|
|
Post by Marcus on Sept 1, 2005 3:59:42 GMT
I remenber that when the film first came out, their was a fairly strong, and possitive opinion of it on these, and other boards.
Upon returning back to them of late, Ive noticed a steady incline, or, an apparent one, in disbain for this film.
So, after having time to think about, rewatch, or speculate over this film, and everything about it more, what are your opinions?
My two cents is that I think its bad. Just as I did when I first watched it. Terrible.
But, whats everyone elses?
|
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Sept 1, 2005 5:36:31 GMT
I watched it again the other night and I noticed more parts that seem to have been Holywood-ised I think the first time I saw it I was just so spellbound by the tripods that I didn't notice them. The tension is still there though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Anthony on Sept 1, 2005 14:30:31 GMT
I'm still loving it. Only seen it twice, not seen it for over 2 months now. I enjoyed still second time and im sure i will when i see again on DVD.
Anthony
|
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 1, 2005 19:39:01 GMT
Well I thought it was pretty bad when I first saw it and the more I think about it - the more I dislike it. I think there was definitely a bit of sock puppetry at work when the film came out [ as expected ] and I've seen 1 or 2 reviews which are ridiculously over the top with the praise saying it's the best film ever, Cruise is awesome Fanning is awesome etc, etc, but now all the hype has evaporated more and more people are seeing it for what it is and what it could have/should have been.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thunder Child on Sept 1, 2005 20:32:05 GMT
I've seen the movie again yesterday. The tripods are awsome! But I hate the fact that they seem to change size.
And the bit were Cruise is stepping into the cellar to kill Ogilvy. Cruise to child: "well honey, daddy has to kill that crazy man. He's gone completely crazy, has nothing to loose, and is twice my size, but daddy will kill him honey. Kiss". And yes, the girl is still singing (so I guess it only took a minute) when Superman Cruise steps into the room, with only some little bruises on his head.
It good as a popcorn movie, nothing more.
Johan
|
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Sept 2, 2005 8:36:37 GMT
Tim Robbins is twice the size of Tom Cruise??? Hey man, those must be some good drugs you're on!
I find it curious that those who hate this movie say everyone in the theatre had the same reaction they did; I've heard the exact same thing from those who love it. We were discussing the film after my SF club meeting the other night, and were talking about how some things in the movie provoke laughter. One of my friends pointed out that at least some of it was not genuine laughter at all, but nervous laughter, which is an entirely different thing. They weren't laughing because they found the film absurd or ridiculous, but because they needed to relieve their tension. This is a very intense movie, which left an indelible impression on me, as have very few of the thousands of movies I have seen in my now 50 years of life. Others in our conversation also remarked how *quiet* the theatre was when watching this film. One wondered if those who thought people were laughing *at* the film were completely mis-interpreting the reaction of others in the theatre, mistaking nervous laughter for the real thing.
Now, things may be different on the other side of "the pond". This movie is very American in its spirit, and perhaps it doesn't work as well for Brits and other non-Americans. Movies are a group experience. If the group you saw it with was not absorbed by the film, if you did not notice the theatre being especially quiet, then you clearly had a different experience than we did.
I stand by my 3 1/2 out-of-four-stars rating. Yes, I think I do like it a bit more than the concensus of opinion in my group, but certainly it rates at least 3 stars. Movies that only rate 2 1/2 stars or less simply aren't as memorable as is this film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Sept 2, 2005 19:20:37 GMT
I loved the movie. The tension was great, the Fighting Machines were awesome, the acting was good and it did have a soul. Certainly the best Alien-Invasion-Film ever.
Tripod
|
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 3, 2005 2:06:46 GMT
I don't think it has anything to do with what side of the pond you're on Lensman or whether the crowd around you likes the film or not. I've seen films that others have hated but I've still liked them. I thought there were one or two intense scenes in the film but I certainly wouldn't say it's anymore intense than a lot of films.
And I have a friend out in Canada who went to see it with 3 of his work colleagues - 2 Americans and 1 Canadian. The Canadian guy thought it was ok and 1 American guy said it was just about watchable and the other one didn't like it. My friend's British and he preferred it to all of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Sept 3, 2005 3:48:59 GMT
Well of course I could be wrong about non-Americans not "getting" the film, but it seems to me that those who are vocal here about the film being bad are British, or at least the ones I've noticed are. At the least, it seems clear from some responses on this forum that some of the film's imagery (flag-waving, in particular) are misinterpreted by non-Americans. I would certainly expect Canadians to "get" the film more than Britons, as Canadians have more exposure to U.S. culture.
|
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Sept 3, 2005 14:45:00 GMT
I loved the Tripods and would watch it over and over for those alone. The movie certainly isn't terrible but after the high of the initial viewings, it just isn't the war of the worlds that I was hoping we'd get.
|
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 3, 2005 15:48:11 GMT
Well of course I could be wrong about non-Americans not "getting" the film, but it seems to me that those who are vocal here about the film being bad are British, or at least the ones I've noticed are. At the least, it seems clear from some responses on this forum that some of the film's imagery (flag-waving, in particular) are misinterpreted by non-Americans. I would certainly expect Canadians to "get" the film more than Britons, as Canadians have more exposure to U.S. culture. It's not just the British members on here who are criticising the movie. For a start Thunder Child above is from the Netherlands. |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 3, 2005 15:50:06 GMT
I loved the Tripods and would watch it over and over for those alone. The movie certainly isn't terrible but after the high of the initial viewings, it just isn't the war of the worlds that I was hoping we'd get. That's what's so bloody annoying. Nice tripods shame about most of the film. |
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Sept 3, 2005 16:16:32 GMT
I loved the Tripods and would watch it over and over for those alone. The movie certainly isn't terrible but after the high of the initial viewings, it just isn't the war of the worlds that I was hoping we'd get. That's what's so bloody annoying. Nice tripods shame about most of the film. I have to agree with you on this point. People were wondering how he was going complete the movie in record time. Well now you know. For a movie of the decade, its already been forgotton by the media. |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 4, 2005 2:03:05 GMT
Spielberg should have said he was making 'The Most Forgettable Movie of the Decade'.
|
|
|
|
Post by Poyks on Sept 4, 2005 3:13:21 GMT
I watched the movie in 5 different cinemas, and my recollection is that I loved it! I always took a midfield view, ie; it's based on TWOTW, and it's SS's work, so I was ready for compromise, but the result was something far better. A brilliant film, and I look forward to the DVD.
|
|
|
|
Post by BrutalDeluxe on Sept 4, 2005 23:40:26 GMT
The only thing that I thought brought the movie down for me was the sudden wrap up toward the end of the movie. The tension was brilliant and sustained and then after Rachel got captured it was like Spielberg went "o.k let's wrap things up now". The red weed felt a bit tacked on and simply put in to placate fans but I loved the racket that the tripods made while "sowing" the red weed. Very reminiscent of the book.
I was a bit dubious about Tom Cruise somehow offing Tim Robbins, especially seeing so Ogilvy was supposedly ex-army in the film, but then I thought if my daughter's life was put under threat by a raving (but physically superior) nutbag I'd end them pretty quickly myself.
|
|
|
|
Post by nervouspete on Sept 5, 2005 18:09:35 GMT
Y'ello, Lensman! I'm a Brit and I think it's ace!
But then I find it has a crystalisation of the worst nightmares I've ever had, all on film! It's not perfect but by gum, it's the best alien invasion movie thus far!
|
|
|
|
Post by Tripod on Sept 5, 2005 18:22:12 GMT
It's not just the British members on here who are criticising the movie. For a start Thunder Child above is from the Netherlands. So am I. But I loved the movie and it got quite positive reactions throughout the Netherlands. I think it's more a matter of taste then what country you're from. I agree Spielberg could have made the ending a bit longer, it was indeed too sudden. Tripod |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Sept 5, 2005 19:51:56 GMT
I think there's a damn sight more problems than just the Hollywoodised ending. I can understand people enjoying it as a lightweight, no brainer, throwaway popcorn flick but that's all.
|
|
|
|
Post by timeship2 on Sept 7, 2005 21:37:10 GMT
Out of interest, a couple of my colleagues at work over here in the USA didn't like the movie and you know why? Because it wasn't what they were expecting either, ie they didn't like how Spielberg change so much of it from the book LOL So it certainly isn't just British people.
|
|
