I found this old review of SS:WOTW

[RustiSwordz]

AT LAST someone after my own heart.... all the 'yes' men dont look! ;D

www.beckerfilms.com/WaroftheWorlds2005.htm

[jeffwaynefan]

I suprised myself to how much of that review I actually agreed with.

[FALLINGSTAR]

Me too! Unsurprisingly!

[richardburton]

That Josh Becker seems to be too full of his own self importance to offer a balanced, intelligent review of it. He's just using it as a stick to poke fun at people. Despite actually agreeing with some of his comments, I found myself just irritated with him. He's trying to come across as the only intelligent person on the planet by putting down everyone else around him. The film had lots of plus points as well as a number of negatives. If he's too blinkered to see any of its merits his review is all but worthless.

[Ashe Raven]

Unfortunatly for a lot of people it's easier to see flaws than to see merit. People are to shallow to look deeper

Though in this films case the many flaws do have a habit of overshadowing it's few merits, Tom Cruise the hidden terrorist fear being my main gripes

I mean, "they're already here," way to feed the Bush fear campaign mr Spielburg, feels like taking advantage to me

[FALLINGSTAR]

richardburton said:

That Josh Becker seems to be too full of his own self importance to offer a balanced, intelligent review of it. He's just using it as a stick to poke fun at people. Despite actually agreeing with some of his comments, I found myself just irritated with him. He's trying to come across as the only intelligent person on the planet by putting down everyone else around him. The film had lots of plus points as well as a number of negatives. If he's too blinkered to see any of its merits his review is all but worthless.

I don't think he's full of his own self importance at all there. I think he's pretty much spot on!

[RustiSwordz]

fallingstar said:

richardburton said:

That Josh Becker seems to be too full of his own self importance to offer a balanced, intelligent review of it. He's just using it as a stick to poke fun at people. Despite actually agreeing with some of his comments, I found myself just irritated with him. He's trying to come across as the only intelligent person on the planet by putting down everyone else around him. The film had lots of plus points as well as a number of negatives. If he's too blinkered to see any of its merits his review is all but worthless.

I don't think he's full of his own self importance at all there. I think he's pretty much spot on!

i happen to agree.

[FALLINGSTAR]

asheraven said:

Unfortunatly for a lot of people it's easier to see flaws than to see merit. People are to shallow to look deeper

Though in this films case the many flaws do have a habit of overshadowing it's few merits, Tom Cruise the hidden terrorist fear being my main gripes

I mean, "they're already here," way to feed the Bush fear campaign mr Spielburg, feels like taking advantage to me

I keep forgetting about that "They're already here" line. Could have come straight out of Bush or Rumsfelds mouth that.

"Why hey there Mr Spielburger" "You're film's a great piece of propaganda for ma war on terror campaign there" "What we need is a great tagline that will really play on peoples fears over terrorist sleeper cells - that coincidently lie hidden underground waiting for the order to strike - just like your giant bipod machine type critters there Mr Spielburger!"

[richardburton]

Anyone who lets loose a torrent of abuse like that can't be taken seriously. He offers no objectivity or balance to his argument.

[FALLINGSTAR]

richardburton said:

Anyone who lets loose a torrent of abuse like that can't be taken seriously. He offers no objectivity or balance to his argument.

Torrent of abuse Richard? He puts forward a good argument which a lot of people will agree with. It's not as if he's saying this film is crap without backing his thoughts up!

[Lensman]

fallingstar said:

I keep forgetting about that "They're already here" line. Could have come straight out of Bush or Rumsfelds mouth that.

"Why hey there Mr Spielburger" "You're film's a great piece of propaganda for ma war on terror campaign there" "

It truly astounds me that anyone intelligent enuff to write coherently can see the Spielberg movie as being supportive of the Bush agenda. Sure there is a lot of commentary in the film on the current climate of fear in the USA. But with Robbin's comment "Occupations always fail" it's very, very clear that Spielberg did not make a pro-Bush propaganda piece. If anything, considering the way the US armed forces are trashed so thoroughly, the opposite political message is there.

If someone claims this movie is a pro-Bush or American jingoist story, then it's not really a commentary on the movie-- rather, it's an indication of that person's skewed, anti-American viewpoint.

[richardburton]

fallingstar said:

richardburton said:

Anyone who lets loose a torrent of abuse like that can't be taken seriously. He offers no objectivity or balance to his argument.

Torrent of abuse Richard? He puts forward a good argument which a lot of people will agree with. It's not as if he's saying this film is crap without backing his thoughts up!

Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise, both desperate for a hit after big stinky bombs like: The Terminal, The Last Samurai, and Minority Report (a combined bomb for both of them) - that's just blatant abuse. All three were decent films imho, but he makes no explanation why he thinks they were 'stinky bombs'. They all did decent at the box office - not outstanding, but decent.

SS: I’m bored to death with aliens attacking from the sky.

DK: Well, where else can alien invaders invade from?

SS (thinks he has a good idea): How about from underground?

DK (confused): Why would aliens come from underground?

SS: Who gives a nuts? Every single person who pays money to see this film is a ***king asshole anyway, so ***k them! Make the aliens come up out of the ground.

DK: How do I explain it?

SS: Don’t even bother, anyone stupid enough to pay for this kind of nuts isn’t worthy of an explanation. ***k ‘em! Just do it.

- how can anyone say that pile of tosh is anything but abusive???

How can the bacteria in our atmosphere surprise the aliens, let alone kill them, when they have absolutely been here before? - who says they have been here before??? They could have been sent in unmanned craft which buried them all that time ago. So again, all he is concentrating on is his own totally blinkered viewpoint.

the only human being to figure this out is everyman crane-operator Tom Cruise? So now he’s the only person in the world with a running automobile? ***k you! - again, he's just being totally argumentative. If you watch the film there are plenty of other vehicles working as well as the van that Cruise gets his hands on - the TV van, military vehicles etc. So others clearly are thinking the same as Cruise's character.

Then, for no understandable reason, everyone is trying to get onboard a crowded ferryboat, which doesn’t seem like a good idea, and very quickly proves not to be. - The people are trying to escape alien invaders. Anything that is faster than your own two feet would seem like a good idea. Again totally argumentative without any thought.

Dennis Murren’s special effects are state-of-the-art, even if the alien tripods look like they’re out of the retro World of Tomorrow ride at Disneyland - even when he's trying to compliment, he still slates the tripods. No one can possibly say that the special effects were anything but state-of-the-art, so he's just saying the obvious there. But I seem to recall almost unilateral agreement that everyone loved the tripods, so again, he is basing his argument purely on his own blinkered hatred of the movie.

in a house with a goofy Tim Robbins Goofy??? Tim Robbins is a top class actor and is considered so by audiences and critics alike. Even if someone didn't like the film, they could surely still appreciate that Robbins performance was up to scratch. He was at times vulnerable and terrifying.

the aliens send into the house their snake-like periscopes, but they can’t hear anything, nor even see you unless you’re standing directly in front of them. You can seemingly hide behind a broom handle and they can’t see you. You can outrun them, duck under them, or just go around them—these snake periscopes are nearly worthless. - now I'm starting to wonder if he's seen the film AT ALL. They can hear because it swings round when there is a noise and this is quite a tense scene when they try to hide from it.

Now forgive me if everybody understands this and it was just my lack of attention, or intelligence, that’s got me confused—the aliens are catching people, sticking them with needles, then spraying their blood all over the place, then the blood somehow becomes growing red tendrils? Is that what was happening? It’s like I went out to take a leak and missed something, only I didn’t. - errrmmm yes he did, he missed reading the original damn book for starters. This guy does not know what he is talking about or is too stupid to understand.

But for me what’s worst about this film, and a betrayal on some level, is that it was made by Steven Spielberg, the guy who introduced the idea of friendly aliens in Close Encounters and ET. That Spielberg has stooped to making thoughtless monster killer alien movies is depressing. - Why? Why can't Spielberg make a film about evil aliens for a change? Why would he want to make a third movie about nice aliens??? This guy would have been the first person to scream BORING! Already done that! What a hack! Totally hypocritical.

Steven Spielberg’s 2005 remake of War of the Worlds is a stupid, insulting, ugly, severely repetitious, wearisome, nuts-ass-poor excuse of a movie, and worst of all it’s no damn fun. A movie like Independence Day, which is a ridiculous piece of crap, is much better than War of the Worlds. That’s a testament to just how bad movies have gotten in just the last ten years, let alone in the last thirty years. - again just a blatant slagging off of the film. Like I said in my earlier post, I agree with some of his comments, but time and time again he proves that he has a totally blinkered viewpoint and decides that if he doesn't like something the entire world MUST be stupid to like it. Ugly? Even if you hate the story, the actual film is beautifully made - looks visually stunning, first class effects, scenery, editing, cinematography etc. Repetitious? How? Where? Stupid and insulting is not for me to say - plenty of arguments either way on that. But no dam fun? Aliens wiping out everything in their path, American military swatted aside like flies, carnage...What's not fun about that??? lol

So that's my critique of his critique.

[Ashe Raven]

Sounds very familiar to me

[RustiSwordz]

Reffering to me are you?

Just because some tart slaps WOTW on it people thinks its great. Its a bucket of arse, a BIG bucket of arse, badly thought out and done just so Cruise and Berg can rack up a quick hit.

[richardburton]

Rusti, easy there chief. At the end of the day everyone's entitled to their own views. The biggest problem I had with Josh Becker was that he was saying that everyone who did like it were complete idiots. Some people like it and some don't. Nodody's an idiot either way. Josh needs to pull off his blinkers and understand that his view is not the only view and those that don't agree with him are not stupid for doing so; they're merely expressing their own opinion.

[RustiSwordz]

That i do agree! people are entitled to their own opinions. But the film isnt WOTW and was filmed for all the wrong reasons. A classic story sold short for a quick bang behind the bike sheds.

[richardburton]

lol interesting imagery and that's your opinion and I respect that.

I see plenty of faults with it (that I've mentioned several times on other threads) but I also see good points in it too.

[Ashe Raven]

To be fair Rusti I was. And you are entitled to your opinion as I have said over and over and over again. Much as you have stated it over and over and over and over again.

As I said and made clear I'm not a fan of the film myself. But at the end of the day I only need to say it once, and I havn't seen they yes sayers sing positive reviews to back up their claims of their opinions.

If I hate somehting I say it, I gve my clear and valid reasons as to why and let the damn thing die as a bad memory in a long life that can have so much more good things to concentrate on as long as I don't dwell on it any further than I have to.

[FALLINGSTAR]

lensman said:

fallingstar said:

I keep forgetting about that "They're already here" line. Could have come straight out of Bush or Rumsfelds mouth that.

"Why hey there Mr Spielburger" "You're film's a great piece of propaganda for ma war on terror campaign there" "

It truly astounds me that anyone intelligent enuff to write coherently can see the Spielberg movie as being supportive of the Bush agenda. Sure there is a lot of commentary in the film on the current climate of fear in the USA. But with Robbin's comment "Occupations always fail" it's very, very clear that Spielberg did not make a pro-Bush propaganda piece. If anything, considering the way the US armed forces are trashed so thoroughly, the opposite political message is there.

If someone claims this movie is a pro-Bush or American jingoist story, then it's not really a commentary on the movie-- rather, it's an indication of that person's skewed, anti-American viewpoint.

Just because someone criticizes this movie as pro-Bush government propaganda doesn't mean they're anti- American! I'm not anti American and I don't think 99% of people who criticise it are either. As with all countries there's things I like about the USA and things I dislike. Some people might say that Bush is anti-American because he's slowly taking away the rights of Americans with things like the Patriot act.

I know we've had this debate before but I think that line about occupations was stuck in there to make things a bit ambiguous - so it would be more awkward to say it's full on 'pro-Iraq war' or war on terror plus the fact that Tim Robbins character was made to look like a nutter.

And not forgetting Spielberg and Cruises statement that they couldn't NOT support an attack on Iraq.
If they believe or believed that an attack on Iraq was justified then fair enough that's their opinion but don't use Wells title WOTW to make some thinly disguised propaganda piece for Bush and his cronies - make another film!

[FALLINGSTAR]

richardburton said:

fallingstar said:

Torrent of abuse Richard? He puts forward a good argument which a lot of people will agree with. It's not as if he's saying this film is crap without backing his thoughts up!

Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise, both desperate for a hit after big stinky bombs like: The Terminal, The Last Samurai, and Minority Report (a combined bomb for both of them) - that's just blatant abuse. All three were decent films imho, but he makes no explanation why he thinks they were 'stinky bombs'. They all did decent at the box office - not outstanding, but decent.

SS: I’m bored to death with aliens attacking from the sky.

DK: Well, where else can alien invaders invade from?

SS (thinks he has a good idea): How about from underground?

DK (confused): Why would aliens come from underground?

SS: Who gives a nuts? Every single person who pays money to see this film is a ***king asshole anyway, so ***k them! Make the aliens come up out of the ground.

DK: How do I explain it?

SS: Don’t even bother, anyone stupid enough to pay for this kind of nuts isn’t worthy of an explanation. ***k ‘em! Just do it.

- how can anyone say that pile of tosh is anything but abusive???

How can the bacteria in our atmosphere surprise the aliens, let alone kill them, when they have absolutely been here before? - who says they have been here before??? They could have been sent in unmanned craft which buried them all that time ago. So again, all he is concentrating on is his own totally blinkered viewpoint.

the only human being to figure this out is everyman crane-operator Tom Cruise? So now he’s the only person in the world with a running automobile? ***k you! - again, he's just being totally argumentative. If you watch the film there are plenty of other vehicles working as well as the van that Cruise gets his hands on - the TV van, military vehicles etc. So others clearly are thinking the same as Cruise's character.

Then, for no understandable reason, everyone is trying to get onboard a crowded ferryboat, which doesn’t seem like a good idea, and very quickly proves not to be. - The people are trying to escape alien invaders. Anything that is faster than your own two feet would seem like a good idea. Again totally argumentative without any thought.

Dennis Murren’s special effects are state-of-the-art, even if the alien tripods look like they’re out of the retro World of Tomorrow ride at Disneyland - even when he's trying to compliment, he still slates the tripods. No one can possibly say that the special effects were anything but state-of-the-art, so he's just saying the obvious there. But I seem to recall almost unilateral agreement that everyone loved the tripods, so again, he is basing his argument purely on his own blinkered hatred of the movie.

in a house with a goofy Tim Robbins Goofy??? Tim Robbins is a top class actor and is considered so by audiences and critics alike. Even if someone didn't like the film, they could surely still appreciate that Robbins performance was up to scratch. He was at times vulnerable and terrifying.

the aliens send into the house their snake-like periscopes, but they can’t hear anything, nor even see you unless you’re standing directly in front of them. You can seemingly hide behind a broom handle and they can’t see you. You can outrun them, duck under them, or just go around them—these snake periscopes are nearly worthless. - now I'm starting to wonder if he's seen the film AT ALL. They can hear because it swings round when there is a noise and this is quite a tense scene when they try to hide from it.

Now forgive me if everybody understands this and it was just my lack of attention, or intelligence, that’s got me confused—the aliens are catching people, sticking them with needles, then spraying their blood all over the place, then the blood somehow becomes growing red tendrils? Is that what was happening? It’s like I went out to take a leak and missed something, only I didn’t. - errrmmm yes he did, he missed reading the original damn book for starters. This guy does not know what he is talking about or is too stupid to understand.

But for me what’s worst about this film, and a betrayal on some level, is that it was made by Steven Spielberg, the guy who introduced the idea of friendly aliens in Close Encounters and ET. That Spielberg has stooped to making thoughtless monster killer alien movies is depressing. - Why? Why can't Spielberg make a film about evil aliens for a change? Why would he want to make a third movie about nice aliens??? This guy would have been the first person to scream BORING! Already done that! What a hack! Totally hypocritical.

Steven Spielberg’s 2005 remake of War of the Worlds is a stupid, insulting, ugly, severely repetitious, wearisome, nuts-ass-poor excuse of a movie, and worst of all it’s no damn fun. A movie like Independence Day, which is a ridiculous piece of crap, is much better than War of the Worlds. That’s a testament to just how bad movies have gotten in just the last ten years, let alone in the last thirty years. - again just a blatant slagging off of the film. Like I said in my earlier post, I agree with some of his comments, but time and time again he proves that he has a totally blinkered viewpoint and decides that if he doesn't like something the entire world MUST be stupid to like it. Ugly? Even if you hate the story, the actual film is beautifully made - looks visually stunning, first class effects, scenery, editing, cinematography etc. Repetitious? How? Where? Stupid and insulting is not for me to say - plenty of arguments either way on that. But no dam fun? Aliens wiping out everything in their path, American military swatted aside like flies, carnage...What's not fun about that??? lol

So that's my critique of his critique.

I agree with you on one or two points about the tripods and Spielberg making a film about evil aliens. As you say - why not - but I still don't think it's a torrent of abuse. He's saying what a lot of people think about the film and putting good points across.