I saw this with one of my best girlfriends today, we decided to have a girls afternoon out and play hooky from our jobs as moms and business owners. My friend liked it a bit more than I did, though she did think it kind of dragged on a bit in the set of scenes with Tim Robbins (not Robbins fault). The special effects were great and all, and hey - I love explosions in films, but the premise of the aliens strategy just didn't really work completely for me, the only way I could think to reconcile the whole thing was to think that maybe they needed a certain volume of humans to be around and they were waiting until that volume was reached before they attacked. If they just wanted the planet they could have easily gotten that thousands of years ago with much less resource output on their part. I found the alien attack premise/reasons behind the unofficial remakes of Independence Day, Mars Attacks and even the cheesy original War of the Worlds movie more plausible. I don't remember the alien machines already being here under the ground in the original film, I thought they came down in the "meteors." I recall reading the HG Wells story as a teen but honestly I can't remember enough details to compare it to either "official" films. The effects are spectacular for sure and the film generally moves at a pretty good clip, but as for Tom Cruise, in some parts he was believable as the blue collar father, in other parts he was just too staged and melodramatic in my opinion. And while I understand the little girl seemed to have a panic disorder, I really could have done with a bit less screaming from her. It just got old and really annoying and for me, detracted from the rest of the film. I do really like the incorporated idea that bacteria and other microscopic lifeforms that have become benign for us on this planet could be deadly to any extraterrestrial lifeforms. I've seen the reverse mentioned in plans for theoretical missions to other planets of course for years and even the movie's premise of defeat used in other films, but I like it because it is simple and it seems plausible. It's more plausible than the premise behind SIGNS - that aliens who can't tolerate water would come try to conquer a planet that is mostly water. Chuck Hards <chuckhards@yahoo.com> wrote: I have misgivings. I've never enjoyed a Cruise performance to date, don't think much of his views as expressed in public, so he's not really a draw for me. Too, Rich's is the only overall good review I've heard yet- most go something like "excellent special effects, but that's about all it has going for it". The story's premise of the alien's strategy seems farfetched. But I guess I'll find out for myself soon enough. Thanks, Rich! C. --- Richard Tenney wrote:
[I posted this yesterday but it somehow never made it to the list; apologies if you however get this twice.]
Saw the new movie Wed. night; very much enjoyed it, and the feel stays close to the (50's? 60's?) classic, with one big storyline variation that I thought was somewhat inconsistent/flawed (but I'll not spoil it for you; contact me off-list if you want to know/discuss that).
The look is of course state of the art -- CGI effects that sometimes make the hair stand up on the back of your neck. Very intense. Decent acting job by Cruise and especially Dakota (she's an amazing small person).
Kudos (again) to Spielberg.
Rich
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com