Post by recumbentrider on Dec 5, 2006 1:45:43 GMT
Yes, up until last Saturday, I did not yet see Steven Spielbergs's version of War of the Worlds. But I had always meant to see it, and I somehow missed it when it was in the theaters. I was also too cheap to buy the DVD. However, I was at a flea market and saw the DVD for sale for only $5.00, so I had to get it.
All I can say is that I am glad I waited. Although I didn't dislike Spielburg's version of War of the Worlds as much as others might have, it just left me with a feeling of 'meh'. [For an explanation of 'meh', find the episode of the Simpsons where Marge decided to take the kids to 'Blocko Land'.] I didn't hate the film, but I didn't like it that much either. I thought the portrayal of the 'Martians'(?) and the tripods was very good, and I didn't have problems with the machines being buried in the earth. I also thought that most of the acting was at least competant, although I thought that the little girl did some of the best acting in the film. And although I would have like to have seen a well-done version of the story in its original setting, it also didn't bother me that the story was set in modern day New York. (At least I thought it was New York..) Where I thought the movie fell flat on its face was in it's believability, which I think is one of the most significant elements of H. G. Wells' story.
When I read the original War of the Worlds novel, I was struck with how real the entire story seemed. H. G. Wells wrote the story so skillfully, that a reader could believe it was really happening. When Orson Wells did his radio version of the story, he was also able to capture this realism. To some degree, I think the George Pal movie version of the story also captured this realism. But Spielburg's version definitely did not, at least not to me.
We got to see Tom Cruise as being the only mechanic that was somehow able to figure out how to fix a car subjected to an electromagetic pulse. We got to see him have a ferry loaded with cars fall over him, only to see him safely swim away. We saw him duck into a closet with his two children to avoid a crashing airliner that was able to destroy the rest of the house he was in. (I guess it must have been a solid wood door.) We saw his son follow an army into a pitched battle with the 'Martians' (or whoever they were supposed to be), which featured a retreat of flaming humvees, only to find that his son not only escaped the battle unscathed, but was able to beat his father to Boston.
This was a movie that should have given me nightmares. Instead, the outlandishness of the action just made the whole thing difficult to take seriously. It is a shame that although Spielburg had more resources at his command than anyone else who ever attempted to make a War of the Worlds movie, he had to squander the opportunity, and failed to capture what made the original story so great.
Well, the George Pal version is still the best film version as far as I am concerned. (I also have a better appreciation for the C. Thomas Howell version, which succeeded in a few places where Mr. Spielburg's version failed.)
recumbentrider
All I can say is that I am glad I waited. Although I didn't dislike Spielburg's version of War of the Worlds as much as others might have, it just left me with a feeling of 'meh'. [For an explanation of 'meh', find the episode of the Simpsons where Marge decided to take the kids to 'Blocko Land'.] I didn't hate the film, but I didn't like it that much either. I thought the portrayal of the 'Martians'(?) and the tripods was very good, and I didn't have problems with the machines being buried in the earth. I also thought that most of the acting was at least competant, although I thought that the little girl did some of the best acting in the film. And although I would have like to have seen a well-done version of the story in its original setting, it also didn't bother me that the story was set in modern day New York. (At least I thought it was New York..) Where I thought the movie fell flat on its face was in it's believability, which I think is one of the most significant elements of H. G. Wells' story.
When I read the original War of the Worlds novel, I was struck with how real the entire story seemed. H. G. Wells wrote the story so skillfully, that a reader could believe it was really happening. When Orson Wells did his radio version of the story, he was also able to capture this realism. To some degree, I think the George Pal movie version of the story also captured this realism. But Spielburg's version definitely did not, at least not to me.
We got to see Tom Cruise as being the only mechanic that was somehow able to figure out how to fix a car subjected to an electromagetic pulse. We got to see him have a ferry loaded with cars fall over him, only to see him safely swim away. We saw him duck into a closet with his two children to avoid a crashing airliner that was able to destroy the rest of the house he was in. (I guess it must have been a solid wood door.) We saw his son follow an army into a pitched battle with the 'Martians' (or whoever they were supposed to be), which featured a retreat of flaming humvees, only to find that his son not only escaped the battle unscathed, but was able to beat his father to Boston.
This was a movie that should have given me nightmares. Instead, the outlandishness of the action just made the whole thing difficult to take seriously. It is a shame that although Spielburg had more resources at his command than anyone else who ever attempted to make a War of the Worlds movie, he had to squander the opportunity, and failed to capture what made the original story so great.
Well, the George Pal version is still the best film version as far as I am concerned. (I also have a better appreciation for the C. Thomas Howell version, which succeeded in a few places where Mr. Spielburg's version failed.)
recumbentrider
