 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
84.169.223.36
So I made may promess comes true against myself ( or should I write " with " )
Very few people in the movie house, so I was not disturb with the usual bla-bla from the youngsters.
Spielberg has not very mature. his themes are the same since " ET " Or " Close Encounter "
You see all is set in, the divorced parents, the two child ect...
Tom Cruise try hard and the camera help him a lot to get him doing a fair job, and the actor playing the part of his son in fact steal him the show, having just more presence on the screen, this kid is going to make it.
The daughter is sreaming so very often that you wishes that she dies soon. Which of course do not happen...
There are many scenes reminiscent of the original one with a zest of " Soylent Green " and of course his own work.Very loud of course, and for the first two third very fast moving and at high tempo.
Then Tim Robbins set in and the film lost a lot of its cadence. Mr. Robbins do his actual good playing and he reminds me a lot of Orson Wells, Spielberg filmed him that way and that is certainly no accident, He-he!BUT there are many scenes that are magnificent and reache in its vision a surrealist Dali easily.
A fiasco, yes, but not without some " grandeur ".
Too bad Mr. Spielberg did not grow up to his destiny at being a great director, if only he would have continue from " Duel " on...
Our lost.
Follow Ups:
Saw it today. Thought it was just OK. Here we have highly advanced aliens riding around in tripod machines killing people one at a time, using their blood as fertilizer. Some of you might say that's the way HG described it, but the book was written sometime in the 1800s. The movie talk place in the now. Hell, the original had better machines.The peanut butter scene was a killer too. Why didn't they just go to the frig.
I saw WOTW today and really liked it. The first scene of the pod emerging from the city street was awe inspiring and frightened me, a memorable scene.
There was nothing the aliens did that human beings haven't done far worse to each other, and that seemed to be a sub-context in the story. The aliens seemed to be portrayed as toxic human IDs doing their worst, with mini ids dispersed along the story. Each escape just lead to fresh horror.
I also liked AI and Minority Report a lot. Although TC isn't my favorite actor, he certainly did a workmanlike job in the two films. WOTW paid reasonable respect to the classic story. I wish they had used Richard Burton's recitation from the WOTW record, though, it was far superior as a spoken acting piece.
But to be fair, none of the individual complaints are that significant to someone who went in to the movie wanting to see it. You clearly went in NOT wanting to see it.
Tired of the same scheme of shiting movies, yes. But Hollywood is the most professional of all and with a past that won´t compare to anything else.
I hope that some day they will retieve their tradition of making money and trying to do art at the same time.
The only thing that bothered me was the little girl doing stupid things and screaming. So we can agree on that. Anything else?
The same girl as in " ET ". But maybe not with the same genes...
Positively? I said some " paintings " where almost surealisic in a Dali way. The river sequence as you wrote had some fine moment.
At the begining of the film when some people are been pulverized are well made, reminding of the first " Indiana " and "Scanners " this David Cromberg film, but made in 2005.
Well a few others too that elude me at the moment.
But more time passes and more I see this being a real fiasco.
But I wrote it already....
Kind of surprises me since we usually agree on such things. I agreed with you on LoTR, and said so at length. I usually agree with you on Hollywood action movies, Spider Man and the like. They do nothing for me at all.But I enjoy both SF and Horror when done well. So there we part. I particularly enjoy them when they have very dark themes, well developed flawed characters, or on the flip side, humor.
There are also some points like, why did the " Martians " invades us? What were their goal( s )
It was only loud thinking. As I do not need logig to have fun.
BTW the most horrific film ever remain, for me, The Night of the Living Dead, that was the Vietnam nightmare, pure.
At first, in the book as well as the movie, I was bothered by the idea that such a scientifically advanced race would not have taken earth bound disease into account. But even that problem has a work around.Someone else mentioned that they didn't like the power going out in the city and not in the country. That presumes the viewer knows the pattern of landings and the accompanying EMP ... which they don't.
No glaring scientific flaws that you could not work around.
'Someone else mentioned that they didn't like the power going out in the city and not in the country. That presumes the viewer knows the pattern of landings and the accompanying EMP ... which they don't."
no, it assumes that power grids fail on a larger scale when mass interuptions hit all the major cities. Amazing that the aliens let our military facilities go. Maybe they thought people in SUVs with ipods were a greater threat? If you want to rationalize things you could say that it was an unintentional byproduct of their landing. But I cannot think of any scientifically legitimate explination that would suggest burrowing into the ground in small vessels riding on lighting would be the best means of transportation. Again, I think it was a case of story being convoluted to suit cool effects. Dog wags tail."No glaring scientific flaws that you could not work around."
I quite disagree. How smart are the aliens that they walk around naked in wreckage drinking gutter water? was I the only one who that that was a painfully heavy handed setup? Sorry but even dumb ole us would wear space suits in an alien envirement. you'd think they would have known about the problem back when they were planting the tripods all those eons ago. but at least they didn't catch a computer virus.
In the movie? I have no remembering of it.
I guess the movie presumes you kind of know the story, perhaps that is a bad assumption, the movie certainly could have been done better if I had directed it! ;-)--------------
In The War Of The Worlds (1898), Wells conceived just such a species. Forced to flee their own dying world, his Martians attempt to make a home on earth by force of arms, landing in an ill-prepared Victorian England, where they begin a devastating reign of terror. Sweeping aside all resistance in their tripod legged war machines, the Martians lay waste to the snug Victorian way of life. It is in fact the way that Wells creates a feeling of the calm before the storm, describing an idyllic England in the opening chapter, that makes the subsequent carnage so arresting.
So I did not misse it! I mean if you think that the teenage public read the book....
I am. I went into this movie wanting to see the imagination of H.G. Wells come to life ... I got that.I don't "like" Tom Cruise either, but that did not keep me from enjoying both this film and Minority Report.
Not only of Science Fiction but also of so call " Horror movies "...
You would have not guess would you?
"The Day the Earth Caught Fire ", have you seen this one?
I'm not sure I've seen "The Day the Earth Caught Fire". What about it?Did you ever see the "Horror" movie Evil Dead II? That was a great movie, lots of fun and very funny.
No, I stopped to watch them a long time ago. Just having the classics in my collection ( a lot of ) as Frankenstein which is a masterpiece.
Try this one, it is so much stronger than so many of them, because it is so near to us....
- http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0054790/?fr=c2l0ZT1kZnxteD0yMHxsbT01MDB8dHQ9MXxmYj11fHBuPTB8cT10aGUgZGF5IHRoZSBlYXJ0aCBjYXVnaHQgZmlyZXxodG1sPTF8bm09MQ__;fc=1;ft=20 (Open in New Window)
The fractured family melodrama (see Jurassic Park, Close Encounters), pots shaking on the walls (Close E), lights shining from outside while the family is holed up inside (Close E), kids nimbly avoiding Raptors in the kitchen (this time it's the alien probe in a basement, the shaking camera from Private Ryan, throwing cars a people (Jurassic Park and Minority Report) ... some much or war of the worlds seems to comprise recycled set pieces from his earlier films. Worse still, aside from adding a soft chewy center in the form of the family melodrama to the original film's story line, there is really nothing new here, no surprises at all. Yet, Spielberg does from time to time seem to come up with a really stunning cinematic idea, and the film manages to hold the audience's attention as an exercise in cinematic spectacle and sheer kinetic energy hardly every seen before, and here served in heapin' helpin's.All of Spielberg's films are uneven. Even Private Ryan, certainly his best, has flat sequences (like the Robbins sequence in this one), and a kind of excessive melodramatic touch that at times becomes offensive. He's a guy that's made a very huge reputation for himself while relying chiefly on others. After all, JAWS was certainly not a bad gig for a guy with HIS experience when he made it -- and it was at best a kind of juvenile exercise. George Lucas and industrial light and magic were very kind to him, too. He cemented Speilberg's reputation with the Indiana Jones movies -- none of which amount to anything more than trifling entertainments. ET was a little kids movie that somehow caught fire with the public; so did Rockie, but that doesn't make it a great movie either.
But Spielberg is a supremely capable technical director, and he deserves full credit for it. And his ability to deliver spectacle in a manner that would make DeMille blush certainly distinguishes him. But he is far from the cinematic genius that many make him out to be. But just when you're ready to give up on him, there's a flash of brilliance and intellect that seems to strike like lightening (Schindler's breakdown when he realizes he could have save MORE people, the aged Private Ryan's parting conversation with his long dead benefactor at the gravestone, and others). I wonder sometimes if he really sets out to make great movies at all, or, if he just kind of knocks them out, in the same way he did as a B-movie director, except that now, he's got a lot more toys to play with.
" Saving Private " was his best....Do not think so.
But for ALL the rest that is absolutely my sentiment.100 %.
I would have to say Private Ryan, but since you disagree, which would you prefer? Schindler? Anyone else care to vote?
I vote for "Jaws".
nt
One more word. The one I like is " Duel " , and this without any critics, I mean negative one.
" Private Ryan "developed badly in my view ( this has been discussed here many times ). Schindler´s List was a good film and very well played, maybe his best because the least personnal!
But I would be at pain to say he has A " best " .
No one until now is just the one.
I think you are being generous. I just saw this movie today. To quote Victor. Kaka. This was one of the most stupid movies I hve ever seen. I love a good scifi movie but scifi isn't an excuse for stupid. I'll accept a premise, just about any premise but not stupidity. One could drive a space ship through the holes in this movie. Starts off with the aliens wiping out all the electrical. This worked in the cities but out in the country the laws of physics are different. Of course the power grid works in the country too but not the city. Tom Cruises's son for no apparent reason wants to get an up close look at the bad guys and is engulfed in a ball of fire. Don't worry though, he was OK. There were more ridiculous escapes from falling airplanes falling bridges and flying cars and balls of fire than the usual crappy action movies. Amoung all the stupid characters doing stupid things and the inconsistancies for the sake of convenience and cheap revelations (my favorite is that they use human blood as fertilizer but they like to fry people when they first come out of the ground) there is amoungst this stupidity a story. Er um well... maybe not. They come, people get slaughtered and TC and family have a long string of idiotic improbable escapes from situations that only an idiot would put themselves into to begin with. I've seen better story arcs at monster truck rallies. Then there is the premise, perhaps the most stupid part of the movie. The alien ships have been there planted in the ground since before man walked the earth. That is anticipation on steroids. "Hey lets plant these mchines in the ground so we can invade this place at a later date just in case inteligent beings evolve and present an obsticle." Why didn't they just stay in the first place when they planted all those machines of destruction? Why ask? Oh and the hour long game of hide and seek with the alien eye while Tom wrestles with a guy bent on getting caught by the aliens. So bad. Kaka.
Well when you look at it like a " serious " film then of course you are fully right to classify it as " Victor´s kaka ". But I did not tried ( impossible ) to see any kind of logic behind! Just a fantasy product, and what is more in the context of today terrorism to analyse the angst that it diffuse to the people, and how it play with this fears.
Back then it was the " cold war " today it is Bin laden and the bunch of murderers.
That is not without interrest. ( and what I wrote in my first post )
Beside that the tradition of the book is being respect, Wells had it with colonialism, and now we, with terrorism.From this stand of view, it has something to tell us. Of course if you have followed poor TC lost in this film there is only one word to tell: Kaka....
"Well when you look at it like a " serious " film then of course you are fully right to classify it as " Victor´s kaka "."
I try to look at every film as I think the film maker wishes me to. I would never complain about the lack of logic found in a Monty Python movie. Te intent of those movies is pretty clear. IMO the intent of most scifi movies is to present a premise or a set of premises that asks us to accept something that doesn't exist or hasn't really happened. I will go with that. But if stylistically the movie is asking us to suspend disbelief then I expect that movie to make sense within the premise it presents and to take the consequences of that premise and the story that goes with it in an inteligent direction. This movie failed miserably on all counts.
" But I did not tried ( impossible ) to see any kind of logic behind! Just a fantasy product, and what is more in the context of today terrorism to analyse the angst that it diffuse to the people, and how it play with this fears."
IMO the film makers did want the audience to take the film seriously in so much as they wanted them to suspend their disbelief and be drawn into the altered reality presented.
"Back then it was the " cold war " today it is Bin laden and the bunch of murderers.
That is not without interrest. ( and what I wrote in my first post )
Beside that the tradition of the book is being respect, Wells had it with colonialism, and now we, with terrorism."That analysis was very interesting. However the Wells broadcast was so superior that it created a huge amount of real panic. Now that's suspending disbelief! What else does that tell you? It tells me his choice of style and content was extremely inteligent. That's great scifi IMO. He presented the premise and developed it in a way that never made you think "that's stupid" and he built the story in a way that drew people in and took them on an incredible journey of terror. Spielberg took us on a ridiculous journey of impossible escapes fom stupid visual effects. I wa saying to myself at every turn "that's stupid." No thank you. It doesn't have to be stupid. Just because a premise asks us to put away our beliefs about reality doesn't mean a film make has a licence to make everything stupid. Not if the film maker wants to draw us in suspend our diselief and take us on a journey. Wells did it beautifully, Spielberg failed. And they set out to tell the same story.
"From this stand of view, it has something to tell us."
You found a little tid bit I couldn't get into because the mass stupidity surrounding it. But now that you mentioned it I can't say that he really went anywhere with it did he? The aliens were hardly anything like terrorists were they? The parrellels fell apart rather quickly.
" Of course if you have followed poor TC lost in this film there is only one word to tell: Kaka...."
I didn't really have a problem with him per se. I don't think there was anything any actor could have done in his place to make a better movie.
The aliens were like terrorists, in both account. Physically and in the context of " angst ".
Evident for me.
,
Well that are computer animations. But on the whole they were very nicely made. Before the film started we had the preview that AuD posted and it was even more coarse that what I saw on the PC.
No, they were the same ones. I would suspect that they are the temp CGIs commonly used in previews. They will working on the final CGI right up until just before th release if this is like most other heavy CGI movies.
Yes that is what AuD wrote also. But I find it stupid to let us see a sketch of an half finish scenery.Looking at the background of the road on the first scene and having in the back ground no details at all ...well...
"Yes that is what AuD wrote also. But I find it stupid to let us see a sketch of an half finish scenery."
Well, it may be stupid. I am not a publicity guy. It's their call not the film maker's call. I suspect marketing people think it was a good idea. I don't know. I actually suspect not. The best marketing campaign I ever saw was for the American Godzilla. They chose not to show too much. Clearly a wise choice.
"Looking at the background of the road on the first scene and having in the back ground no details at all ...well... "
I've seen worse in previews. Previews that were not that far behind the release date.
.
nt
nt
.
nt
If you don't like the general genre ... (I don't either by the way), and want to add this film to all the rest in this category, just say so.
nt
You and Patrick just need to learn to write a bit better about how you don't like this movie. Learn to express yourselves, that's all. I'm just looking for substance.
nt
.
nt
"You and Patrick just need to learn to write a bit better about how you don't like this movie."No you need to learn to read. My comments on CGI were in regards to the trailer of King Kong. My comments on War of the Worlds were full of examples that support my criticisms and I said *nothing* about the quality of the CGI. But if you like I will comment. Well executed visual realization of things that wouldn't really happen. Craft doesn't fix poor content. And FYI I know plenty about CGI. I have been brought in as a consultant on a few occassions by CGI guys to critique their work.
.
nt
.
nt
.
Did you get them coffee?
They offered me coffee and thanked me for my insight and helpful advice. Then they went off and won an Emmy. You called out the wrong guy. Deal with it.
..., my line of work is robotics and AI stuff. We are working out the story board this month. It's kind of fun. I think we will be allowed to make it public so I might be able to show it to you guys when it is finished. We did a shorter one a few months ago but it was quite flawed in terms of the technology that was illustrated since the animators did it without reviewing the story board in detail with us.
That's nice, good luck with it and I'll be happy to watch it when you are done. But dude. When I post relevant information for Patrick about the nature of previews that contain CGI and you chime in by asking the obnoxious question "What the hell is wrong with you?" *You* are starting a flame war. Sorry, I don't turn the other cheek. As for my actual criticisms of War of the Worlds I can only guess that you are not paying any attention to the content of those posts. You claim it's ure vitriol with no content. Balony. I made very specific critiques, explained why I thought those critiques were valid and cited examples. What more do you want?
OK, I am all knowing, all seeing and am never wrong about anything .... your turn.Just kidding,
The problem I have is that I am familiar with the H.G. Wells story, I am a long time SF fan both in reading and in films, my line of work is robotics, often in military applications, and I thought the effects here were fantastic. As they were in Minority Report. I guess I'm a bit surprised you didn't notice.
Looking back, most of your comments are not about the graphics at all. You made a couple of comments about the relationship between the marketing CGI and the ones in the released film. What else? That is why I'm saying that you really have not said much about the graphics.
From my point of view ...
The pacing of the landing and people's understanding of what was happening was very believable.
The war machines were exceedingly well animated. The dynamics of their movement in the scenery very well done.
Any lack of detail in background scenery, I didn't notice because I was not looking for that. In my experience, this is quite common in ALL movies that simulate some environment.
The scene of carnage outside the mother's house with a downed airplane, quite horrific, well done.
The remote eye in the basement was exceedingly well done, reminded me of the very impressive aquatic remote in "The Abyss".
The horrific mix of organic and mechanical features in the human cage again nicely done.
etc. etc. etc.
"OK, I am all knowing, all seeing and am never wrong about anything .... your turn.
Just kidding,"Looks like there are several of us. ;-)
"The problem I have is that I am familiar with the H.G. Wells story, I am a long time SF fan both in reading and in films,"
I share your problem.
" my line of work is robotics, often in military applications, and I thought the effects here were fantastic. As they were in Minority Report. I guess I'm a bit surprised you didn't notice."
I did notice. But for me good effects are not a sufficient remedy for bad story telling and i thought this was very bad story telling. It's like really good icing on a cake of crap.
"Looking back, most of your comments are not about the graphics at all."
That was because I was so bothered by the problems I cited in this movie. But if you want my opinion on the effects I thought most of them were excellent. Some of the destruction sequences looked rough and jerky almost like stop motion but the tripods seemed to always look quite good and sometmes they looked extremely convincing. I thought the artwork was excellent. Nice cross between H.G. Wells vision and a modern techno look.
" You made a couple of comments about the relationship between the marketing CGI and the ones in the released film. What else?"
That comment was only in regards to the King Kong preview. I don't think War of the Worlds showed any CGI in their previews.
" That is why I'm saying that you really have not said much about the graphics."Well, Now I have said a bit more.
"From my point of view ...
The pacing of the landing and people's understanding of what was happening was very believable."
I had a problem with that. Two problems no less. I like to have a little more time to get to know the characters. Spielberg seemed to do the bare minimum for this. So they threw a baseball back and forth while bitching at each other and the girl acted older and wiser than her age. I didn't buy any of it and didn't care about these characters. Kind of kills the drama when one doesn't care about the main characters when they face danger. The other big problem. Um these robots were already here in the ground. why? Makes no sense whatsoever. Now consider the fact that they really weren't *that* far under the ground and there were how many of them? At least one under the city TC lived in. No one ever found one by chance or while drilling for water,oil or other things were look for under the ground? Sorry but it was a poor decision for the sake of a cool effects sequence. The effects are supposed to service the story not the other way around."The war machines were exceedingly well animated. The dynamics of their movement in the scenery very well done."
Yeah, they were cool.
"Any lack of detail in background scenery, I didn't notice because I was not looking for that."
I didn't notice it either. But again, I think tht was about the King Kong preview not War of the Worlds.
" In my experience, this is quite common in ALL movies that simulate some environment."
If it exists then it is a flaw. If it is noticeble then it is a bad flaw. These things are fair game when critiquing visual efects. I don't think that was a problem with War of the Worlds."The scene of carnage outside the mother's house with a downed airplane, quite horrific, well done."
Good set dressing no doubt. But how the hell did a commercial airplane get there overnight? That was a huge inconsistancy in this movie. Things don't work, now they work, now they don't. i hate that kind of stuff. The planes would have gone down when the watches and cars stopped working. No commercial planes would have taken off after that. Yet *that* plane crashed, on the house TC and family were staying in no less, about 12 hours after the initial attack of the aliens. No way. Now lets talk about TC beng the only guy in a big city who figured out how to fix a car. stupid. How about the twenty near death experiences he and the family had in fleeing from the initial attack. ridiculous. That works for Raiders of the lost Ark because that movie was an tribute to Saturday matinee serials. War of the Worlds was not. We were expected to suspend our disbelief not revel in it. Spielberg just presented one bad cliche after another. People can't run from a fireball!!!
"The remote eye in the basement was exceedingly well done, reminded me of the very impressive aquatic remote in "The Abyss"."
I liked in the Abyss. Felt like it was a cheap copy of that scene to a degree. Actually this was one of two scenes that were directly adapted from the first movie. But Spielberg managed to turn it stupid. So they hide behind a mirror and TC slips and makes a noise and his foot can be seen from behind the mirror. but no, it was a trick and TC cleverly swtched his foot with an empt old boot. I can alway find an empty boot when trying to hide myself. Ridiculous! A cheap trick using camara angles. No way those people could have gotten out from behind that mirror while that eye was right infront of them looking for them. Just a cheap trick for a cheap twist. Stupid. Lets not forget that TC and Tim Robins mangaed to have a silent wrestling match while they all played hide and seek with this high tech probe. As if this thing wouldn't have motion detector sensery or infra red technology or any other number of ways to easily detect the presence of people. All very stupid when all is said and done."he horrific mix of organic and mechanical features in the human cage again nicely done."
Looked good but again made no sense. Why were the people being fried during the first attack if they had significant value as fertilizer? Cheap twist. The effects, the action are there to suit the moment but when you step back they are cheats, inconsistancies. If you want to embelish the original story you better make it consistant and logical rather than just using it as dressing to service an unsupported twist.
"etc, etc, etc..."
Ditto. I could also go on and on.
.
You really should keep track of the crap you post or you will keep stepping in it.
.
nt.
.
CGI work can be and usually is worked on right up until a Feature's release. Obviously the producers are very happy with what they've seen, especially the live action, and since Kong won't be out until December one should expect far better live action/CGI interaction than available in a summer teaser.Of course if you prefer only grey poupon weepies and don't like any CGI flavored popcorn fun (or, more likely, you're determined to hate Peter Jackson no matter what), then you've probably already made up what little mind you have to dis King Kong even before it comes out.
AuPh
About whom are you talking?
Hate?
...I realize that English is your second language, but you do have the capacity to read it & understand the nuances, don't you? [see point #2]> > > "About whom are you talking?" < < <
You know good and well to whom I refer.
1) It read: "Peter Jackson," not "Jackson." As you well know, I'm refering to the man who produced and directed the upcoming King Kong AND your least favorite series of films, the highly lauded LoTR trilogy.
> > > "Hate?" < < <
Sheeeesh! You and your grey poupon buddy Victor have made it quite clear that you hate his films, going out of your way to belittle PJ's work at every opportunity and you've both been especially nasty to those who enjoy LoTR.
2) By "hate" I'm not refering to a personal dislike of the man as a human being, even though I can't say that for sure, but rather your hate of his artistic prowess as a Director, including his use of CGI as a special effects tool.
Personal jealousy of Peter Jackson's achievements aside, you seem to delight in ridiculing films that a great many intelligent folks appreciate.
AuPh
Don´t feel insecure.
(nt)
There is that definite parallel to Michael Jackson - watching kiddie movies surrounded by little kids...
...but I don't think folks want to be stuck with mental picture in their heads of you two moon-walking with Michael, so maybe we should drop the innuendoes, n'est-ce pas? ;^)AuPh
Thanks for the translation....
Your comment on the daughter reminded me of Laura Dern in Jurassic Park. I was rooting for T. rex!
Then you got my feeling right....
Over all a good ride.The pace of the movie was very fast, covering only two or three days of time. The audience's attention is effectively maintained by increasingly gruesome revaluations of the technology and intentions of the alien attackers. The plot line follows traditional science fiction first contact scenarios where one is led to peal the onion of an alien race. In this case, the onion is being forced down your throat by war machines.
As in most Hollywood action films, the special effects here reach a new plateau with the gigantic and truly horrific "Tripod" human extermination machines. These machines had been buried by the aliens underground long long ago and lay dormant until the day of the attack. Kudos to the effects team for bringing these devices to life as described in the original H.G. Wells text.
The script abandons the idealic country side of victorian England described in the book to echo the horror of 9/11 by setting the description of the landing in a large city, presumably New York. The carnage of the tripod war machines in the inner city provides endless additional opportunity for the special effects crew.
The central character, Ray Ferrier, played by Tom Cruise, aquires some depth as the divorced father desperately tries to save what is left of his family. His son gives him a lesson in responsibility and duty, wanting to join the soldiers in the conflict, once again bringing us all back to our current war on terror. The chaos and complete break down of civil society is illustrated in two key scenes, one with a mass riot at a ferry dock, and another more personally illustrated conflict between Cruise and a slightly insane Tim Robins who replaces "The Astronomer",Ogilvy, from the book.
Surely not a "Great" movie, but a hell of a story and well executed. If only H.G. Wells could have seen his machines come to life. What an imagination!
Well( s ) you got the optimistic view and me...the realsitic one.
I refuse to allow myself to a comparison to the book.
I am just tired of the ever and ever tzhe same scheme of this kind of films.But you review was far better than the film.....in itself....He-he....
.
he-he...
Friends don't let friends watch Tom. I let you only because of the AC - heck, in 36 degrees I too would crawl into any theater!I would even watch Debbie Does Dallas sitting next to Pee Wee Herman.
I felt free to watch it.....He-he....
I cheat... you cheat... did you buy faux leather pants?
No but boots made of Spanish leather....
.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
