War of the Worlds

**MikMo** · January 15th, 2006, 12:26 PM

H.G. Wells must be turning over in his grave. First, Steven Spielberg butchered War of the Worlds in every form and fashion known to man (am I the only one that wanted to smack Dakota Fanning and tell her SHUT THE HELL UP!!!)....the sole reason most wanted to see this movie is to see how the Martians would lay down some whoop-ass and the military's efforts to stop the otherworldly invaders. Instead, Spielberg doses out a driveling family story. Piece of advice, Steven...stick to flicks like Schindlers List and Munich...let Lucas and others tackle Sci-Fi. If this piece of trash wasn't bad enough, here comes the Sci-Fi channel with their version of the Wells classic, starring Timothy Hutton. (And what the hell has he been doing the past 10 years, smoking crack??? He looked about 95!) You know, I thought I'd seen some bad movies in my time, but this actually made me feel embarrassed for the Sci-Fi channel. If you didn't know the title of the movie and weren't familiar with the story, no one would really know what it's about! It's not even established half way through the movie that the invaders are even aliens....Hutton's character, a supposed astronomer, isn't even given a chance to use even the most trite of cliches one would expect from this movie. All you see is him walking from town to town, with the shoddy effect thrown in from time to time. Seriously, one has to wonder how in the world the Sci-Fi channel can stay on the air by throwing their money into such horrendous productions. Just want to say....Mr. Wells, I am sorry.

**imported_MoonlightGraham** · January 15th, 2006, 02:45 PM

Well look at the star, I am sure Tom Cruise and his "religion" had some say in production. His belief is that aliens have came down on Earth and created humans.

**imported_elp6n** · January 15th, 2006, 02:51 PM

If a movie has Tom Cruise in it I don't watch it. That man is an idiot.

January 15th, 2006, 02:53 PM

I think the Scientology has got some of these Movie Stars into a cult like fashion. If you notice they all have some pretty weird views at times.
Just like i think Tom Cruise going off on one other star for getting treatment for depression. Saying it could all be treated natural and they were wrong for promoting a medication to help post partum depression.

**imported_elp6n** · January 15th, 2006, 03:00 PM

He basically called Brooke Shields a bad person for treating her severe postpartum depression with medication.

He also said that depression (esp post-partum) isn't real. All Brooke needed to do was "exercise and take vitamins. "
I'd like to know: when's the last time this man gave birth?

I sure hope poor Katie Holmes doesn't have any complications or even so much as the 'baby blues.' He'll have her in the gym 2 hours after birth forcing vitamins down her throat. (This is the same man that took his very pregnant fiance ice skating in sleet and snow for her birthday... real smart.)

He also got into it with Matt Lauer and told Matt that he knew nothing about psychiatry (and Tom does????).

He's completely off his rocker. In my mind I see him as a holier-than-thou, know-it-all, controlling freak.

Cruise, who claims to have helped people fight drug addictions through his controversial Scientology religion, says the Suddenly Susan actress should have used vitamins to help her feelings of despair.

Cruise says, "Here is a woman, and I care about Brooke Shields because I think she is an incredibly talented woman. You look at, where has her career gone?"

Despite the Minority Report actor's declaration her career is over, Shields is currently receiving rave reviews playing murderess Roxie Hart in the London theatre production of Chicago.

Cruise maintains, "These drugs are dangerous. I have actually helped people come off.

"When you talk about postpartum, you can take people today, women, and what you do is you use vitamins. There is a hormonal thing that is going on, scientifically, you can prove that. But when you talk about emotional, chemical imbalances in people, there is no science behind that.

"You can use vitamins to help a woman through those things."

**imported_ut1** · January 15th, 2006, 03:56 PM

I didn't get to see the Sci-Fi channel remake, and with your review, am glad I didn't. I agree with you on the Spielberg remake....and I spent good money to see it at the theater, too. I had to swallow my pride there, also, since I don't care for Cruise much either. I wanted the remake to be an upscaled version of the original, but it failed miserably to live up to my expectations. Getting back to the original, I just put my order in for it on DVD. [img]/LDPforum/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

**MikMo** · January 15th, 2006, 04:12 PM

The original is a classic that may never be topped. Full of suspense and great effects for it's day. Sure, you can see the wires on the Martian ships, but with suspension of disbelief, you really believe you're in the middle of a Martian invasion. The suspense of the Martian machine coming up out of the pit, the Army throwing everything they had at the invaders and getting pummelled, the suspense at the farmhouse....all things lacking from the Spielberg version.

**Jason** · January 15th, 2006, 04:14 PM

Thats the way it goes. Just look at the Dukes of Hazzard. If they want to make it different then give it a different name. Dont degrade something like that.