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.

[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.