(guest reviewed) inconsistencies abound in this summer blockbuster. suspenseful (knee-jerk style) but cratered with "plotholes" that can be crossed if you're (1) generous with leaps of faith, (2) awestruck by dakota fanning's talent while not put off by her teeth, or (3) a fan of tom cruise's signature "i'm burying my head in my hands to mask that i only have two facial expressions." movie-hop in for the first half hour of special effects and leave once buildings stop splitting in two. the movie has its moments but if you're looking for a coherent alien invasion movie, rent independence day instead. id4 comparatively looks like an oscar contender.
Friday, July 01, 2005
war of the worlds
(guest reviewed) inconsistencies abound in this summer blockbuster. suspenseful (knee-jerk style) but cratered with "plotholes" that can be crossed if you're (1) generous with leaps of faith, (2) awestruck by dakota fanning's talent while not put off by her teeth, or (3) a fan of tom cruise's signature "i'm burying my head in my hands to mask that i only have two facial expressions." movie-hop in for the first half hour of special effects and leave once buildings stop splitting in two. the movie has its moments but if you're looking for a coherent alien invasion movie, rent independence day instead. id4 comparatively looks like an oscar contender.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
serious? id4 was a joke compared to this. i mean it was entertaining and all but u wanna talk about cheesy and unbelieveable, id4 epitomized that. watch them back to back and i guarantee u WOW is better. can u even name one roland emmerich movie that didn't have a major cheese factor to it? the only difference is ur level of criticism was different when u watched id4 and when u watched WOW.
sorry i'm still upset over the id4 comment. if u wanna talk about objective vs. subjective....id4 was objectively BAD. but i did like most americans enjoy the movie.
and i can understand the criticism of WOW but it was a freakin story written in 1898. Of course its unbelievable....tripods walking around zapping people. but if ur gonna flaw it based on that then u should just say its a dumb novel that they should never make a modern day movie out of. its not the film, its the no longer believable century old story.
Actually the parts I found most implausible (without spoiling the movie) were parts the scriptwriters had taken liberties with: alien vessels buried in the ground, a digital camera running when electric pulses had wiped everything else out, veiny vines, Tim Robbins' character, Tom Cruise's hero scene, the discrepant destruction of major cities, roving snakeheads lacking heat-seeking technology though they are able to zero in to vaporize humans two seconds earlier... these are all oversights I put on the studio, not the talented H.G. Wells.
To its credit, the movie had its moments, namely some good scenes portraying human behavior in the midst of disaster. And it makes you realize how f***ed we'd be without technology and communication. In an era of disappointing summer blockbusters, this fits right into the family... but one just expects a Spielberg movie to be the black sheep of the bunch...
actually i recant the last part of my criticism. if u don't like the movie, thats fine. i was just deeply offended by the id4 comment which i feel as movie, while entertaining, has no artistic merit.
and a sidenote, upon rereading war of the worlds, a strict adaptation of hg wells novel would be completely unbelievable today. however wells still was an amazing visionary and way ahead of his time.
Post a Comment