Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Review: War of the Worlds

Filed under
Movies
Reviews
-s

The Steven Spielberg remake of War of the Worlds was a bit of a disappointment to me. I'd been looking forward to seeing it and the preview trailers looked exciting. But the finished project couldn't live up to the hype.

The most redeeming feature of the film was the performances by veteran Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, and Tim Robbins. The interaction of these characters was in the best of Hollywood tradition. The script itself had such potential. Unfortunately the character study will probably overshadowed by what was promised to be epic proportioned action sequences. Perhaps by trying to remain true to the original in some sense of the word, Spielberg missed the mark. The "machines" were clunky and unbelievable from such a highly advanced race of beings planning an extermination for a million years. The ground attack strategy by tripod-like vehicles looked like something out of the 40's or 50's. The laser effect disintegrating humans and structures in mass proportions again was something out of the 60's, although I did like the raining-clothes effect. With today's computer aided graphics, why was so much money spent on a film that could have been made 25 years ago and probably more believable?

Which leads to where the rubber meets the road. The whole film was just not believable. Not one chill, thrill or goosebump was had. The unconvincing design and effects disappointed this viewer. The movie may have had a wonderful first weekend in the theaters, grossing over 200 million dollars worldwide, but I believe once the word gets out that it falls so flat, attendance will drop off immensely. The creatures who make camio appearances were up to Spielbergs' reputation and perhaps he should have given more screentime to them instead of the antiquated machines sweeping through New England. I've found Marvin the Martian's hand-annihilator more exciting.

I expected more from such a usually wonderful director. I give it 2 penguins out of 5.

Dang

I loved the movie. It was suspense through out especially the basement sequence! The special effects are great. I was on the edge of my seat many times during the movie.

re: Dang

Yeah, I think I'm in the minority. But here's one that pretty funny. I never read other's reviews if I'm gonna do one myself - til at least after I've written mine. I was surprized to see so many people didn't recognize we were being cheated by the 50's-Japanese-Godzilla-like effects! Big Grin

I did like the main character and Tom Cruise was quite convincing. In fact I really enjoyed him in that "average-Joe-loving-father" role. Quite the departure for him I must say. Big Grin And Tim Robbins is one of the underestimated greats - much like Stephen Rae (anyone recognize that name?). He played the madman to the hilt. I always enjoy Tim Robbins.

----
You talk the talk, but do you waddle the waddle?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

Android Leftovers

Elementary OS Juno Beta 2 Released

Elementary OS June beta 2 is now available to download. This second beta build of the Ubuntu-based Linux distribution touts a number of changes over the elementary OS june beta released back in July. Due to the shifting sands on which Juno is built the elementary team advise those planning on testing the release to do so by making a fresh install rather than doing an upgrade from beta 1 or (worse) an older version of elementary OS. Read more

today's howtos

Linux - The beginning of the end

You should never swear at people under you - I use the word under in the hierarchical sense. Colleagues? Well, probably not, although you should never hold back on your opinion. Those above you in the food chain? It's fair game. You risk it to biscuit it. I say, Linus shouldn't have used the language he did in about 55-65% of the cases. In those 55-65% of the cases, he swore at people when he should have focused on swearing at the technical solution. The thing is, people can make bad products but that does not make them bad people. It is important to distinguish this. People often forget this. And yes, sometimes, there is genuine malice. My experience shows that malice usually comes with a smile and lots of sloganeering. The typical corporate setup is an excellent breeding ground for the aspiring ladder climber. Speaking of Linus, it is also vital to remember that the choice of language does not always define people, especially when there are cultural differences - it's their actions. In the remainder of the cases where "bad" language was used (if we judge it based on the approved corporate lingo vocab), the exchange was completely impersonal - or personal from the start on all sides - in which case, it's a different game. The problem is, it's the whole package. You don't selective get to pick a person's attributes. Genius comes with its flaws. If Linus was an extroverted stage speaker who liked to gushy-mushy chitchat and phrase work problems in empty statements full of "inspiring" and "quotable" one-liners, he probably wouldn't be the developer that he is, and we wouldn't have Linux. So was he wrong in some of those cases? Yes. Should he have apologized? Yes, privately, because it's a private matter. Definitely not the way it was done. Not a corporate-approved kangaroo court. The outcome of this story is disturbing. A public, humiliating apology is just as bad. It's part of the wider corporate show, where you say how sorry you are on screen (the actual remorse is irrelevant). Linus might actually be sorry, and he might actually be seeking to improve his communication style - empathy won't be part of that equation, I guarantee that. But this case - and a few similar ones - set a precedence. People will realize, if someone like Linus gets snubbed for voicing his opinion - and that's what it is after all, an opinion, regardless of the choice of words and expletives - how will they be judged if they do something similar. But not just judged. Placed in the (social) media spotlight and asked to dance to a tune of fake humility in order to satisfy the public thirst for theatrics. You are not expected to just feel remorse. You need to do a whole stage grovel. And once the seed of doubt creeps in, people start normalizing. It's a paradox that it's the liberal, democratic societies that are putting so much strain on the freedom of communication and speech. People forget the harsh lessons of the past and the bloody struggles their nations went through to ensure people could freely express themselves. Now, we're seeing a partial reversal. But it's happening. The basket of "not allowed" words is getting bigger by the day. This affects how people talk, how they frame their issues, how they express themselves. This directly affects their work. There is less and less distinction between professional disagreement and personal slight. In fact, people deliberately blur the lines so they can present their business ineptitude as some sort of Dreyfuss witchhunt against their glorious selves. As an ordinary person slaving in an office so you can pay your bills and raise your mediocre children, you may actually not want to say something that may be construed as "offensive" even though it could be a legitimate complaint, related to your actual work. This leads to self-censored, mind-numbing normalization. People just swallow their pride, suppress their problems, focus on the paycheck, and just play the life-draining corporate game. Or they have an early stroke. Read more Also: Google Keeps Pushing ChromeOS and Android Closer Together