(no subject)
I haven't updated my journal for awhile, but I don't really have anything to say...
So I'll post this instead: War of the Worlds, a brief review
I gotta warn anyone who reads this: It has some spoiolers in it, so you've been warned.
War of the Worlds is a movie based on a book by H. G. Wells, and stars Tom Cruise and Dakota Fannning, and some guy from the Shaw Shank Redemption. The movie attempts to combine intense action and suspense, amazing special effects, and deeply engrained morals, with like-able characters that the veiwer can empathize with. I don't think it entirely succeeds at these things though.
One of the few things that really irked me in this movie were some of the conflicts the characters have with eachother, and the metaphorical reference to the US war on terror. It's not that I have a problem with the fact that they're in the movie, I just didn't particalarly like how they were done, especially the non-sense way that the son practically kills himself half way through, and Dakota FAnning's constant references to "Terrrorists". And (though I'm no expert movie director) it seemed like a bad choice to have Tom Cruise's character and his son have a "touching" and meaningful dialogue amidst a cacophony of screams and explosions.
And it seemed like the character Tom cruise is trying to play is a Dad who's been an absentee father who can't emotionally get through to his kids, and is trying to prove to everyone (and himself) he can take care of them. But through all the suspense, and running, and special effects, and dakota fanning's balling tears, I just didn't totally see that (at least in my opinion).
The movie also has an interesting choice of lighting. The film has a very "dark" texture to it, and it seems like they filtered out some of the color, just like they did in Minority Report (another Hitchcock film, with tom cruise, and an awesome on too). I mostly liked it, and I think it fits, just that certain scenes seemed a little odd with it.
I don't want to make it seem like I didn't like the movie, or that I thought it was bad. It was realy interesting to watch for the most part, and the parts that werent' were actually kind of funny. There were times when I was really rooting for the characters, and what Tom Cruise does to the robot toward the end was pretty awsome (why didn't they save the guy before him?). It's just that the enture movie is very long, and somewhat depressing, with no relief, with long drawn out sequnces, and the couple of things that might throw out the suspension of disbelief of the viewers (If asphalt begins to crack apart, then explode, and a giant robot erupts out of the ground, would you just stare and gawk in awe?) kind of make it not-so-spectacular.
It also might have something to do with the fact that I hate Dakota Fanning.
So I'll post this instead: War of the Worlds, a brief review
I gotta warn anyone who reads this: It has some spoiolers in it, so you've been warned.
War of the Worlds is a movie based on a book by H. G. Wells, and stars Tom Cruise and Dakota Fannning, and some guy from the Shaw Shank Redemption. The movie attempts to combine intense action and suspense, amazing special effects, and deeply engrained morals, with like-able characters that the veiwer can empathize with. I don't think it entirely succeeds at these things though.
One of the few things that really irked me in this movie were some of the conflicts the characters have with eachother, and the metaphorical reference to the US war on terror. It's not that I have a problem with the fact that they're in the movie, I just didn't particalarly like how they were done, especially the non-sense way that the son practically kills himself half way through, and Dakota FAnning's constant references to "Terrrorists". And (though I'm no expert movie director) it seemed like a bad choice to have Tom Cruise's character and his son have a "touching" and meaningful dialogue amidst a cacophony of screams and explosions.
And it seemed like the character Tom cruise is trying to play is a Dad who's been an absentee father who can't emotionally get through to his kids, and is trying to prove to everyone (and himself) he can take care of them. But through all the suspense, and running, and special effects, and dakota fanning's balling tears, I just didn't totally see that (at least in my opinion).
The movie also has an interesting choice of lighting. The film has a very "dark" texture to it, and it seems like they filtered out some of the color, just like they did in Minority Report (another Hitchcock film, with tom cruise, and an awesome on too). I mostly liked it, and I think it fits, just that certain scenes seemed a little odd with it.
I don't want to make it seem like I didn't like the movie, or that I thought it was bad. It was realy interesting to watch for the most part, and the parts that werent' were actually kind of funny. There were times when I was really rooting for the characters, and what Tom Cruise does to the robot toward the end was pretty awsome (why didn't they save the guy before him?). It's just that the enture movie is very long, and somewhat depressing, with no relief, with long drawn out sequnces, and the couple of things that might throw out the suspension of disbelief of the viewers (If asphalt begins to crack apart, then explode, and a giant robot erupts out of the ground, would you just stare and gawk in awe?) kind of make it not-so-spectacular.
It also might have something to do with the fact that I hate Dakota Fanning.