Language Selection

English French German Italian Portuguese Spanish

Review: War of the Worlds

Filed under
Movies
Reviews
-s

The Steven Spielberg remake of War of the Worlds was a bit of a disappointment to me. I'd been looking forward to seeing it and the preview trailers looked exciting. But the finished project couldn't live up to the hype.

The most redeeming feature of the film was the performances by veteran Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, and Tim Robbins. The interaction of these characters was in the best of Hollywood tradition. The script itself had such potential. Unfortunately the character study will probably overshadowed by what was promised to be epic proportioned action sequences. Perhaps by trying to remain true to the original in some sense of the word, Spielberg missed the mark. The "machines" were clunky and unbelievable from such a highly advanced race of beings planning an extermination for a million years. The ground attack strategy by tripod-like vehicles looked like something out of the 40's or 50's. The laser effect disintegrating humans and structures in mass proportions again was something out of the 60's, although I did like the raining-clothes effect. With today's computer aided graphics, why was so much money spent on a film that could have been made 25 years ago and probably more believable?

Which leads to where the rubber meets the road. The whole film was just not believable. Not one chill, thrill or goosebump was had. The unconvincing design and effects disappointed this viewer. The movie may have had a wonderful first weekend in the theaters, grossing over 200 million dollars worldwide, but I believe once the word gets out that it falls so flat, attendance will drop off immensely. The creatures who make camio appearances were up to Spielbergs' reputation and perhaps he should have given more screentime to them instead of the antiquated machines sweeping through New England. I've found Marvin the Martian's hand-annihilator more exciting.

I expected more from such a usually wonderful director. I give it 2 penguins out of 5.

Dang

I loved the movie. It was suspense through out especially the basement sequence! The special effects are great. I was on the edge of my seat many times during the movie.

re: Dang

Yeah, I think I'm in the minority. But here's one that pretty funny. I never read other's reviews if I'm gonna do one myself - til at least after I've written mine. I was surprized to see so many people didn't recognize we were being cheated by the 50's-Japanese-Godzilla-like effects! Big Grin

I did like the main character and Tom Cruise was quite convincing. In fact I really enjoyed him in that "average-Joe-loving-father" role. Quite the departure for him I must say. Big Grin And Tim Robbins is one of the underestimated greats - much like Stephen Rae (anyone recognize that name?). He played the madman to the hilt. I always enjoy Tim Robbins.

----
You talk the talk, but do you waddle the waddle?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

More in Tux Machines

The Fox Hunt - Firefox and friends compared

So what should you use? Well, it depends. You want extensions, the entire repertoire as it's meant to be? Go with Pale Moon, but be aware of the inconsistencies and problems down the road. However, another piece of penalty is less than optimal looks. If you are more focused on speed and future development, then it's Firefox, as it offers the most complete compromise. The add-ons will make it or break it. Waterfox makes less sense, because the margins of benefit are too small. My take is - Firefox. It's not ideal, but Pale Moon does not solve the problem fully, it combines nostalgia with technicals, and that's a rough patch, even though the project is quite admirable in what it's trying to do. Alas, I'm afraid the old extensions will die, and the new ones won't be compatible, so the browser will be left stranded somewhere in between. But hopefully, this little comparison test gives you a better overview and understanding how things work. Finally, we go back to the question of speed. We've seen how one flavor of Fox stacks against another, but what about Chrome? I will answer that in a follow-up article, which will compare Chrome to Vivaldi, again based on popular demand, and then we will also check how all these different browsers compare using my small, limited and entirely personal corner of the Web. Stay tuned. Read more Also: Firefox Private Browsing vs. Chrome Incognito: Which is Faster?

Tizen News

Android Leftovers

OnePlus 5T review: Come for the value, not the excitement

OnePlus isn't interested in holding back on specs, features or capabilities to make a big reveal of a new phone just once a year. The scrappy company has settled in on a refresh cycle every six months, with a big release followed by a mid-cycle bump to bring in the latest things it's been working on. The OnePlus 5T isn't meant to be an innovative leap of technology that blows your socks off — and honestly, none of its predecessors have been particularly groundbreaking, either. Nope, the 5T is still about value, simplicity and being tuned for what the Android enthusiast crowd craves from its phones. At $479 there wasn't much about the OnePlus 5 you could find a flaw with. Now six months later with a bigger screen, new secondary camera, neat Face Unlock feature and a $20 price bump, it's a pretty easy equation to figure out. Read more