Meh

[annuin]

Well, I guess that War of the Worlds really isn't all it's hyped up to be.

Roger Ebert only gives it 2 stars, which is the same his rating for Rebound, some cruddy looking basketball/redemption movie with Martin Lawrence.

The review itself is fairly painful.

Anyway, I guess we can find something else to do this holiday weekend then :P

Comments

[moschus.livejournal.com]

I saw it. Although it isn't a great film I'd still say it's worth seeing. The main issue I had with this movie is that the sum of its parts is lesser than the whole, if you know what I mean -- the movie just doesn't come together in the end in a satisfying way -- and yet some of those parts, those sequences, are masterfully done, and riveting.

[tanthe.livejournal.com]

Problem is I've recently seen movies who are way more than the sum of their parts, and pretty stellar as their whole, so on that count alone I worry that I'm just not going to be all that impressed when seeing it.

It's always a little harder to watch something that's a tad "meh" when you've seen something the week before that was tight and lots of fun.

[blu-muse.livejournal.com]

I havent seen it yet but my brother did and he REALLY liked it (and he's picky about films). I'm going today or tomorrow. Ebert's main gripe is he didn't like the tripods and well, that was what was in the original. If they had changed them - made them more "modern" as Ebert had wanted - tons of people would be complaining that they strayed from the original work. Ebert also complained that the invasion didn't make sense and that there seemed no reason for it. There was no "reason" given in the original. That's what makes it scary to me. If there were logic behind it, it wouldn't be so horrible. Caitlin said to remember that Ebert was also the same man who liked "Congo", heh.

[tanthe.livejournal.com]

Caitlin said to remember that Ebert was also the same man who liked "Congo", heh.

Touché. The book "Congo" was a decent read from what I remember, and quite different to the movie. I remember wondering if the scriptwriters had actually read the book when I saw the movie for the first time.

So in some instances Ebert's taste is dubious... but by and large I do agree with his reviews (for movies I've seen), and I certainly respect his opinion.

We'll probably see the movie anyway, as PreZ is pretty into the whole War of the Worlds thing, recently he's been listening to the BBC radio play of it again.

Am I lame for feeling a bit put off it because of the whole Tom Cruise thing? :P Though his recent idiotic comments aside, the fact that most of his roles nowadays seem to be the generic hero roles also puts me off. I wish he'd put himself out there into challenging and different roles, it's like he's on repeat most of the time. At least Nicole Kidman keeps you guessing with what she comes up with next, and does pretty well at most things she tries.

Plus, after having recently seen Batman Begins, which I thought was very good indeed, I don't really want to see something that's going to be a let down in comparison so soon :P