930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: HoyaSaxa03 on June 29, 2005, 11:55:00 pm
-
i've come to save you ...
do not waste your money on 'war of the worlds', please ... by the time tom cruise made it to the paul revere statue, i almost vomited ... actually, i laughed out loud, but it didn't seem like most other people found it as funny as i did
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
... by the time tom cruise made it to the paul revere statue, i almost vomited ...
I read in Premiere magazine that Steven Spielberg was specifically avoiding such alien invasion cliches as the "famous monument in ruins" scene... Hmmm, guess Paul Revere isn't quite Washington Monument or Statue of Liberty caliber.
I have no desire to see this flick. Probably influenced by loopy scientologist Cruise out on the stump to call psychiatry a pseudo science while Scientology is....
Blech.
-
Tom Cruise has a screw loose.Maybe more than one.
-
Originally posted by Bags:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
... by the time tom cruise made it to the paul revere statue, i almost vomited ...
I read in Premiere magazine that Steven Spielberg was specifically avoiding such alien invasion cliches as the "famous monument in ruins" scene... Hmmm, guess Paul Revere isn't quite Washington Monument or Statue of Liberty caliber.
[/b]
Hoya, did they have any idiots, specifically Cruise, running by the Paul Revere statue shouting, "The aliens are coming! The aliens are coming!"? Seems like a tacky enough film to pull some idiot scene like that.
When I first heard the film was going to be made, I was really excited about it. Then I heard that Tom Cruise was staring in it and it ruined the whole thing for me. I'm much more interested in the story line than the star factor. Besides, in my opinion, Tom Cruise gets way too many films. I've never really disliked him but I'm not nuts over him either. Lately, it's just been overkill with he and several other stars who get so many rolls that could be performed just as well by many other actors without the 'star power' draw. It gets to the point that the celebrity factor seems to detract from the story at times. Just my take.
-
I actually like a few of Spielberg's recent movies for legitimate reasons other than "mindless popcorn fun." But I didnt really go in expecting much from this but maybe a few minutes of good 'ol big-budgeted human extermination. I was just kind of curious where Hollywood is at now with the special fx too.. I can just appreciate crap like that. There's probably about 10-15 minutes in this flick really worth seeing on the big screen. Spielberg usually gives you at least 30. The sound dept did a kickass job.. those tripod made some pretty gnarly drones too!
As far as Tom Cruise in this film, he's best in my opinion when playing an asshole like in Magnolia, Collateral or even Eyes Wide Shut. He plays this bad father role in the first 20 min or so of the film which is cool to watch but then he goes back to playing the usual Tom.
Hoya, did you really think Spielberg was gonna grow some balls all of a sudden and make an unforgiving, nihilistic bloodbath alien pic with a PG-13 rating? So in what way(s) could you have been dissappointed?
-
Getting good reviews overall tho:
72 on MetaCritic (http://www.metacritic.com/film/titles/waroftheworlds)
Slate
David Edelstein
It's the human struggle that makes this a sci-fi masterpiece.
Washington Post
Stephen Hunter
The audience is treated to one extraordinary vision after another; the sense of a world literally being destroyed around the principal actors, the sense of their flight through panic and destruction, the sense of concussion, collapse, rubble and ruin.
Philadelphia Inquirer
Carrie Rickey
For the first 100 minutes of his 117-minute film Spielberg holds the audience in a grip of fear. When Ray and Rachel take refuge in the storm cellar of a survivalist (a miscast Tim Robbins), the director's grip relaxes only a bit, but the film never recovers from this excursion into the Gothic.
Village Voice
Michael Atkinson
Although it's thoroughly retooled, H.G. Wells's scenario doesn't allow for many soft landings, and the extreme respect for havoc on view quite properly keeps the Spielbergian cutesies to a minimum.
-
The main reason that Tom Cruise made this film was so he could finance a big-budget remake of Battlefield Earth.
And what about the indie version of WAR OF THE WORLDS? Does anyone know the release date?
-
Originally posted by shoot ur shot:
those tripod made some pretty gnarly drones too!
It was such an obvious ripoff of The Tripods (http://www.allmovie.com/cg/avg.dll?p=avg&sql=1:67404).
-
no interest in seeing this movie at all... the brief glimpse of the american flag fluttering in the back of a pickup truck was all i needed to know about this flick. of course imagery like that is going to fill the seats with those ribbon people. besides "the terminal" sucked ass
-
Originally posted by shoot ur shot:
Hoya, did you really think Spielberg was gonna grow some balls all of a sudden and make an unforgiving, nihilistic bloodbath alien pic with a PG-13 rating? So in what way(s) could you have been dissappointed?
(warning, spoilers)
well, first off, this was a pretty nihilistic movie, it was a straight-up horror flick, the scene with the van and the handgun was pretty freaky ... and i liked the sci-fi elements of the premise, the CGI and sound were great, but they didn't focus on the premise or ever really explain what was going on, other than the vapid spielberg bookend narrations ... the movie wasn't about the premise, it was a character study and focused on the human element, which was COMPLETELY pointless ...
where were tom cruise and fam going? what was their motivation? ... the whole point of the movie is following tom cruise and family, and this storyline is so weak and so pointless, it just completely sank the movie ...
a) why the fuck did they shack up with a half-drunk tim robbins for 45 mins?? did they just run out of ideas?
b) who was that woman they ran into on the ferry? what was the point of her? why were they going on the ferry??
c) he said he was going to see their mom in boston, but it seemed sarcastic, to calm down the girl ... was that really their whole motivation throughout the movie? why wasn't boston burned like everything else?
d) the ending was so unrealistic and stupid, just like the rest of the plot
and the heartstring-pulling scenes whacking you over the head with 9/11 references were just way, way, way over the top
i really love apocalyptic and post-apocalyptic flicks, but this one just sucked
the great part about independence day was that it was winking at you the entire time, 'war of the worlds' wasn't, and the plot just absolutely blew, it could have been interesting if they took more of a macro look at the situation
-
those movies are all bad. all of them. every last one. yes, even the one with that Will Smith character.....
-
oh, and to top it all off ... cruise's kid is emo!!
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
other than the vapid spielberg bookend narrations [/b]
I have not seen the movie, but the reviews I have read said the Morgan Freeman narrated and that it was lifted almost directly from the Wells original....
-
Originally posted by canker-blossom:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
other than the vapid spielberg bookend narrations [/b]
I have not seen the movie, but the reviews I have read said the Morgan Freeman narrated and that it was lifted almost directly from the Wells original.... [/b]
yes, it was lifted directly from the book, but the stupid-ass spielberg bookends ala saving private ryan and just stupid ... and it's even stupider that the bookends are the biggest source of info on the details behind the invasion
-
i'm going to see it...i dont know why but others want to...tom cruise is alright but an unknown actor will always be better.
indepenence day owned!
-
I see your points Hoya and did pick up on a few of those plotholes but I guess I didn't go in expecting the same things out of the movie as you did. I really didn't expect a goof film at all. I thought there might be a chance since I do actually like AI and Catch Me if You Can, but all I really asked from this movie was at least 30-45 minutes of great action and for the most part it delivered but definitely didn't go the whole way or even close really. I agree that the movie is not an optimistic film, but I don't know about nihilistic. This sounds dumb but Spielberg does seem to share a sort of bleak view on humanity in hi films that's almost Kubrick-esque, but he just always wimps out towards the end of all his movies. He's gotten a lot better in the past few years about his imagery but one thing he will never understand in filmmaking is ambiguity.
I also got the impression while watching this movie that Spielberg didn't even want to make a movie about aliens but was more interested in making a movie about his father (Spielberg grew up without a father.) The whole story seems to be centered around the relationship between the boy and his dad. That's why I think this movie ultimately fails as being a convincing horror/sci-fi flick and why I think audiences will not make this the #1 film of the summer. It's almost as if Speilberg just threw in all that shit with the aliens to make his company happy.
-
Originally posted by shoot ur shot:
I agree that the movie is not an optimistic film, but I don't know about nihilistic. This sounds dumb but Spielberg does seem to share a sort of bleak view on humanity in hi films that's almost Kubrick-esque, but he just always wimps out towards the end of all his movies. He's gotten a lot better in the past few years about his imagery but one thing he will never understand in filmmaking is ambiguity.
very true about the endings, he's a sucker for hollywood endings, and this one was just horrible ... and his imagery is just smack-you-over-the-head, all the time
Originally posted by shoot ur shot:
I also got the impression while watching this movie that Spielberg didn't even want to make a movie about aliens but was more interested in making a movie about his father (Spielberg grew up without a father.) The whole story seems to be centered around the relationship between the boy and his dad.
well, that's the constant knock on spielberg, but i'm not sure if this movie is as blatant in the whole father-son thing as some of his others ... i read somewhere that 'the day after tomorrow' flopped because it was too macro, and it was good to take a micro approach here ... i completely disagree, i think the macro-perspective would have been infinitely more interesting in this movie, especially with the ham-fisted approach to the characters and flimsy/retarded plot.
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
the great part about independence day was that it was winking at you
I once saw a porno flick that was winking at you.
-
I read somewhere that Spielberg wanted to make a micro movie, to change the POV completely on this genre of movie and keep it from a single perspective the entire time. I think he did that. Unfortunately it left the movie a bit flat.
It starts off big and very cool. It definitely has its moments. But I'll say it again, he needs an editor.
Cut the majority of the crap with Robbins, re-order the scenes a bit, and kill the ending, and the movie ain't too bad.
Robbins was so horribly miscast, it isn't even funny. He can't play blue collar to save his life.
Cruise didn't bother or help.
My opinion: see the first hour or so, and then go sneak into another movie starting in the same theater.
-
I just got back from seeing it. I think that anyone who's disappointed hasn't read the book or seen the 1953 version. Spielberg pretty much remained true to both of them. The ending was anti-climactic becuase the story is anti-climactic.
Don't ask me why it looked like his wife and her family were just getting done with their thanksgiving dinner at the end, though. Why wasn't their street all destroyed?? Did they even know what was going on???? That's what I want to know.
In my opinion, Garden State was much worse.
-
All the Spielberg hating here is sad. I mean you have a director who is largely responsible for much of what big-budget films have become. I mean if you want to go see some low-budget indie film all shot in one room with only two actors, bad sound and shaky cinematography fine, but Spielberg doesn't make those kinds of movies. He makes movies where you can sit in a dark theater for two hours and be entertained. The fact is that if you watch the movie and allow yourself to get caught up visually you will see him paying tribute to sci-fi flicks from the 50's. This movie was no different than Tarentino paying homage to the martial arts movies of the 70's when he made Kill Bill. Anyone who goes into a movie like "War of the Worlds" expecting amazing acting and a realistic plot is just dumb. If you want great acting go watch "The Color Purple", if you want a realistic plot check out "Catch Me If You Can", both Spielberg films. If you just want to get lost and be entertained watch "E.T.", "Jurassic Park", "Jaws" or "War of the Worlds".
-
Originally posted by Shadrach:
All the Spielberg hating here is sad. I mean you have a director who is largely responsible for much of what big-budget films have become.
shouldnt he be hated for that
Originally posted by Shadrach:
I mean if you want to go see some low-budget indie film all shot in one room with only two actors, bad sound and shaky cinematography fine
what a fucking sad comment, is that what you think the alternative to big budget movies is, hope you enjoyed Cinderella man, boy that Ron Howard sure can direct
Originally posted by Shadrach:
He makes movies where you can sit in a dark theater for two hours and be entertained. The fact is that if you watch the movie and allow yourself to get caught up visually you will see him paying tribute to sci-fi flicks from the 50's. This movie was no different than Tarentino paying homage to the martial arts movies of the 70's when he made Kill Bill. Anyone who goes into a movie like "War of the Worlds" expecting amazing acting and a realistic plot is just dumb. If you want great acting go watch "The Color Purple", if you want a realistic plot check out "Catch Me If You Can", both Spielberg films. If you just want to get lost and be entertained watch "E.T.", "Jurassic Park", "Jaws" or "War of the Worlds".
I have not seen War of the Worlds, but the fact is Spielberg has made a series of movies with horrible endings. Even for blockbusters. So I think it is fair to say he is off his game from when he was making most of his classic blockbusters. The only recent movie of his that I thought was any good was AI, and even that lasted about a half hour too long.
-
so wait can i like "cinderella man" or does that blow any cred gained by occasionally going to see a film at a landmark theatre... really enjoyed the movie even got caught up in the moment and cheered at point during one of the fights. while they took liberties with how they portrayed the evil boxer, he wasn't a boastful womanizer in real life. the movie was certainly better then the pile of horse dung called "seabiscuit" where the real life story was totally glossed over to make it a hollywood story.
-
I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. As shoot ur shot said, you can't go into it expecting high art. It's a big summer flick. The special effects are fantastic and the story is engaging. I was entertained and that's what I was looking for.
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
so wait can i like "cinderella man" or does that blow any cred gained by occasionally going to see a film at a landmark theatre...
you can like it, but that just means you like ron howard movies, thats up to you
obviously i dont care if you like ron howard movies or not, I just reserve the right to poke fun
-
I thought Ron Howard was great in Happy Days. He did stuff AFTER that?
-
That would be "Signs" correct?? You did say worst movie ever.........
-
This thread is a cellebration of the fallacy of the excluded middle.
Remember long ago when movies with large budgets were actually good, won oscars, stood the test of time? Something has gone horribly wrong in the last ten or so years. It is amazing to me that no one has noticed that it correlates with th the ascendance of Ron Howard as a director.
-
don't you think it has more to do with the likes of jerry bruckheimer and his now dead partner don simpson, joel silver,and james cameron spending scads of money on special effects, car crashes, etc. verses creating compeling stories. titanic was quite possibly the worst movie ever made was.. it really necessary to smash thousands of dollars of specially made china for a paper thin storyline? that of course is followed by Matrix 2 and 3, the fast and the furious, XXX, King Arthur, etc, etc, etc.
some of ron howards movies will stand the test of time, apollo 13, a beautiful mind, and the new boxing movies. sure he's had clunkers but so has george "marketing" lucas
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
some of ron howards movies will stand the test of time, apollo 13, a beautiful mind, and the new boxing movies.
No, they are instantly forgettable pap.
-
Is this the same Ron Howard who played Fonzie's buddy Richie Cunningham? So you're telling me he went on to be a filmmaker?
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
some of ron howards movies will stand the test of time, apollo 13, a beautiful mind, and the new boxing movies. sure he's had clunkers but so has george "marketing" lucas
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
Is this the same Ron Howard who played Fonzie's buddy Richie Cunningham? So you're telling me he went on to be a filmmaker?
Is ignorance bliss?
-
Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
some of ron howards movies will stand the test of time, apollo 13, a beautiful mind, and the new boxing movies. sure he's had clunkers but so has george "marketing" lucas
ok, i'll change my mind here. 'a beautiful mind' was the worst. movie. ever.
sweet lord did that flick blow, especially considering how he made a completely disingenuous biopic passed off as fact, which really pisses me off.
-
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000165/#director (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000165/#director)
have you forgotten "far and Away"
It chaps my ass that he is doing the Da Vinci code and apparently a remake of East of Eden. I hope he dies before either project is completed.
-
Originally posted by canker-blossom:
I hope he dies before either project is completed.
But please, not before Backdraft: The Musical makes it unto the Broadway stage...please...
-
Originally posted by canker-blossom:
It chaps my ass that he is doing the Da Vinci code and apparently a remake of East of Eden.
Worst written book I've ever read and one of my favorite books.
-
Originally posted by Ellis D. Fleischbach:
Originally posted by canker-blossom:
I hope he dies before either project is completed.
But please, not before Backdraft: The Musical makes it unto the Broadway stage...please... [/b]
http://www.moviemusic.com/soundtrack.asp?id=backdraft-rmst (http://www.moviemusic.com/soundtrack.asp?id=backdraft-rmst)
Is the soundtrack not enough?
-
i saw war of the worlds today and have to say i enjoyed it. maybe because i never readthe book or anything. i did hate the hollywood ending. that ruined a lot of it. and tom cruise is a fucktard...
-
i saw madagascar yesteday and have to say i enjoyed it. maybe because i never readthe book or anything. i did hate the hollywood ending. that ruined a lot of it. and tom cruise is a fucktard...
-
Originally posted by Ellis D. Fleischbach:
and tom cruise is a fucktard...
Are you being serious, or do you really enjoy his work? I only ask because forum logic dictates that 99% of everything you say on here isn't serious.
With Mr. Cruise toting around his new beard everywhere he goes, pretending he's an expert on psychology despite never completing high school, and promoting his cult to the masses at every opportunity, I'm trying very hard not to put money into his pockets. This movie didn't look that interesting to begin with.
-
I think Tom Cruise gets paid whether or not you see it.
Originally posted by j_lee:
Originally posted by Ellis D. Fleischbach:
and tom cruise is a fucktard...
Are you being serious, or do you really enjoy his work? I only ask because forum logic dictates that 99% of everything you say on here isn't serious.
With Mr. Cruise toting around his new beard everywhere he goes, pretending he's an expert on psychology despite never completing high school, and promoting his cult to the masses at every opportunity, I'm trying very hard not to put money into his pockets. This movie didn't look that interesting to begin with. [/b]
-
i wouldn't go see this no matter who was starring or directing. it just looks stupid and vapid. however, speilburg HAS made some decent films. so has ron howard for that matter (parenthood is great in my opnion), however, if i'm gonna go see a science fiction/horror flick this weekend, it's gonna be "land of the dead." i know this movie probably won't do much in the theater (neither did "night of the living dead" or "dawn of the dead" [romereo's versions -- both cult classics]), but i think this guy is actually a very good filmmaker. i mean, if you watch those first two Dead films (the third, by the way was re-written at the last minute because of budget problems and, therefor, wasn't that great, but still OK) you see a complicated story with actual socio-political points in them. that's more than i can say for ANY of the movies out now (horror or otherwise).
-
dont go to see land of the dead, its trash, unless you like the 80s zombie flicks. boring,bad acting/script and the big truck looks like something from mad max, however there is one funny moment in the film.
-
I'm no cineaste and I can't pontificate on the merits of 50's sci-fi or 70's martial arts films. However, I can say that I wholeheartedly agree that War of the Worlds is the worst film I've seen in years. I think theaters should do the same thing with War of the Worlds that they are doing with Cinderella Man and offer refunds to unhappy moviegoers.
-
As far as new movies are concerned, I wish Crispin Glover would release his new movie "What is it?" I imagine it to be quite Lynchian,shot with a cast consisting entirely of novice actors with Downs Syndrome.I also thought Crispin was fantastic recreating the role of Willard in the remake of the same name.
-
i enjoyed land of the dead. my first R movie alone! its cool for what it is, zombies eating people and people fighting zombies and each other. i think that acting could have been a lot worse for a zombie movie.
i definately thought john...fuck i can't spell his last name...leguizamo? that sounds right, was awesome.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I'm no cineaste and I can't pontificate on the merits of 50's sci-fi or 70's martial arts films. However, I can say that I wholeheartedly agree that War of the Worlds is the worst film I've seen in years. I think theaters should do the same thing with War of the Worlds that they are doing with Cinderella Man and offer refunds to unhappy moviegoers.
But isn't the deal with Cinderella Man that it has more to do with the disgust over the false portrayal of fighter Max Baer (sp?)?
-
no AMC Theatres felt that not enough people were coming to see the worthwhile movie, so in order to get more bottoms in the seats they offered the money back guarentee to those who went and didn't enjoy the movie.
-
damn, I thought this was about Pearl Harbor,
-
Originally posted by hostiledm:
damn, I thought this was about Pearl Harbor,
hahaha
miss you more than Michael Bay missed the mark
when he made Pearl Harbor.
I miss you more than that movie missed the point
and that's a lot girl. And now, now you've gone away
and all I'm trying to say is Pearl Harbor sucked
and I miss you.
I need you like Ben Affleck needs acting school.
He was terrible in that film.
I need you more than Cuba Gooding needed a bigger part.
He's way better than Ben Affleck and now,
all I'm trying to say is Pearl Harbor sucked and I miss you.
Why does Michael Bay get to keep on making movies.
I guess Pearl Harbor sucked just a little bit more than
I miss you.
-
freedom = $1.05
-
Question about War of the Worlds that has been bugging me:
If the aliens have been studying humans and the planet Earth for a million years, how did they not know about bacterial infections, which later killed them? If they were planning this for a long time, how did they over look that? Are they stupid?
Lazy screenwriters.
-
Originally posted by flawd101:
i enjoyed land of the dead. my first R movie alone! its cool for what it is, zombies eating people and people fighting zombies and each other. i think that acting could have been a lot worse for a zombie movie.
i definately thought john...fuck i can't spell his last name...leguizamo? that sounds right, was awesome.
Just saw it last night. I was a little disappointed. Something is wrong with it & I'm still trying to figure it out:
*I didn't find one moment of the movie scary. Unlike the Dawn remake which made me feel like I just spent 2 hours under the dentist's drill (the first 15 minutes of that are as good as the genre gets)
* For as innovative as Romero has been over the years, this seemed like one big zombie flick cliche. It appears that Romero has finally turned to copying the copiers:
-the truck was so similar to the jacked up vehicle in the Dawn remake
-many scenes were identical to the ending Tom Savini added to his remake of the original
-even the intro seemed lifted from the Dawn remake...just add Johnny Cash.
*the acting was pretty good - John L was good - Simon Baker was good - Dennis Hopper was ok - and it was pretty cool that it was supposed to be in Pittsburgh or a town exactly like it.
You can do a lot worse at the movies right now - but it did feel a little hollow to me. I guess I'll have to wait now for Universe of the Dead.
-
have you guys read this?
<img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1400049628.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg" alt=" - " />
it's a really fun, quick read by mel brooks' son ... got me interested in the whole zombie phenomenon, now i love zombie flicks ...
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
have you guys read this?
<img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1400049628.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg" alt=" - " />
it's a really fun, quick read by mel brooks' son ... got me interested in the whole zombie phenomenon, now i love zombie flicks ...
I started to - one of the few books I never finished. I laughed a bit at the beginning then I just found it repetitive.
Funny that you mention it tho. I thought of it last night while watching Land O Dead. Brooks has a entire section warning readers about the possibility of zombies being 'alive' in the bottom of lakes & rivers (since they have no need for oxygen). I knew right away what the 'smart' zombies were going to do in Land O Dead when faced with the problem of a river crossing. And if the doomed citizens had read the book they would have too.
Another example of Romero copying all those now currently paying homage to him...
-
or is he just paying homage to the people paying him homage?
-
Originally posted by pickup:
Question about War of the Worlds that has been bugging me:
If the aliens have been studying humans and the planet Earth for a million years, how did they not know about bacterial infections, which later killed them? If they were planning this for a long time, how did they over look that? Are they stupid?
Lazy screenwriters.
Um, it's HG Wells' story, and I'm pretty sure that the movie stayed true to the book, for the most part. I don't think Wells went into much detail either. But I'm guessing that the martians just assumed that bacteria, like humans, were inferior to them.
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
have you guys read this?
<img src="http://images.amazon.com/images/P/1400049628.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg" alt=" - " />
it's a really fun, quick read by mel brooks' son ... got me interested in the whole zombie phenomenon, now i love zombie flicks ...
Yes and I keep it on my reference shelf to be ready when they come.
-
Originally posted by Sir HC:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
have you guys read this?
it's a really fun, quick read by mel brooks' son ... got me interested in the whole zombie phenomenon, now i love zombie flicks ...
Yes and I keep it on my reference shelf to be ready when they come. [/b]
It'll be too late by then. If you learn one thing from the book - it's all about the preparation. Head to your local army/navy surplus store and get on the handgun waiting list NOW!
-
Originally posted by amnesiac:
Originally posted by pickup:
Question about War of the Worlds that has been bugging me:
If the aliens have been studying humans and the planet Earth for a million years, how did they not know about bacterial infections, which later killed them? If they were planning this for a long time, how did they over look that? Are they stupid?
Lazy screenwriters.
Um, it's HG Wells' story, and I'm pretty sure that the movie stayed true to the book, for the most part. I don't think Wells went into much detail either. But I'm guessing that the martians just assumed that bacteria, like humans, were inferior to them. [/b]
Isn't it a virus in the earlier movie? I guess Wells book pre-dates the proper discovery of viruses so Bacteria makes plenty of sense.
If you studied the human race from afar I bet the last thing you would think of is catching a disease from us that would wipe you out.
-
Originally posted by The Artist Formerly Known As grotty:
It'll be too late by then. If you learn one thing from the book - it's all about the preparation. Head to your local army/navy surplus store and get on the handgun waiting list NOW!
you clearly haven't read the book ... handgun?! are you nuts??
start taking blow-dart lessons =)
-
Originally posted by canker-blossom:
If you studied the human race from afar I bet the last thing you would think of is catching a disease from us that would wipe you out.
if by "study" you mean "learn history", then yes, you'd have a pretty good idea about how conquering armies are often wiped out.
-
Science fiction writer Harlan Ellison questioned why director Steven Spielberg didn't give more credit to fellow author H.G. Wells in his adaptation of The War of the Worlds. Ellison said: "What annoys me is that Spielberg is such an egomaniac these days that it has to be 'Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds. No, you puss-bag. It's H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds, and it wouldn't kill you to put his f--king name on it."
Ellison was then subdued with a tranquilizer dart to the neck, shackled and put into a top secret Human Zoo to caper for the amusement of the idle rich.
The catchphrase to the summer blockbuster War of the Worlds is "Theyâ??re already here!" But did you know that this was not the first choice for the summer blockbuster's catchphrase? Original marketing included such taglines as War of the Worldsâ??The First, Non-Tim Robbins Half is Amazing and War of the Worldsâ??Batman's For Fags.
While on set during the film of the summer blockbuster War of the Worlds, homosexual actor Tom Cruise and director Steven Spielberg bickered at such an intense level that by the time the film wrapped, they were only able to communicate through carrier pigeons.
No child over the age of 12 sewed the hundreds of costumes featured in the summer blockbuster War of the Worldsâ??the costumes were made by hand, painstakingly in a sweatshop in Indonesia where Steven Spielberg vacations in the summer. The child labor force was taken from their parents, and paid not in currency but jars of Nuttella chocolate spread.
<img src="http://www.b3tards.com/uploads/smilie.gif" alt=" - " />
Katie Holmes and Neve Campbell are clones.
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
Originally posted by canker-blossom:
]if by "study" you mean "learn history", then yes, you'd have a pretty good idea about how conquering armies are often wiped out. [/b]
But study and learn history are not synonymous.
If the aliens looked down upon us so much, they probably thought of us like ants? When I perform my myrmecological studies I do not start by reading about which ant discovered the new world.
-
Originally posted by canker-blossom:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
Originally posted by canker-blossom:
]if by "study" you mean "learn history", then yes, you'd have a pretty good idea about how conquering armies are often wiped out. [/b]
But study and learn history are not synonymous.
If the aliens looked down upon us so much, they probably thought of us like ants? When I perform my myremecological studies I do not start by reading about which ant discovered the new world. [/b]
And one day the ants will destroy you.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
And one day the ants will destroy you. [/QB][/QUOTE]
Only when the sun "goes in".
<img src="http://teacher.scholastic.com/max/magnify/img/magnify.gif" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by The Artist Formerly Known As grotty:
Originally posted by Sir HC:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
have you guys read this?
it's a really fun, quick read by mel brooks' son ... got me interested in the whole zombie phenomenon, now i love zombie flicks ...
Yes and I keep it on my reference shelf to be ready when they come. [/b]
It'll be too late by then. If you learn one thing from the book - it's all about the preparation. Head to your local army/navy surplus store and get on the handgun waiting list NOW! [/b]
Oh I have read it. But it is good to have handy to prove the right course of action to those who still have not read it.
When the book first came out, the author had an on-line Q&A on the Post website. It was brilliant, and for that I had to buy the book. The humor/serious level was perfect.
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
And one day the ants will destroy you.
So funny...just a few nights ago there was a disaster/sci fi flick on t.v. that was about ants overriding some town. It was maybe the cheesiest movie I'd ever seen, with these poorly CGI'd ants crawling over everything (though you couldn't tell what they were doing to kill people, but that's what they were doing). It was so bad it was like a car wreck on the interstate -- hard to divert your eyes! Apparently the key was to find the Queen, who was controlling all the ants.
-
Originally posted by flawd101:
i enjoyed land of the dead.
saw this last night and really liked it ... but then again, i'm a sucker for zombie flicks
the story-line was a little too much like "escape from NY", and i was kind of disturbed about the zombies "evolving", i think it kind of sets a bad precedent that will allow people to change the "basic rules" of zombies in the future (i guess this started with the super-fast zombies in the recent re-make) ... also, some of the social satire kind of hit you over the head (especially the class war stuff)
but, then again, some of it was subtle and quirky, like the zombies staring up at the fireworks (like all of us brainwashed dumbasses on july 4) ... and i liked the casting, hopper and leguizamo both played their classic roles ... the ending was a little anticlimactic, i expect a sequel out soon ...
-
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/ (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/zombies/)
this is pretty funny, if you look at it that way
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
Originally posted by flawd101:
i enjoyed land of the dead.
saw this last night and really liked it ... but then again, i'm a sucker for zombie flicks
and i was kind of disturbed about the zombies "evolving", [/b]
I enjoyed it also, and agree with what your saying, but I think its following on some of the 'day' stuff, when they were working on training the 'Bub' zombie....
-
double
-
Originally posted by The Artist Formerly Known As grotty:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
i've come to save you ...
do not waste your money on 'war of the worlds', please ... by the time tom cruise made it to the paul revere statue, i almost vomited ... actually, i laughed out loud, but it didn't seem like most other people found it as funny as i did
[/b]
So...I caught this movie last week on a foggy day in Acadia.
It's far from the worst movie ever...for me.
I could do without the overacting Tom Cruise. And Tim Robbins was as bad as I've ever seen him.
They were plot inconsistencies...But...
There are also images/sequences that are as strong as you are likely to see all year.
I'd see it again just to watch the ferry bit.
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
I thought Ron Howard was great in Happy Days. He did stuff AFTER that?
He was on a Simpsons episdode.
-
I just rented OPEN WATER. It says it's based on a true story. How so..?
-
Originally posted by Ellis D. Fleischbach:
I just rented OPEN WATER. It says it's based on a true story. How so..?
it is really bad, it is based on a series of events like that happening
-
Who was the author of that "true story"?
-
Originally posted by Ellis D. Fleischbach:
Who was the author of that "true story"?
Wikipedia is your friend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_and_Eileen_Lonergan)
-
Thanks.
A fictional film based upon events which may not have actually occured is not a TRUE STORY. I give it one star.