What's new

War of the worlds quality (1 Viewer)

Richard--W

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
3,527
Real Name
Richard W
The Cruise version is NOT true to the spirit and theme of the novel. "the humblest things God put on this Earth" is tacked on to the end as an afterthought so that people would leave the theater thinking they'd just seen H.G. Wells. It isn't planted or foreshadowed earlier on so that it emerges logically out of the story like in the 1953 version, perhaps because it has nothing to do with the new revisionist story being told:
An alien attack forces a divorced dead-beat Dad to learn how to take responsibility for his children.
H.G. Wells did not write that. The male characters in his novel were protective, caring, self-sacrificing, and very responsible without making a point of it. This revisionist storyline works against the very concept and premise of the novel and of the film because it's more important to the film than anything else. You can see this storyline in 30 films per year; it does not belong in War of the Worlds. Nothing is right and everything goes wrong with this idiotic and condescending storyline in place. How anyone can sit in front of the screen and accept this storyline as War of the Worlds even for a microsecond is beyond me.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
24,249
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
Richard thank goodness we have you to keep our sensibilities in check. Anyway, I suppose people watch this movie for the same reason I do, they get enjoyment from it. Do you think many people who saw it have ever even read the original book or even care that it isn't a word for word retelling of it? I read it 25 years ago and thought it was great but I don't care if it isn't exactly the same in the movie. I don't expect a movie to be exactly the same as a book it's based on and I don't care if it isn't. Two different realms of entertainment they don't need to match. Are there any other movies that we should be aware of that aren't true to the book? Maybe that could be a good topic and a public service.
 

Doug Otte

Supporting Actor
Joined
Jun 20, 2003
Messages
860
[
Johnny Angell said:
Ditto here. As for the AMC HD telecast, they've cropped it top and bottom to fit the HD screen. The transfer seems soft. I was noting early on when we see Clayton Forester with a day-old beard stubble. Even in closeups, you don't see the hairs. Just that his face is colored by the beard. Was the DVD like that? I don't remember.
I tried to watch the HD version last night. The cropping ruined it. I only made it a few minutes before I turned it off in disgust. When we first see the machine plummeting through the sky, it's partly cut off due to the cropping. I didn't even compare the picture or sound quality to the DVD. I sure hope any future BD release is not cropped. Doug
 

Rick Thompson

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,865
Richard--W said:
The Cruise version is NOT true to the spirit and theme of the novel. "the humblest things God put on this Earth" is tacked on to the end as an afterthought so that people would leave the theater thinking they'd just seen H.G. Wells. It isn't planted or foreshadowed earlier on so that it emerges logically out of the story like in the 1953 version, perhaps because it has nothing to do with the new revisionist story being told.
Didn't you see the beginning of the film? The one with all the microorganisms and the pull back into the large-scale world we inhabit? That's why the long zoom back to the micro world at the end. Those two shots bookend the film. If you didn't see the opening, no wonder the ending doesn't work for you!
 

Richard--W

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
3,527
Real Name
Richard W
The opening and closing are the only parts of the remake that work for me. In between, we get a story about a dead-beat Dad who has to learn responsibility. Good thing the aliens invaded or he might never have learned his lesson. Good thing, too, that the aliens decided to leave Boston alone or his wife and in-laws might not have approved.
 

Richard V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
2,962
Real Name
Richard
When Speilberg originally announced that he would be producing a remake of War of the Worlds with Cruise, he said it would be a period piece, occuring in the same time frame as HG's book. I was very excited to hear this, as I thought this would look spectacular to contrast the Tripod machines, the primitive weapons of turn of the century England, and the red dust/vines. When Spielberg then back pedaled and said it would be in a contemporary setting, I was greatly disappointed and figured it would be War of the Cocktails or War of the Risky Business or War of the Jerry McGuires, or some such Cruise vehicle. I was mostly right.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
24,249
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
Richard V said:
When Speilberg originally announced that he would be producing a remake of War of the Worlds with Cruise, he said it would be a period piece, occuring in the same time frame as HG's book. I was very excited to hear this, as I thought this would look spectacular to contrast the Tripod machines, the primitive weapons of turn of the century England, and the red dust/vines. When Spielberg then back pedaled and said it would be in a contemporary setting, I was greatly disappointed and figured it would be War of the Cocktails or War of the Risky Business or War of the Jerry McGuires, or some such Cruise vehicle. I was mostly right.
Yea you really nailed it. Since because he was a smart Aleck bartender who also happens to be a sports agent who hires hookers to earn money in War of the Worlds. You forgot Top gun.
 

Richard--W

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
3,527
Real Name
Richard W
Richard V said:
When Speilberg originally announced that he would be producing a remake of War of the Worlds with Cruise, he said it would be a period piece, occuring in the same time frame as HG's book. I was very excited to hear this, as I thought this would look spectacular to contrast the Tripod machines, the primitive weapons of turn of the century England, and the red dust/vines. When Spielberg then back pedaled and said it would be in a contemporary setting, I was greatly disappointed and figured it would be War of the Cocktails or War of the Risky Business or War of the Jerry McGuires, or some such Cruise vehicle. I was mostly right.
Yeah, even when a dramatic range is offered on the page, Tom Cruise reduces it to narcissism and trivializes every character he plays. Every character he plays, no matter who it is or what time period, is still Tom Cruise.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Richard--W said:
Every character he plays, no matter who it is or what time period, is still Tom Cruise.
I'd agree with that on some of his work (especially when he first became a star) but his performances in Born On The Fourth Of July, Magnolia or Eyes Wide Shut show that he is capable of more than just smiling and putting on the public Tom Cruise persona.
 

Richard--W

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
3,527
Real Name
Richard W
No, neither Born On the Fourth of July nor Magnolia prove anything. I can name two dozen bankable actors who could have done an infinitely better job in either role. More than any other film, Eyes Wide Shut demonstrates and proves Tom Cruise's inadequacy. He is a narcissistic presence, and his performance fails internally at every level. He simply did not have the range or the insight to pull it off. The lights are on, but nobody is home.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
24,249
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
Richard so much negativity in nearly every post you make, over and over again.
 

Richard--W

BANNED
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2004
Messages
3,527
Real Name
Richard W
Rubbish. Look to your own attitude before you start criticizing members. I'll say what I want about movies, and I have sufficient experience to do so. We may criticize films, but not each other.
 

TonyD

Who do we think I am?
Ambassador
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Dec 1, 1999
Messages
24,249
Location
Gulf Coast
Real Name
Tony D.
I didn't criticize you but I did your posts. You find something that bugs you then pound it to the ground. How many times are you going to tell us you hate Tom cruise and this version of War? I already saw that you edited that post with the giant font telling people to wake up. You hate it. That's fine and we get it already. It gets boring after a point.
 

TravisR

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2004
Messages
42,429
Location
The basement of the FBI building
Richard--W said:
No, neither Born On the Fourth of July nor Magnolia prove anything. I can name two dozen bankable actors who could have done an infinitely better job in either role. More than any other film, Eyes Wide Shut demonstrates and proves Tom Cruise's inadequacy. He is a narcissistic presence, and his performance fails internally at every level. He simply did not have the range or the insight to pull it off. The lights are on, but nobody is home.
For the sake of argument, let's say you're right but my point wasn't that Cruise was (or wasn't) the best man for those parts or that he's an amazing actor. It was that, as an actor, he's shown that he is capable of playing more than just 'Tom Cruise- perpetually grinning movie star'.
 

Richard V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
2,962
Real Name
Richard
TonyD said:
Yea you really nailed it. Since because he was a smart Aleck bartender who also happens to be a sports agent who hires hookers to earn money in War of the Worlds. You forgot Top gun.
Thanks, War of the Top Guns.
 

Richard V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
2,962
Real Name
Richard
TonyD said:
]I didn't criticize you but I did your posts. You find something that bugs you then pound it to the ground. How many times are you going to tell us you hate Tom cruise and this version of War? I already saw that you edited that post with the giant font telling people to wake up. You hate it. That's fine and we get it already. It gets boring after a point.
You separate one from the other? I think he's free to say it as many times as he wants, just as it is your right to defend the movie as many times as you want.
 

Rick Thompson

Screenwriter
Joined
Jul 1, 2008
Messages
1,865
Since this thread has gotten into a Tom Cruise bash-athon, I'm bailing. I liked Spielberg's version as much as I did the Pal/Haskins (and, for that matter, the Orson Wells radio broadcast on CD). They're all equally valid approaches to the material. Whether you like it or not, every actor/actress plays himself/herself to some extent in every role. Clint Eastwood doesn't do Tootsie and Dustin Hoffman doesn't do Dirty Harry. John Wayne doesn't play Rocky and Sylvester Stallone doesn't do Rooster Cogburn -- so don't expect Tom Cruise to play something that's not at least part Tom Cruise. As for his religion, when did you become America's religion sheriff? And what religions are approved? Is Islam okay? Buddhism? Confucianism? We know you want to stamp out Scientology; pray tell, what else? Anyway, like I said, I'm bailing on this. Go with whatever God you approve, and bash away.
 

Edwin-S

Premium
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2000
Messages
10,000
Orson Welles's radio play is still the best adaptation of this material. Pal's version comes second. Spielberg's version is dead last and, in my case, it has nothing to do with Cruise's acting ability or his "religion". The film was just dull. I mean it is a film about an alien invasion and Spielberg manages to make it boring, uninspired and plain stupid. Aliens riding lightning bolts into previously buried machines? It is bad and lazy writing. A guy needs the slaughter of an alien invasion in order to connect with his kids? That is just bad and borders on the laughable.
 

Richard V

Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 14, 2009
Messages
2,962
Real Name
Richard
Edwin-S said:
Orson Welles's radio play is still the best adaptation of this material. Pal's version comes second. Spielberg's version is dead last and, in my case, it has nothing to do with Cruise's acting ability or his "religion". The film was just dull. I mean it is a film about an alien invasion and Spielberg manages to make it boring, uninspired and plain stupid. Aliens riding lightning bolts into previously buried machines? It is bad and lazy writing. A guy needs the slaughter of an alien invasion in order to connect with his kids? That is just bad and borders on the laughable.
I would agree. I have nothing against Tom Cruise being in the Spielberg version, but I wanted it to be story driven and the alien invasion to be the focus of the story. Instead the cataclysmic destruction of the human race is just "background" to Cruise's story of "redemption". I think Cruise can be perfectly fine as a character in the story. He was fine in Valkyrie where the plot to assassinate Hitler is given center stage, not so much about Cruise's character, Von Stauffenberg. If Cruise's role in the remake had been given similar treatment, I would have no problem with the movie. I don't agree with Cruise's religious beliefs, but I have never allowed that to prevent me from seeing his movies. I have enjoyed him in many of his movies including the aforementioned Valkyrie, as well as the Mission Impossible movies, Collateral, Magnolia, Tropic Thunder (in which he was brilliant IMHO), and many others. My criticism of War of the Worlds is with the presentation, not Cruise.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Latest Articles

Forum statistics

Threads
356,815
Messages
5,123,800
Members
144,184
Latest member
H-508
Recent bookmarks
0
Top