Down here, if you don't have the firepower of a platoon...
Well, you just ain't armed!
Posted on 07/10/2005 8:47:31 PM PDT by SmithL
IF THERE IS a theme to Steven Spielberg's new alien-invasion movie, "War of the Worlds," it is not that the human spirit has the courage that justifies human survival. Or that American know-how and grit can defeat invaders, even when the situation seems impossible. No, it is more like: If aliens invade, don't fight back. Run.
No need for self-defense. Mother Nature will take care of the non- indigenous occupiers.
While set in the Northeast, Spielberg's alien war seems very much like what would happen if aliens invaded Hollywood. There would be no praying, no talk of God, no homeowners defending their homes, no posses defending their communities, no 90210 teens enlisting to defend their country.
In Spielberg's world, as the invaders appeared, movie moguls would be finding a quick way out of town, while extolling their children to run faster. (Those aerobics classes should be good for something.)
Consider the rare civilians who have guns in the movie: Tom Cruise's character, Ray Ferrier, has a gun.
There is also a rifle-toting ex-paramedic played by Tim Robbins. Even though he, unlike the countless other civilians who are butchered while trying to evade the alien killing machines, chooses to do battle, he is revealed as "a bug-eyed maniac," says Chronicle reviewer Mick LaSalle, or "a fruitcake who fancies himself a member of the 'resistance,' " says the Washington Post's Michael O'Sullivan. You know he's a nut because he has a gun, a big gun. Mentally unstable, he, of course, invites his own demise.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Speilberg -- welcome to fantasy land and Utopia. I wonder if he would make a movie about how the world ridded itself of islamo-fascists and Muslim dictatorships -- and ended all wars!!!!??????
Yeah, I know, in your dreams....
Starting with Cruise on down, I'm glad I haven't gone to see this movie. Sounds as if it ranks right down there with 'Day After Tomorrow'.
Hmmm. I saw the movie. I didn't think it was "anti-war," or at least that seems inaccurate. It came off as a 9/11 movie, dramatizing what happened to the victims, and the "invaders" (cough cough, wink wink, nudge nudge) and how ruthless they were in exterminating the indigenous population.
I won't put a spoiler here but the hero (Cruise obviously) uses a different type of "diplomacy" where there's no other choice.
fwiw
The movie showed the US Military fighting and dying to protect civilians doing what they had to do - flee.
Was the movie a slanted a little to the left, sure.
But c'mon, just because the whole population didn't stand there and get vaporized doesn't mean that running was the hidden message.
Speilberg is a no talent hack. He may have money, but he is still a sad soul.
Thanks for the counter-balancing reports.
There are plenty of other facts that the author missed in her political rant...
1.) The roles of the soldiers in the film were filled by actual U.S. military soldiers. They were also portrayed as heroic, valient, and polite to the civilian population at large.
2.) The reason why the lead character spent his time running instead of fighting is that he was trying to keep his little girl safe. One of the largests points the movie made to me was that this character was redeeming himself to his children in the face of danger and evil.
3.) The Tim Robbins character became a raving lunatic after the aliens operated overhead, digging in the dirt below his basement, and yelling so loudly as to be heard by the aliens. He was not this noble fighter with a gun as the author suggests. 4.) Also, although Independence Day was a more patriotic film, this one focused on the fact that no one had communication with the central government. I also think it was trying to be different than Independence Day, so as not to be labled a copycat.
In summary, I think it was a well-made summer action movie, and this author's political rant notwithstanding, not a leftist movie. Certainly one of Spielberg's best movies. Not at all lame like that piece of crap A.I....
My son saw it and said it was terrible!! The previews show all the good parts. The rest is a lot of screaming by the little girl.
The theme of running showed in the clips I saw when I went to see Batman Begins.
That was a good movie (Batman).
And, it looks like they didn't screw up the Dukes (not a big favorite of mine but after what Hollywood did to Starsky and Hutch, I was imagining the worst for the Duke Boys).
Speilberg is going nuts, these days....this lines up with exactly what the scriptures teach us...Psalm 37, I think is one of those teachings!!!
I'll stick with Mars Attacks!
I did not see WOTW as an "anti-war" film. It showed the military in a good light. And I saw the Cruise character trying to keep his son from fighting as a "family" thing and not an anti-war message.
Obviously Rays actions involving the paramedic gave the message that sometimes violence is the answer.
maybe there's a good reason it dropped from #1 after its first week ?
The 1953 WOTW was far better -- much more interesting.
So it seems that they all want to swear off of WAR. Hey great idea! The problem is that it would take a great deal of such things as Honor and Virtue, more than Hollywood and the Socialist have in order to do it with Honor and the Virtues that are needed. Instead they have chosen to rewrite history and denounce God! I don't think their gonna make it!
"And I agree in this article that the Cruise character was not very heroic towards the general population, only his daughter."
Whereas, in cataclysms past (or even a freaking grease fire in the kitchen), parents don't instinctively, immediately, run to their children, and do everything they can to bring them out of the situation safely?
"Not very heroic toward the general population..."
Sorry, I just find that wierd. There was so much chaos and adrenalin spilling, and flat-out fleeing...what was he to do, tell his kids to "wait here," while he goes and finds someone else to save? You must have seen a different version than I did.
As I recall, it was the original story which contained this solution to the invasion. After all, this was a remake of War of the Worlds.
Producers and directors who totally revise an old movie or storyline during a remake are frequently and vehemently castigated for taking unreasonable liberties and hijacking the title. So it's not really fair to attack them from the other side for hewing too closely to the original storyline.
I thought the movie was so-so. Tom Cruise played a sort of everyman-jerk, who was put through the crucible of a terrifying extraterrestrial invasion and matured into an everyman-less-of-a-jerk.
I think the main lesson is that if you want a better movie, don't try remaking "War of the Worlds" just because the title has enormous name recognition.
The other main lesson is that if your goal is to make a sizeable pile of money, then do remake "War of the Worlds". And while you're at it, hire a big-name director like Spielberg and a big-name star like Tom Cruise.
To be honest, most people are chickenpoops and run from danger. That's what makes our military so heroic and that was depicted in the film. So for Spielberg to show a scared populace running for their lives with little regard for others is not too much a stretch. Look at our WOT - 4 years after 9/11 many people have forgotten the lesson and have no stomach to continue fighting the terroists. We've been reduced to whining about terrorist treatment at Gitmo and forcing the government to "brag" about the good treatment those scum are getting there.
"maybe there's a good reason it dropped from #1 after its first week ?"
A very good reason: nine times out of ten (and this holds true for the last 30 years), THIS week's summer release displaces LAST week's summer release. "Dropping" has no meaning whatsoever.
Yeah, that "no talent hack" is only one of the greatest directors ever, producing certified classics such as "ET", "Jaws", and "Saving Private Ryan."
Saunders obviously has too much time on their hands, worrying about a fictitious motion picture when there's real Islamic terrorists who want to destroy us all. Spielberg is perhaps the only director who have cast the troops in a good light.
Speilberg's a leftist extremist.
Also, the potentially most heroic of the main characters was Cruise's son, but they had him disappear completely halfway through for all the scenes leading to resolution.
And .. after the terror attacks in London and the people didn't panic - and everybody was amazed .. because it's never like that in the movies.
Even in NYC - the people didn't start running until the buildings started falling down and the clouds of crumbling cement started filling all the streets.
"Remember all those soldiers by assumption have families and children too, but there instinct to save as much of humanity in general went beyond their household."
Look, not to get into a pissing match about each of our subjective reactions to aspects of this movie...but I don't think the soldiers were acting on "instinct." I think they were acting on orders. I also know, that in such an extreme situation, if a soldier were to yield to an instinct to run and protect his family...he would be ordered shot.
Hey, the popcorn at my theater was good, but the diet Coke was a little too thin. See you at the cineplex.
Um, ET? Jaws? A deformed midget who wants to phone home and a big hungry fish does not a genius make.
(Yeah, Team America rocks!)
The "dukes" as a tv show was fine for mindlesss huumor, but a two hour hillbilly movie would be a bit much for me! I guess they're counting on Jessica's T&A to bring in the viewers - which means I won't be there. I can get the dime store sleaze for free on tv if I wanted to.
The London bombings make the numerous 9/11 references in the new War of the Worlds seem even odder and more callous than before.
For one thing: When Dakota Fanning asks "Is it the terrorists?" as the aliens tear up New Jersey, the audience is supposed to cluck knowingly at the silly little girl and her quaint notions. Today, the little girl doesn't look so silly.
For another: I hadn't seen anyone else pick up on this, but I found another 9/11 reference in the alien death ray that incinerates people but leaves their clothes fluttering in the air. Such an odd--to say nothing of ridiculously unscientific--weapon serves no logical purpose at all for the story. If, as later established, the aliens want to drain blood from people, why would they use a ray that disintegrates the entire body no matter where the ray hits it? A simple laser would leave lots of tasty, blood-filled body parts around. It doesn't make any sense--unless the device is only intended to supply a visual reminding us of the papers and office debris fluttering from the World Trade Center on 9/11. It's a visual that the movie really didn't need, and it feels cheap and superfluous.
And the worst is the scene where Spielberg shows us a wall filled with anguished "HAVE YOU SEEN" pictures of missing relatives. When I saw the film I thought the scene blithely trivialized the horrific experience of the 9/11 families, and, only weeks later, the scene feels only more so now that people are again putting up real pictures of real people on walls. Now, instead of being merely inappropriate, the scene feels truly shamelessly exploitive.
I think that the references are a vague attempt to deal with a specific problem. Whereas, in Schindler's List, he faced Nazi evil without flinching, here he's coy and allusive. And why is that?
It's because we can't speak the truth.
The culture can't talk about Muslim terrorism honestly. It can't even begin to. The most common response is simply to lie. To change the nuclear terrorists in Tom Clancy's The Sum of All Fears from Muslims to "Russian Nazis" is a lie. To invent an apparent Muslim nuclear terrorist plot that turns out to be the machinations of evil American politicians (Season 2 of 24) is a lie. The culture today feels almost like Russian literature in the Soviet period as described by Solzhenitsyn: The lie pervades and corrodes all.
Very funny.
How was Batman? It looks pretty good.
My main problem with the movie is why he used the idea that the Martians pre-placed their War machines a million years ago, and then rode lightning down to them in the underground? I mean that aspect right there has so many plot holes in it that it just boggles the mind.
I liked the movie until they reached the Hudson. Up to that point the dad was doing all the right things. Run, hide, grab the only functional car in the area which he had the brains to recall to begin with and then try to avoid groups of people because he had that car. He was right, somebody would try to take it in a heart beat to get away. The movie lost me once they reached the Hudson where all of a sudden all the characters involved suddenly went stupid.
But anti-war? I didn't see that. The soldiers went off to battle against what appeared to be an undefeatable enemy. The father did run away but that was the proper thing, he was trying to save his family.
As for everybody running away? What is someone supposed to do in that situation at the beginning? A giant alien comes out of the ground and fires a heat ray that blasts people to dust almost instantly. You are not armed in any way. What are you supposed to do? Throw rocks? No, you run to fight another day.
I liked it, not a 10 but perhaps a 6.5 in my humble opinion. A little too much background, although I realize it is Batman BEGINS. But it kinda dragged a little at times. Katie Holmes sure is cute though and the score and action are first-rate. you gotta see the Batmobile!
Good analysis
But Close Encounters wasn't that boring when you saw it, all those years ago. That's because the "grammar" of film has changed, considerably. Almost all movies older than ten years old are "boring," because the techniques they use have been replaced by newer ones.
True. I don't know what critics said then about it's (lack of) character and story development. What test of a good movie did they use...."IT'S NEW?"
Down here, if you don't have the firepower of a platoon...
Well, you just ain't armed!
SPIELBERG SUPPORTED THE WAR IN IRAQ!!!!!!
OKay, I'd better brace up, 'cause I think I'm going to get pounced on for that.
I don't know about Tom Cruise, though.
"I liked it, not a 10 but perhaps a 6.5 in my humble opinion."
I give it a 300 million out of 10. That's how much I liked it.
Close Encounters was good (hyped) because alien moves was new and cool. Granted the special effects were new. It looked real. But if that's ALL it's got, then it can't be considered a good movie, right? A good movie can be dated but it's got to have foundations to make it a classic.
Starts slow, but thats just for explaining how its supposed to have begun. After he gets his Bat suit and Batmobile, it picks up dramatically. It's good, worth seeing. Also leaves a teaser at the end for the sequal with the Joker.
Not at all lame like that piece of crap A.I....
That had a decent first part, but then it was like it hit a brick wall and flattened out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.