Sapper Redux said:
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
Sapper Redux said:
Cinco Ranch Aggie said:
javajaws said:
Teslag said:
The Tom Cruise version is a guilty pleasure of mine.
Right? That one really didn't need to be remade - it was pretty good!
The 1953 version didn't need to be remade.
I liked lots of Spielberg's take on the story ... but hated both the kids and the God-awful ending with the ex-wife and family apparently having a dinner party amid all this alien destruction.
I think Spielberg's was far more ominous and disturbing… right before you find out the aliens are apparently Red Sox fans.
It's a difference between 1953 and 2005. The original movie was certainly much less of a graphic movie, although I have to think audiences back then were floored when the Martian death ray turned those three dudes to ash - less than a decade past the first use of the A-bombs. Spielberg was more graphic with the Martians vaporizing flesh but leaving clothing, or inhaling a person and then you see it spit out the blood.
Spielberg's was very much a post-9/11 meditation. The ash covering people and the buildings collapsing and on fire with the idea of the aliens hiding their machines among us was very prescient to the moment.
Eh, a lot of film critics tried to over analyze it and make 9/11 parallels. Spielberg has never been much for symbolism and routinely hammers you over the head with his point.
While the crazed confusion of NYC streets post 9/11 "inspired" the initial attack scene, thats as deep as the film got. "the enemy attacked us from within" or "the enemy had been here all along" is just film student review tripe.
