Ok... Spielberg, take a cyanide pill motherfucker.

Discussion in 'Movies, Entertainment & Various Music Genres' started by Pro-deuce, Jul 7, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    Orson Welles yeah thats whut i did....my bad!

    OK you win this round. just note fuck face i got your cock catcher on lock! LOL
    don't fuck up on anything, be the most inhuman person around me! or i will
    expose your fualts.
    test
  2. Wowzer

    Wowzer like wow.

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2005
    Messages:
    28
    they didn't die off because Cruise killed one, they basically couldn't adapt to our ecosystem. a lot of people dislike the end a lot and how Spielberg did it, but I didn't think it was bad at all...I enjoyed the film.
    test
  3. FortiFied Killa

    FortiFied Killa New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2001
    Messages:
    6,611
    good man, finally someone just admits they're wrong and doesnt turn into a gigantic bitch. I tip my hat to you sir.
    test
  4. menaz

    menaz Avant Garde

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2004
    Messages:
    16,807
    wowzer hit it right on the head. We have done thread three times. And some of you people
    should check them out before being all gun ho.


    @killa when your wrong your wrong whut can i say i mixed the two up.
    test
  5. Milli Monotone

    Milli Monotone Mr. Like I Give A

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2003
    Messages:
    6,948
    The ending was rushed, they gave a brief explanation on the aliens, then didnt bother to explain about the son and just rolled the credits

    good movie, ending was poorly done, not the books fault... spielberg is to blame on that one
    test
  6. -[InfaMouz]-

    -[InfaMouz]- || M.Maestro ||

    Joined:
    May 18, 2005
    Messages:
    4,257
    I didn't realy like the dialogue..


    It was ehh.. some of the jokes were funny.. but thats it.
    test
  7. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    The first half was absolutely perfect and the second half was good. It gets at least an 8/10 from me.

    I can see why people might dislike the film, but everybody saying that Spielberg has fallen off are out of their minds. He's easily one of the best directors of all time, and this film showcases that. It's also better than his previous two alien films, Close Encounters and E.T..
    test
  8. CompassSaviour

    CompassSaviour Got no brain, goin insane

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2000
    Messages:
    1,562
    The ending was way too abrupt.... it seemed like you saw two ship 'die' and that was the end of the whole war. Yeah I know what happened but like most other people I think it was too abrupt.

    Still a sick movie tho.
    test
  9. The Jeus

    The Jeus _________

    Joined:
    Nov 5, 2002
    Messages:
    6,419
    test
  10. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    wow, first 'kill bill' is better than a leone masterpiece, and now what seems to be unanimously regarded as a passable summer flick carried mostly by special effects is better than two all-time story and character-driven greats on afi's top 100 list?

    not saying you're wrong in this case (you were wrong about kill bill being > tgtbtu) because i haven't even seen it yet, but that's a pretty bold statement...
    test
  11. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Close Encounters was as much about the wonderment of the aliens and how they acted.

    Here's someone that agrees with me: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=20580
    Be warned, there's spoilers, so you might not want to read that. Harry's probably seen more movies than everyone on this forum combined - and E.T. and Close Encounters when they first came out. Something neither of us can say.

    Not that his review proves anything, but I think most viewers are completely wrong about this. And remember: there's been a lot of films that have been lambasted by critics only to be considered classics in later years. This includes, you guessed it, TBTBTU.
    test
  12. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Also? It's not being unanimously regarded as passable: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_of_the_worlds/

    "...inspires the same jaw-dropping awe as Jurassic Park and Close Encounters both did with the same mix of fantasy, horror, and the regular guy."

    Even some of the rotten tomatoes have good things to say:

    "May be the most efficiently built engine of escalating terror you will ever encounter..."

    They're possibly the best special effects of all time. I mean, for the first hour they were used flawlessy. It's only once they get trapped in the basement they go downhill. But the actual invasion is the best special effects I've ever seen, I think.

    However, this is why I said Spielberg shows that he's one of the greats with this film: The Day After Tomorrow had great effects. But they didn't come close to have the same impact. I just think Spielberg did effects and an impending doom expertly with this.
    test
  13. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    i don't care how many movies harry knowles has seen... he's still a clown who shamelessly overrated 'return of the king'. plus, just look at him!

    [​IMG]

    of course he's going to overrate anything having to do with science fiction/fantasy, especially if it's presented well... lmao


    so what? @ a lot of films being lambasted only to become classics later on... that really means nothing and can be said in defense of 'the perfect man' starring hilary duff and heather locklear

    and, movies from back in the day that had lukewarm-to-below reception when they first hit usually had more to do with critics being angered or confounded about something complex about the film.

    'the good, the bad, and the ugly' along with leone's other films were turning american western archetypes on their heads with supreme artistry, and many of america's critics didn't appreciate that i'm sure

    alfred hitchcock's 'psycho' received poor reviews ostensibly because hitchcock forced critics to go see it in theatres with the general public instead of getting the usual early screenings.

    maybe it might be getting underrated due to tom cruise's controversial appearance on 'the today show' perhaps. but, i'm assuming there's nothing hidden or complex about 'war of the worlds'. everybody knows the story, has seen films like this before, and seems to be giving the special effects, the movie's main strength, their just due right off the bat... what else is there, you think, that could arise to enlighten later on?
    test
  14. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    And more or less the same thing happened with WotW, did it not? Either the critics weren't allowed to see it early or write about it early.

    Which is irrelevant, because despite a lot of critics being annoyed about that, you were wrong: it isn't be treated as passable by the majority of critics.

    And what does Harry's appearance have to do with anything? I disagree with his reviews about 50% of the time... but I don't think his knowledge of film can be denied. He also said Fantastic 4 was crap even though it's his favourite comic book.

    Besides, even if he IS horribly biased about sci-fi/fantasy... both E.T. and Encounters are in that genre so him prefering WotW over them can't be biased.

    I'm not saying the film will become a classic (I myself only rated it at 8/10 remember), and you're right, that was a weak argument, but the point is: it's not the special effects in and of themselves, it's how they were used. Used to create fear, amazement and other good stuff.

    Does it compete with my favourite films of all time? No. Easily one of the best for this kind of film? Absolutely.
    test
  15. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    it's become commonplace now for critics to not be allowed early screenings and reviews. back then, when hitchcock did it, it was something rare... people weren't even allowed to be admitted after the film had started either.

    harry definitely has a lot of filmwatching under his belt, but having seen a lot of films doesn't necessarily make him a more reliable critic than people who have seen less than half the films he's seen.

    'e.t.' and 'close encounters' being in the same genre doesn't discount what i said. he clearly has a bias towards big spectacles presented with dazzling special effects, and since 'wotw' has more of that than the other two he's going to give more weight to it... even if the story isn't nearly as strong.
    test
  16. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Encounters was "presented with dazzling special effects" when it first came out.

    How is there a big difference in amount of story between: 'father encounters aliens and becomes obsessed with them at the sake of his family' and 'father has a bad relationship with his children until aliens invade the earth and force him to grow closer to them'?

    If you wanna talk about bias, shall we delve into your 'if it's been done well in the past, it's almost impossible to imagine a modern film doing it as well' complex?

    You're wrong and ignorant about this film and you know it. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.
    test
  17. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    Harry's top 10 of 2002: http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=14217

    What's that? Only one "big spectacle presented with dazzling special effects" in the top 10 and at #3 at that?

    Why do you continue to challenge me when I destroy you every time, son?
    test
  18. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    the stories are similar, but i don't need to see 'wotw' to know that the story doesn't have as much meat as 'close encounters' does... there's a lot more focus on the destruction being caused, and it sounds as if there are more scenes of them running away than actually developing character amongst each other. the special effects in 'close encounters' were limited to few moments sprinkled here and there and weren't as dominant.

    and, let's delve into my "complex". where have i said that if it's been done before it can't be done better? please give me instances that provide evidence of me even thinking that. don't even bring up 'kill bill' vs. 'tgtbtu', because that's not an issue of 'classic movie bias'. leone's control of the camera is just flat-out superior to tarantino's... no question.


    name me all the big spectacles with dazzling special effects that came out in 2002, btw...

    lmao @ interpreting consistently poor arguments as "destruction"
    test
  19. Brahman

    Brahman Mel Van Peebles

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2003
    Messages:
    17,544
    hahahaha @ him rating the 'solaris' remake over 'punch-drunk love'

    this cat has NO credibility... i liked 'solaris', but it's not top 10 material nor is it better than 'pdl'

    terrible...

    stop referencing this dumbass
    test
  20. Riz

    Riz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2002
    Messages:
    8,537
    2002:

    Spider-Man
    The Two Towers
    Star Wars: Episode II
    Harry Potter
    Men In Black II

    I'm willing to bet I like PDL and P.T. Anderson more than you do, yet I'm not gay enough to have an aneurism over him placing Solaris one place above it.

    As much of a dumbass as he can be, I'd take his opinion over yours any day of the week.
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)