OT: War of the Worlds
Moderators: Bill_Abner, ScoopBrady
OT: War of the Worlds
Anyone else see this yet? Me and a couple buddies went to a late show last night, and I thought the 2 hours went by pretty quick. Still trying to decide what my overall thoughts of the movie were, but I'd definitely see it again.
I saw it last night with my wife. I think it is the best dumb movie I have ever seen.
In some regards, the movie is amazing. The visual representation of the destruction and "feel" of the chaos due to the attack was extremely well done. I was very in to the movie for about 3/4 of it. The acting was decent, but nothing earth shattering.
However, the basic premise of the movie is almost laughable if you really start to analyze it. I could live with the fact that the aliens buried all their little war machines beneath the earth over a million years ago. It makes no sense, and no explanation is ever given as to why this was done, but I could live with it. I thought the movie really started to unravel during the last 20 minutes. The ending was abrupt and silly, and there are some silly coincidences along the way. I won't really detail anything to avoid spoiling it for anyone who wants to see it.
I'm making the above sound a little worse than it actually was. Like I said before, 3/4 of the movie is quite good. I got my moneys worth. This is definately one of those movies worth seeing in the movie theater if only for the special effects. Those looking for an intelligent story need look elsewhere.
In some regards, the movie is amazing. The visual representation of the destruction and "feel" of the chaos due to the attack was extremely well done. I was very in to the movie for about 3/4 of it. The acting was decent, but nothing earth shattering.
However, the basic premise of the movie is almost laughable if you really start to analyze it. I could live with the fact that the aliens buried all their little war machines beneath the earth over a million years ago. It makes no sense, and no explanation is ever given as to why this was done, but I could live with it. I thought the movie really started to unravel during the last 20 minutes. The ending was abrupt and silly, and there are some silly coincidences along the way. I won't really detail anything to avoid spoiling it for anyone who wants to see it.
I'm making the above sound a little worse than it actually was. Like I said before, 3/4 of the movie is quite good. I got my moneys worth. This is definately one of those movies worth seeing in the movie theater if only for the special effects. Those looking for an intelligent story need look elsewhere.
-
GROGtheNailer
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
I was really looking forward to this movie, been reading some great reviews.
Comments on the ending concerns me.....hope ending isnt the movie killer.
My thoughts would be, why does this have to be explained? They are aliens, it wouldn't make sense to us I would think anyway. Sometimes lack of explainations enhance the movie as it's open to our own interpretations.I could live with the fact that the aliens buried all their little war machines beneath the earth over a million years ago. It makes no sense, and no explanation is ever given as to why this was done, but I could live with it.
Comments on the ending concerns me.....hope ending isnt the movie killer.
I read somewhere that Spielberg had thought about doing this movie years ago, but Independence Day was coming out right about that time, so he held off til now.
For those that also saw Independence Day, how does the 'WOW' factor of the two movies compare?
For those that also saw Independence Day, how does the 'WOW' factor of the two movies compare?
Xbox Series: Murph1
Nintendo Switch 2: SW-8125-7768-9102
Nintendo Switch 2: SW-8125-7768-9102
-
GROGtheNailer
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
I picked this review because i thought it was the most neutral (most of the reviews on Rottemtomao.com are positive)
By Kirk Honeycutt
Bottom line: Steven Spielberg gives Earth a pounding in sci-fi actioner as Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning keep the focus on human beings.
In "War of the Worlds," Steven Spielberg marshals state-of-the-art tools of cinema and computerized imagery to mount eye-popping scenes of destruction, chaos and horror. Exploring the dark side of his old films "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," Spielberg more than does justice to the granddaddy of all alien-invasion tales, H.G. Wells' still terrifying novel published in 1898. The real question the film raises is whether post-Sept. 11 audiences are ready to view destruction, chaos and horror as entertainment.
Most action films since that tragedy have involved either comic book characters, historic battles or ancient civilizations. But this intergalactic war movie starring Tom Cruise might be too realistic for its own good: The film takes perhaps a little too much glee in its abilities to manufacture mayhem. That being said, the ride is extraordinary.
Spielberg and his writers, Josh Friedman and David Koepp, opt to tell the invasion story through the eyes of Cruise's Ray Ferrier, a blue-collar guy with no plan of action other than the protection of his loved ones. It is a three-character drama with the world literally crashing down around their ears.
But it's how the world falls apart that amazes. At one point, an airline plunges to earth, but we see only the heart-rending aftermath as our protagonists have hidden in the basement next to the crash site. At another point, a train roars past a crowd of fleeing refugees with each and every car consumed in flames. Then there is a ferry boat, which aliens upend, spilling cars and people into dark waters.
The writers retain several key elements from Wells' novel. An opening narration, gravely yet coolly voiced by Morgan Freeman, echoes Wells' ominous first lines, telling us that in the first years of the 21st century across the gulf of space, our world was being watched closely by intelligences greater than man's who "regarded our planet with envious eyes."
Also the movie's death machines, the so-called Tripods, resemble the 100-foot-tall killing machines envisioned by Wells. And Spielberg's aliens, like Wells', suck blood from living humans for sustenance. This results in a startling image of a surreal, blood-sprayed, ruined landscape that is grotesque and fascinating at the same time.
Ray is no superhero who combats this invasion. In fact, he is barely a hero. A divorced New York dockworker, Ray has pretty much alienated his teenage son Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and younger daughter Rachel (the impossibly precocious Dakota Fanning). When his pregnant ex-wife (Miranda Otto) and her new husband dump the kids with Ray for a weekend visit, clearly neither child relishes the idea of time with Dad.
Robbie, sullen and scornful, has little use for his father. He even wears a Red Sox cap in defiance of Ray's Yankees cap. Rachel is more tolerant but no less wise to her dad's shortcomings. The family has little time to resolve any issues, however, as a terrific wind is followed by a weird electrical storm that sees lightning hammer away at the same intersection in this working-class neighborhood.
Ray heads for the intersection. In the film's first big CGI set pieces, streets and buildings crack open as a towering three-legged war machine rears up from beneath the earth. The Tripod lays waste to the urban landscape. All humans caught by its death rays disintegrate into so many molecules.
Ray escapes, grabs the kids and takes off in the only car that seemingly works. (Something is said about installing solar power, but this goes by too quickly to fully register.) Ray's only thought is to get his kids to his ex-wife in Boston, which is not much of a plan. In reality, Ray is simply trying to hold things together as his daughter screams and son yells. He must keep his cool and pour all conflicting emotions and energy into the task at hand: survival.
The family barely escapes the Tripods only to find themselves and their car at the mercy of a violent mob willing to kill for a ride. The trio are on the run through the entire film until Robbie insists on going his own way for reasons not entirely clear but no doubt stemming from a long-simmering animosity toward his dad.
Spielberg keeps tightening the screws as he clearly is in full command of this war zone. One tracking shot choreographed with his longtime and brilliant cinematographer Janusz Kaminski has the camera pivot around the speeding car, moving close for dialogue among the fleeing family, pulling back and around for a longer view, then moving back in for more dialogue. It's a dazzling shot, reminiscent of and topping the camera choreography in Spielberg's first feature "The Sugarland Express."
Spielberg waits 87 minutes to reveal the alien creatures themselves, and only at this point do we realize what little bloodsuckers they are. This then leads to the movie's eeriest sequence.
A stranger (Tim Robbins) invites Ray and Rachel to take refuge in a farmhouse. They soon realize that tragic events have unhinged this stranger. Ray must then decide whether the stranger's psychosis truly jeopardizes his family's own survival and what he must do to eliminate that threat. It's a creepy, uncomfortable sequence but the most human moment in a film that contains wall-to-wall destruction.
The main humanizing element is the team of Cruise and Fanning. They play off the rise and fall of each other's emotions, each trying to coax the other into a false sense of security when the reality of their situation denies any such notion. If Ray didn't have a child to protect, he probably would be as lost as the mobs that surge haphazardly this way and that. With these two, it's not always clear who is the child and who the adult as the actors continually switch those roles in a juggling act of tense emotions.
Tech credits are all aces as one would expect, especially Kaminski's skillful cinematography, ILM's amazing CG visual effects, John Williams' nerve-tinkling score and Rick Carter's resolutely realistic production design.
WAR OF THE WORLDS
Paramount Pictures
Paramount and DreamWorks Pictures present
an Amblin Entertainment/Cruise/Wagner production
Credits:
Director: Steven Spielberg
Screenwriters: Josh Friedman, David Koepp
Based on the novel by: H.G. Wells
Producers: Kathleen Kennedy, Colin Wilson
Executive producer: Paula Wagner
Director of photography: Janusz Kaminski
Production designer: Rick Carter
Music: John Williams
Senior visual effects supervisor: Dennis Muren
Costumes: Joanna Johnston
Editor: Michael Kahn
Cast:
Ray Ferrier: Tom Cruise
Rachel: Dakota Fanning
Robbie: Justin Chatwin
Ogilvy: Tim Robbins
Mary Ann: Miranda Otto
MPAA rating PG-13
Running time -- 117 minutes
By Kirk Honeycutt
Bottom line: Steven Spielberg gives Earth a pounding in sci-fi actioner as Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning keep the focus on human beings.
In "War of the Worlds," Steven Spielberg marshals state-of-the-art tools of cinema and computerized imagery to mount eye-popping scenes of destruction, chaos and horror. Exploring the dark side of his old films "E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial" and "Close Encounters of the Third Kind," Spielberg more than does justice to the granddaddy of all alien-invasion tales, H.G. Wells' still terrifying novel published in 1898. The real question the film raises is whether post-Sept. 11 audiences are ready to view destruction, chaos and horror as entertainment.
Most action films since that tragedy have involved either comic book characters, historic battles or ancient civilizations. But this intergalactic war movie starring Tom Cruise might be too realistic for its own good: The film takes perhaps a little too much glee in its abilities to manufacture mayhem. That being said, the ride is extraordinary.
Spielberg and his writers, Josh Friedman and David Koepp, opt to tell the invasion story through the eyes of Cruise's Ray Ferrier, a blue-collar guy with no plan of action other than the protection of his loved ones. It is a three-character drama with the world literally crashing down around their ears.
But it's how the world falls apart that amazes. At one point, an airline plunges to earth, but we see only the heart-rending aftermath as our protagonists have hidden in the basement next to the crash site. At another point, a train roars past a crowd of fleeing refugees with each and every car consumed in flames. Then there is a ferry boat, which aliens upend, spilling cars and people into dark waters.
The writers retain several key elements from Wells' novel. An opening narration, gravely yet coolly voiced by Morgan Freeman, echoes Wells' ominous first lines, telling us that in the first years of the 21st century across the gulf of space, our world was being watched closely by intelligences greater than man's who "regarded our planet with envious eyes."
Also the movie's death machines, the so-called Tripods, resemble the 100-foot-tall killing machines envisioned by Wells. And Spielberg's aliens, like Wells', suck blood from living humans for sustenance. This results in a startling image of a surreal, blood-sprayed, ruined landscape that is grotesque and fascinating at the same time.
Ray is no superhero who combats this invasion. In fact, he is barely a hero. A divorced New York dockworker, Ray has pretty much alienated his teenage son Robbie (Justin Chatwin) and younger daughter Rachel (the impossibly precocious Dakota Fanning). When his pregnant ex-wife (Miranda Otto) and her new husband dump the kids with Ray for a weekend visit, clearly neither child relishes the idea of time with Dad.
Robbie, sullen and scornful, has little use for his father. He even wears a Red Sox cap in defiance of Ray's Yankees cap. Rachel is more tolerant but no less wise to her dad's shortcomings. The family has little time to resolve any issues, however, as a terrific wind is followed by a weird electrical storm that sees lightning hammer away at the same intersection in this working-class neighborhood.
Ray heads for the intersection. In the film's first big CGI set pieces, streets and buildings crack open as a towering three-legged war machine rears up from beneath the earth. The Tripod lays waste to the urban landscape. All humans caught by its death rays disintegrate into so many molecules.
Ray escapes, grabs the kids and takes off in the only car that seemingly works. (Something is said about installing solar power, but this goes by too quickly to fully register.) Ray's only thought is to get his kids to his ex-wife in Boston, which is not much of a plan. In reality, Ray is simply trying to hold things together as his daughter screams and son yells. He must keep his cool and pour all conflicting emotions and energy into the task at hand: survival.
The family barely escapes the Tripods only to find themselves and their car at the mercy of a violent mob willing to kill for a ride. The trio are on the run through the entire film until Robbie insists on going his own way for reasons not entirely clear but no doubt stemming from a long-simmering animosity toward his dad.
Spielberg keeps tightening the screws as he clearly is in full command of this war zone. One tracking shot choreographed with his longtime and brilliant cinematographer Janusz Kaminski has the camera pivot around the speeding car, moving close for dialogue among the fleeing family, pulling back and around for a longer view, then moving back in for more dialogue. It's a dazzling shot, reminiscent of and topping the camera choreography in Spielberg's first feature "The Sugarland Express."
Spielberg waits 87 minutes to reveal the alien creatures themselves, and only at this point do we realize what little bloodsuckers they are. This then leads to the movie's eeriest sequence.
A stranger (Tim Robbins) invites Ray and Rachel to take refuge in a farmhouse. They soon realize that tragic events have unhinged this stranger. Ray must then decide whether the stranger's psychosis truly jeopardizes his family's own survival and what he must do to eliminate that threat. It's a creepy, uncomfortable sequence but the most human moment in a film that contains wall-to-wall destruction.
The main humanizing element is the team of Cruise and Fanning. They play off the rise and fall of each other's emotions, each trying to coax the other into a false sense of security when the reality of their situation denies any such notion. If Ray didn't have a child to protect, he probably would be as lost as the mobs that surge haphazardly this way and that. With these two, it's not always clear who is the child and who the adult as the actors continually switch those roles in a juggling act of tense emotions.
Tech credits are all aces as one would expect, especially Kaminski's skillful cinematography, ILM's amazing CG visual effects, John Williams' nerve-tinkling score and Rick Carter's resolutely realistic production design.
WAR OF THE WORLDS
Paramount Pictures
Paramount and DreamWorks Pictures present
an Amblin Entertainment/Cruise/Wagner production
Credits:
Director: Steven Spielberg
Screenwriters: Josh Friedman, David Koepp
Based on the novel by: H.G. Wells
Producers: Kathleen Kennedy, Colin Wilson
Executive producer: Paula Wagner
Director of photography: Janusz Kaminski
Production designer: Rick Carter
Music: John Williams
Senior visual effects supervisor: Dennis Muren
Costumes: Joanna Johnston
Editor: Michael Kahn
Cast:
Ray Ferrier: Tom Cruise
Rachel: Dakota Fanning
Robbie: Justin Chatwin
Ogilvy: Tim Robbins
Mary Ann: Miranda Otto
MPAA rating PG-13
Running time -- 117 minutes
-
Danimal
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 12179
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2004 3:00 am
- Location: Chicago, Illinois
- Contact:
From what I hear Spielberg and Cruise squeezed this movie in when their schedules open up and this whole movie was shot on a tight deadline and it shows.
I haven't seen it yet, but comments I have heard from others is it seems rushed, the ending abrupt and even some of the special effects seem to have been left out entirely because they didn't have time to put them in.
Anyone feel any of the above is true?
I haven't seen it yet, but comments I have heard from others is it seems rushed, the ending abrupt and even some of the special effects seem to have been left out entirely because they didn't have time to put them in.
Anyone feel any of the above is true?
Follow Me on:
YouTube - www.youtube.com/maxpixelation/
Twitch - twitch.tv/maximumpixelation
Twitter - twitter.com/maxpixelation
YouTube - www.youtube.com/maxpixelation/
Twitch - twitch.tv/maximumpixelation
Twitter - twitter.com/maxpixelation
Interesting story about this movie. It was filmed in central VA around the Natural Bridge/Glasgow/Lexington area which happens to be where my sister lives. One day during filming, Cruise and Speilberg went into the local Dairy Queen for lunch. On the counter was one of those jars with a picture of a little girl who had cancer and needed an operation. Obviously, the jar was to raise money for her operation. Witnesses say that Cruise immediately whipped out 5 one hundred dollar bills and put them in the jar. He then said something to Speilberg about dropping some money in the jar and Speilberg declined. They said Cruise then began to rib Spielberg about him being so tight and asked him again to put some money in the jar. Speiberg again refused and it escalated into an argument of sorts. Cruise finally let it go, but Speilberg never put a dime in the jar. What a dick.
Anyway, from what I hear it is a great movie and I plan on seeing it this weekend. A lot of my sisters friends were extras in the movie which was shot mostly on Willard Scott's farm near NAtural Bridge.
Anyway, from what I hear it is a great movie and I plan on seeing it this weekend. A lot of my sisters friends were extras in the movie which was shot mostly on Willard Scott's farm near NAtural Bridge.
I do know it was shot where my sister lives and it had a real short production time. She said they were only in town about a month, which is odd, because they shot Crazy People just north of here and Paul Reiser, Dudley Moore, and Daryl Hannah were here for about 6 months.Danimal wrote:From what I hear Spielberg and Cruise squeezed this movie in when their schedules open up and this whole movie was shot on a tight deadline and it shows.
I haven't seen it yet, but comments I have heard from others is it seems rushed, the ending abrupt and even some of the special effects seem to have been left out entirely because they didn't have time to put them in.
Anyone feel any of the above is true?
It was shot in a lot of places. They were up in New Jersey for at least a couple of weeks, and I'm sure they did a lot of stuff on a stage in LA or somewhere.
I liked the movie quite a bit, but admit I was a little bit disappointed since the novel is one of my all-time favorite sci-fi books. This is without doubt the best film representation of the book to date, and there have been many. Certainly none have adhered so closely to the original story. Not to say there isn't a ton of new stuff and a lot of changes, but most for the most part it's very close.
I wouldn't say anything about this film seems 'rushed.' Ultimately, all films are rushed, the ones that get released, anyway, but this one doesn't demonstrate any degree of sloppiness. Some of the sequences in this film are without peer in their ambition, and many individual shots are simply stunning. It is an exceedingly well crafted film and in a lot of cases very, very effective.
I like what A.O. Scott said in the NY Times: 'But "War of the Worlds" also succeeds in reminding us that while Mr. Spielberg doesn't always make great movies, he seems almost constitutionally incapable of bad moviemaking. It's not much to think about, but it's certainly something to see.' The LA Times guy said: 'With War of the Worlds he has made what is arguably one of the best 1950s science fiction films ever, and that is not a backhanded compliment.' I agree with that, as well.
I liked the movie quite a bit, but admit I was a little bit disappointed since the novel is one of my all-time favorite sci-fi books. This is without doubt the best film representation of the book to date, and there have been many. Certainly none have adhered so closely to the original story. Not to say there isn't a ton of new stuff and a lot of changes, but most for the most part it's very close.
I wouldn't say anything about this film seems 'rushed.' Ultimately, all films are rushed, the ones that get released, anyway, but this one doesn't demonstrate any degree of sloppiness. Some of the sequences in this film are without peer in their ambition, and many individual shots are simply stunning. It is an exceedingly well crafted film and in a lot of cases very, very effective.
I like what A.O. Scott said in the NY Times: 'But "War of the Worlds" also succeeds in reminding us that while Mr. Spielberg doesn't always make great movies, he seems almost constitutionally incapable of bad moviemaking. It's not much to think about, but it's certainly something to see.' The LA Times guy said: 'With War of the Worlds he has made what is arguably one of the best 1950s science fiction films ever, and that is not a backhanded compliment.' I agree with that, as well.
And you can confirm the validity of this story from who? I'm sure it's just as true as the story about how Denzel Washington paid for a new medical building for wounded soldiers or whatever it was on the spot (someone refresh my memory on that bogus story). Tell the story but don't call Spielberg a jerk when you have no proof that it even happened. If anything, perhaps 1/3 of that story is true, like the part about the two of them going to a Dairy Queen and then some local gossip queens probably made up the rest. Spielberg i'm sure has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to various charities throughout his life, just as most multi-millionairs have. This story screams of anti-semetic undertones. Not saying you are racist badgum, just want to make that very clear, just that whoever started the rumor may have had some distinct views on those "cheap jews". Just my guess.Cruise finally let it go, but Speilberg never put a dime in the jar. What a dick.
"Be tolerant of those who describe a sporting moment as their best ever. We do not lack imagination, nor have we had sad and barren lives; it is just that real life is paler, duller, and contains less potential for unexpected delirium." -Nick Hornby
That's kind of true, but i have to say that A.I. was one terrible film. I absolutely could not stand that POS. Then again, he did say "almost" so perhaps that critic agrees with me on that one.Mr. Spielberg doesn't always make great movies, he seems almost constitutionally incapable of bad moviemaking.
"Be tolerant of those who describe a sporting moment as their best ever. We do not lack imagination, nor have we had sad and barren lives; it is just that real life is paler, duller, and contains less potential for unexpected delirium." -Nick Hornby
Actually it was covered on the local news. They went to the Dairy Queen and interviewed the people that were working at the time and then they talked with the parents of the little girl on the jar and they just raved about how not only did Cruise put money in the jar, that he also came to see her.LAking wrote:And you can confirm the validity of this story from who? I'm sure it's just as true as the story about how Denzel Washington paid for a new medical building for wounded soldiers or whatever it was on the spot (someone refresh my memory on that bogus story). Tell the story but don't call Spielberg a jerk when you have no proof that it even happened. If anything, perhaps 1/3 of that story is true, like the part about the two of them going to a Dairy Queen and then some local gossip queens probably made up the rest. Spielberg i'm sure has donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to various charities throughout his life, just as most multi-millionairs have. This story screams of anti-semetic undertones. Not saying you are racist badgum, just want to make that very clear, just that whoever started the rumor may have had some distinct views on those "cheap jews". Just my guess.Cruise finally let it go, but Speilberg never put a dime in the jar. What a dick.
It's funny you brought the jew thing up because I never knew Speiberg was a jew. I was commenting that here's one of the richest filmmakers in the world and he won't even cough up some of his dough to help a sick kid.
I've heard more than one person say that, but I absolutely loved A.I. Keep in mind that I lost my first child so it may have struck a chord with its content. I think the end got a little nuts, but overall I thought it was one of Spielberg's better movies.LAking wrote:That's kind of true, but i have to say that A.I. was one terrible film. I absolutely could not stand that POS. Then again, he did say "almost" so perhaps that critic agrees with me on that one.Mr. Spielberg doesn't always make great movies, he seems almost constitutionally incapable of bad moviemaking.
See, i can believe some of this story. The Dairy Queen part and Cruise making donations and stuff sounds like it happened, but relying on a few star struck customers accounts of a "fight" or argument that broke out because spielberg wouldn't put any money in the jar, c'mon, let's get real. Do you really think that if Cruise even asked Spielberg to make a donation as well he wouldn't at least put something in? Or maybe if he really was asked to put something in and declined (which i doubt), perhaps it was because he doesn't carry hundreds in his wallet like Cruise does. Who uses cash these days anyway?Actually it was covered on the local news. They went to the Dairy Queen and interviewed the people that were working at the time and then they talked with the parents of the little girl on the jar and they just raved about how not only did Cruise put money in the jar, that he also came to see her.
Update: I just googled this incident and after reading numerous accounts of this there is no mention of Spielberg refusing to make any donation or of Cruise even asking him. Cruise was accompanied by 20 other crew members (among them was Spielberg) during that visit to the Dairy Queen. This makes it seem highly unlikely that Spielberg would be plucked out of the group by Cruise to make a donation. Cruise just happened to have 100 fifty dollar bills in his wallet. Apparently he had visited this Dairy Queen a couple times before the "donation". It was planned. Anyway, maybe that's too much detail. Either way, i think it's clear that Spielberg isn't the greedy jerk you were told he was. And by the way, Spielberg has got to be one of the most jewish names you will EVER hear
"Be tolerant of those who describe a sporting moment as their best ever. We do not lack imagination, nor have we had sad and barren lives; it is just that real life is paler, duller, and contains less potential for unexpected delirium." -Nick Hornby
I'm more likely to believe the scenario where Spielberg just didn't have any cash on him. Then people who were there just went with it as if he wouldn't put money in the jar. I know I NEVER carry cash and I feel bad everytime there's some group out in front of Wal Mart collecting for something.LAking wrote:See, i can believe some of this story. The Dairy Queen part and Cruise making donations and stuff sounds like it happened, but relying on a few star struck customers accounts of a "fight" or argument that broke out because spielberg wouldn't put any money in the jar, c'mon, let's get real. Do you really think that if Cruise even asked Spielberg to make a donation as well he wouldn't at least put something in? Or maybe if he really was asked to put something in and declined (which i doubt), perhaps it was because he doesn't carry hundreds in his wallet like Cruise does. Who uses cash these days anyway?Actually it was covered on the local news. They went to the Dairy Queen and interviewed the people that were working at the time and then they talked with the parents of the little girl on the jar and they just raved about how not only did Cruise put money in the jar, that he also came to see her.
Update: I just googled this incident and after reading numerous accounts of this there is no mention of Spielberg refusing to make any donation or of Cruise even asking him. Cruise was accompanied by 20 other crew members (among them was Spielberg) during that visit to the Dairy Queen. This makes it seem highly unlikely that Spielberg would be plucked out of the group by Cruise to make a donation. Cruise just happened to have 100 fifty dollar bills in his wallet. Apparently he had visited this Dairy Queen a couple times before the "donation". It was planned. Anyway, maybe that's too much detail. Either way, i think it's clear that Spielberg isn't the greedy jerk you were told he was. And by the way, Spielberg has got to be one of the most jewish names you will EVER hear
-
sportdan30
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 9111
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: St. Louis
-
GROGtheNailer
- DSP-Funk All-Star
- Posts: 1036
- Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2003 3:00 am
- Location: Saskatoon, Saskatchewan
I thought it was pretty good, but it definately will not hold up as the book has. It was just a good popcorn flick, which is what my wife was really in the mood for. She was just now reading the book for her local book club (a bunch of middle aged ladies in the neighborhood) and really preferred the book.
I wanted to see Howl's Moving Castle, but she wasn't into it. I'd like to see Land of the Dead, as well, but she won't see zombie movies. I talked her into 28 Days Later by calling it a thinking man's zombie movie. Well, I paid pretty dear for that one.
I wanted to see Howl's Moving Castle, but she wasn't into it. I'd like to see Land of the Dead, as well, but she won't see zombie movies. I talked her into 28 Days Later by calling it a thinking man's zombie movie. Well, I paid pretty dear for that one.