June 29, 2005

War. What is it good for?

Posted by pete at June 29, 2005 11:11 AM

About $90 million over the holiday weekend, I'd guess.

For the deliberately dense, War of the Worlds review here.

Mark Caro at the Chi. Trib. dropped the following bon mot: "good endings are to Spielberg what World Series rings are to the Cubs."

Thought you'd appreciate that.

--Chris

--Posted by Chris on June 29, 2005 12:53 PM

Spielberg needs to move on a little bit, thematically, from what's basically Helen Lovejoy's catchphrase: "Won't SOMEBODY think of the children?" The reviews I've read make it sound like he basically deploys Dakota Fanning like a little allegory bomb every time the action lags.

Special effects aside, the set-up of this movie seems to make absolutely no sense. I'll probably re-watch George Pal's 1950s effort; at least the color scheme is interesting and there's no unhinged halfling "acting so hard the bones nearly pop out of his skin." (the last bit from the Salon review)

--Posted by norbizness on June 29, 2005 1:02 PM

"good endings are to Spielberg what World Series rings are to the Cubs."

That's certainly true of late. A.I. drove me insane.

(the last bit from the Salon review)

I like Zacharek's reviews, but I can never figure her out. She liked 50 First Dates and Mr. 3000, yet panned Death to Smoochy. Different strokes, etc.

No, the film's set-up doesn't make a lot of sense, but neither did the novel's. Less annoying to me than the Martians' motivation was their method of getting here, which I won't go into.

That ending, though. Woof.

--Posted by Pete on June 29, 2005 1:40 PM

Ma! Pete stole my line!

--Posted by HWRNMNBSOL on June 29, 2005 3:04 PM

Wha?

--Posted by Pete on June 29, 2005 3:49 PM

Wait, you didn't sit in for the last installment of Hell on Wheels. I used the 'War: what is it good for? HUGE BOX OFFICE GATE' as a line.

Nemmind!

--Posted by HWRNMNBSOL on June 29, 2005 3:52 PM

Meh, I'm so over Tom Cruise. Plus Dakota Fanning scares me.

--Posted by Tracy on June 29, 2005 5:51 PM

Great review Pete! You're being a tad too generous with your praise of Spielberg, though. This film had its purely Spielbergian (cool word) moments. For example, the scene by the river where evidence of the carnage is carried along hearkens back to a young Spielberg's originality. But overall I thought the movie was trite when it wasn't being maddeningly scattered. Too much bang bang and not enough heart or subtlety, two qualities the original film had in abundance. BEWARE! SPOILER AHEAD! The Gene Barry cameo almost saved the atrocious ending for me....almost.

--Posted by BabyJane on June 30, 2005 2:50 AM

I don't recall any point in the movie where the aliens were referred to as "Martians." Yeah, we all know where they were from in H. G. Wells's story (and the George Pal movie version), but I believe Spielberg obscured any reference to "Martians." That would've been too much of a suspension of disbelief for early 21st Century audiences.

Great movie, despite the patented Spielbergian feel-good ending. Nice cameo for Gene Barry...and the movie seemed to be as much homage to the George Pal version as it was a modern-day retelling of the H. G. Wells story. Having spent time in the area of the initial "attack," I can tell you that Stevie made it all too real.

--Posted by Elisson on July 3, 2005 11:51 PM



Trackbacks

Manually ping this entry: http://www.whiterose.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/5585