Movies to Look Forward To

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by dissention

To be honest, I'm content with the version from the fifties. I *shudder* to think of what Spielberg will do to it. And Tom Cruise? Oy vey. But, who knows, maybe I'll be surprised.

of the CLASSIC "War of the Worlds" is the kinda **** that makes one WANT to wear a pair of "Depends" on their head so when they projectile vomit at the theatre they wont hit the moviegoer seated directly in front of the proposed vomit path.

Brian "Hollyweird-Fresh outta ideas...Time to REHASH the classics" j.

[amber]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

You know she's just released an album here in Britain Amber!
So shall I get you a copy?

yeah, i read about that in our paper aw, she's ok, i guess. Have you heard it? does it suck?

[dissention]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

I realise some people don't rate Spielberg but I love his movies. Jaws, the Indy films, ET are all classics to me (and many others). I also love HG Wells, so to ME its a great combination.

As for a long wait, the British Film Distributor's Association have it down for a July 8 release, so UIP must be planning it as one of its big summer releases otherwise it wouldn't have told the FDA that date.

Spielberg isn't all he's cracked up to be. He's very cloying at times and panders to the lowest common denominator. I wish he'd make more films like Empire of the Sun or The Color Purple instead of crap like Catch Me If You Can and The Terminal. He hasn't made a watchable flick since Schindler's List, IMO. And with such a staggering budget, I'm worried that WOTW will turn into nothing but a special effects extravaganza and nothing else. A bloated wreck of a film is what I expect.

It's scheduled for June 29th here, but they just started shooting in September and there was an article in Variety a few weeks ago that said they'll never make the deadline. We'll see, though.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

yeah, i read about that in our paper aw, she's ok, i guess. Have you heard it? does it suck?

I listened to clips in B&N Friday morning and quite liked it. Would have to hear it again, though. Amazon has clips, I think.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Spielberg isn't all he's cracked up to be. He's very cloying at times and panders to the lowest common denominator. I wish he'd make for films like Empire of the Sun or The Color Purple instead of crap like Catch Me If You Can and The Terminal. He hasn't made a watchable flick since Schindler's List, IMO. And with such a staggering budget, I'm worried that WOTW will turn into nothing but a special effects extravaganza and nothing else. A bloated wreck of a film is what I expect.

It's scheduled for June 29th here, but they just started shooting in September and there was an article in Variety a few weeks ago that said they'll never make the deadline. We'll see, though.

That could happen, but it could be good, too. OOOO, just in time for my b-day! Actually, i don't especially love or hate spielberg, but we all know how i feel about Tom. mmmmm....

[dissention]

Originally Posted by amber

That could happen, but it could be good, too. OOOO, just in time for my b-day! Actually, i don't especially love or hate spielberg, but we all know how i feel about Tom. mmmmm....

Spielberg's involved in the adaptation of Stephen King's The Talisman and I just know he's going to ruin it. I can't stand Stephen King, but that book is a masterpiece.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Brian the only thing I'll say about that is that it's not a remake (the same goes for Charlie And The Chocolate Factory) it's merely another adaptation of the book.

I don't see the problem. If it's crap, people will just remember the original more fondly (ie Planet Of The Apes), but if it's good, well that's a bad thing?

seen of the promo shots of "War of the Worlds" it will TANK faster than Men In Black 2...Tom Cruise + remake = DUD!! (see Mission Impossible, I saw this movie when it was released and I thought it royally sucked )

Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, however, should be very good as long as it stays faithful to the original book (I'm in the minority, But I also like the musical cause I am a Gene Wilder fan!)

I think Hollyweird should do MORE original ideas and not ruin the classics as they have often done with lame ass "megastars" in remakes that reek (ie-"Oceans 11")

Brian j.

[amber]

Originally Posted by dissention

Spielberg's involved in the adaptation of Stephen King's The Talisman and I just know he's going to ruin it. I can't stand Stephen King, but that book is a masterpiece.

Yeah, but how often has a movie been better than the book anyways? Once? In all of Time? so, yeah, he probably will ruin it...

[dissention]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Let's make this very clear, this is YOUR opinion. I think often he is all he's cracked up to be.
I haven't seen The Terminal but I loved Catch Me If You Can, and I know many people with very sophisticated tastes in films who loved it too.
Personally I don't think there's anything wrong with making films that millions of people like.

Let's make this very clear:

I said In My Opinion in my post.

[amber]

Originally Posted by estranged4life

seen of the promo shots of "War of the Worlds" it will TANK faster than Men In Black 2...Tom Cruise + remake + DUD!! (see Mission Impossible )

Charlie And The Chocolate Factory, however, should be very good as long as it stays faithful to the original book (I'm in the minority, But I also like the musical cause I am a Gene Wilder fan!)

I think Hollyweird should do MORE original ideas and not ruin the classics as they have often done with lame ass "megastars" in remakes that reek (ie-"Oceans 11")

Brian j.

Um, i don't think the Mission Impossibles "tanked"

[amber]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Yeah it sucks. It's very bland IMO.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by amber

Um, i don't think the Mission Impossibles "tanked"

financial TANKED...I'm talking it did not live up to the hype, Just like Titanic did...

I wonder how long before Hollyweird releases "Titanic 2-We raised it for the $$$$$ and merchandising" ????

[dissention]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Men In Black II made more than $190 million in the states and £22 million in the States.

With a budget of $140, it didn't set the studio profits ablaze like it's predecessor. If Disney can still claim to not have made a dime off of Gibson's Ransom, it's plausible that MIB2 didn't make a dime.

[estranged4life]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

Men In Black II made more than $190 million in the states and £22 million in the States. I don't think it tanked. And both Mission Impossible films were huge hits....

But I agree Hollywood should be developing more original ideas.

MIB2 made money...But only God knows why, It sucked beyond all human reason compared to the first movie which was at least watchable.

I never pay attention to how much a movie makes monetarily, I only care if it will entertain me, And the latest stuff I have seen has mainly sucked...

Brian j.

[dissention]

Originally Posted by trackaghost

You are very patronising my friend.

I hope that works out for you.

And you're very condescending. Guess we're in the same boat.