Steven Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS

[Johann]

Attention citizens:

The Martians are coming. Steven Spielberg has begun pre-production on his version of H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds, starring Tom Cruise. Release is set for 2007.

I'm highly anticipating this film. Spielberg is long overdue for a classic. Will this film be it?
John Williams is probably doing the score...

[wpqx]

I don't know, I smell a lot of special effects and a summer blockbuster. The original War of the Worlds film sucked, and I don't think this one will be much closer to the book, which I found excellent. I think he is trying to go for a safe money maker after the so-so business of the Terminal. I might just wait until DVD for this one.

[Johann]

I hear ya: Cruise and Spielberg. Minority Report anyone?

No doubt there will be sfx aplenty, but I have faith this could be a big resurrection for Spielberg.

He's gotta do something- I'd hate to think his best films are behind him!

[tabuno]

Spielberg continues to make good movies that I immensely enjoyed and thought very well done:

Terminal, The (2004)
Catch Me If You Can (2002)
Minority Report (2002)
Artificial Intelligence: AI (2001)
Saving Private Ryan (1998)
Amistad (1997)
Schindler's List (1993)
Empire of the Sun (1987)
Color Purple, The (1985)

Then there were the more popular, less artistic versions of mainstream movies for entertainment:

Lost World: Jurassic Park, The (1997) Jurassic Park (1993)
Hook (1991)
Always (1989)
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984)
Poltergeist (1982) (uncredited)
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
1941 (1979)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Jaws (1975)

Most of Spielberg's movie have had great response except perhaps 1941 and Hook, but I can't say that his best years are behind.

[arsaib4]

I hope Spielberg has enough 'magic' left to make up for a script being written by a David Koepp, who's been behind such masterpieces as Jurassic Park, Spider Man, Panic Room and most recently Secret Window (just so i'm clear, there's sarcasm involved).

[tabuno]

Thanks for the script-writing info. Maybe that's 'oh! oh!'

[cinemabon]

My favorite scene in the 1953 version is when Ann Robinson, who had been so cool through the film, let's out a blood curdling scream when confronted with the Martian brutality. That was such a common response in movies then.

Can you imagine the direction Byron Haskin gave? "Ok, now, Ann... we want you to stand there and scream blood murder, ok? Ready, roll cameras, sound... ok Ann... SCREAM!"

[stevetseitz]

I like the list of Spielberg's movies although I would demote "Minority Report", "Catch Me If You Can", and "The Terminal" to the "popular, less artistic" category and I would move "Jaws", "Raiders" and add "Duel" to the "immensely enjoyed and very well done" category.

Further, I would remove "A.I." and "The Lost World: Jurassic Park" to another, new, section. Unabashed Spielberg stinkers.

As for "1941", it requires a separate category also: "Spielberg movies you have to be in the mood for."

I have always loved the original "War of the Worlds" and wonder if a remake is needed.

[cinemabon]

You couldn't have hit that more on the target steve unless you stood at point blank range.

[tabuno]

Artificial Intelligence has the mystic elements of a good movie. I still vote to keep A.I. at the top of sci fi lists for its vision, its off-beat, non-stereotypical, almost operatic themes. Well-shot and deeper than most sci fi movies, this movie has merit as a substantive, quality film.

[oscar jubis]

EXCELLENT: A.I., Schindler's List

VERY GOOD: Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Minority Report

GOOD: E.T., 1941, Jaws, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan

GO AHEAD (but don't expect too much): Empire of the Sun, Duel, The Color Purple, Jurassic Park, Hook, The Terminal, Catch me if you Can, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

AVOID: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, The Lost World:Jurassic Park, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Always

[tabuno]

oscar jubis' rating of Spielberg's films reflects a consistent theme towards a freshness, crispness in quality film making and away from the more mass-produced, general popular movie productions that that hit certain psychological buttons. I always considered "Jaws" a perfect example of the best of focus-grouped incorporated concepts that would have the greatest positive response from the greatest number of people. The movie included humor, the right balance of character identification where the audience can select their own hero from the bewildered, befuddled sheriff and the scientific nerd who can hold his own, to the raw, gruff sea man.

Other excellent or very good films, however, resonant on a different level and hit different cords (pun of Close Encounters) on a higher, loftier level of principle, feeling, thought as well having a powerful cinematic sense.

[stevetseitz]

It's the age old debate of whether a movie has to be unpopular to be art and, conversely, can a movie be popular and remain truly artistic?

"Jaws" had many of the elements you describe, but it hit a higher level and deeply appealed to the basic man vs. nature theme. Especially for those of us who live on or near the coast and butt heads with the forces of and in the ocean on a regular basis.

"Raiders of the Lost Ark" was almost a perfect popcorn movie. It payed homage to the serials without being a spoof of them and kept the viewer hypnotized by it's quality of production. It may not have dealt with deep themes, but who says every good movie has to? Some movies entertain and "Raiders" did that extremely well.

I thought "A.I." was drivel. The worst kind of pretentious sci-fi. Inconsistent performances and the director's own ego took over the project. I would not consider it's themes substantive or of high quality. Some of the design elements and visuals were excellent but it did not save the movie for me or for audiences around the world. The taking over the project from Kubrick didn't help either with keeping a consistent tone.

"Schindler's List" is a masterpiece of the very highest order partially because of Spielberg's focused talent and passion and partially because of it's depiction of true events.

Let's take "The Lost World: Jurrasic Park"; no one defends it. Yet it tried to pull all the same "popularity" strings that "Raiders of the Lost Ark" did. The difference was that "The Lost World" didn't succeed. The quality of writing and commitment of the parties involved was absent and the movie is rightly lambasted.

[pmw]

One vote for The Goonies (screenplay), a funny movie in so many ways and somehow a significant part of my childhood. Anyway, die hard Speilbergers can skip this post. Just thought I'd throw it in there... From a NY critic's recent description of the movie as it becomes a Midnight Movie at the Sunshine on the Lower East Side:


"...As for the target audience of “The Goonies,” suffice to say it’s playing midnights at the Sunshine this weekend: not kids (they’re probably at “Hero”) but the crowd with Kid 606 remixes on its iPod. Oh the magic of reparatory programming! Here’s a chance for Gen Xers to reconcile with the fact that this shrill blast of 80’s sub-Spielbergism is one of their cultural touchstones.

On the one hand, “The Goonies” is a class warfare fantasia in which six working class heroes must save their quaint coastal town from a pack of villainous real estate developers. On the other hand, it’s an anxious psychosexual odyssey in which a troupe of potty-mouthed, pee-pee fixated pre-pubescent boys quest for the “treasure” of “One-Eyed Willie.”

They are: gentle, asthmatic Mikey (Sean Astin), who either grows up to be gay, or the leader of an indie rock band, or both; his older brother Brand (Josh Brolin), eventually known as “that old guy in the club;” snide, obnoxious Mouth (Corey Feldman), who later gentrifies the Lower East Side (notice the tight jeans, “Purple Rain” t-shirt, and Member’s Only jacket); Asian gadget nerd Data (Jonathan Ke Quan), who will become a billionaire (on paper)in the late 90’s; and fat klutz Chunk (Jeff Cohen), future Atkins diet fanatic and pilates Fascist. "

[tabuno]

Following stevetseitz' line of thought, I feel that Goonies has the same appeal and pmv is on target with its message, its presentation, and its delivery. I have enjoyed watching Goonies a number of times.

With Bladerunner, it failed to gain much attention or popularity when first released and it went on to become on of the classics of sci fi movies. For me A.I., doesn't require popularity, at least for now...and the implication that a director can't put one's own dominate influence into a movie he or she directs is somewhat beside the point. Adaptations, based on, inspired by...projects taken up from other directors...to compare one director's work based another director's past work is comparing different types of apples - some are better for cooking than eating.

Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark have set standards in film making by their techniques and their ability to capture the imagination and deeper feelings of fear and excitement - getting out of one's self. However, on a deeper level of really seizing the core of humanity they become mostly entertainment for the masses - like Walmart so to say. The marketing and packaging of material for consumer consumption are marvelous in both these movies and they provide excellent models for future movies. But the style over the content they are and the balance between style and content - the blending and mixture - the essence of great movies that resonant on both the technique and the existential is even more life sustaining and long-lasting.

[cinemabon]

As I have posted before, I did my college paper on Steven. Oscar and I went round and round about A.I. either last year or the year before. While we repect each other's opinion about everything else, on A.I. we differ. I won't go into it now, because Oscar is trapped inside and probably without power in Miami, so I'll let him off the hook, this time.

The aspects of "Jaws" that make it look so formula today, are the elements taken from the book itself that made it so popular. It was the special touch Speilberg gave to the film which took it over the top. It may appear formula now, but at the time, nothing like that was mentioned by any critic or the by the fans.

For years Speilberg was generally consistant in that "touch" which culminated in "Schindler's List." Many of us who love his work think something must have happened from that point on. His work has been spotty at best.

If you are going to discuss films like Hook and 1941, then you have to put them into context. These were part of his deal with Universal, and were not part of SKG (not that he's improved since then, it's just they were part of package deal, especially 1941, a project that turned into a stoner's party).

Let us look instead at a very personal project which actually started with Close Encounters. He wanted to make a project like Signs, which had to do with aliens harassing a farm family out in the boondocks. It was a project he'd been interested in for years. That segued into E.T., probably his favorite film of all time and the one that most resembles Speilberg (just as "Yesterday" mostly resembles Paul McCartney and not the Beatles).

E.T. is a far cry from A. I. which Steven somehow felt he was going to accomplish by stepping into Kubrick's shoes. One does not step into Kubrick's shoes. It's like trying to remake "Psycho", bad idea from concept day one. The message becomes muddled and the purpose of the story confused.

Steven is a great storyteller, whose successes are based not on idea men or committees but because he can use the tools around him well... camera, lighting, actors, editing, music and so on. He is a consumate filmmaker and I admire him very much. He is now into telling different, very different kinds of stories. I personally believe he is out of his league. Perhaps with War of the Worlds, Steven will return to the type of film with which he has historically done so well. I fear that using someone else's material, however, in a story where everyone is familiar with the end, will simply wind up being redundant.

[tabuno]

cinemabon correctly captures the mystic of Jaws and its benchmark in movie-making by putting together many popular elements that would appeal to a mass audience and successfully found a power way to express them producing one of the first blockbusters in movie history. While I'm not really sold on the deeper and cinematic depth of this movie, it does however, truly represent a significant event in movie history in how it touched the movie-going public and its influence all many movies there after.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon E.T. is a far cry from A. I. which Steven somehow felt he was going to accomplish by stepping into Kubrick's shoes. One does not step into Kubrick's shoes.

Perhaps it'd be redundant for us to rehash our polarized opinions of Artificial Intelligence, so I'll stick to the facts regarding the collaboration between Kubrick and Spielberg. I'll preface by sharing how ackward I feel defending Mr. Spielberg, whose limitations as a filmmaker are more apparent to me than his virtues.

Stanley Kubrick worked on this project for 12 years, prior to deciding on his own that Spielberg was best suited for the material. This pre-production work consists primarily of a 90-page treatment, a "skeleton" script Kubrick developed with Ian Watson, and over 600 "conceptual" drawings Kubrick produced with assistance from Chris Baker. It's been widely acknowledged that Spielberg was contacted directly by Kubrick and that Spielberg was faithful to all materials inherited from Kubrick, as reported by executive producer Jan Harlan.
Composer John Williams has referred to his score as being "a homage to Kubrick" in that it contains themes from some of his films' scores. Moreover, as requested by Kubrick, the score includes excerpts from Strauss' "Der Rosenkavalier" waltz and the band playing at the flesh fair is Ministry.
Artificial Intelligence contains a number of Kubrick trademarks and references. It's a true collaboration in every sense of the word, a hybrid, not a film that either director would be able to produce without input from the other. Not simply a matter of "Spielberg stepping into Kubrick's shoes".

I won't get into matters of opinion besides saying that, like every Kubrick film since 2001, its stature is likely to grow with repeated viewings over the course of time.

[cinemabon]

Sorry, Oscar, but I couldn't disagree with your logic more. This film is a travesty from the start. Its suppositions are ridiculous. It's logic is full of holes so big Speilberg could drive his mother ship through them, regardless of whether Kubrick developed them or not. The whole premise of the film is silly: inventing emotional robots to replace lost children. Think about it, Oscar. Doesn't that strike you as being the silliest thing in the world? After all, you are a psychologist. No parent in his right mind would become attached to a thing, no matter how big it's artificial eyes were. And what parent would want to plunk down some ungodly amount of money to buy such a thing to replace a child anyway?

Secondly, this film takes emotional advantage of the audience, by putting the viewer through hell as we watch this innocent robot go through one tortuous scene after another. This is entertainment? Even those sadistic German's rejected this one. There is nothing redeeming about A.I except that it has some "cool special effects, man!" That's a lame excuse made by people impressed with the least aspect of this overblown movie.

I didn't want to get into this all over again. But your last remark, that this film will gain acceptance by repeated viewings is like saying Leni Riefenstahl will be more of a human artist when we watch "Triumph of the Will" with repeated viewings. Speilberg is the polar opposite of Leni, but the analogy between the films is not such a disparity! I would only watch A.I. again if I were in a cage and forced to watch the same way the child robot in the film was forced to watch other robots as they were slaughtered in front of it. I find this movie as revolting as watching Triumph of the Will. Once is enough for either.

[wpqx]

What's your beef with Triumph of the Will, it shows the Nazis in all their glory, Heil Hitler!

By the way I"m joking about the nazi remark, try to separate art from politics, and AI wasn't that bad. True it was a little disappointing, but it was hardly torture.

[oscar jubis]

Originally posted by cinemabon
Sorry, Oscar, but I couldn't disagree with your logic more. This film is a travesty from the start.

I'm not putting forth an argument so there's no logic involved. The bulk of my post concerns facts about the Kubrick-Spielberg collaboration. My closing statement is simply a prediction based on the current view of previous Kubrick projects that received a mixed reception upon release.

[cinemabon]

Geshundheit!

[Johann]

I've defended this film before, and I'll do so again.

I saw this film opening day in 2001 and it was a moving experience at the movies. It was a tribute to Kubrick.
From Steven Spielberg.
Two giant names in cinema (if for different reasons) who collaborated.

A. I. is stunning. Anyone who can't feel genius from this film needs some more time in the woodshed.
Seriously. What a neon marvel this work is. How can anyone deny the visuals? They almost beat Blade Runner in terms of craftsmanship.

I can only dream what The Master would have done with it, just as I ponder what his film Napoleon would have been like. (at least we still have the script).

The only bitch I have about A.I. is that the ending could have been wrapped up more obliquely that it was.
The scene where David and Teddy are in the underwater craft, staring at the Blue Fairy and the camera pans back? THAT should have been the ending. All that Lucas-cgi style "education of David" stuff should have been chopped.

Other than that, I can't think of a better film from 2001.

[stevetseitz]

Without getting mired into an endless debate, I have to agree with Cinemabon here. A.I. was rubbish. Spielberg lost focus and got all schmaltzy. The ending was a travesty.

[tabuno]

I enjoyed AI very much. The technical photography has the Kubrick look. The storyline was strong as William Hurt's role was played against type - very well. The ending was something that 2001: A Space Odyssey did as well at the end. I don't think a blue fairy ending would have really imparted the human (or non-human) outlook either director would have wanted. More than being cheesy, the ending of AI provides a clear and enduring message of humanity...yet at the same time, the ending isn't all that clear in terms of what happens next.

I believe the journey taken in AI has a universal theme for all of us now and in the future, embarking on a futurist vision that remains to be seen. AI hits the human emotional buttons, gives us a breathtaking look at a possible future with its humor and its complexities and its emotional ups and downs. I can't ask for a movie to do more than this.

[cinemabon]

Hold onto your hats, fans. I'll be posting a complete "mini-bio" of Steven in the next day or two and y'all can jump in and comment. (I've gotten used to hearing y'all down here).

I'll cover his career and post some surprises... you heard it here, first!

I admire Steven more than any current living director and am looking forward to making every last one of you wade through what I'm sure will be the new longest post in filmwurld history!

preview? I give A.I. three stars out of five mostly for effort, definitely not for content.

[oscar jubis]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tabuno
I enjoyed AI very much. The ending was something that 2001: A Space Odyssey did as well at the end. the ending of AI provides a clear and enduring message of humanity...yet at the same time, the ending isn't all that clear in terms of what happens next.

There's a clear correspondence between the endings of 2001 and A.I., which were carefully thought out. A good point of departure to meditate on this would be the significance of the Blue fairy and the granite slab to both Davids. Notice their reappearance in the rooms where both films end. You can also think of HAL as David's Granddad. I've also enjoyed making connections between A.I. and Tarkovsky's Solaris, an inquiry into what it means to be human and what it means to die.
Osmet's David has been persuaded by the story of Pinocchio that Monica will love him if he becomes a real boy. But when he finds out that he's a mere prototype, he attempts suicide, first by destroying one of his doubles and later by plunging from a skyscraper. He winds up in the ruins of Coney Island pleading with Blue Fairy to make him a real boy. 2000 years pass. Humans become extinct. He's discovered by future beings who transmit his story to one another via movie pictures (allegorical possibilities here). Working from these projections, and a lock of her hair, they resurrect Monica for a one-day idyll ("The happiest day of his life" says the narrator). There is a reciprocity between this event and Monica completing the impriting procedure that makes David fall in love with her. Typical Spielberg goo, some would say, but think about it:
"Humankind final gasp belongs to a fucked-up boy robot with an Oedipus complex who's in bed with a clone of his adopted mother, and who finally becomes a real boy at the moment that he seemingly autodestructs_assuming he vanishes along with her. Whatever he is, his apotheosis with mommy seems to exhaust his reason for existing" (J. Rosenbaum)

It's the rare Spielberg ending that doesn't undermine the viewer's power to imagine and ponder.

[cinemabon]

The end does not justify the rest of the crap. Yes, Oscar, I would agree with you whole heartedly that the ending of the film is both unique and beautiful. I especially liked the fact that the robots we create evolve and outlive us as extentions of living creatures. That is the subject of finer science fiction. But not this film. By the time Spieberg gets around to the end, he's traumatized the entire audience with drivel. I admire your analysis and your intellect is both varied, vast, and accepting... but in this one instance, Oscar, you keep defending a film that has as its guts an impossible premise. The idea of paralleling this film with 2001 further exemplifies this justification. Sometimes you just cannot make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.

[cinemabon]

Tim Robbins was just added to the cast of "War of the Worlds."