Fan in Chicago

{cowering behind old bookshelf in office and whimpering} 'No'. I will seek to redeem myself immediately this coming weekend.

Excellent movie. Not having seen the original nor read the book, I went in thinking 'at least the kids will enjoy it, I can have a nap'. But I enjoyed it a lot too. Side commentary - I was majorly irritated by a bunch of teens sitting right behind us and saying ''oh, I hate this part'' every 10 minutes. It was obvious they were seeing the movie for a second time and I could not understand (1) Why see it again if you hated so many parts and, (2) Why overuse the word 'hate'. I realize that is part of the teen vocabulary and makes them think it is cool the more things they 'hate'. Boy did that distract and anger me. "Oh dear, that is a bad nut"

I whole heartedly second that. In fact, Dodgeball re-introduced me to Vince after that disastrous Psycho remake. That was one movie I did not know what to expect and was laughing throughout. Looks like I have to check out Swingers.

Am I the only one here that thinks that if we believed that Jags are a potential wild card competitor, then we should have sent TH there ? We could then blitz the heck out of the QB and be semi-assured of a win ? Don't get me wrong, I am very happy that the deal is done and I couldn't care a rat's a** who gave us the third round pick. And on the subject of eating crow, I was in the camp that thought we should get at least a 2nd rounder for him but as his market value started emerging I realized my mistake in over-valuing him.

Something like "Take that to the Dalai Lama you ******* " Vince had several lines in the movie which are impossible to grasp during the first viewing. I will see it again when it comes out on DVD just to catch all his dialog. Very funny movie - too bad my wife did not like it.

SDS is probably savoring it right now as he hasn't had time to post a rebuttal.

Whole heartedly agree with that. The employee can refuse after getting the final offer so there is absolutely no harm in going through the entire process. The potential employee owes it to himself/herself in pursuing the opportunity thoroughly.

Me too.

As you saw from my response below, that is how the HH contacted me and it led to this job. Believe me I am very happy with the new job.

The problem is that the hype and Spielberg's name was adequate to make it a semi-hit. I am fundamentally against remakes but if someone is making it, at least make sure it is relevant to today's world. Or make a period piece. Just very disappointed that one of my favorite directors could come up with such a movie.

I will chip in with a serious response. I recently changed jobs and the way I got it was - a HH called a friend who wasn't looking but asked the HH to call me. So not all calls are junk calls. Give it serious consideration and run it down first. You should get an idea about compensation but never talk details at this stage with either the HH or the company. That is only for after you get an offer. At this stage the HH is trying to decide if you are qualified for the position so don't make that judgment yourself. Most people underestimate themselves. If you are concerned about the company going under, get a legal clause in your offer letter (should you get one) that will pay you 6 months salary if you are left without a job due to this reason within the next two years. A friend did exactly this - the company is in bankruptcy and brought him in to 'fix the problems'. The process from here on should go like this HH interviews you HH passes on resume to company (if you are are qualified and sound like a good prospect) Company reviews and approves/disapproves your candidacy with the HH You get called for a first round interview (phone or in person) .... Hope this helps.

In the past, so have I. Hence, I wanted to sucker some more poor saps into doing the same. Being an engineer by training, even I was surprised about how many of these sequences I took for granted when they make no scientific sense.

I did not see it but if it was on the subject of physics versus what is shown in movies, you may enjoy this site: http://www.intuitor.com/moviephysics/

Fair enough. For me, the plot holes were too wide and too many to enjoy the rest of the movie. Hence I would give it 2/4 *s. Of the popcorn flicks he has made, I think this is Spielberg's weakest.

I have seen the movie and have posted (in this thread) my major complaints. If you have time, do read that post and let me know why there is a logical explanation for any of the points I raise. To your current point about the use of blood, if I needed a captive source of fertilizer to engulf the planet with weeds, why would I first blow up so many fertilizer plants (humans) first ? I would destroy stuff around the fertilizer plants to establish my dominance and then start using the factories.

If one holds true to that, everything is so much easier.

I am one of those that ragged on the logic of the sci-fi. I love sci-fi movies and agree that they are not realistic cinema. But hey, can they atleast be logical ? See my previous post (with heavy spoilers) to see what my major complaints are. Spielberg's Minority Report was excellent so was Jurassic Park - niether of them were realistic (at least right now) but they held together very well.

Hey atleast he can live out my fantasy. I am on the wrong side of 30 but worse, I am married so can't indulge in such hanky-panky. If I could, your words of wisdom would be lost on me. And I am a smoker too

Hey dude, are you posting from one of those shiny disc shaped thingies that have been appearing in rural locales of the US since the 1940s ?

This one line summarizes my advice to you. If you want a serious relationship, look elsewhere.

In Chicago suburbs, there is one 2 minutes from my house. Cascade Drive-in. Great location for me.

After seeing this, I blocked out time Dec. 16th on my very (un)busy calendar. This movie should rock !

Good choice. If you are sure about not wanting to see it, read my spoiler-filled review a few posts back.

Saw WOTW yesterday - this guy can neither shut up nor act.

[MAJOR SPOILERS BELOW} I have not seen the original or read the book so consider this a truly unbiased opinion. (1) The movie really worked as a human drama. Spielberg really knows how to distill a tragedy down to its impact on a family level. (2) Special effects and story development was very good Okay here comes the criticism (3) Tom Cruise can't act for peanuts. Enough said (4) The underlying premise was ridiculous to say the least. If this was the classic book and movie, I am very disappointed: - There is a mention that the tripods were planted there before humans existed. Then why plant them ? Did the aliens like randomly go around the universe planting tripods in the hope that something good can be harvested millions of years later ? - If the aliens were of such superior intelligence, what did they want with earth and humans ? - What did the aliens want anyway ? Annihilate humanity and then grow blood-containing weeds ? - If the aliens wanted human blood, why massacre so many humans in the beginning ? Doesn't it give them less raw material for their grand plan ? - Why do they start dying ? The voice-over in the end says they could not digest us and our survival methods had evolved over the eons. Give me a break ! What a lame-a** way to end a movie. - So lets say the machines start dying because Cruise plants some hand grenades in their belly and they are connected like the Borg. Then why do the weeds start dying ? - How does Robbie survive when the entire battalion is blown to kingdom come ? - How does Robbie reach Boston ? I am sure I will come up with more if I bother to think some more. I mean Shyamalan's 'Signs' got trashed by many saying why did the aliens come in the first place if water was acid to them. Guys, if that movie can be criticized, this one is really a very amateurish sci-fi tale. For me the movie of the summer so far was Batman Begins.