Jump to content


Photo

War of The Worlds


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
197 replies to this topic

#1 jack bauer

jack bauer
  • Members
  • 629 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 09:47

spilberg je kralj akcije i naucnofantasticnog spektakla.
kruz ozbiljniji nego ikada.
dakota fening ocaravajuca.

iako bi se po temi i trejleru mogao ocekivati starship troopers akcioni film, WOW je zapravo bliskiji ideji saving private ryan (genijalan autocitat scene iskrcavanja u normandiju dat je u prvoj rafalnoj paljbi masina po zemljanima), samo sa mnogo manje patetike.
a dramska radnja je vise i realnije/uverljivije fokusirana na likove.
naravno, ne treba se zanositi i ocekivati halhartlijevski rad sa glumcima, ali nacin na koji prica odmice, genijalan nacin na koji je spilberg oslikao formiranje odnosa zemljana prema onom sto im se desava (cika i vriska pomesani su sa gotovo perverznom radoznaloscu, i blagom cinicnom distancom prema dolasku masina).

kruz i dakota fenomenalno nose film, obzirom da dominiraju u gotovo 85% filma.

remek delo. nemojte da propustite, samo zato sto ste tvrdoglavi.

Edited by jack bauer, 30 June 2005 - 09:53.


#2 Lynn

Lynn
  • Members
  • 224 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 10:43

Kada se Spilberg bavi vanzemaljcima to ne treba propustiti
posto je po meni njegov prvenac (valjda) BLISKI SUSRETI TRECE VRSTE legenda SF-a.

Kad odgledam, javljam utiske.

#3 Dunadan

Dunadan
  • Members
  • 12,305 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 11:26

uh, bliski susreti su neshto najdosadnije shto postoji, pola filma moze da komotno da se izbaci.
WOW, jedva chekam :lol:

#4 Larko

Larko
  • Banned
  • 6,536 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 11:28

izuzetno sam znatizeljan da vidim kako to izgleda. jos od prvih probijanja medijske blokade (kriticarima je zabranjivano da objavljuju pre premijere) na aintitcool i slicnim sajtovima, moglo se naslutiti upravo ovo o cemu pise jack. covek je majstor zabavnog spektakla. zamerke amera su uglavnom na to kako se zavrsava, tj. na to sto se zavrsava mikrobskim whimperom, umesto imbecilnim razvaljivanjem mothershipa (kao u ID4).
posto je wellsov roman bio parabola o belom kolonijalizmu (a onaj iz '53 pravljan usred hladnog rata i straha od ruske invazije) logicno je da update bude prica o 'enemy within'. plot holes i tsl me ne interesuju, zelim da vidim jurnjavu i cini mi se da me to i ocekuje.

sto rece neko, ovo je ultimate geek summer - prvo epizoda III, pa batman returns, pa sad WoW. jesam li sta propustio da dodam?

#5 tamburix

tamburix
  • Members
  • 333 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 11:44

uh, bliski susreti su neshto najdosadnije shto postoji, pola filma moze da komotno da se izbaci.
WOW, jedva chekam :huh:

nisu vanzemaljci ali kada se samo setim AI muka me spopadne.
od tog filma sam zamrzeo Spilberga :lol:

#6 jack bauer

jack bauer
  • Members
  • 629 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 12:05

posto je wellsov roman bio parabola o belom kolonijalizmu (a onaj iz '53 pravljan usred hladnog rata i straha od ruske invazije) logicno je da update bude prica o 'enemy within'. plot holes i tsl me ne interesuju, zelim da vidim jurnjavu i cini mi se da me to i ocekuje.

u nekoliko navrata u filmu, mala dakota odn rejcel pita tatu toma- da li su ovo teroristi?
mislim da je spilberg dosta rizikovao ovim umesnim (u kontekstu americke paranoje), ali i cinicnim opaskama.

sto se adrenalinskog rusha tice, film je od pocetka do kraja bezanija bez prestanka.


sto se filma A.I. tice, iako njime nisam bio odusevljen kada se pojavio, cini mi se da ce njegova privlacnost ipak biti dugovecnija nego sto nam se sada cini.
majkl dzekson je fan B)

#7 jack bauer

jack bauer
  • Members
  • 629 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 12:28

:huh: nemojte da citate, ako niste gledali!!!


(rekao bih da je :lol: koji je ovo recenzirao svrsavao na million dollar baby, sto nas dvojicu cini dvama svetovima. u ratu...)

www.boxofficemojo.com


WAR OF THE WORLDS
U.S. Release Date: June 29, 2005
Distributor: Paramount
Director: Steven Spielberg
Writer: David Koepp
Producer: Paula Wagner
Cast: Tom Cruise, Dakota Fanning, Tim Robbins
Running Time: 1 hour and 57 minutes
MPAA Rating: PG-13 (frightening sequences of sci-fi violence and disturbing images)


Spielberg's Remake is a Grisly Exploit
by Scott Holleran


Steven Spielberg's cinematic version of H.G Wells' 1898 novel War of the Worlds—like other movies in his illustrious career—is big, thunderous and horrifying. He visualizes the book's theme that man is puny by eviscerating Western civilization. Having admitted his aim to recall the Islamic terrorist attack of September 11, 2001, which he crudely exploits, Mr. Spielberg creates a nauseating movie, one that probably ought to be avoided by those who experienced the assault at close range.


Inducing horror with slow, deliberate action punctuated by dreamlike silence, Mr. Spielberg, an ace at evoking terror, from Duel to Jaws, takes his cue from that day's atrocity in lower Manhattan. His War of the Worlds is a smattering of the most awful pictures of our time: falling bodies, faces covered with human remains, missing person posters, downed passenger jet parts.




The perceptual-bound script spares Tom Cruise the need to do anything but well up occasionally. His divorced, dock-working dad takes the kids (Justin Chatwin and Dakota Fanning) for the weekend and a predictable set-up precedes New Jersey becoming a frying pan. The insolent teenager back talks and the precocious daughter whines. The childlike wonder of Mr. Spielberg's Close Encounters of the Third Kind, with Melinda Dillon's toddler, memorably played by Cary Guffey, innocently drawn to the aliens, gives way to the childhood neuroses of a little girl (Fanning) with back pain and bags under her eyes. We're not in Indiana anymore.


An ominous cloud forms, lightning strikes, and half the neighborhood comes out to investigate the deafening sound, blinding light and shaking movement enveloping them. Placing Mr. Cruise and his neighbors on the cusp of awareness as they survey the calm before the carnage, the force is powerful—like Tyrannosaurus Rex's thumps in Jurassic Park—and a sense of dread swells. Once the enemy emerges, in another trivialization of the Sept. 11 attack, War of the Worlds slips into standard 1950's science fiction—metal monsters, silly action, no purpose—accompanied by a parade of grisly images.


After watching humans being vaporized by aliens, Mr. Cruise manages to hijack a minivan, grab the kids and split, stupidly heading for his ex-wife's house a gas tank away from where the aliens commenced zapping. The plot follows the squabbling family.


Dad learns more about the enemy—as fascinating as a housefly—and he functions as an automaton, activating neither a strategy nor a resistance. For what it's worth, Mr. Spielberg's reluctance to engage Mr. Cruise in action heroism suggests the Bush administration's incompetent response to 9/11: put America on homeland security lockdown, don't retaliate against the worst enemy states and issue bromides about helping others. Mr. Cruise's face is a familiar anchor for the first half, but once it's clear that he might as well be one of the Pod People, War slows to a trickle.


Son yearns to shoot back, Dad won't let him, and sister screams for most of the movie. The world has gone to hell, and this trio doesn't do much besides shriek, cry and watch corpses float down the river. Man is powerless, which is to say meaningless, and, as Morgan Freeman's narrative explains, he can be crushed like a bug by any random act of nature.


As Mr. Spielberg kills things off with a discharge of alien gunk, he dispenses with what was once his best asset: a sense of individuality, from Goldie Hawn's defiant mother in The Sugarland Express to Richard Dreyfuss as a doomed pilot in Always. His War of the Worlds is like a Norman Rockwell painting splattered with blood: throngs of average people in chronic fear, surrounded by dead bodies. Supposing this horror is realistic—these days, it's real enough—it is no less rotten to endure. Watching Tom Cruise wander the world and be pummeled with bodies is plenty agony without the message that man had it coming.

#8 jack bauer

jack bauer
  • Members
  • 629 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 13:02

nepojamno mi je dosadno na poslu :lol:

evo jos jednog S P O J L E R A!!!!

odn jos jedne budaletine pustene u svet recenzenata, koja, razocarana, nije nasla ni zrno abaskjerostamijevske empatije u spilbergovom remek delu

read and weep...


Review: 'War of the Worlds' Feels Generic
Wednesday June 29 11:48 AM ET


Big concept. Big director. Big star. Big, big budget. Big deal. Steven Spielberg and Tom Cruise's "War of the Worlds" comes off exactly the way it started: An assemblage of enormous talent on a frantic dash to meet a deadline. They made it, but the rush job they delivered shortchanges story, character, design and even execution on some of the colossal special-effects sequences.

The update of H.G. Wells' sci-fi classic of marauders from the skies went on the fast-track late last summer, when a narrow window opened in Spielberg and Cruise's schedules. Their haste shows.

"War of the Worlds" is so disjointed and episodic, it plays like 32 short films about alien invasions. As a divorced dad, Cruise alternates through a succession of explosive action scenes and uninspired exchanges with his two screeching and moaning kids.

Among disappointments of modern Hollywood, "War of the Worlds" ranks with "Pearl Harbor" and the "Planet of the Apes" remake, two other bloated spectacles conceived as blockbusters first, human dramas second.

This is Spielberg's "Attack of the Clones," a movie burdened with stiff dialogue and fatuous relationships, dolled up with the gloss of computer animation into a big-screen video game with puny humans as targets.

Millions are dying, yet unlike the wonderful blend of humanity and horror in George Pal's 1953 take on Wells' story, this "War of the Worlds" presents the masses as anonymous chaff.

The only three people who matter here are Cruise's Ray, an undependable father, his 10-year-old daughter, Rachel (Dakota Fanning), and his teenage son, Robbie (Justin Chatwin).

We're talking civilization on the ropes, about to go down, and Spielberg's spinning a tedious tale of a manchild who only learns to be a responsible father when space invaders land in his backyard.

In the opening minutes, the screenplay by Josh Friedman and David Koepp sets Ray up as a stereotype of the paternal ne'er-do-well, a guy who can't even manage to stock the fridge with food when his ex-wife (Miranda Otto) and her new hubby drop the kids off for the weekend.

After this superficial start, the fireworks begin. The skies turn blackish, bolts of blue lightning zap the earth, and towering machines bust out of the ground, wandering about on three legs and zapping people into dust and buildings into rubble.

Some visual effects, notably the alien tripods emerging, are remarkable and thrilling. Elsewhere, particularly in battle scenes involving the futile American military, Spielberg falls back on loud sound effects, colored lights beyond the horizon and close-ups of Ray and his terrified kids, as though time did not permit the filmmakers to finish the visuals on the drawing board.

Ray always seems to find himself at the heart of the storm, and though the screenwriters have told us he's a lunkhead, he manages to stay five steps ahead of the rest of the scurrying rabble and even pauses to point out a battle-strategy opportunity to oblivious soldiers. He's like an "X-Men" superhero whose mutant power is a mega-dose of street smarts.

Conveniently commandeering a minivan that's the only civilian vehicle still operating after the aliens' electromagnetic pulses fry our circuitry, Ray dashes away with his kids, a clear path somehow always appearing amid abandoned cars and mounds of debris.

Tim Robbins enters the movie with jarring abruptness as a semi-demented survivalist railing about payback against the aliens, and he departs just as suddenly.

NASA's Mars landings have scotched Wells' notion of invaders from the red planet, so Spielberg opts for aliens of unspecified origin. He retains some of Wells' other trappings, including the gnarly red weed that spreads across the landscape, and Morgan Freeman delivers opening and closing narration largely lifted from the novel.

Flying machines have been the norm in science fiction, so it's refreshing that Spielberg stuck to Wells' terrifying conception of mechanical monstrosities on stilts. Yet with their fluid motion, the alien tripods look like something grabbed off the reject pile from "The Matrix" movies and given a fresh shine.

Likewise, in the few glimpses we get of them, the aliens look like computer-generated concoctions begged, borrowed and stolen from any and every recent movie about space beasties. The creatures are more frightening when Spielberg only offers a peek; once we see them full on, they're nondescript and boring.

Given his sensational body of work, Spielberg's entitled to a clunker, but it's odd how generic "War of the Worlds" feels, lacking any real stamp of who's behind the camera.

This might as well be the hokey crowd-pleaser "Independence Day," another not-so-short film about alien invasions. And sadly and strangely, a better one.

"War of the Worlds," a Paramount release, is rated PG-13 for frightening sequences of sci-fi violence and disturbing images. Running time: 116 minutes. Two stars out of four.

#9 Erestor

Erestor
  • Members
  • 2,150 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 13:07

Moj ortak je bio sinoc na premijeri u SC i sav je pod utiskom. Ja cu ici ovih dana, a ukoliko je suditi po njegovim recima, film je stvarno extra.

#10 eye of the beholder

eye of the beholder
  • Members
  • 2,304 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 13:38

..neznam cemu toliko odusevljenje filmom
po meni film je GLUP ....

mislim, da nisam citao knjigu, nista mi ne bi bilo jasno ..

!!! SPOILER ON !!! selektuj prazan prostor ako hoces da procitas

dodju - umru ...
i u medjuvremenu
pobiju par miliona ljudi ....
nikakvo objasnjenje nije dato ...
cemu krvav korov, zasto su umrli i sl stvari .... WTF :lol:
i zasto/kako je sin preziveo ....

Tipican americki film, misilm vazno je da ima pucanja i da nakraju svi prezive ... :huh:


jedino sto je stvarno dobro u filmu je masa ljudi koja pokusava da mu udje u kola
i onaj lik koji golim rukama, skida ostatke soferke, nebili usao u kola ma u stvari sve je super u vezi sa razujarenom gomilom ...



!!! SPOJLER OFF !!!

#11 Eraserhead

Eraserhead
  • Members
  • 9,436 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 14:28

sto se filma A.I. tice, iako njime nisam bio odusevljen kada se pojavio, cini mi se da ce njegova privlacnost ipak biti dugovecnija nego sto nam se sada cini.


Sutra idem da gledam WoW tako da to necu komentarisati, ali svidelo mi se ovo sto si rekao za AI zato sto iako se ni meni nije film u prvi mah svideo(mada mi nije bio ni los) ima neku specificnost koja ga mozda ucini zanimljivijim za 50 godina nego sto je sada.

Edited by Eraserhead, 30 June 2005 - 14:29.


#12 Gandalf

Gandalf
  • Members
  • 7,553 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 14:33

film je odlican.

bez patetike, patriotskih sranja (this is our Independence Day! :lol: ), specijalni efekti su odlicni i ne narusavaju tok radnje.
Spilberg je ostao veran literarnom predlosku i odlicno ga prilagodio danasnjim desavanjima.

Tim Robins je maestralan. :huh:

Edited by Gandalf, 30 June 2005 - 14:33.


#13 copywriter

copywriter
  • Members
  • 166 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 17:07

Redak, previse dosadnjikavi, sluzavi trash koji ne zasluzuje vise od 4 minuta paznje. Dakle fast-fast-fast-forward, ukoliko ste u prilici da kontrolisete svoje vreme...

Rupcage u scenariju i doslednosti koje su vidljive cak i onima koji preziru "Bau Bau" princip uzivanja u iluziji (sve sto radi na struju vrisnulo, samo mini DV kamere rade, nije nego; sve je pod rusevinama, samo je put otvoren za njegov automobil - ili su vredni americki gradjani izgurali svoje aute sa druma da ne smetaju; pao avion smrskao tri hektara zemlje, sa akcentom na krug od 20 metara - ali vozilu nasem junaka nije nista!..), bedna gluma ("borba" Kruza i Robinsa je toliko upecatljiva da sam samo cekao da se okrenu ka kameri i pitaju "Je'l sad dosta? A sta, mora jos? 'Ajmo: gniiiiiiiiiiiii..."), efekti - nista posebno, jedino su doktorirali rusenje kuca i "dezintegraciju ljudskog tela" pod laserima...

U odnosu na ovaj film, "Event horizon" je cist Kjubrik a "Dan posle sutra" pokazna vezba iz dramaturgije...

Edited by copywriter, 30 June 2005 - 17:08.


#14 jack bauer

jack bauer
  • Members
  • 629 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 17:39

2 copywriter

znao sam da ce se pre ili kasnije pojaviti neki genije da izrazi cudenje zasto smo svi mi uzivali u belom, pa jos prasnjavom i pocepanom, platnu.

tvoje hvale vredne primedbe nesumnjivo ce, i ubrzo, naci kompanjone cim ekipa sa festivala autorskog filma odluci da odresi kesu ne bi li napunila usta.
(sto opet nikako ne znaci da ti nisi prijatelj holivuda, samo patis od neiskazanog razumevanja za bas ovaj naucnofantasticni spektakl)

sta znaci "redak"? (sem da nije "gust")
zasto je sluzav, i jos vise zasto je trash?

rupe u scenariju verovatno je video i spilberg. i to iz aviona. ali se nesto vodio idejom da ako ljudi progutaju da su vanzemljosi posadili sami sebe ispod tla, pa ih nisu nasli ni kopaci metroa, ni arheolozi, ni ono sto su isli u "core" da ga ponovo pokrenu, onda ce progutati da su i disciplinovani gradjani amerike ljuljnuli svoja vozila u stranu da tom i teenage bagra prodju.

dv kamere rade na baterije.
(a i zar je bitno? mislim, nije ovo naucni rad)

slazem se da je borba toma i tima malcice navucena. ali ko je progutao da se tom pre toga sudario sa protivnikom tri metra iznad zemlje nakon uzletanja sa motorcikla, taj je progutao i ovo. o uverljivosti opusa johna wooa da i ne govorim.

ukoliko vec silni ljubitelji autorskog filma iskazuju nevidjeno razumevanje za raznorazne amatere sirom sveta i istocne evrope, onda bi mogli i nesumnjivom mega reziseru, kakav je spilberg, da dozvole da i on ima neke mane koje treba pripisati njegovom "autorstvu".

covek voli da su mu heroji iz razrusenih familija. voli vanzemaljce. voli zemljane (u "ajkuli", "sindlerovoj listi"...). voli da neke stvari mogu, samo da bi neke druge jos vise mogle.

za uzivanje u dramaturgiji covek uzme pa gleda sopranose, ili, nedavno emitovani memories of murder (na azijskom festivalu). to su dela bez (dramaturskih) mana.

spilberga covek gleda, jer zeli da vidi nesto sto ima samo na filmu.

zar je tako tesko tome oprostiti evidentne i bizarne mane?

#15 shinobi

shinobi
  • Members
  • 1,114 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 19:13

zar wow nije rimejkovan vec u vidu independence daya, cemu opet prezvakavati isto... i jel opet vanzemljaci dobiju prehladu??