacted to the daughter's scream and then decide to try and save Ray.Remember just before Ray get's sucked up some guy(poor extra) gets sucked up without anyone trying top help him.It was a bad choice ,so hollywood ,to have people react to Tom and not the other guy. BTW The aliens were for me a big disappointment,they moved like chimps and of course folowing in the design choice made in "Independence Day" the shape of the head mimic's the shape of their tripods. Spielberg shouldn't have shown so much like he did with Bruce the shark in "Jaws"(Bruce was the nickname the crew gave the shark) In fact the Alien in "ALIEN"was much better and he was a tall guy in a rubber suit! So now the stakes are high, Ray realizes his son is dead,not even nuclear bombs can stop them and now both are trapped in cages. Ray detonates the granades,they fall into the water. One more beat wher we see the tripods wrecking havoc in the countyrside and cities THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN,they stop. Fade Out/ Fade In... Quite morning,fog surounds Ray and his daughter they get up and see in the distance something peculiar? The machines are not moving!They run back .... End film as is but play the last homecoming scene on streets where destruction has occurred.Anyone notice the streets littered with dead leaves ,I guess it turned seasons or was that soeme sort of objective correlative for Ray's internal state? Anyway just my take on the film.

  • July 11, 2005, 11:16 p.m. CST

    Neosamurai85

    by Neosamurai85

    I really did like the movie. Thought it was brutal as hell, but sadly flawed while so close to perfection. The flaws were as follows. NARRATION. The Narration from Freeman was not just poorly executed; it was both redundant and talked down to the viewer. The imagery worked fine on its own. I understand the desire to give one a feeling of Wells

  • July 11, 2005, 11:18 p.m. CST

    Question...

    by Neosamurai85

    That bit with the safe space stuff for the girl when they were in the car... that circle of protection thing... I can think of a lot of things that probably was... but it wasn't some Scientology crap... right? Peace.

  • July 12, 2005, 7:07 a.m. CST

    Spielberg's writer

    by reddmadder

    It's been a continual source of amazement that Spielberg continues to hire David Koepp. The man is a b movie writer at best .You'd think with the power that SS yields in Hollywood that he would hire someone like David Peoples,etc.

  • July 12, 2005, 11:04 a.m. CST

    "BTW "Signs" IMHO is a remake of Hitchcocks "The Birds" only wit

    by Neosamurai85

    I don

  • July 12, 2005, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Brilliant and yet...

    by dedpubserv

    There is something troubling about this film. It contains some of the most beautiful, painful and disturbing images (often in the same image) anyone has every committed to film. Who can forget the scene where the clothing slowing drifts down to earth, or where the single body floats down the river, followed by another, and another, and then dozens, or the wall where friends and relatives have posted pictures of the missing (particularly poignant for anyone living here in New York - and no, I don't mind the obvious reference). Furthermore, Spielberg is fully aware that the most disturbing aspects of war are not what the enemy does to us, but what we do to ourselves, as witnessed in the sequence by the ferry or locked in that basement with Tim Robbins (one of the bravest sequences anyone has ever put into a summer popcorn movie). In fact, there is so much extraordinary about this film, I can't think of a single scene that feels unnecessary or off target, or that isn't worth analysis. And yet, there is something curiously unsatisfying about the whole exercise. There really is no emotional payoff. I remember being very impressed with the ending when I originally saw the 1953 movie on television as a 10 year old, but as an adult I now see that the deus ex machina ending, whatever may be its other virtues, really is anticlimactic I think Spielberg recognizes this and attempts to build in some emotional satisfaction in the scenes where humans are able to destroy a couple of tripods, but such attacks are irrelevant in the overall scheme of things, and we all know it. This leaves us with the resolution of the family story. I know all quests have to have a conclusion, but given the carnage we have seen, does it matter if Cruise succeeds in reaching Boston or not? And let

  • July 12, 2005, 2:53 p.m. CST

    New from Sony: EMP Shielded Camcorder

    by Chicken2nite

    Otherwise, great flick. Just kinda annoying they got stuck with the idea of shooting POSSIBLE SPOILER (MINOR) the people getting shot through eye of the camera on the ground. Seems like something that was done in concept and the script checker dude was out to lunch or something.

  • July 12, 2005, 3:50 p.m. CST

    "Signs" as a remake of "The Birds"

    by reddmadder

    Neosamurai85, You raise some interesting points ,maybe "remake" in the strictest sense of the word is too strong.BUT "Signs" let us say borrows heavily from the "The Birds" in terms of 1.Structure...Both families are living in small towns. Both get attacked by forces of nature that neither family can comprehend. 2.Character crisis and resolution. In "The Birds" the complexies of each character are far more complex than those expressed in "Sign" In a nutshell "The Birds" tackles the need for real,genuine love for a spouse and the healing of love lost from the death of a father/husband and the consequences of emotional distancing. And that's just scratching the surface. In "Signs" It's Mel's character needing to accept the lose of his wife's love (due to a tragic accident) which caused him to lose his faith in God and also made him emotionally distant. So in both films the main characters have lost love,are wounded,and need to regain it. In both films it is nature that provides the catalyst in bringing resolution to this emotional crisis. In this respect "remake" is valid for me,since "Signs" so closely resembles Hitchcock's film. I also think it was intentional on the part of the filmmaker.

  • July 12, 2005, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Well said reddmadder

    by Neosamurai85

    You've made me want to dust off my copy of the birds and give it a solid viewing... something I have not done in years. Peace.

  • July 13, 2005, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Signs Vs. The Birds

    by dedpubserv

    Yes, there are some structual similarities between Signs and the The Birds, but they are two very different movies. I also respectfully disagree that The Birds is about character development - I've always felt that part of the story was a deliberate diversion from the real action of the film. The Birds (in my opinion) is about our utter powerlessness in the face of nature, which is why its ending is so pitch perfet - that is in the face of a malicious nature, the most we can hope for is an uneasy and temporary truce. I agree that Signs, on the other hand, is primarily about the need for faith.

  • July 14, 2005, 5:49 a.m. CST

    Signs vs.TheBirds

    by reddmadder

    Dedpubserv,If you really want to have a good read about Hitchcock try to find the book"Hitchcocks Films" by Robin Wood. It's THE best anaylsis of all of his films and used by many a film scholar in film schools Mr.Wood skillfully dissects the layers upon layers of character developement and recurrent themes that he explored throughout his career. All of the characters in Hitch's fiilms undergo character development or "arcs". They all change in some fundamental way and are,for the most part, the better for it. The narrative (plot) events that are employed in any given film are what most people focus on,mostly because they provide his trademark suspense, but if you really anaylize each film you'll be amazed at the complexity and richness of his characters. The end of "The Birds" is actually a truncated version of his original intent,at one point in the early stages of the script he wanted to have one final confrontation after they leave the house but it was decided too costly to shoot. The end of the film as is ...is and should be considered how he wanted it. I like your take on it but I respectfully disagree ...character was very important to Hitchcock and also why his films are still entertaining despite some of the flawed techniques he used(like his matte work)in creating suspense.

  • July 14, 2005, 5:51 a.m. CST

    Signs vs. The Birds

    by reddmadder

    Dedpubserv,If you really want to have a good read about Hitchcock try to find the book"Hitchcocks Films" by Robin Wood. It's THE best anaylsis of all of his films and used by many a film scholar in film schools Mr.Wood skillfully dissects the layers upon layers of character developement and recurrent themes that he explored throughout his career. All of the characters in Hitch's fiilms undergo character development or "arcs". They all change in some fundamental way and are,for the most part, the better for it. The narrative (plot) events that are employed in any given film are what most people focus on,mostly because they provide his trademark suspense, but if you really anaylize each film you'll be amazed at the complexity and richness of his characters. The end of "The Birds" is actually a truncated version of his original intent,at one point in the early stages of the script he wanted to have one final confrontation after they leave the house but it was decided too costly to shoot. The end of the film as is ...is and should be considered how he wanted it. I like your take on it but I respectfully disagree ...character was very important to Hitchcock and also why his films are still entertaining despite some of the flawed techniques he used(like his matte work)in creating suspense.

  • July 14, 2005, 10:14 a.m. CST

    WOW- spoiler alert

    by shouter

    The near ending upset me- the boy shuda died! Apart from that it was outstanding

  • July 14, 2005, 12:06 p.m. CST

    re: WOW- spoiler alert

    by Neosamurai85

    Most of my family hates unhappy endings... but even they were pissed when they saw the boy still alive. When you can't even warm them with a happy ending... yeah... you done a cop out. Peace.

  • July 14, 2005, 4:35 p.m. CST

    War of the Worlds

    by Gaeriel

    I loved it...for the most part. Except the end. OH MY GOD! What a chicken shit Spielberg has become! You go through all the trouble to set up a fantastic movie where the entire world is screwed to hell...except Boston. HUH? Why did he chose to end it with the ENTIRE family surviving, relatively unscathed. I was SO upset by the end, it almost made me forget how much i enjoyed the movie up to that point. It was completely against the tone of the entire film to end with that 'happy go lucky' baloney. COME ON! THat and, how does a plane fall on your house, but somehow, your car is perfectly fine! Look kids, i love Spielberg a lot! I have seen every movie since i was 6 starting with Close Encounters, but the moment Spielberg replaced the shotguns in ET with clubs, i knew he was losing it... Your movie was great! How could you end it like that!

  • July 14, 2005, 9:09 p.m. CST

    Character Development in Hitchcock

    by dedpubserv

    Dear reddmadder, I didn't mean to imply that character development is foreign to Hitchcock's films - quite the contrary, the journeys (both literally and figuratively) that his characters take in his best films are what helps to make them some of his best films. Shadow of a Doubt and Notorious are both good examples of character studies in Hitchcock - but I could go on for hours on that subject.) My point is that the Birds, which I also consider one of his great films, deliberately uses (I believe) the various "relationships" between the main characters as misdirection while the real story, the attack by nature, takes shape. He used much the same trick in Psycho, where the audience is led to believe that this is a story about the theft of $40,000 while he sets up his real story. I sometimes wonder if he deliberately choose Rod Taylor as his leading man - it would have been a very different movie if he had cast a stronger actor like Gary Grant, or Jimmy Stewart, but I digress. I have the Robin Wood book but I don't remember much about it, so at your recommendation I'll take another look.

  • July 15, 2005, 6:45 a.m. CST

    Character Development in Hitchcock

    by reddmadder

    Dedpubserv, I agree with you about Rod Taylor but hold to my original opinion. I think the $40,000 in Psycho serves the same purpose as the birds do in The Birds..Narrative devices that take the characters into their own personal emotional terrain.Either way I think we agree he's still the master.Thanks for your thoughtful comments.

  • July 15, 2005, 11:10 a.m. CST

    by Orphu of Io

    the inclusion of a certain character rising from the dead ruined the ending for me. He was fucking Vaporised for Christ Sake. Once again Spielberg had a perfect ending and he fucked it up.

  • July 15, 2005, 11:23 a.m. CST

    by Orphu of Io

    ..Apart from that I liked it. Fails to reach Classic Status due to the Cop-Out Family friedly ending.

  • July 17, 2005, 12:04 a.m. CST

    rushin' martians

    by theJackalope

    "Rather, I believe the aliens rushed into something without fully thinking it through." Right. They bury their machines here 1000s of years ago and not once during the ensuing centuries do they ever think: 'Hey, maybe we should all get measles shots.' And why do we assume that the martians are tripods just because their machines are? And doesn't the way they 'dust' people make one think the martians were picking up broadcasts of BUFFY THE VAMPIRE SLAYER? I could go on but the bottom line is Koepp can't (& never could) write and Spielberg has lost the knack for genre films.

  • July 18, 2005, 2:06 p.m. CST

    war of the worlds..what are you smoking

    by dman2002

    first off i agree with Rogue_Leader this movie is no were near as good as harry sez the only thing i like about this move is the aliens kicking ass and the end credits tom crusies sences were nothin short of boring harry can i ask you ..how much did they pay you for advertising this peace of rubbish

  • July 19, 2005, 12:56 p.m. CST

    Damn you Spielberg! That's the third potentially....

    by commiepinko

    great sci-fi movie in a row that you 've mangled with a bad ending! I'm mean I could believe that ending from the end of the 19th century, even the 1950's, but how stupid are those aliens! Jesus!

  • July 19, 2005, 5:39 p.m. CST

    Cool....I loved it!!!

    by Fugazi32

    V.Good :)

  • July 20, 2005, 2:17 a.m. CST

    shrug...

    by fatzombie

    This year's "Signs". Initial great reviews but over time will be seen for crap movie it is. For those people saying this movie in no way evokes 9/11-open your freakin eyes. Spielberg practically knocks you over the head with it and those scenes that illicit imagery from 9/11 are the only things seperating this film from any other B-Movie crap. Frankly I think using 9/11 to sell a crap popcorn movie is in bad taste and shows a complete lack of imagination.

  • July 21, 2005, 12:07 p.m. CST

    The Peanut butter scene

    by Kizeesh

    Was I the only one who thought. "Check the fucking fridge dispshit?"

  • July 21, 2005, 12:30 p.m. CST

    The peanut butter scene (part II)

    by Mr Stonky

    No, you weren't the only one who thought "Check the fucking fridge." But then I remember that they've gone away for a few days and probably left it empty. So why the hell did they leave bread to go mouldy????? And why were the windows and clothes in Boston in perfect order? Don't aliens like killing people in Boston?

  • July 21, 2005, 12:31 p.m. CST

    The peanut butter scene (part II)

    by Mr Stonky

    No, you weren't the only one who thought "Check the fucking fridge." But then I remember that they've gone away for a few days and probably left it empty. So why the hell did they leave bread to go mouldy????? And why were the windows and clothes in Boston in perfect order? Don't aliens like killing people in Boston?

  • July 21, 2005, 1:05 p.m. CST

    last 1/3 of the film fucked it for me - --- sorry

    by Spacesheik

    WOTW seemed like a mean, gritty MARS ATTACKS -- it had great scenes like the ferry sequence but the basement and subsequent climax ruined the film for me -- i like the fact that its dark and loud but there is NO FUCKING STORY there -- its like Dennis Quaid in DAY AFTER TOMMORROW walking his kid from point A to point B in a different city -- and man was the movie anticlimactic ; most of the people who saw this with me called it 'stupid' and a 'waste' no one i know said it was a great film

  • July 22, 2005, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Mmmm... peanut butter...

    by Neosamurai85

    I like that we have the two most contraversial film figures in regards to religion in a fight to see who can acted a better break down in front of their kids revolving around them not eating... and I really enjoy the fact that of those two nuts, Mel Gibson totally acted Tom under the table in Signs' break down scene... Steve... Tom... Mr. Hack Screenwriter That I Don't Care Enough about to remember you name or keep using caps for... you guys picked a real dumb fight with that kitchen scene... Peace.

  • July 23, 2005, 3:12 p.m. CST

    WOTW mirroring/identity

    by kalvinkoolidge

    this film is the leap from ET, heres a very complex review http://www.mstrmnd.com/wotw.swf

  • July 26, 2005, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Thank you so much!

    by dittersdoof

    After so many bad reviews in the german newspapers I went to watch this movie with very little expectation. But it was just as you describe it!!! Thank you so much, it

  • July 27, 2005, 5:20 p.m. CST

    War of the why bother

    by joulietjakeblues

    I cannot belive that you have rated this truely awful film with such acalade. I mean why, wy would you inflict a review such as this on the unsuspecting public. War of the worlds was truley truley terifyingly crap! The first point that i have to make is as usual Tom Cruise has once agian produced a compleatley unrealistic preformance as an actor let alone as a blue collar dad. Cruise has several uncalled for winges during this bottom numbing experience,including the moment that he throws a peanut butter sandwitch at the window because his daughter is allergic to it i mean does he really need to throw his toys out of the pram every time an earth shattering event like this happens. Not even mentioning the compleatley tentionless moments of hiding in the basment, I really do wish that i would have bought some more interesting sweets for the film then prehaps they would have helped pass the 2 hours was it? felt like 10 anyway the film was awful almost as bad as "i'll never let go Jack" Titanic, Armageddon, Pearl Harbour, U571 and countless other nonsence films that Hollywood has produced over the years, no wonder that people download films illegally because you pay for your intelligence to be insulted at the cinema and why? because people like you give these films good reviews! Are you taking back handers from the studios to promote the rubbish? Oh one last tip for you you will probabley enjoy Nonsence like Stealth, Bad Boys 2 and the like.

  • Aug. 1, 2008, 5:52 a.m. CST

    A few years later...

    by Lazerspewpewpew

    This movie has not stood the test of time very well...