| Author |
Message |
|
Groucho
Extraordinary
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm
Posts: 12096
Location: Stroudsburg, PA
|
Spielberg doesn't make bad movies!
Even his worst movies are better than most of the rest of the crap that Hollywood spurns out.
_________________Buy my books! http://michaelaventrella.com
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:03 pm |
 
|
|
|
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am
Posts: 25990
|
 GuybrushX McMurphy wrote: I've just read a German review. The reviewer criticizes the following things (contains spoilers)
- Some parts are illogical (e.g. there's a power outage in the entire city and all the cars aren't working anymore, yet Cruise and Co. are driving around in their car and a single camera team is being shown filming the location).
- He calls Tim Robbins' character ridiculous.
- The movie is full of clichés.
- The ending is too rushed (the aliens appear as invincible within the first 110 minutes, just to be wiped out within 2 minutes afterwards).
- The ending is overly happy and doesn't suit the dark mood of the movie at all.
- The script is weak; the viewer isn't able to relate to Cruise and his family, because the characters have no substance and their activities (running away and hiding) get boring after a while.
- Archie Gates is right.. the reviewer also criticizes the fact that the American family life is displayed in a "cheesy" manner throughout the whole movie.
- The aliens (not the tripods, but the aliens themselves) in "War of the Worlds" look unimaginative and are unintentionally funny at times (there's supposed to be a scene where one of the aliens rides on a bike).
- Justin Chatwin's character is really bad; the reviewer mainly criticizes the exaggerated patriotism that is shown through the character. He leaves his family just to join the army and fight for his country.. Most Germans loathe stuff like that.
- Tom Cruise's character is unsympathic, although he's supposed to be the hero of the story.
- Tom Cruise's performance is solid, but not much more.
- As a conclusion he calls "War of the Worlds" the "most expensive C-Movie of all times". I agree with everything the reviewer stated. It might well be the most expensive C-Movie ever. _________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:09 pm |
|
|
|
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am
Posts: 13347
|
GuybrushX McMurphy wrote: - As a conclusion he calls "War of the Worlds" the "most expensive C-Movie of all times". so he thought the 200 million budget waterworld was better than the 135 million budget war of the worlds. 
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:12 pm |
|
|
|
matatonio
Teh Mexican
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:56 pm
Posts: 26066
Location: In good ol' Mexico
|
Groucho wrote: Spielberg doesn't make bad movies!
Even his worst movies are better than most of the rest of the crap that Hollywood spurns out. Damn straight!!=D>
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 9:13 pm |
|
|
|
Michael.
No Wire Tampons!
Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 12:27 am
Posts: 23283
|
I guess the negative german reviews dont have anything to do with.... this then?
No...didnt think so,
We are sitting at 91% with 35 reviews
Avg: 7.6/10
100% fresh COTC with avg of 7.8/10
_________________
I'm out.
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:05 pm |
|
|
|
Spidey
Teenage Dream
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 8:13 pm
Posts: 10678
|
Great reviews for War of the Worlds. Hope it stays this high.
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:20 pm |
|
|
|
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am
Posts: 13347
|
Michael wrote: I guess the negative german reviews dont have anything to do with.... this then? No...didnt think so, We are sitting at 91% with 35 reviews Avg: 7.6/10 100% fresh COTC with avg of 7.8/10 "The Berliner Morgenpost compared Paramount to the aliens in the film, looking to "achieve world domination.""
:laugh:
Paramount is looking to achieve a decent opening weekend. Period.
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 10:28 pm |
|
|
|
Jeff
Christian's #1 Fan
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2004 8:25 pm
Posts: 28110
Location: Awaiting my fate
|
Reviews look great, even better then expected. I think I just may have to fight the crowds and see this tomorrow.
_________________
See above.
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:18 pm |
|
|
|
Maverikk
Award Winning Bastard
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am
Posts: 15310
Location: Slumming at KJ
|
Groucho wrote: Spielberg doesn't make bad movies!
Even his worst movies are better than most of the rest of the crap that Hollywood spurns out. You like Ebert as a reviewer, so you might not want to read his review. One thumbs down from Ebert weighs more than 50 postive reviews at RT, and we all know it.
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:18 pm |
|
|
|
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am
Posts: 13347
|
Ebert gave it 2 stars, same as he gave The Pacifier. His review isn't up quite yet, maybe in a few hours, but the stars are there by the review link on his site.
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:21 pm |
|
|
|
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm
Posts: 10266
Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
Archie Gates wrote: Ebert gave it 2 stars, same as he gave The Pacifier. His review isn't up quite yet, maybe in a few hours, but the stars are there by the review link on his site. His review is up at rottentomatoes.
And no Mav, one thumbs down from Ebert doesn't mean more than 50 positive reviews for me. Ebert has no credibility anymore, as far as I'm concerned. If he was actually still a good reviewer, I might care more.
PEACE, Mike 
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:25 pm |
|
|
|
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am
Posts: 25990
|
Finally! I knew Ebert would agree with me.
It's me and Ebert vs. all those other fools.
Clearly, our team wins.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:28 pm |
|
|
|
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am
Posts: 13347
|
MikeQ. wrote: Archie Gates wrote: Ebert gave it 2 stars, same as he gave The Pacifier. His review isn't up quite yet, maybe in a few hours, but the stars are there by the review link on his site. His review is up at rottentomatoes. And no Mav, one thumbs down from Ebert doesn't mean more than 50 positive reviews for me. Ebert has no credibility anymore, as far as I'm concerned. If he was actually still a good reviewer, I might care more. PEACE, Mike Nah it isn't, they have a quote of his and a link to the review but if you click it you get taken to a page with a short synopsis of the movie (a litte preview page before the review is put up) and no review. But it has 2 stars. Thats how I saw it had 2 stars.
It will probably be up after midnight though.
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:29 pm |
|
|
|
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm
Posts: 10266
Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
Archie Gates wrote: MikeQ. wrote: Archie Gates wrote: Ebert gave it 2 stars, same as he gave The Pacifier. His review isn't up quite yet, maybe in a few hours, but the stars are there by the review link on his site. His review is up at rottentomatoes. And no Mav, one thumbs down from Ebert doesn't mean more than 50 positive reviews for me. Ebert has no credibility anymore, as far as I'm concerned. If he was actually still a good reviewer, I might care more. PEACE, Mike Nah it isn't, they have a quote of his and a link to the review but if you click it you get taken to a page with a short synopsis of the movie (a litte preview page before the review is put up) and no review. But it has 2 stars. Thats how I saw it had 2 stars. It will probably be up after midnight though. Oh, I meant that I saw it there. I didn't realize the link doesn't work. I've already read the review and knew he gave it 2 stars a long time ago. Someone posted the review in another thread here.
PEACE, Mike
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:37 pm |
|
|
|
Dkmuto
Forum General
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2004 1:00 am
Posts: 6502
|
MikeQ. wrote: Archie Gates wrote: Ebert gave it 2 stars, same as he gave The Pacifier. His review isn't up quite yet, maybe in a few hours, but the stars are there by the review link on his site. His review is up at rottentomatoes. And no Mav, one thumbs down from Ebert doesn't mean more than 50 positive reviews for me. Ebert has no credibility anymore, as far as I'm concerned. If he was actually still a good reviewer, I might care more. PEACE, Mike :???:
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:40 pm |
|
|
|
Maverikk
Award Winning Bastard
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:03 am
Posts: 15310
Location: Slumming at KJ
|
MikeQ. wrote: And no Mav, one thumbs down from Ebert doesn't mean more than 50 positive reviews for me. Ebert has no credibility anymore, as far as I'm concerned. If he was actually still a good reviewer, I might care more. PEACE, Mike I don't really care for his overly picky reviews, either, but I don't think there is any denying that, with the masses, he's probably the most well known and powerful critic of the lot. Lots of folks follow his fat little thumb.  :down:
|
| Tue Jun 28, 2005 11:47 pm |
|
|
|
A. G.
Draughty
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:23 am
Posts: 13347
|
Roeper has grown on me, I'll be more unsettled if he does'nt like it.
|
| Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:36 am |
|
|
|
xXVincentxX
La Bella Vito
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:56 pm
Posts: 9146
|
This could be the best rated movie of the year.
Go War of the Worlds! \:D/
|
| Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:37 am |
|
|
|
STEVE ROGERS
The Greatest Avenger EVER
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 4:02 am
Posts: 18501
|
MikeQ. wrote: Archie Gates wrote: Ebert gave it 2 stars, same as he gave The Pacifier. His review isn't up quite yet, maybe in a few hours, but the stars are there by the review link on his site. His review is up at rottentomatoes. And no Mav, one thumbs down from Ebert doesn't mean more than 50 positive reviews for me. Ebert has no credibility anymore, as far as I'm concerned. If he was actually still a good reviewer, I might care more. PEACE, Mike  This guy has shit more times than you've seen movies.. I suppose if it were a movie you liked and he agreed and gave it thumbs up, you would be singing a different tune huh?? The guy doesn't get a Star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame for having no credibility.._________________http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dmXF3CE04A This kills TDKR At the box office next summer.. Get used to this
|
| Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:42 am |
|
|
|
xXVincentxX
La Bella Vito
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 11:56 pm
Posts: 9146
|
BKB_The_Man wrote: MikeQ. wrote: Archie Gates wrote: Ebert gave it 2 stars, same as he gave The Pacifier. His review isn't up quite yet, maybe in a few hours, but the stars are there by the review link on his site. His review is up at rottentomatoes. And no Mav, one thumbs down from Ebert doesn't mean more than 50 positive reviews for me. Ebert has no credibility anymore, as far as I'm concerned. If he was actually still a good reviewer, I might care more. PEACE, Mike BKB, he is entitled to his own opinion. Why can't you just leave it at that? Why must you constantly beat a dead horse? 
|
| Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:54 am |
|
|
|
Joker's Thug #3
Extraordinary
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 2:36 am
Posts: 11130
Location: Waiting for the Dark Knight to kick my ass
|
I dont agree with Ebert all the time, but he usually has the balls to say it how it is, and unlike Variety and such who dont have their own opinion their opinions are based on what they think the generel public will like, his opinion is his own, he doesnt care what otheres will think of it.
_________________ "People always want to tear you down when you're on top, like Napoleon back in the Roman Empire" - Dirk Diggler
Last edited by Joker's Thug #3 on Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
|
| Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:59 am |
|
|
|
Amos
Indiana Jones IV
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:54 pm
Posts: 1585
Location: New Zealand
|
BKB_The_Man wrote: This guy has shit more times than you've seen movies.. No doubt, else he'd have serious problems
_________________
Cut My Milk!
|
| Wed Jun 29, 2005 12:59 am |
|
|
|
El Maskado
Arrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh!
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:17 pm
Posts: 21572
|
Amos wrote: BKB_The_Man wrote: This guy has shit more times than you've seen movies.. No doubt, else he'd have serious problems Yeah no kidding and BKB even got the statement completely wrong and reversed it. Maybe its the constipation that didnt make BKB think clearly
|
| Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:05 am |
|
|
|
MikeQ.
The French Dutch Boy
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:28 pm
Posts: 10266
Location: Mordor, Middle Earth
|
BKB_The_Man wrote: MikeQ. wrote: Archie Gates wrote: Ebert gave it 2 stars, same as he gave The Pacifier. His review isn't up quite yet, maybe in a few hours, but the stars are there by the review link on his site. His review is up at rottentomatoes. And no Mav, one thumbs down from Ebert doesn't mean more than 50 positive reviews for me. Ebert has no credibility anymore, as far as I'm concerned. If he was actually still a good reviewer, I might care more. PEACE, Mike Perhaps I am biased because of this one film, but with me personally he has lost a lot of credibility. I definately don't go to him anymore to see whether I should watch a film, or else I'd be skipping War of the Worlds and going off to see The Honeymooners.
PEACE, Mike
|
| Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:05 am |
|
|
|
El Maskado
Arrrrrrrrrrgggghhhhhhhhhh!
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 8:17 pm
Posts: 21572
|
Groucho wrote: Spielberg doesn't make bad movies!
Even his worst movies are better than most of the rest of the crap that Hollywood spurns out. Uhum Hook
|
| Wed Jun 29, 2005 1:06 am |
|
|
