War of the Worlds; a review
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
After seeing Tom act like an ass the pass month I have no plans on ever seeing any movie he is in 
War of the Wuss!!! WTF is wrong with Hollywood and the movie they produce. It's literally tearing the repertoire movie scene apart + brainwashing little kids that come to think those are the only movies presented in the theaters.
The whole USA movie industry (except a couple of good repertoire movies) is B S and I hope they realise the damage they are doing the collective imagination of the american youth!!
The whole USA movie industry (except a couple of good repertoire movies) is B S and I hope they realise the damage they are doing the collective imagination of the american youth!!
http://www.rochesterdandc.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050629/LIVING0107/506290307
Funny, our local dude f-ing loved it.
Funny, our local dude f-ing loved it.
Gee, some local LA TV guy didn't like the movie, so we should all not go. Makes sense to me.
Why would Tom Cruise acting like a dolt on Oprah have anything to do with how good a movie is?
So am I just anal or did anyone else think the radio promo was stupid when they said, "They've been planning this for a million years!"
I thought, now there's some government inefficiency! Had they moved up their time table by just 1%, they could've attacked while we were wearing loin-clothes and wiping our butts with leaves.
I thought, now there's some government inefficiency! Had they moved up their time table by just 1%, they could've attacked while we were wearing loin-clothes and wiping our butts with leaves.
hmm it's playin in an hour at my local theater. i'll go see it and give my skoop. 
I never said I thought the movie was bad, I just think personally he's a toolEcho said:
I'm looking forward to seeing it. I really don't give a rats ass what movie reviews say. If it looks entertaining then I go, nuff said.
Just got back from seeing it (and eating some Chipotle ) and overall I liked it. It wasn't a supermegabadass hollywood blockbuster like it was made out to seem but the effects were cool, and the story seems really good which means I need to go read the book or atleast rent the older version of the movie. Tom Cruise did a good job I thought, but as the review said there were instances where it seemed to go really fast and jump a bit. Its definitely more of a film that you take it for what its worth and focus on the story and whats happening instead of a major academy award winner with few flaws in it. I'd say its worth seeing if you like sci-fi type movies but if you nitpick the whole thing then I'm sure you'll hate it. 
) and overall I liked it. It wasn't a supermegabadass hollywood blockbuster like it was made out to seem but the effects were cool, and the story seems really good which means I need to go read the book or atleast rent the older version of the movie. Tom Cruise did a good job I thought, but as the review said there were instances where it seemed to go really fast and jump a bit. Its definitely more of a film that you take it for what its worth and focus on the story and whats happening instead of a major academy award winner with few flaws in it. I'd say its worth seeing if you like sci-fi type movies but if you nitpick the whole thing then I'm sure you'll hate it. 
I'm seeing it tonight. It's gonna be interesting to see how well it was done considering it was shot in so little time. It started like in november and wrapped only in march.
All the cgi heavy scenes had to have been shot first in order to have enough time to finish...
All the cgi heavy scenes had to have been shot first in order to have enough time to finish...
it was ok. fun summer sci-fi movie that works. It's not totally dumb like Independance Day, or as cheeseball as sappy Signs(although it does try in a few spots). It's a cool story, you don't have to wade thru unnecessary plot to get to the action, pretty bare bones story of a dad trying to keep him and his kids alive thru the attack.
Some of the scenes were shot near here, at a local farm.
For the scenes they shot, they needed massive numbers of extras. I wasn't an extra myself, but lots of my friends got to hang around with Tom Cruise for a few days.
It was really neat to have so many big names around town. Cruise spent a lot of time at dairy queen.
For the scenes they shot, they needed massive numbers of extras. I wasn't an extra myself, but lots of my friends got to hang around with Tom Cruise for a few days.
It was really neat to have so many big names around town. Cruise spent a lot of time at dairy queen.
While he was in a local gas station, he donated $5,000 in cash to a local charity. I guess he bought my approval.Snacks said:I never said I thought the movie was bad, I just think personally he's a tool
Pix? This isn't gonna be a Stoney Incident, is it?Gyro said:Some of the scenes were shot near here, at a local farm.
For the scenes they shot, they needed massive numbers of extras. I wasn't an extra myself, but lots of my friends got to hang around with Tom Cruise for a few days.
It was really neat to have so many big names around town. Cruise spent a lot of time at dairy queen.
While he was in a local gas station, he donated $5,000 in cash to a local charity. I guess he bought my approval.
sanjuro said:
I say never be surprised that a movie sucks. If you go in with that attitude, you'll never be disappointed.
Yeah, for serious.SkaredShtles said:
I say never be surprised that a movie sucks. If you go in with that attitude, you'll never be disappointed.
The question I always ask myself is "did the movie entertain me?"
Most of the time, the answer is yes. Now, my favorite movies are the ones that have everything. Darren Aronofsky films, for instance, are my favorites. This movie seemed well made, had totally sweet effects/explosions, and the acting wasn't half bad.
The most annoying thing was the girl screaming.
I liked it
I thought it was an excellent movie. Action right from the get go. Cruise being a sh*tty father kind of pissed me off, but that aside it was great. That little girl is a great actor for how old she is.
The one part that annoyed me was a Cruise and teenage son friek out/crying scene. You'll know what i'm talking about when you see it.
The ending comes really quick. You think its going to keep going then all of a sudden its over. Lots of people walked out of the movie theatre with a confused look on their face. If you think for a second it all makes sense. This guy on howard stern this morning was talking about the ending and how it didn't make sense. I wanted to scream at him for being an idiot and not thinking..
Anyway it has great special effects, good acting, and good plot. The special effects really make this flick though...
The one part that annoyed me was a Cruise and teenage son friek out/crying scene. You'll know what i'm talking about when you see it.
The ending comes really quick. You think its going to keep going then all of a sudden its over. Lots of people walked out of the movie theatre with a confused look on their face. If you think for a second it all makes sense. This guy on howard stern this morning was talking about the ending and how it didn't make sense. I wanted to scream at him for being an idiot and not thinking..
Anyway it has great special effects, good acting, and good plot. The special effects really make this flick though...
You are right about that. But I think it is a safe bet for most movies today. Not only the movies have gotten a lot worse, our expections for good movies are much lower now.SkaredShtles said:
I say never be surprised that a movie sucks. If you go in with that attitude, you'll never be disappointed.
Put it this way (I highlighted the all time great movies):
Top grossing movies for 1973 in the USA
156,000,000 The Sting (1973)
115,000,000 American Graffiti (1973)
53,267,000 Papillon (1973)
39,661,731 The Exorcist (1973)
35,400,000 Live and Let Die (1973)
Top grossing movies for 1974 in the USA
119,500,000 Blazing Saddles (1974)
116,000,000 The Towering Inferno (1974)
86,300,000 Young Frankenstein (1974)
57,300,000 The Godfather: Part II (1974)
44,053,000 Black Christmas (1974)
Top grossing movies for 2002 in the USA
403,620,726 Spider-Man (2002)
298,843,836 Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)
186,461,835 Men in Black II (2002)
176,295,381 Ice Age (2002)
167,779,791 Austin Powers in Goldmember (2002)
150,941,848 Scooby-Doo (2002)
138,567,254 Lilo & Stitch (2002)
128,157,396 Minority Report (2002)
122,822,244 Mr. Deeds (2002)
117,986,808 The Sum of All Fears (2002)
There is not a great one in any of the top ten 2002 movies, and most of them stunk. On the other hand, the movie business is doing a much better job marketing films, considering Mr. Deeds made more money than Blazing Saddles and Goldmember beat The Sting (and just barely beat Scooby-Doo).
I now realize that the numbers I found are not adjusted for inflation. But the bar for good movies was much higher in previous decades than now.
Ha, that is funny. I can't think if any of the movies you listed in 2002 that was a great film. Some of them were good, but none were great.sanjuro said:
I cant believe Clones banked that much. It was the worst on out of the bunch.
No kidding. I've found that lately I've been watching TurnerClassicMovies a lot more on tv, I mean, completely unedited classic movies that are 50x better than almost all of today's movies. I have to say my favorite of all time is Lawrence of Arabia.Snacks said:
Yup. In 1973 dollars Mr. Deeds made $8.45.sanjuro said:
I would say the exact opposite.. Those movies you listed are probably better noted as being classics, rather than great. Standards have changed. To put those classics on the same level as say Fight Club, Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, Minority Report, Spider Man is like comparing apples to oranges. There all good in there own respect, but i don't think many people would be going to see those classics if they came out today...sanjuro said:
The general population going to movies now is much different as well. You get many teeanage and younger than teenage kids making up a large portion of the movie goer population.
Some of the movies on the 2002 list you put up I personally think suck.. Rating are overrated. I think generally movies are much better now. Better actors, better technology, bigger budgets. It makes sense. Thats not to say there aren't a lot of movies that are just plain bad these days..
Yep technology is better, actors are better, production and soundtracks are better, the problem is that they seem to think that all that can replace a good plot, which is rare these days.crash test said:
Not to mention that the age of independant major studios is dead in Hollywood. Studios now are owned by corporations that have no idea how to make movies. Their bottom line is money. These corporations have so much money coming in from other areas, hollywood, and movie making doesn't even make a dent in how much money they make. So do you think they're gonna care about developing great stories, nurturing talent? Not really...Westy said:
Some of the movies in 5-10 slots were Benji, Return to the Planet of the Apes, and The Groove Tube; which are all pretty forgettable today. There are bad and good movies in every era.crash test said:
At the time, The Sting starred two of the top 5 actors of all time at the peak of their careers. It is a funny, fast-paced movie which had a total of 3 gunshots, and it still highly regarded 30 years later. I am going to watch it again next week, and I recommend it to you as well.
I just saw Mr. and Mrs. Smith, which have two of the most popular actors today. It has all the action and special effects requisite for a summer movie, but it also took away from the interaction between Pitt and Jolie. While I have no crystal ball, in 30 years people won't be discussing that movie.
Robert Evans, an old time producer and executive, commented how in his day (the 60's and 70's), 2 people made decisions on 20 films. Today, he said, 100 people decide on 2 films.
The point that he was trying to make was that there are too many accountants and marketing executives involved with the film making process.
Obviously, great movies still get made. I noticed that The Pianist was also made in 2002, and it is an amazing film. I checked, and it failed to make to make a profit (just $35 mil).
Would have it done better if Spiderman, MIB2, and Scooby-Doo did not exist? You know it. And movies as good as the Pianist get harder and harder to make. But it is good business to create easily marketable movies, and that is humorous action genre.
Hmmm.... sounds like the McDonaldization of the movie industry. I'm shocked that this could happen.sanjuro said:
Something has got to be done about the price of movie popcorn, and NOT BUYING ANY isn't an option.
The only movie I can think of recently that successfully combined all of those was LOTR. And their plot had already been written for them.Westy said:
I'm looking forward to the Narnia movie coming up, too.
Smuggle your own in.I Are Baboon said:
i bring some from home, stuffed in my boxers.I Are Baboon said:
Does that keep it hot or something?narlus said:
extra salt.
SkaredShtles said:Smuggle your own in.
The home cooked stuff just isn't as good as theater popcorn. I don't go for that extra buttery liquid stuff though.narlus said:
I do smuggle in candy. Pay $4 for 8 oz of Reese's Pieces at the movies, or pay 89 cents at the grocery store.
Or buy 5 pounds of it at Costco. Whoops.I Are Baboon said:The home cooked stuff just isn't as good as theater popcorn. I don't go for that extra buttery liquid stuff though.
I do smuggle in candy. Pay $4 for 8 oz of Reese's Pieces at the movies, or pay 89 cents at the grocery store.
:
hey, did you get a grill yet? i forgot to tell you that consumer reports had an article on propane grills, and a vermont castings model (can't recall which one) came out on top.
and we gotta plan yr lynn woods visit before the rest of my summer weekends aer booked.
and we gotta plan yr lynn woods visit before the rest of my summer weekends aer booked.