War of the Worlds
Went to see War of the Worlds with hubby tonight. Wow. Just wow. It's been a long time since I felt awed by a movie. There was also fear, disgust, and shock -- everything a movie like this should provide. Bravo, Mr. Spielberg.
Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks Ebert has lost his marbles?
Tom Cruise's acting was serviceable. The kids bugged me a little. Dakota Fanning's precociousness and screaming bugged me a lot, actually. But a whacked-out Tim Robbins with a shotgun was priceless.
So, stingy reviews by fussy old movie critics notwithstanding, the movie was worth every penny of the admission price. Go see it.
Incidentally, am I the only one who thinks Ebert has lost his marbles?
I'll admit the movie was a little short on narrative, but is a movie about the earth being razed by murderous aliens supposed to be zesty and joyous? And only two stars?! What's the deal? The f/x alone are worth 2.5 stars. Ebert didn't like the tripods, but they were my favorite part of the movie. I haven't felt that kind of amazement looking at alien hardware since Star Wars."War of the Worlds" is a big, clunky movie containing some sensational sights but lacking the zest and joyous energy we expect from Steven Spielberg.
Tom Cruise's acting was serviceable. The kids bugged me a little. Dakota Fanning's precociousness and screaming bugged me a lot, actually. But a whacked-out Tim Robbins with a shotgun was priceless.
So, stingy reviews by fussy old movie critics notwithstanding, the movie was worth every penny of the admission price. Go see it.
1 Comments:
I agree, special effects were good, and the tripods were cool too, but I thought the story was amazingly improbable. And I am not referring to the aliens, I can suspend my disbelief for that. I am talking about the human reaction to the aliens. And there were a bunch of story inconsistencies too. Definitly not one of Spielbergs best. If I had three hands I would give it three thumbs down...
Post a Comment
Testing ...
<< Home