Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 06-26-2005, 10:39 PM
Cunctator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 11,386
In summary: it's about

SPOILER:
an invasion of the Earth by Martians
  #2  
Old 06-26-2005, 10:54 PM
Cunctator is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 11,386
I'm not sure how the latest version ends. It depends on how faithful it is to the original HG Wells novel.

It may be worth seeing. The Australian actress Miranda Otto is always worth watching.
  #3  
Old 06-26-2005, 11:28 PM
HPL is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Somewhere non-euclidian.
Posts: 6,741
It may be worth seeing, and it may suck donkey balls.

The fact that Spielberg is doing it........Well, we know he can do good movies like "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schilder's List:", but he can also do smaltzy crap like "The Terminal" and his part of "AI".

Not to mention Pussifying ET.
__________________
"I've worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty"
-Groucho Marx
  #4  
Old 06-26-2005, 11:53 PM
Scissorjack is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Auckland
Posts: 6,670
The chances of anything coming from Mars are

SPOILER:
a million to one.
__________________
Detrimento malignitas; victoria ultio
  #5  
Old 06-27-2005, 05:50 AM
Walker in Eternity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: The Spiral Politic
Posts: 1,344
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Sensitive
The chances of anything coming from Mars are

SPOILER:
a million to one.
SPOILER:
but still they come
  #6  
Old 06-27-2005, 07:17 AM
C K Dexter Haven is offline
Right Hand of the Master
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Chicago north suburb
Posts: 16,078
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Sensitive
The chances of anything coming from Mars are
SPOILER:
a million to one.
Of course, as Terry Pratchett would say,
SPOILER:
million-to-one chances come to pass nine times out of ten in movies and literature.

Spielberg might have changed the origin of the invaders, they needn't be from Mars, after all, if that's no longer plausible. I haven't heard any scuttle on that.
  #7  
Old 06-27-2005, 07:22 AM
Trion is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 3,426
Quote:
Originally Posted by C K Dexter Haven
I haven't heard any scuttle on that.
I have.

SPOILER:
They aren't from Mars.


Not that I think it matters one way or the other.
  #8  
Old 06-27-2005, 07:39 AM
snailboy is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Case Sensitive
The chances of anything coming from Mars are

SPOILER:
a million to one.
In the series, we found out that

SPOILER:
the aliens didn't come from Mars nor anywhere else in the solar system. I believe the planet was named Moltax.


That doesn't mean the new movie will follow the series though. It's not like they knew for sure where the aliens came from in the first movie anyway.
  #9  
Old 06-27-2005, 08:24 AM
Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LIC
Posts: 20,679
Well, I've seen it. And I also work for the company that is releasing it.

Basically, the film rocked. Rocked hard. Think of a combo of Saving Pvt. Ryan and Jurassic Park. Intense, great special efx, nothing too cutesy, like a kid using her hacker skills and the tripods are totally friggin awesome.

There is very little explaination about the aliens or their motives or even their methods. There is no Dr. Clayton Forrestor explaining how they might be doing this or that to the army.

There are also some nice 'references' to the earlier film version. It wouldn't hurt to watch that soon befor or after seeing the new one.
  #10  
Old 06-27-2005, 08:31 AM
Johnny L.A. is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: NoWA
Posts: 60,947
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zebra
There is no Dr. Clayton Forrestor explaining how they might be doing this or that to the army.
NB: WotW is where MST3K got the name.
  #11  
Old 06-27-2005, 09:18 AM
Baldwin is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Atlanta, Georgia, USA
Posts: 6,376
I'll go see it, and Spielberg definitely knows how to make an entertaining picture... but I can't help wishing he'd simply filmed the book, made it a period piece set c. 1900. (There's supposedly a low-budget independent movie that does just that, but it may or may not have actually been filmed; there are allegations that the director is a scam artist.)
  #12  
Old 06-27-2005, 09:29 AM
N9IWP is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Southeast MN
Posts: 6,229
I don't know how representative the trailers are, but there is very little Miranda in them. Zebra: Does she get much screen time? Does she hack at an alien tentacle with a sword?

Brian
  #13  
Old 06-27-2005, 09:42 AM
Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LIC
Posts: 20,679
No, her part is pretty much confined to the first ten minutes, (setting up the dynamics of the family relationships) no fighting for her.

SPOILER:
and she is there at the end.
  #14  
Old 06-27-2005, 01:08 PM
Archergal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Atlanta area
Posts: 2,520
I saw a trailer for the movie when we went to see Batman Begins. Until then, I'd thought Tom Cruise
SPOILER:
only had a daughter (Dakota Fanning). Turns out he has a son too. Maybe it's just scarier when you think a little girl is threatened.
  #15  
Old 06-27-2005, 01:55 PM
Hampshire is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 10,969
There's two seperate reviews on Ain'tItCoolNews and they both thought it was great.
  #16  
Old 06-27-2005, 02:11 PM
Clothahump is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 14,654
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Egg
Sounds like it could be good. So...how does it end?

The butler did it.
  #17  
Old 06-27-2005, 02:44 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clothahump
The butler did it.
So...communism was a red herring?


Count me in the group who wishes that Spielberg had filmed it as a period piece. Then again, I'm still waiting for someone to do The First Men On The Moon and Tono Bungay. (I think The Food of the Gods would be fun, too, but only as a B-film...the 1976 version was a miserable attempt to cash in on the animal monster mania.[/i]

Based exclusively on the trailers, I give it a solid "meh" so far. A lot of FX, a lot of Cruise close-ups, a lot of Dakota Fanning (who is coming to be the child actress version of Jude Law, in the gap left by Joel Haley Osment). We'll see if there's any plot, tension, or novelty.

Stranger
  #18  
Old 06-27-2005, 02:51 PM
HPL is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Somewhere non-euclidian.
Posts: 6,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by Good Egg
Sounds like it could be good. So...how does it end? ....I'm kidding.
Rosebud is his sled.

Oz was all a dream.

Rhett walks out on Scarlett.
__________________
"I've worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty"
-Groucho Marx
  #19  
Old 06-27-2005, 02:51 PM
Rocketeer is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 7,115
Yeah, ya just never know. Bad: it's from Speilberg. Good: it's got tripods.
  #20  
Old 06-27-2005, 03:00 PM
AuntiePam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,119
It's been awhile since I saw the George Pal version, but I don't recall a character like the one Tim Robbins is playing.

Did I just forget?
  #21  
Old 06-27-2005, 04:58 PM
JonScribe is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 1,343
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train
...Count me in the group who wishes that Spielberg had filmed it as a period piece. ...
Yeah, but which period: The 1890s, when H.G. Wells wrote his book; the 1930s when Orson Wells did his radio play; of the 1950s when the first movie was released?

I'd vote for 1890s, just to see something different.
  #22  
Old 06-27-2005, 05:02 PM
Mr. Blue Sky is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Up there, waiting
Posts: 17,203
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonScribe
I'd vote for 1890s, just to see something different.
Like this?
  #23  
Old 06-27-2005, 05:32 PM
sj2 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Outside Seattle, WA
Posts: 866
You can buy the Orson Wells broadcast on radiospirits.com for 7.95 USD.
  #24  
Old 06-27-2005, 06:20 PM
HPL is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Somewhere non-euclidian.
Posts: 6,741
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntiePam
It's been awhile since I saw the George Pal version, but I don't recall a character like the one Tim Robbins is playing.

Did I just forget?
He might be the crazy preacher from the book, but there's not enough to tell.
__________________
"I've worked my way up from nothing to a state of extreme poverty"
-Groucho Marx
  #25  
Old 06-27-2005, 06:31 PM
DMark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chi NYC Berlin LA Vegas
Posts: 13,728
In today's Liz Smith column in the New York Post, she tells a plot twist and lets you know who doesn't die at the end.
  #26  
Old 06-27-2005, 08:31 PM
Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LIC
Posts: 20,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by AuntiePam
It's been awhile since I saw the George Pal version, but I don't recall a character like the one Tim Robbins is playing.

Did I just forget?
No you didn't. Pretty much the only characters from that version that are in this version are the aliens.
  #27  
Old 06-27-2005, 08:57 PM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 41,196
And heck, what's wrong with that? I mean, I'm not going to the theatre to see Tom Cruise or his moppet. I'm going to see some ghastly CGI aliens come down and kick some ass.
  #28  
Old 06-27-2005, 09:14 PM
Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LIC
Posts: 20,679
unlike my dates, you will not be left unsatisfied.
  #29  
Old 06-27-2005, 10:39 PM
DocCathode's Avatar
DocCathode is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Philladelphia-Mummer city
Posts: 11,760
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train
Count me in the group who wishes that Spielberg had filmed it as a period piece. Then again, I'm still waiting for someone to do The First Men On The Moon
This version with effects by Ray Harryhausen isn't good enough for you?
__________________
Nothing is impossible if you can imagine it. That's the wonder of being a scientist!
Prof Hubert Farnsworth, Futurama
  #30  
Old 06-29-2005, 11:10 AM
teela brown is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Almost Silicon Valley
Posts: 9,466
I didn't have high hopes, because I loved the book (and the 1950's film version) so much. However, the San Francisco Chronicle is praising it to the skies. Doggone it - I can't stand Tom Cruise, but I do want to see those tripods.
  #31  
Old 06-29-2005, 11:21 AM
AuntiePam is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 18,119
If the movie's a success, I think Spielberg will get more credit for it than Cruise. The movie would do just as well with an unknown in Cruise's role, IMHO.

Actually, I think this is true of any movie Cruise has been in. I don't think people go to his movies just for him. What actor today is considered to guarantee an audience? It's the whole package, especially if the movie has special effects.

David Edelstein is reviewing the movie today on Fresh Air, so it'll be in the archives tomorrow.
  #32  
Old 06-29-2005, 11:24 AM
Happy Scrappy Hero Pup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eighth & Forty-Deuce
Posts: 3,761
Zebra and I saw it last night.

It was amazing.

Expansive when it needed to be, claustrophobic when called for, little dialogue, excellent situational directing.

I don't even want to say a word about it because it's so stunning that I don't want to ruin it.

But I recommend it wholeheartedly. Go go go right now.

I will review it furhter in my LJ this afternoon.
  #33  
Old 06-29-2005, 11:25 AM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by JonScribe
Yeah, but which period: The 1890s, when H.G. Wells wrote his book; the 1930s when Orson Wells did his radio play; of the 1950s when the first movie was released?
In the original 1890's setting. The George Pal-produced film was good, but the '50s-era Red Scare subtext is kind of tedious, and the acting and dialog is subpar, to say the least. It's not bad enough to be funny (see Earth vs. The Flying Saucers for that), but not really a great classic like The Day The Earth Stood Still, either.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DocCathode
This version [of The First Men On The Moon with effects by Ray Harryhausen isn't good enough for you?
Huh. I've never seen that. The reviews don't give it a break, though.

Stranger
  #34  
Old 06-29-2005, 11:56 AM
Rock-n-Rolga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pine Tree Purgatory
Posts: 335
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baldwin
I'll go see it, and Spielberg definitely knows how to make an entertaining picture... but I can't help wishing he'd simply filmed the book, made it a period piece set c. 1900. (There's supposedly a low-budget independent movie that does just that, but it may or may not have actually been filmed; there are allegations that the director is a scam artist.)
Saw a quote from Spielburg in a recent issue of Entertainment Weekly (Sorry, don't know the exact one. Was thumbing through it at the oil change place) where he said he wasn't interested in doing a version set in the 1890's because he thought that among other things the costumes were unattractive and stuffy, something like that. Anyway, he seemed very disdainful of doing a period piece, which is too bad because he probably could have done a bang-up job of it.

Am currently pondering the Cruise dislike/Whoa, tripods! dilemma as well.
  #35  
Old 06-29-2005, 11:59 AM
Rock-n-Rolga is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Pine Tree Purgatory
Posts: 335
Err, SpielbErg, sorry. Dang aliens must have stopped here and hijacked my brain on their way to Tom's place...
  #36  
Old 06-29-2005, 12:31 PM
Shirley Ujest is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Somewhere in the Middle.
Posts: 21,387
I will wait for video because 1) movies are too expensive and 2) The Whole Tom Cruise thingie.

However, it would be really funny if Speilburg slipped into the film a Yoyodyne Propulsion Systems gag.


HAH!
  #37  
Old 06-29-2005, 01:14 PM
a35362 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Northern Illinois
Posts: 3,759
It's got a 79% "Fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes, but Ebert gave it two stars.
  #38  
Old 06-29-2005, 02:29 PM
DMark is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Chi NYC Berlin LA Vegas
Posts: 13,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Happy Scrappy Hero Pup
Zebra and I saw it last night.

...little dialogue...
Actually was going to ask that. I have some friends visiting from Germany and their English is zilch. Would they be able to understand the film if I took them along with me? (I don't want to have to whisper translations in the theater.)

In other words, if I give them the outline of the story before we go into the theater, would they be able to follow along and like the film?
  #39  
Old 06-29-2005, 02:31 PM
The Hook is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CR
Posts: 399
Quote:
Originally Posted by a35362
It's got a 79% "Fresh" rating at Rotten Tomatoes, but Ebert gave it two stars.
Mostly because it's just another "blow'em up" movie. However, I don't know how much I can trust Ebert's review on this one. He doesn't like it, basically, because he didn't like the tripods.
  #40  
Old 06-29-2005, 02:36 PM
dropzone's Avatar
dropzone is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 29,577
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock-n-Rolga
...he said he wasn't interested in doing a version set in the 1890's because he thought that among other things the costumes were unattractive and stuffy, something like that.
1890s fashion unattractive? He needs a better costume designer.

My feelings about Mr Cruise have not swayed my decision. The tripods win.
  #41  
Old 06-29-2005, 02:47 PM
Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LIC
Posts: 20,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by DMark
Actually was going to ask that. I have some friends visiting from Germany and their English is zilch. Would they be able to understand the film if I took them along with me? (I don't want to have to whisper translations in the theater.)

In other words, if I give them the outline of the story before we go into the theater, would they be able to follow along and like the film?

I think so. Especially if they know the basic story. Just explain that Tom is divorced from the kids mother and they are only visiting for the weekend. The boy and Tom don't get along. Other than that, I think they if they watch movies they would do fine.
  #42  
Old 06-29-2005, 03:02 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hook
Mostly because it's just another "blow'em up" movie. However, I don't know how much I can trust Ebert's review on this one. He doesn't like it, basically, because he didn't like the tripods.
Not only that, but he makes one of his characteristic gaffs*:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Ebert
If evolution has taught us anything, it is that limbs of living things, from men to dinosaurs to spiders to centipedes, tend to come in numbers divisible by four. Three legs are inherently not stable, as Ray demonstrates when he damages one leg of a giant tripod, and it falls helplessly to the ground.
Uh, Rog, plenty of creatures do will with six legs (not divisible by four), and I don't know about your compatriots, but most of the people I know tend to rove about with the frightenenly diminutive and unstable number of two legs. Odd numbers are not preferred, not because they're unstable, but because they're unsymmetrical and virtually all land-based fauna tend to be symmetrical in construction. The rational for this can be speculated, but nontheless a tripod is not "inherently not stable". One wonders why he doesn't make the same argument against The Empire Strikes Back and the ease by which the AT-ATs are disabled.

But then, this guy also gave the universally-panned Bewitched two and a half stars, putting it on the edge of watchability (in his estimation), so I don't place a lot of credit into his rating system. At least he's honest about what he doesn't like, so you know where his bias comes from.

Stranger

*It is my contention that in nearly every review, Ebert gets either some material fact from the film utterly wrong, or incorrectly states some physical principle that the film allegedly defies. I don't know if he's doing this to see if the reader is awake, or whether he's just a lazy, inattentive, and bloated windbag, but it's as annoying as heck. Stop it, Roger.
  #43  
Old 06-29-2005, 03:05 PM
Stranger On A Train is offline
Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Manor Farm
Posts: 19,051
And if Ebert hates WotW for it's tripods, he might as just well go ahead and write his dismissive review for this film now.

Now, am I the only one wondering who would win in a "Celebrity Deathmatch" between Roger Ebert and Buckminster Fuller?

Stranger
  #44  
Old 06-29-2005, 03:14 PM
Zebra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: LIC
Posts: 20,679
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stranger On A Train
Not only that, but he makes one of his characteristic gaffs*: Uh, Rog, plenty of creatures do will with six legs (not divisible by four), and I don't know about your compatriots, but most of the people I know tend to rove about with the frightenenly diminutive and unstable number of two legs. Odd numbers are not preferred, not because they're unstable, but because they're unsymmetrical and virtually all land-based fauna tend to be symmetrical in construction. The rational for this can be speculated, but nontheless a tripod is not "inherently not stable". One wonders why he doesn't make the same argument against The Empire Strikes Back and the ease by which the AT-ATs are disabled.

But then, this guy also gave the universally-panned Bewitched two and a half stars, putting it on the edge of watchability (in his estimation), so I don't place a lot of credit into his rating system. At least he's honest about what he doesn't like, so you know where his bias comes from.

Stranger

*It is my contention that in nearly every review, Ebert gets either some material fact from the film utterly wrong, or incorrectly states some physical principle that the film allegedly defies. I don't know if he's doing this to see if the reader is awake, or whether he's just a lazy, inattentive, and bloated windbag, but it's as annoying as heck. Stop it, Roger.

Since Ray doesn't take down a Tripod by damaging one leg.
  #45  
Old 06-29-2005, 03:23 PM
Rick is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Posts: 16,451
I'll take bloated windbags for $100 Alex.
  #46  
Old 06-29-2005, 05:56 PM
Happy Scrappy Hero Pup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Eighth & Forty-Deuce
Posts: 3,761
My review is up.

I'm mean to the universal you, but that's just my writing style.

Here's what I think. If you don't agree, well, you know what you are.
  #47  
Old 06-29-2005, 07:29 PM
dare_devil007_ is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: End of the universe.
Posts: 863
It was really cool. I totally forgot that I was looking at Tom Cruise while I was watching the movie. All of the bad publicity and the backlash he's received recently was completely forgotten while I was watching this. It was extremely intense, visually assaulting and spectacular, emotionally mind-bending...I could go on and on. I didn't expect it to be extremely true to the book, of course, but I enjoyed it nonetheless. I thought Tom Cruise's character, Ray's, son, Robbie, was extremely annoying, especially when
SPOILER:
he sees those soldiers and then tells his dad, "I HAVE to see this! You have to let me go." Then, he gets separated from his dad and sister.
Hello?! His life is in danger and he wants to see things get blown up?! Just go watch a movie, dude. Anyways, I was feeling really sick today and I could barely get up and move around. But, I really wanted to go watch this movie, so I decided to go, and afterwards, I was so surprised I didn't die from emotional exhaustion. That's how cool this movie was.
  #48  
Old 06-29-2005, 10:00 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,408
I've long been a fan of the 1953 version of WotW, and despite the well-known flaws of that film I have to consider it something of a classic, if not on quite the same tier as Day the Earth Stood Still and Forbidden Planet. So I had some trepidations about going to see the new version, but not so much because it was Speilberg or Cruise or becasue it wasn't set in the 1890's (I've got no personal problem with updating the story), mostly because a) I wasn't much impressed with the trailer b) it would mess with my fond memories of the earlier film.

Well, I saw the new version tonight and it freakin' rawks. IMO, within the thematic constraints of the movie (basically we follow three people from New Jersey to New England as everything around them gets blowed up real good) it's an instant classic. The Tripods are awesome and horrifying; more or less what I envisioned when I read the book. Dakota Fanning is pretty wonderful, and the compositions and imagery are stunning. Most of all, for me at least Spielberg managed to get the all-important supsension of disbelief; throughout the film I could easily feel the fright, panic and horror portrayed by the actors. Spielberg has for once reigned in his sentimental streak; the whole movie, except for maybe the last couple of minutes, is almost unbearably harsh. Hey, but, we're dealing with the attempted extermination of humanity by merciless aliens here; damn right it would be harsh. Lastly, Spielberg takes a few of the best bits from the earlier film and makes them his own while still respecting the source.

It would be unfortunate, I think, if the growing legion of Cruise-haters gives this one a miss purely on the basis of who plays lead: yeah, he may come off as bit of an idiot in real life, but he nails his character (a feckless, not fully-grown up blue-collar dad) and not once during the film did I find myslef thinking about the couch-jumping, Scientology-shilling buffoon that has people so up in arms.

Ok, so in the end it's really just an effects-laden thrill ride (Shock! Horror! Tripods!) but as I said, within those limits it's pretty damn good. One and a half thumbs up.

One thumb up
  #49  
Old 06-29-2005, 10:03 PM
El_Kabong's Avatar
El_Kabong is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Smack Dab in the Middle
Posts: 15,408
And one undeleted line from the draft post (the last). Whoops.
  #50  
Old 06-30-2005, 01:43 AM
Equipoise's Avatar
Equipoise is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Chicago
Posts: 10,076
Quote:
Originally Posted by El_Kabong
It would be unfortunate, I think, if the growing legion of Cruise-haters gives this one a miss purely on the basis of who plays lead: yeah, he may come off as bit of an idiot in real life, but he nails his character (a feckless, not fully-grown up blue-collar dad) and not once during the film did I find myslef thinking about the couch-jumping, Scientology-shilling buffoon that has people so up in arms.
I'm one of those Cruise/$cientology haters, and I loved the movie! I agree with your entire review. The movie is INTENSE so keep the little kids at home. I think my husband still has marks on his arm where I kept squeezing him. I even gasped and cried "OH NO!" outloud a few times. It grabbed me and, as they say, didn't let go.

My opinion of Cruise the man is in the gutter for his idiotic beliefs and anti-psychiatry big mouth, but I do like him as an actor, and I do think he is a good actor. I was able to suspend disbelief. He even had me crying a couple of times. I thought his journey from being a self-centered jerk to a warm human loving father was believable. Dakota Fanning is among the finest child actors around. She doesn't have a whole lot to do in this besides act scared, but she does a good job of it. Anyone who bitches about her screaming would probably find themselves screaming like a little girl if they were in the same situation, so they should probably just STFU.

Forget the nitpicking. It was exactly what a good summer popcorn movie should be, and then some. I can't wait to see it again!


And when I do, just like the 1st time, I'll pay to see another movie and duck into WOTW again. Batman Returns got 2 extra tickets sold today, I'm proud to say. Go BR!
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017