...im really getting tried of some of these young snot nosed kids trashing this film.

what you have to understand is speilberg wanted to do this film in an attempt to show the human reaction to what an alien invasion would be like on earth. he eliminated the traditional and topical ideas of an alien conflict between Us V. Them.

speilberg said waaaaaaaaaay before filming bgean on this movie that the story was not about the aliens, not about how they got here or why they were attacking the humans, it was about human survival. it was about how one man was determined to stay alive and keep his children alive in the midst of something unbelievably catastrophic. it was about a man who was a good person but, didn't knoe how to be the kind of father that his kids always wanted from him. it showed how something as unbeliveable and large as an alien invasion... birthed the bonding of a father and his estranged children.

THAT shit was real, honest ....and powerful.

the film also made you believe that an alien invasion can happen someday, in the same vein as the possibility of an asteriod hitting the earth in films like "Deep Impact". ...or the world facing and dealing with a nuclear holocaust in films like, "The Day After". I feel that speilberg executed this VERY, very well. not many directors can pull off that kind of emotional reaction out of thier audiecnces... and he succeded.

now i can understand why some may not like this film. it didn't have all of the expectations of what they thought an alien invasion film would be about, TO THEM.

plus, these kids NEVER saw the original version OR read the book. so they have nothing to draw from when they go and see this film, except thier own ignorance.

yes, the idea of displaying an all out war beteen earth V. the big bad alien on screen would have established war of the worlds as the perverbial action-adventure/sci-fi film. but again.... spielberg SAID that he didn't want to take the film in that direction. plus, the original story about WOTW wasn't solely about an Us V. Them story. the aliens are simply the catylists, surrounding the question placed upon all of us as human beings....


what would you do if your life and means of survival was placed on line, under the most extreme and unexpected conditions?

plus, speilberg took a very clever approach with this film by noting elements of the current atmosphere of terrorism facing the united states.

(((((SPOILERS))))))

for example.... in the original story, the aliens flew thier spaceships to earth and attack it in the traditional sense of an alien invasion. in spielbergs version, he indicates that the aliens had already been on earth for millions of years, and placed tens of millions of thier machines underneath the ground all over the world, with the intent of an invasion by means of simply flying back to earth and once they arrive, they transport themselves down to the earth and underground, into these machines, and turn them on... and rise up out of the ground and begin thier attack.

this is an effective concept of the idea of terrorists cells living in the united states. no one knew they were there until americans were attacked. and then they asked, how the hell did they have these kinds of weapons underground (or in the instance of the terror cells, living in our own backyards) ...and we never knew anything about it??

((((SPOILERS END)))))

the problem with this film isn't spielberg or the story, its the these young and close minded people who go into a film expecting something that is topical and straight to the point, eye candy.

for example... sometimes, when horror stories are told, it doesn't ALWAYS have to show blood and guts splashed all over the screen. the true element of horror exists in the attempt of the director to tap into the imagination of the person who is watching the film. to plant a seed and allow the viewer to grow that seed and expand on the idea of what is being told in that story.

unfortunately, there aren't too many people who have that kind of imagination. or willingness to grow with a story that is tradionally commonplace in the expecations of those who look for more, but get something a little deeper and more conceptualized.

yes ....this movie is clearly not for everyone. and i don't want to come across as being snobbish or pretentious about this film.

but it really bothers me when folks trash something as unique and effective as WOTW, to which it's main goal was to challenge the imagination of the viewer. to give them something to think and hypothesize about during and after the film.

people who like to shit on the movie and call it trash only say that because they can't identify with it. or aren't willing to allow their imagination to identify with it.

the acting was top notch. it was comical in some parts of the film and intense in other parts. but all in all, technically and scriptwise, the film was executed VERY, very well.

i really believe that folks tend to rationalize way too damn much when they sit down and see a film, when they should be kicking thier shoes off and letting thier imagination take them places that the real world couldn't possibly fathom.

folks simple don't want to have fun with using thier imagination anymore.

and that's sad.

but all in all, i applaud speilberg for giving me my $9.75 cents worth.

great, great film.

It lacked that soul and grit that were there in Jaws and Private Ryan. It seemed very refined and polished to me and I really did come into this with an open mind because Spielberg is a phenomenal director for the most part, arguably the best. To me it was void of a believability factor and as bad as I wanted to fall in love with this movie I couldn't. The red veins and the son's yearning to run into the fight and why the ships needed blood and how the aliens just suddenly started dying out of the blue, how it all went mostly unexplained just really didn't sit well with me.

I really do want to discuss this movie in depth with anyone though because I feel like it had all the pieces aligned to be a great movie and to me at least it didn't deliver.

i can understand how you thought all of those were ridiculous except for the son wanting to go fight, which i thought was completely believable. he just wanted to make a difference, and felt like a coward running away

it's a very common reaction imo. i think we all know someone who signed up for the marines after 9/11. shit, back in ww2, people were committing suicide because they COULDN'T go

but he still ended up in Boston unscathed? I am nitpicking, forgive me.

"if you don't like what I like, which is most of you people, you're a hipster/young snot/debbie downer"

Very advanced.

Fuck outta here.

Some of us are just tired of alien invasion movies, and when one comes out from one of the supposed masters, and it's really no better than the other half dozen that we've seen, and it's real star is the special effects, we're allowed to be disappointed, ok?

If you like it, great. There's certainly things to like about it.

But to ride for it this hard? You might as well go buy up the entire action figure line and recreate it scene by scene in your Mission: Impossible pyjamas.

___________________________
OL' DIRTY BASTARD on himself:
"I may curse, I may have a bad mouth, whatever whatever. I'm not that bad, yaknow'mean. Bad to y'all, I dunno how y'all... I don't give a fuck. Um, I'm a good person at heart, for real and shit.

>"if you don't like what I like, which is most of you people,
>you're a hipster/young snot/debbie downer"
>
>Very advanced.
>
>Fuck outta here.

i find this comment interesting since i never said or implied any of those things, which proves you didn't read what i said and came up with your own short-handed conclusion.

>
>Some of us are just tired of alien invasion movies, and when
>one comes out from one of the supposed masters, and it's
>really no better than the other half dozen that we've seen,
>and it's real star is the special effects, we're allowed to be
>disappointed, ok?

okay ...so if "some of y'all" are tired of them, then why the fuck are "y'all" going out to see them in the first place?

duh??

>
>If you like it, great. There's certainly things to like about
>it.
>
>But to ride for it this hard? You might as well go buy up the
>entire action figure line and recreate it scene by scene in
>your Mission: Impossible pyjamas.

mmm ..nevermind.

>>"if you don't like what I like, which is most of you
>people,
>>you're a hipster/young snot/debbie downer"
>>
>>Very advanced.
>>
>>Fuck outta here.
>
>i find this comment interesting since i never said or implied
>any of those things, which proves you didn't read what i said
>and came up with your own short-handed conclusion.

Oh really? You said "...im really getting tried of some of these young snot nosed kids trashing this film."

Seems to be like you're saying that anyone who doesn't like the movie is a "young snot nosed kid". We couldn't just not like the movie? Nah, that can't be. We must be young, uninformed, and inferior to you. Riiight(nevermind the fact 90% of the people here are in the same age group)


>>Some of us are just tired of alien invasion movies, and when
>>one comes out from one of the supposed masters, and it's
>>really no better than the other half dozen that we've seen,
>>and it's real star is the special effects, we're allowed to
>be
>>disappointed, ok?
>
>okay ...so if "some of y'all" are tired of them, then why the
>fuck are "y'all" going out to see them in the first place?

Because we assumed, wrongfully of course, that one of the greatest directors of all-time would at least try and bring something fresh and new to the table.

___________________________
OL' DIRTY BASTARD on himself:
"I may curse, I may have a bad mouth, whatever whatever. I'm not that bad, yaknow'mean. Bad to y'all, I dunno how y'all... I don't give a fuck. Um, I'm a good person at heart, for real and shit.

>Because we assumed, wrongfully of course, that one of the
>greatest directors of all-time would at least try and bring
>something fresh and new to the table.

Exactly!



h.e.r.->www.hiphopheadz.blogspot.com

for you myspacers->http://www.myspace.com/hiphopgyrl

mY CuRrenT ByLineS
*sister2sister magazine june issue owav page 75
*baltimore city paper vol.29 No.11 soundtracks section crown city rockers earth

"the problem with this film isn't spielberg or the story, its the these young and close minded people who go into a film expecting something that is topical and straight to the point, eye candy."

See, this is what I thought the movie was. It was the eye candy of the invasion and it was a topical metaphor for the war (although probably not as subversive as I'd like to make it, claiming that Cruise's heroism was that he became (essentially) a suicide bomber.)

As I said in the other thread, this wasn't an action or Sci-Fi movie. It was a family drama that took place during an alien invasion. It was as much of an action film as Titanic was. If you bought the family drama, you liked the film. I didn't. At all. The relationships didn't ring true to me. In my opinion, it was 28 Days Later as directed by Michael Bay.

"people who like to shit on the movie and call it trash only say that because they can't identify with it. or aren't willing to allow their imagination to identify with it."

This goes against your first point. People either didn't like it because it wasn't eye candy or they didn't like it because the script didn't draw them in. You can't claim that the ONLY reason is both of these. People, myself included, didn't buy it. You can get on your high horse and call people names all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people on this board found the script to be ineffective.

you said it.

>"the problem with this film isn't spielberg or the story, its
>the these young and close minded people who go into a film
>expecting something that is topical and straight to the point,
>eye candy."
>
>See, this is what I thought the movie was. It was the eye
>candy of the invasion and it was a topical metaphor for the
>war (although probably not as subversive as I'd like to make
>it, claiming that Cruise's heroism was that he became
>(essentially) a suicide bomber.)
>
>As I said in the other thread, this wasn't an action or Sci-Fi
>movie. It was a family drama that took place during an alien
>invasion. It was as much of an action film as Titanic was.
>If you bought the family drama, you liked the film. I didn't.
>At all. The relationships didn't ring true to me. In my
>opinion, it was 28 Days Later as directed by Michael Bay.
>
>"people who like to shit on the movie and call it trash only
>say that because they can't identify with it. or aren't
>willing to allow their imagination to identify with it."
>
>This goes against your first point. People either didn't like
>it because it wasn't eye candy or they didn't like it because
>the script didn't draw them in. You can't claim that the ONLY
>reason is both of these.

first off.... where in my post did i claim as those being the ONLY two reasons? if you read what i said, i was offering theory as to why folks are trashing the film. my suggestion isn't limited to what i stated. it's only examples of what can be expanded into other theories and explinations.

second ...i never said that people didnt see the film because there "wasn't any eye candy". if you actually read what I said, i stated, "its the these young and close minded people who go into a film expecting something that is topical and straight to the point,
eye candy".

in otherwords...the film had its share of eye candy, but not to the degree where that was the crux of the film and its story, as many sci-fi flims are. it focused most of it's energy on the story surrounding its characters. and that is what people who didn't like the film aren't willing to open thier imagination to. the drama and storytelling aspect of the film. not just the fantastical alien V. earth extraveganza folks were expecting.

People, myself included, didn't buy
>it. You can get on your high horse and call people names all
>you want

i wasn't calling names to insult. i was being honest about my opinion about how folks react to something they don't open thier imagination to. that is just my opinion.

and if you were offended by that, dont' worry... you'll get over it.

but it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people
>on this board found the script to be ineffective.

and it doesn't change the fact that a lot of people who don't post on this website, found the entire film to be phenomenal.

"that is what people who didn't like the film aren't willing to open thier imagination to. the drama and storytelling aspect of the film. not just the fantastical alien V. earth extraveganza folks were expecting."

See, we are in agreement. The story didn't click with certain people. The only difference is that you blame the audience for not getting into it and claim that they did something wrong because the familial relationship rang hollow. In my opinion, opening up your imagination has nothing to do with it. It wasn't about accepting something or suspending your disbelief, it was about making a connection with the main characters.

>
>As I said in the other thread, this wasn't an action or Sci-Fi
>movie. It was a family drama that took place during an alien
>invasion. It was as much of an action film as Titanic was.
>If you bought the family drama, you liked the film. I didn't.
>At all. The relationships didn't ring true to me.>

you do make an interesting point here. For me the relationships actually did ring true...but of course my own family set-up happens mirror the main characters family set-up in this film...I'm one of the Dads in the 'Dad#1 & Dad#2 + Mom & Daughter & Son' scenario...thankfully our own relationships aren't NEARLY as jacked up as the characters in the film, but there are similarities on a less dramatic level, and i DO know folks in situations whos relationships match or even surpass the dramatified relationships of the characters in the film. So me, i bought that part of it based on my own experiences with my own family an my observations of some others.

And,i would say that yes, that IS what this movie is about... a modern 'every day' family (and on a larger scale a modern everyday society) set in an amazing extreme and chaotic environment... and how some of them might react to it...

that IS what the movie is about, yes.

But thats what i WANT it to be about so i don't mind it one bit. Of course as you pointed out the success of this counts in part on the viewer believing the family(society) aspect... and you didn't 'buy' the family, while i did...so it makes sense that we disagree here and thats fine.

As for the eye candy...

uh...sorry..i DON'T see a problem with the so-called EYE CANDY at ALL. Man THATS the BLOCKBUSTER element that i was looking for as well as the other stuff. There were some amazing, thrilling even kinda frightening images in there. THATS whats FUN about it man! I was tellin my wife, 'if i would have seen this when i was a kid i would have gone home and whipped out a pencil and paper and started drawing scenes from this movie as fast as i could. In fact I felt like doing it now'. C'mon...eye candy can be COOL sometimes man, especially if its combined with at least some characters you believe (we've established that you didn't believe them, but they worked alright for me being in my perspective) and even some level of connection and realevance to an era or society...if you have some of those other elements in place then I'm all for eye candy...don't hate on the eye candy man...in the right place mixed with the right context, eyecandy can make for some magical movie moments.

I have no problem with the film's action sequences. The initial post was claiming that people didn't like it because there wasn't enough eye candy, which I thought was odd because about half the film was just that. People's complaints are more about the story surrounding the eye candy IMO.

I agree and well said...

I wont repeat your entire post, but i agree..this movie gave me pretty much EVERYTHING i wanted.

I haven't read a whole bunch of the posts out there by folks who hated it, so i don't know what it is exactly that they are saying made them dislike it, but for ME it did EXACTLY what it was supposed to do...

It made that shit TANGIBLE...it did what Speilberg is a MASTER at doing and that is mixing the 'everyday take for granted' images right there with the 'extremely extraordinary' images...he does that SO well...and by doing so he increases the anxiety and amazement to another level entirely...he has a gift for that shit...

I loved this flick, i loved what it was about (i was so VERY glad that he didn't turn it into a typical 'battle' movie where the bulk of it would have focused on us shooting weapons at them them shooting back etc ect. That would have been boring as hell...seen that a zillion times)

I DID like the way he portrayed the TROOPS in the military that were in this film...as some seriously brave folks who, in the midst of chaos often go IN the direction where everyone else is running FROM in order to do their jobs and in many cases because they feel compelled to do it whether its their job or not. I thought this film honored the troops in that way and kept politics pretty much out of it. Well done.

I thought your "the Day After" analogy was right on point...i think the story that Steven was going for (and achieved) was how would society... everyday folks...really feel & react in this situation if it suddenly popped up and snowballed outta nowhere (ala the day after) ...again well done...

I thought the movie achieved that goal wonderfully AND satisfied the BLOCKBUSTER requirements with some AMAZING images and effects...i wont get into them all but there were little things AND big things about this movie that were just damn COOL.

>>>>>>>.....SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER....<<<<<<<<<<<

The ONLY thing about this film that bothered me was that the son shows up in Boston burbs at the end...that part seemed very unlikely. As i said in my other post, I know its hard for Steven to kill off kids, but i tell ya, when the son asks the dad to 'let him go' because he's compelled to act and fight back...and then he goes over that hill and then it seems like pretty much everything that went over that hill gets annhialated...i tell ya in the theater i was actually kinda proud of Steven at that point. I was like DAYUM. It added to the anxiety level...and if Steve would have left it there, with us assuming the son made the ultimate sacrifice...THAT would have been some POWERFUL shit indeed...

but hey it's Spielberg and you know the guy is an optimist, its hard for him to kill off kids...well i guess it happened in Jaws...but you know what i'm saying...The A.I. ending was the same way...the last scene in A.I. should have been a fade out of the boy at the bottom of the ocean looking at his 'ma'...but its kinda hard for Steven to leave you on a trajic sweet-bitter note like tha... so, well..you know the rest

so yeah, the son surviving AND making it to the burbs in Boston is the ONLY part of the movie that didn't do it for me...

but the OTHER 99% of this thing was RIGHT THE FUCK ON man! It was non-stop and on a roll from start to finish. Kept me entertained and involved with the characters the entire way.

In fact I'm going back to see it again today...and then when my kids come back tomorrow I may take them to see it after that too. A movie hasn't made me want to go see it over & over again in quite some time...i feel like a kid again.

This is what a BLOCKBUSTER movie should be in my book.

There's little to no character development, and the dialogue is tepid and uninteresting, providing no humor or spark to make us care about these people.

The acting was fine, the cinematography was fine, the set design was brilliant, and the special effects and sound effects should both be nominated for Oscars.

But without characters that I give two shits about, I can never get lost in the movie. It's an intangible that I take for granted when watching movies, cuz I usually get sucked in. I had trouble getting sucked in at many points of this movie.

It's still a good movie, well-directed with gorgeous special effects and some truly scary moments. But I'd certainly pause before throwing the word "GREAT" around.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

You have to take in the entire phrase, not just one word of it.
____________________________________________________________
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
(as dub)
-Gorillaz

You need to be interested in the characters even in the corniest of action films.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>You need to be interested in the characters even in the
>corniest of action films.

word. just because it's summer doesn't mean the criteria for making a good movie changes. i'm so sick of people throwing that lame "summer popcorn" excuse around.

in his (finely written, at least for PTP) review. I was just pointing out what he said. Didn't necessarily mean I agreed, although I thought the flick was fine. Certainly nothing to pass a stone about, which, as we all know, is the PTP way...

(waits for the "backpedal" accusation)...
____________________________________________________________
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
(as dub)
-Gorillaz

>in his (finely written, at least for PTP) review.

disagreed. and i can't really accept the idea that WOTW works on a "deeper level" when it fails on several of the most basic moviemaking levels.

Repeat after me: We'll just have to agree to disagree.
____________________________________________________________
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
(as dub)
-Gorillaz

First off, saying that people didn't like the film because they didn't get the deeper meaning is ridiculous. If there was a story at the front and then a deeper meaning behind it, the key is still the story at the top. If that doesn't work, you end up with Eyes Wide Shut. I actually enjoyed that film but it was because I didn't give a rat's ass about the main narrative and just watched it, trying to read the deeper meaning. Even though I enjoyed it, I wouldn't say the film was great because the narrative was weak. In fact, I wouldn't argue against anyone who says it sucks.
The original story for War of the Worlds worked on both levels, both as a narrative and a metaphor. This movie, I would argue, worked on neither.

We've already been over the narrative failings which was that the core of the movie, the familial relationship required the audience's sympathy rather than empathy. If you couldn't bring a shared connection with those initial scenes, you weren't going to like it. There was not enough there for people to empathize with. The filmmakers did not allow any moments or character development. YOu basically had to buy Ray saying, "That's a good look for you." to his pregant ex-wife in order to feel like there was something good still inside him. That was pretty much the only moment of tenderness or caring that he showed. Emotional attachment to the main characters/conflict is the core of any film and it is the job of the writer and director to deliver that. An audience that is invested in the characters will be willing to overlook flaws and stretch. If the audience has to stretch to simply care about the characters, then the script simply does not work.

Now, as for the deeper meaning, if the underlying story is aliens as terrorists than I would actually be opposed to this film rather than bored by it. The original story was about British colonialism so if the aliens were to represent anything in this film it would be America and our dream of spreading democracy to the world. Also, the aliens attacked without reason would label the terrorists (with Bush like simplicity) as simply bad people who do bad because they want to wipe us out. In my opinion, the family in this film is more like the Middle East, a group that does not get alone however bands together in a time of crisis against a great enemy. The great enemy attacks and the first thing it destroys is religion. In the film, the church is the first building to go; in the Middle East we hope that they overlook many of their customs and move towards our religion of capitalism. And as I said in another thread, Cruise defeats a tripod when he defends his daughter and becomes (essentially) a suicide bomber.
Also, if the story is aliens as terrorists, then the ending doesn't work at all because terrorism isn't just going to go away. Again, the ending works only if you see the aliens as America. The American concept of the Democratic Republic simply will not succeed in certain areas. We can try to force it on people but the beliefs and customs of those lands will always bring down the system down naturally.

If this film was about America's invading the Middle East and our desire to spread democracy, then I would give it points for a very intriguing take on our times, but as a film, it still comes up short because the narrative was boring.

i think the humans as terrorists was very clear: tim robbins hiding underground, waiting for the right time to take out a few of the invaders as revenge for killing his family... tom cruise becoming sort of a 'suicide bomber' when getting sucked into the machine. plus terrorists aren't more technologically advanced than us. i don't get the aliens as terrorists comparison.

deeper meaning.' If you're going to call yourself refuting my point, then follow it with a bunch of blather that I don't have time to read, then at least do so without attributing false quotes to my person. Thank you.

It's real simple. Some people loved the movie. Some people, like me, liked the movie. Some didn't. To suggest that those who loved, or even liked, the movie are full of shit is "ridiculous" in and of itself.
____________________________________________________________
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
(as dub)
-Gorillaz

>To suggest that those
>who loved, or even liked, the movie are full of shit is
>"ridiculous" in and of itself.

As is to suggest those who didn't are full of shit or "young snobs", which is what this thread was started with.

___________________________
OL' DIRTY BASTARD on himself:
"I may curse, I may have a bad mouth, whatever whatever. I'm not that bad, yaknow'mean. Bad to y'all, I dunno how y'all... I don't give a fuck. Um, I'm a good person at heart, for real and shit.

As unfair as that first line may be, I still think he wrote a good review. As did Longo.
____________________________________________________________
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
(as dub)
-Gorillaz

When someone is being condecending, but it's against those whose opinion is contrary to yours, it's okay. But when they do it back at you, you get upset?

As for the review, I stopped reading at that first line, so I can't speak as to how superb it was.

If people like the film, great. It's certainly not awful, so I can understand why people were entertained by it. I was not, and was pretty much bored and uninterested throughout.

___________________________
OL' DIRTY BASTARD on himself:
"I may curse, I may have a bad mouth, whatever whatever. I'm not that bad, yaknow'mean. Bad to y'all, I dunno how y'all... I don't give a fuck. Um, I'm a good person at heart, for real and shit.

>When someone is being condecending, but it's against those
>whose opinion is contrary to yours, it's okay. But when they
>do it back at you, you get upset?

Where did I get upset again? Seems to me you're the one who got upset based on one line in a thickly-worded review. But hey, whatever helps you "do it back at me," right?

Oh, and didn't you and Airbreed go through this "condescending" shit already? Don't bring me into it.

>As for the review, I stopped reading at that first line, so I
>can't speak as to how superb it was.

I rest my case. If you insist on having the last word, then go ahead. On second thought:

"i wasn't calling names to insult. i was being honest about my opinion about how folks react to something they don't open thier imagination to. that is just my opinion. and if you were offended by that, dont' worry... you'll get over it." - Airbreed

The last line there is key for any and all hit dogs up in here.
____________________________________________________________
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
(as dub)
-Gorillaz

"If you're going to call yourself refuting my point, then follow it with a bunch of blather that I don't have time to read"

Also, when did I say that people who liked the film are full of shit? Please quote me on that one. From the beginning, I've said that people who sympathized with the main characters would like this film. I've never said they were full of shit or shouldn't like it. My problem was that the film IMO relied on people bringing that to the table and if you couldn't sympathize with the family drama then you weren't going to get into the film. A good film allows you to empathize with the characters. This one didn't.

As for the deeper meaning, you said that Airbreed was alluding to it as one of his many reasons to why people didn't like it. Airbreed thought people wanted eye candy and a film that was straight to the point. That is what I was arguing against. The idea that people didn't use their imagination enough and that's why they didn't like it is silly. Just as silly as anyone who says people who liked the movie are idiots.

>"If you're going to call yourself refuting my point, then
>follow it with a bunch of blather that I don't have time to
>read"

Yeah, they're really similar posts, aren't they? One was in specific reference to a review, the other was in response to something said that was attributed to me.

>Also, when did I say that people who liked the film are full
>of shit? Please quote me on that one.

I wasn't referring to you specifically, money. Sheesh.

From the beginning,
>I've said that people who sympathized with the main characters
>would like this film. I've never said they were full of shit
>or shouldn't like it. My problem was that the film IMO relied
>on people bringing that to the table and if you couldn't
>sympathize with the family drama then you weren't going to get
>into the film. A good film allows you to empathize with the
>characters. This one didn't.

Good. That's your opinion.

>As for the deeper meaning, you said that Airbreed was alluding
>to it as one of his many reasons to why people didn't like it.
> Airbreed thought people wanted eye candy and a film that was
>straight to the point. That is what I was arguing against.
>The idea that people didn't use their imagination enough and
>that's why they didn't like it is silly. Just as silly as
>anyone who says people who liked the movie are idiots.

That's fine. And I was saying that last sentence all along.
____________________________________________________________
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
(as dub)
-Gorillaz

"Yeah, they're really similar posts, aren't they? One was in specific reference to a review, the other was in response to something said that was attributed to me.

My response was about the review, not you. You said that Airbreed alluded to a deeper meaning that people didn't get because they wanted more eye candy or a topical message that was more obvious. I attributed nothing to you.

"That's fine. And I was saying that last sentence all along."

You shouted out a review that was entirely based on the idea that people who didn't like the films were punks, couldn't open up their imagination, were lazy, etc. Airbreed's review is the opposite of that last sentence.

>My response was about the review, not you. You said that
>Airbreed alluded to a deeper meaning that people didn't get
>because they wanted more eye candy or a topical message that
>was more obvious. I attributed nothing to you.

"First off, saying that people didn't like the film because they didn't get the deeper meaning is ridiculous." - SoulHonky

In the future, if it's not meant to be attributed to me, then post your reply someplace else. Just to clear up any confusion.

>You shouted out a review that was entirely based on the idea
>that people who didn't like the films were punks, couldn't
>open up their imagination, were lazy, etc. Airbreed's review
>is the opposite of that last sentence.

I really can't understand why you all are so fixated on the "names" he calls you, instead of actually reading (or at least filtering out) the actual movie talk.
____________________________________________________________
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
(as dub)
-Gorillaz

"i wasn't calling names to insult. i was being honest about my opinion about how folks react to something they don't open thier imagination to. that is just my opinion. and if you were offended by that, dont' worry... you'll get over it." - Airbreed

That's like if I said, "I was being honest about my opinion about how folks react when they aren't educated enough to know what a good film is. That is just my opinion. If you were offended by that, don't worry, you'll get over it."

And I'm not offended by it, I just think Airbreed is closed-minded and pretentious and can't accept the fact that other people didn't like the film. He has this attitude that if someone has an opposing feeling towards a film, then it must have been their fault, not the films. I've liked many films that people have hated (Eyes Wide Shut, Thin Red Line, Force 10 from Navarone, The Cutting Edge). I understand why they hated the film. I don't blame them for it. The film simply didn't work for them. In most cases, I see their point of you, I have a different one and one that allowed me to enjoy the movie.

>"i wasn't calling names to insult. i was being honest about
>my opinion about how folks react to something they don't open
>thier imagination to. that is just my opinion. and if you were
>offended by that, dont' worry... you'll get over it." -
>Airbreed

Note how many times he says "that's just my opinion."

And if you have the opinion that Airbreed is "close-minded and pretentious," that's fine too. Just know that nothing good comes of such "discussion."

>That's like if I said, "I was being honest about my opinion
>about how folks react when they aren't educated enough to know
>what a good film is. That is just my opinion. If you were
>offended by that, don't worry, you'll get over it."

In the crudest, most cynical, oops, I mean, "logical" of terms, yes. But, without pretending to be Airbreed's official spokesperson, I don't think that was his intent.

>And I'm not offended by it, I just think Airbreed is
>closed-minded and pretentious and can't accept the fact that
>other people didn't like the film.

Despite the protestations to the contrary, methinks there's way too many sensitive cats around here. "He called us young snot nosed punks, I know movies, he's condescending, boo hoo hoo." (and no, I didn't attribute that direct quote to you, Longo, McMurtry, or anyone else. I'ma nip that shit in the bud right now before another 7 posts are wasted on who quoted and said what).

>If someone has an opposing
>feeling towards a film, then it must have been their fault,
>not the films.

Nah, we're not going back to that well...

>I've liked many films that people have hated
>(Eyes Wide Shut, Thin Red Line, Force 10 from Navarone). I
>understand why they hated the film. I don't blame them for
>it. The film simply didn't work for them. In most cases, I
>see their point of you, I have a different one and one that
>allowed me to enjoy the movie.

Or, not enjoy it, which is fine. My issue (as of now) is that cats got all up in arms about what he said in the first line of his review. Some, including yourself, actually talked about not liking the movie. That's fine. But I think if you (no, not you specifically) are going to present a counterpoint on the film, do so, instead of getting huffy about little "digs" and "shots" from an older head.

As corny as it sounds, be a bigger person and stay on topic.

I mean, really.
____________________________________________________________
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
(as dub)
-Gorillaz

>Despite the protestations to the contrary, methinks there's
>way too many sensitive cats around here. "He called us young
>snot nosed punks, I know movies, he's condescending, boo hoo
>hoo." (and no, I didn't attribute that direct quote to you,
>Longo, McMurtry, or anyone else. I'ma nip that shit in the
>bud right now before another 7 posts are wasted on who quoted
>and said what).

Despite what you may think, I'm not sensitive or angry that he said that. I just've always thought PTP was free of that silly, Lesson-like approach of name calling for those whose opinion goes against your own. So when I see someone do that shit, I voice my opinion that it's unnecessary and juvenile.

He could've probably made his entire point without it, and it wouldn't have lost anything.

___________________________
OL' DIRTY BASTARD on himself:
"I may curse, I may have a bad mouth, whatever whatever. I'm not that bad, yaknow'mean. Bad to y'all, I dunno how y'all... I don't give a fuck. Um, I'm a good person at heart, for real and shit.

>I'm not sensitive or angry that he
>said that. I just've always thought PTP was free of that
>silly, Lesson-like approach of name calling for those whose
>opinion goes against your own. So when I see someone do that
>shit, I voice my opinion that it's unnecessary and juvenile.

I dunno, saying you're not mad or sensitive then typing stuff like, "yo, man, you called us punks, fuck outta here with that bullshit" just seems to be a contradiction. You have to, well, let's just say it, consider the source, then make an adjustment. If fire or qoolquest came over here and said "whatch'all dumb nerd muhfuckas know 'bout Xanadu... here's my review..." as much as I'd like to tell them to fuck off, I wouldn't. I would instead read the review and filter out any "name calling" bullshit that I may read in the meantime. Easier said than done, I know.

>He could've probably made his entire point without it, and it
>wouldn't have lost anything.

Agreed.
____________________________________________________________
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
It's the money as dub
(as dub)
-Gorillaz

"My issue (as of now) is that cats got all up in arms about what he said in the first line of his review."

OK, let me just explains this one last time, and I'm out.

The movie centered around a family drama that did not have much support. You either related and sympathized with it or it didn't work for you. That is a failing of the script/film. The film was not accessible for everyone.

If you were able to connect with the characters, the film was probably amazing. I simply never cared one iota for the family the members or their relationship, so the film didn't work for me.

Neither member of the audience is wrong, and to judge anyone on how they reacted to the film is wrong.

Now, I think a lot can be gleened from the reactions to the reactions, but that's neither here nor there.

Happy 4th of July.

>Happy 4th of July.

as a movie that is legally brain dead...

where did it come from? and how can we send it back there?

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

Because the first summer "blockbusters" (Jaws, etc.) were still good movies that didn't require the audience to turn off their brain and "just enjoy the ride dude!"

___________________________
OL' DIRTY BASTARD on himself:
"I may curse, I may have a bad mouth, whatever whatever. I'm not that bad, yaknow'mean. Bad to y'all, I dunno how y'all... I don't give a fuck. Um, I'm a good person at heart, for real and shit.

Jaws was the first summer blockbuster, Top Gun established the Bruckheimer style (which actually was originated amazingly enough with Adrian Lyne and Flashdance), but Speed showed studios that you could make millions with just a premise, a mid-major star and a lot of action. Bad Boys and the Rock in '95 and '96 established Bruckheimer and Michael Bay. The dam broke in '97 with Twister, ID4, Broken Arrow.

The quality of the films have been falling while the quantity has been rising ever since. I think because of the slump this year, studios will be a little more cautious with the cash they are throwing around. I think the day's of someone thinking Sahara should be greenlit for 135 million are over. My guess is that they will try to make more moderately budgeted films and save the blockbusters for huge directors/big stars.

but yeah, i definitely agree that Simpson and Bruckheimer are major culprits

_____________________

http://fc03.deviantart.net/fs70/i/2010/287/6/c/the_wire_lineup__huge_download_by_dennisculver-d30s7vl.jpg
The man who thinks at 50 the same way he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life - Muhammed Ali

i saw it last night and i loved it. it was a great summer blockbuster.

___

And who are you; the proud lord said, that I must bow so low?

www.twitter.com/JayTeeDee

www.juwandickerson.com

.

<--- Blame this lady for Nutty.

period.

>...im really getting tried of some of these young snot nosed
>kids trashing this film.
>
>what you have to understand is speilberg wanted to do this
>film in an attempt to show the human reaction to what an alien
>invasion would be like on earth. he eliminated the traditional
>and topical ideas of an alien conflict between Us V. Them.
>
>speilberg said waaaaaaaaaay before filming bgean on this movie
>that the story was not about the aliens, not about how they
>got here or why they were attacking the humans, it was about
>human survival. it was about how one man was determined to
>stay alive and keep his children alive in the midst of
>something unbelievably catastrophic. it was about a man who
>was a good person but, didn't knoe how to be the kind of
>father that his kids always wanted from him. it showed how
>something as unbeliveable and large as an alien invasion...
>birthed the bonding of a father and his estranged children.
>
>THAT shit was real, honest ....and powerful.
>
>the film also made you believe that an alien invasion can
>happen someday, in the same vein as the possibility of an
>asteriod hitting the earth in films like "Deep Impact". ...or
>the world facing and dealing with a nuclear holocaust in films
>like, "The Day After". I feel that speilberg executed this
>VERY, very well. not many directors can pull off that kind of
>emotional reaction out of thier audiecnces... and he
>succeded.
>
>now i can understand why some may not like this film. it
>didn't have all of the expectations of what they thought an
>alien invasion film would be about, TO THEM.
>
>plus, these kids NEVER saw the original version OR read the
>book. so they have nothing to draw from when they go and see
>this film, except thier own ignorance.
>
>yes, the idea of displaying an all out war beteen earth V. the
>big bad alien on screen would have established war of the
>worlds as the perverbial action-adventure/sci-fi film. but
>again.... spielberg SAID that he didn't want to take the film
>in that direction. plus, the original story about WOTW wasn't
>solely about an Us V. Them story. the aliens are simply the
>catylists, surrounding the question placed upon all of us as
>human beings....
>
>
>what would you do if your life and means of survival was
>placed on line, under the most extreme and unexpected
>conditions?
>
>plus, speilberg took a very clever approach with this film by
>noting elements of the current atmosphere of terrorism facing
>the united states.
>
>(((((SPOILERS))))))
>
>for example.... in the original story, the aliens flew thier
>spaceships to earth and attack it in the traditional sense of
>an alien invasion. in spielbergs version, he indicates that
>the aliens had already been on earth for millions of years,
>and placed tens of millions of thier machines underneath the
>ground all over the world, with the intent of an invasion by
>means of simply flying back to earth and once they arrive,
>they transport themselves down to the earth and underground,
>into these machines, and turn them on... and rise up out of
>the ground and begin thier attack.
>
>this is an effective concept of the idea of terrorists cells
>living in the united states. no one knew they were there until
>americans were attacked. and then they asked, how the hell did
>they have these kinds of weapons underground (or in the
>instance of the terror cells, living in our own backyards)
>...and we never knew anything about it??
>
>((((SPOILERS END)))))
>
>the problem with this film isn't spielberg or the story, its
>the these young and close minded people who go into a film
>expecting something that is topical and straight to the point,
>eye candy.
>
>for example... sometimes, when horror stories are told, it
>doesn't ALWAYS have to show blood and guts splashed all over
>the screen. the true element of horror exists in the attempt
>of the director to tap into the imagination of the person who
>is watching the film. to plant a seed and allow the viewer to
>grow that seed and expand on the idea of what is being told in
>that story.
>
>unfortunately, there aren't too many people who have that kind
>of imagination. or willingness to grow with a story that is
>tradionally commonplace in the expecations of those who look
>for more, but get something a little deeper and more
>conceptualized.
>
>yes ....this movie is clearly not for everyone. and i don't
>want to come across as being snobbish or pretentious about
>this film.
>
>but it really bothers me when folks trash something as unique
>and effective as WOTW, to which it's main goal was to
>challenge the imagination of the viewer. to give them
>something to think and hypothesize about during and after the
>film.
>
>people who like to shit on the movie and call it trash only
>say that because they can't identify with it. or aren't
>willing to allow their imagination to identify with it.
>
>the acting was top notch. it was comical in some parts of the
>film and intense in other parts. but all in all, technically
>and scriptwise, the film was executed VERY, very well.
>
>i really believe that folks tend to rationalize way too damn
>much when they sit down and see a film, when they should be
>kicking thier shoes off and letting thier imagination take
>them places that the real world couldn't possibly fathom.
>
>folks simple don't want to have fun with using thier
>imagination anymore.
>
>and that's sad.
>
>but all in all, i applaud speilberg for giving me my $9.75
>cents worth.
>
>great, great film.
>



You are dead on. I agree with your ish 100%.

Props!

GOMD

this is real love it or hate it... as for me, it was up there with some of my favorite theater experiences ever.

loved it (well, taking out the last 5 minutes, but it could've been worse, i mean, there could've been a dog, and he would've survived too, and the last shot would've been of it licking Dakota Fanning's face...)
you want bad action movies ? try all the "epics" that Hollywood keeps churning out: Troy, Alexander, Kingdom of Heaven...

------------------------------
For the record, my teams:
MLB: Mets / Soccer: PSG
NCAA BB: Arizona / NCAA FB: Michigan
NBA: Spurs / NFL: Jets

I've read the book, I know the history.

I've done my research, I bet you don't even know what War of the Worlds is.. you're glib on the whole subject.

Mortui Vivos Docent

*
*
*

You don't know the history, I do. Period.

Mortui Vivos Docent

*
*
*

to clarify, I guess people who haven't read the Matt Lauer/Tom Cruise interview think I'm a conceded asshole.

Mortui Vivos Docent

the radio show and the T.V. series from the 90's. Spielberg did an admirable job throughout most of the movie but failed miserably in the end. It seemed like he decided that the movie went long enough and just attached the ending to it. Too many unanswered questions. I understand leaving some points to the imagination but the amount of disbelief required to like the ending was too much. It ruined the whole experience for me.
****************************************************
Avy: Thank you for soaring to greater heights. Happy Anniversary.

<--- *licks lips*

i've got a fetish for tall men and deep voices.

I'd save GREAT for some of Spielberg's others: Close Encounters, Jaws, Indiana Jones.

But I enjoyed WOTW much. Especially that opening sequence! Damn!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*Effasig*

..if it wasnt for the whole van issue it would have been even better ..but yeah, great summer movie ..also i like how it got right to business ..its like u didnt have to wait for shit to happen

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

in the beginning was enough for me...that whole scene where it powers up and then starts turning folks to dust...ill shit.

with all debates on movies on this board, not everyone is going to like the movie. i find it interesting to see WHY people like or dislike it. it gives me a deeper perspective on both sides of opinion.

as for it being totally boring or uninteresting...i feel that if that is seriously ones take of the movie, an extended trailer could have told you if it was worth your money or not. everyone that went to see it knew it was about aliens invading and that in itself could be a great turn-off...i didnt go to see the relationships between the people. i went to see the machines/aliens and be awed by the special effects, which i was.


***********************************
"I loved those poems that seemed so small on the page but that swelled in the mind; I didn’t like the windy, dwindling kind." -Louise Gluck

unfortunately the movie was 117 minutes.
---------------
<-----DO THE SNAKE!

http://melanism.com

From "Fear of a Black Planet"...
Nina Blackburn: What, if any, is the difference between a hoe and a bitch?
Tone Def: A hoe fucks EVERYBODY.
Ice Cold: Right, but a bitch fucks everybody BUT YOU.