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.
He might be the crazy preacher from the book, but there’s not enough to tell.
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.
No you didn’t. Pretty much the only characters from that version that are in this version are the aliens.
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.
unlike my dates, you will not be left unsatisfied.
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.
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.
**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.
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.
Huh. I’ve never seen that. The reviews don’t give it a break, though.
Stranger
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.
Err, SpielbErg, sorry. Dang aliens must have stopped here and hijacked my brain on their way to Tom’s place…
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!
It’s got a 79% “Fresh” rating at Rotten Tomatoes, but Ebert gave it two stars.
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?
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. :dubious:
1890s fashion unattractive? He needs a better costume designer.
My feelings about Mr Cruise have not swayed my decision. The tripods win.