|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Aug 16, 2004 - 1:15 AM
|
|
|
By: |
dogplant
(Member)
|
Yeah, that was VENGEANCE, according to IMDB. Thank you, Sheriff. Philipp Hi, Philipp -- This may change, but if you check out spielbergfilms dot com, it seems that the title "Vengeance" is likely not the title to this film -- that is just the title of a book that deals with this subject matter, and IMDb has slapped it onto the project in its usual lazy way. In fact, I have heard on the grapevine that the working title for this film is, or was, "Kings Cross," which has intriguing relevance to the whole Mossad post-Munich Olympic story, if you do your homework and cross reference key words on Google.... I will say no more, but I'm thinking "Parallax View," or an Israeli "All the President's Men" here, folks. I must add, I'm much more interested in this than a modern day retelling of "The War of the Worlds." I mean, if you're going to make a movie based on the Wells novel, and you have the creative potential to really do it justice, why do we need another modern day adaptation after the 1953 and, God help us, 1996 version with Will Smith? I hope Spielberg surprises me with a really fresh and biting take on the subject matter, but I was so disappointed to learn they are not going to set this in Victorian London. The period and setting were, for me, what made Wells' novel so great -- it was a brillant, documentary-style parable that shook the heck out of the Victorian colonialism and Industrial Revolution. I often wonder if Spielberg reads FSM, or even browses these columns because he's such a self-confessed movie score nut, or at least he used to be judging from old interviews and liner notes. If I could say one thing to him I'd say, I love your movies, man, but don't pull your punches. "The War of the Worlds" needs to be an R. Bah, humbug.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|