|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jan 2, 2007 20:09:59 GMT
Just let it go and stop obsessively searching for reasons to like this movie. just change one little word...Well yeah it's still weird for people to obsessively search for anything in movies really but still looking for negatives nearly two years after this movie came out isn't really healthy, and I'm not being rude, but it's just weird. So would you say it's weird searching for reasons to like this movie or any other movie? No you wouldn't because if you like a particular movie then you'll talk about it. As far as there's an internet there'll be people talking about this film in a positive and increasingly negative way. When this film first came out there seemed to be a lot of sock puppets about saying how good this film is/was - more than most films. There was also a well known sci fi magazine which gave a glowing review of this film and if I remember this magazine strangely enough had been granted an exclusive interview with Spielberg and Cruise beforehand. The following month on the letters page someone accused this magazine of having a payback by a certain well known film company to give it a glowing review. Something I had suspicions about too. These big corporations, film companies, film makers think they can trample all over someones work and the fans and get away with it just in the name of making money and their own egos - so if the internet gives fans of the original work a bit of a voice then so be it. As far as I'm concerned - this film deserves all the negative reaction it gets. |
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jan 3, 2007 1:46:05 GMT
So would you say it's weird searching for reasons to like this movie or any other movie? No you wouldn't because if you like a particular movie then you'll talk about it. I think, considering the amount of time that's passed since this movie came out, that it's appropriate to say those of us who like this movie-- which is very good but sadly misses being Great because of some large flaws-- have moved on with our lives, but a couple of frequent WOTW forum posters who hate it can't seem to move on. The second time I saw this movie I was reminded of just how good it really was. So to those saying it doesn't hold up to repeated viewings-- well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I certainly don't agree. |
|
|
|
Post by quaderni on Jan 7, 2007 1:37:32 GMT
ut 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. I think this review tried to make an even harsher point: the particular quote has been stuck in the film as though it _should_ mean something, but actually it's totally meaningless because, at the bottom of it all, the film has no message and simply exists to generate revenue. For whatever it's worth, that's how I understood the reviewer's comments. The review reminds me much of the Rolling Stone writer, Matt Taibbi - the new face of 'Gonzo journalism'. |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jan 7, 2007 17:54:32 GMT
So would you say it's weird searching for reasons to like this movie or any other movie? No you wouldn't because if you like a particular movie then you'll talk about it. I think, considering the amount of time that's passed since this movie came out, that it's appropriate to say those of us who like this movie-- which is very good but sadly misses being Great because of some large flaws-- have moved on with our lives, but a couple of frequent WOTW forum posters who hate it can't seem to move on. The second time I saw this movie I was reminded of just how good it really was. So to those saying it doesn't hold up to repeated viewings-- well, you're entitled to your opinion, but I certainly don't agree. It's not a case of moving on with ones life and I for one certainly don't spend my entire life thinking of ways to hate Spielbergs WOTW - I've got plenty of other things to do or think about! And nobody accuses people of being weird if they're talking about Pendragons film in a negative way - and quite rightly so! This is a WOTW forum so people are obviously going to talk about it - both positive and negative. I hardly ever post in the Paramount section anymore - or indeed on this site as a whole - but occasionally I will if I think the post is worth responding to. The time passing is irrelevant and there's people talking about films 30, 40, 70 years after they've been made so it ain't weird in the slightest to talk about a certain film only 2 years after it's release. |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jan 7, 2007 18:24:03 GMT
ut 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. I think this review tried to make an even harsher point: the particular quote has been stuck in the film as though it _should_ mean something, but actually it's totally meaningless because, at the bottom of it all, the film has no message and simply exists to generate revenue. For whatever it's worth, that's how I understood the reviewer's comments. The review reminds me much of the Rolling Stone writer, Matt Taibbi - the new face of 'Gonzo journalism'. Exactly! It's just a shallow excuse to make money at the end of the day - playing on people fears over terrorism or not! |
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jan 11, 2007 13:15:39 GMT
Exactly! It's just a shallow excuse to make money at the end of the day - playing on people fears over terrorism or not! There's some truth to that. Yet George Pal did exactly the same by playing on the Red Menace fears, but no one on this forum is lambasting him for doing that. If it's supposed to be a horror or suspense film, why is it considered "bad" to play on people's fears? I submit that's good film-making. |
|
|
|
Post by FALLINGSTAR on Jan 14, 2007 18:21:06 GMT
Exactly! It's just a shallow excuse to make money at the end of the day - playing on people fears over terrorism or not! There's some truth to that. Yet George Pal did exactly the same by playing on the Red Menace fears, but no one on this forum is lambasting him for doing that. If it's supposed to be a horror or suspense film, why is it considered "bad" to play on people's fears? I submit that's good film-making. You're right - nothing wrong I suppose on playing on peoples fears if you're making a horror/suspense film etc - but first of all I think Pal had the excuse of the time period in which he made his film. People didn't expect so much then - but I have had a slight go at Pals film in the past - especially when Ray Harryhausen might have done it. At least you know where you are with Pals film though. Again, Iraq, W.O.Terror propaganda element or not - Spielbergs film is just an uncomfortable mess of shallow, money grabbing, souless film making at it's worst. |
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Jan 15, 2007 4:15:32 GMT
But then speilberg made it very clear a lot of his film was delibertly made to remanise about the events of 9/11
Pal admited her did exactly the same with the Cold War
Orson Wells played on Pre war hysteria and admitted it
|
|
|
|
Post by Killraven on Jan 15, 2007 13:33:42 GMT
Is that a word??!  ;D IMHO I don't really find the presence or not of propaganda in Spielberg's film an issue. I just feel that the film was generally poorly executed, especially in its interpretation of the story. KR |
|
|
|
Post by the Donal on Jan 17, 2007 20:32:56 GMT
I agree- and it relied too heavily on current/recent war themes- terror, holocaust etc- it was too obvious and the effort to put it in detracted from the 'believability' of the whole thing (within it's own limits that is..!)- the people turning to dust and especially the falling clothes- these things just didn't fit.
Tried watching it again last week and couldn't finish the film- even in multiple sittings. (though I was preoccupied with repairing my bike at the time and the bought the Jeff Wayne live DVD- instant shift of attention!!)
|
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jan 24, 2007 4:15:34 GMT
Is that a word??! ;D "Reminisce"-- Thinking or telling about past experience. |
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Jan 24, 2007 8:12:57 GMT
*sigh*
Why s it everytime I misspell something I feel as if I have to explain why? I won't becasue I think that pointing out a very real flaw in my genetic makeup an insult and should have been simply overlooked. End of that topic, period!
|
|
;D