"War of the Worlds" Remake -- good news, bad news

dowse_com | 1/13/05

[pabianice]

OK, movie fans. First, there was the Wells novel, written in 1898 and astonishingly ahead of its time. Then, there was the first movie in 1953 -- also ahead of its time and very watchable for its effects, although Gene Barry was arguably not the best guy for the lead role. Now, we have the Speilberg remake, due out this summer.

The good news is that the film appears to try and recreate as much of the novel as possible, updating it from 1898 to 2005. The trailer looks like fun. And of course, CGI now lets a producer create visual effects undreamed of 50 years ago.

The bad news is varied. First, we have Speilberg, one of the great visual movie makers around but crippled with a political correctness that has turned most of his recent movies into dinner theater for the DNC. Tom Cruise takes the lead again, but he, too, is hot and cold and often seems unclear about a character's motivation. The, there is the tortured history of this remake, apparently set to have begun filming in 2001 but since re-re-re-written and had cast and crew changes. Such a history is, in Hollywood, usually a predictor of a really bad final product. Usually.

As noted in another thread, the recent remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" is notable only because it crashed and burned at the box office, returning just under $ 20 million on a $ 70 million+ investment to date.

We'll have to see what happens with "War."

Production sketch from remake of "WOTW."

[theFIRMbss]

>The bad news is varied. First, we have Speilberg... Tom Cruise takes the lead again ...

[Pyro7480]

That picture looks like a cross between the Borg from Star Trek: and the future world depicted in the Matrix.

[weenie]

Well, the sketch looks interesting...thx for posting this.

[aegiscg47]

The links and article seem to confuse the Spielberg version with the Pendragon version. No offense, but while the Pendragon version is "faithful" to the novel and set in 1890's England, it looks like a bad 70's TV movie. Hopefully the Spielberg version will at least be a fun two hours of mindless summer action.

[TXBSAFH]

When will Hollywierd state to do original pictures again? Some movies should not be remade.

[darkwing104]

Let me see, Spielberg+Hollywood, I bet the Martians will turn out to be Ditto-head conservatives.

[NeoCaveman]

I'm betting the aliens are employed by Halliburton.

[tfecw]

well of someone who read the book recently (a couple of weeks ago, i try and alternate between a classic and a fun book)

I was actually pretty shocked (i saw the movie ;) ) it was completely different. I sort of liked the book better though (honestly it could have gone either way)

Tom cruise...first off...he's too pretty for the role...there is no love story in the book. The main character has a wife that he mentions every once in a while..but thats it.
Also cruise is an action star....war or the worlds isn't exactly actiony. The lead character is sort of a soft writer type (well he is a writer and the book is written from is perspective) Tom cruise isn't a writer type...For this one i could see someone like Tim robins (yes liberal POS but good actor), or even Kevin spacey, Morgan freeman would also be a good choice. No wonder he can't "get into the role" Thats my two cents. I think the movie is going to be a let down to people who read the book, and if lean towards the movie then they will just give it a face lift and hope they get a hit. Then find another idea give that a face lift and repeat process until the Martians do come down and try and kill us all

[AzSteven]

The chances of anything coming from Mars

Was a million to one, they said...

[tfecw]

and one more thing....they would have more success if they made the martians homosexual and then "do well in Europe" ala Alexander (which didn't do well in Europe)

At least it'll be controversial...and isn't that what really counts in movies today? who needs plot when you could have controversy!

[weenie]

Some movies should not be remade.

But, IMO, this one should. The first one was fine for the period in which it was introduced, but we need a new one to help us feel and examine fears that reflect those of 2005. This genre can be a real blast for sci-fi geeks like me (like "Independence Day").

[processing please hold]

It looks from the picture that he's stealing an idea from the Matrix.

[processing please hold]

You're right. I didn't think about the Borg.

[unbalanced but fair]

It's interesting you mentioned Tim Robbins because he is in the movie. Or did you know that? The trailer looked pretty good. But why do all space ships have to enter amidst moving clouds?

[WestVirginiaRebel]

What happened to Spielberg, anyway? His movies used to be fun, without the preaching. In CloseEncounters, the government conspiracy types were actually the good guys trying to make contact with the aliens. In ET, their reaction to ET's presence is understandable and they even try to save his life when ET appears to be dying.

Something happened in the '90's. Maybe it was the string of flops he had after his early mega-successes-maybe it's because he has kids now, or has just gotten older and more cynical, but his movies seem to be more about being PC and less about the kind of old-fashioned entertainment that he once wanted to revive. At least with Ron Howard you get a guy who might be a lib but who still knows how to make entertaining movies.

[dfwgator]

So will Slim Whitman save the day in this one?

[avg_freeper]

Tom Cruise = me no go

[labowski]

I love the cover art for the album.