Posted on 06/23/2005 4:06:51 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
New York film critics have been barred from tonight's (Thursday) premiere of Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds, leading New York Times columnist Campbell Robertson to wax poetic -- Yeatsian, really -- to speculate whether the snub might have something to do with star Tom Cruise's Scientology beliefs, or last weekend's incident in which a bogus reporter squirted him with a phony microphone, or his bizarre behavior on Oprah Winfrey's talk show. ("The press lacks all conviction, while TOM CRUISE/Is full of passionate intensity, /Really, really passionate intensity.") Meanwhile, film critics in Germany threatened Wednesday to boycott War of the Worlds if they are required to sign an agreement not to publish a review before its June 29 release date in that country. While an informal agreement exists between U.S. critics and studios to withhold publication of reviews of new movies until the day of their premieres, no such agreement exists in Germany. In a statement released Wednesday, the Association of German Film Critics said that the studio demand represents "scandalous P.R." and "obstructs the press from its constitutionally guaranteed rights."
Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-Mars).
Truly the best and the brightest.
I guess in the last scene, Tom chills with his homeboys from outer space and has a clambake with his new gf.
Typically that is the reason. Or Spielberg may be trying to prevent spoilers. E.T.'s image was tightly controlled using non-disclousre agreements, so it would not be the first time for S.S.
IMDB reviews are running 7-1 very positive, but of course those could merely be Dreamworks staffers.
Maybe there's a subliminal message to give all your property away to go clear, and Tom doesn't want to rob the nation of the left's best last hope - the press.
HAHAHAHAHAHA. Nevermind.
Oh, please do read the thread! I transcribed my 12 yo son's running commentary as best I could...
Not necessarily. Overseas+DVD will insure it's not a flop, but I really can't see $200M domestic being a slam dunk.
This is untrue. Spielberg did not direct the Kerry film.
The official convention video introducing Kerry was directed by Steven Spielberg protégé James Moll. Moll was given hours of Kerry's homemade 8 millimeter film (much of which showed re-enacted footage) to incorporate into the convention short
This clambake?
Oh, there's nothing wrong with a little mindless entertainment. We don't have to watch Citizen Kane every time, you know. Besides, I think people who "entertain themselves" with intellectual films have very little intellect in their real lives.
What propaganda film?
Yes, I'm disillusioned...that you would use Google.
Probably not that one, exactly. But I knew the reference when I wrote the post. :)
The Brit version went straight-to-DVD. The bad reviews are fun to read:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/usercomments
I bookmarked it. I wasn't dismissing the thread, just commenting on the reviews that I read on the Internet Movie Database.
Touche. I do enjoy special effects in movies. I stand corrected.
Who would have a big enough ego to rewrite H. G. Wells?
Ooops (slaps self), neverrr mind...
Citizen Kane is a highly entertaining film. It probably has more special effects per second then most 'special effects' films.
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.