|
Glenn,
I agree completely that the overall quality of "summer blockbuster" films
continues to deteriorate. If I have to see one more superhero movie I am simply
going to puke all over my popcorn. But there are plenty of other films that are
much more responsible for this deterioration and far worse examples of
what's wrong with these blockbusters than Spielberg's WAR OF THE WORLDS, which
is just a remake of an old sci-fi property after all and doesn't really claim to
be anything more than that. The original book isn't all that great, to tell the
truth, and has many of the same logic flaws people seem to be blaming on
Spielberg. And the original 1954 George Pal film version, while a personal
favorite of mine, ain't exactly Shakespeare in the Park, folks.
As I've said before, I would love for everyone from the public to the
producers and directors to stop thinking of sci-fi and action flicks as a
"script free" and "acting free" zone where they don't have to try very hard
because they know no one expects very much from such films. It
probably won't happen though. If films like ALIEN and BLADE RUNNER couldn't
permanently up the quality standard, nor LORD OF THE RINGS, then we're probably
stuck with most of these films remaining in the writing and acting ghetto.
Maybe Jackson's KING KONG will kick a few producers and directors in
the butt and get them to try harder. We'll see.
But least we get too cynical, let's not forget that there are a whole lot
of great, smaller budget films that are released at other times of the
year. Some made in America. Many more in other countries. And quite a few of
them are as good an example of fine filmmaking as any from decades past. It's
just that we don't hear about them much. They don't get the big advertising
blitz and the endless talk show PR. And sadly they don't get the widespread
distribution and so much of the time we have to wait until they are available on
DVD through Netflix before we can see them -- but they are being made. Two I
just had the pleasure of viewing for the first time were SHATTERED GLASS and
ENIGMA. Both are first class serious films with fine writing, acting and
directing. And luckily, with the time from theatrical release to DVD release
dropping to less than 3 months for most films now, the wait for these DVDs isn't
even that long anymore.
Real serious filmmaking is still happening -- we just don't get to see much
of it during the summer months anymore. Given the demographics, I don't see that
changing anytime soon.
--JR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 15:16
Subject: 2 bits worth of War of the
Worlds - a shame
JR,
JR wrote -
"It's not Truffaut or Fellini or even George Cukor or Frank Capra, but
what is these days?"
Isn't that the point in a way? And isn't it a shame?
Not that every director can't have a miscue - but there doesn't seem to
be a standard of excellence anymore. Perhaps I'm too cynical.
There seems to be an attitude of - "That's good enough - that
works"
Perhaps that's, in part, why this is the worst year for box office
- EVER!
Glenn
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005 12:22
PM
Subject: Re: [MOPO] 2 bits worth of War
of the Worlds
Kirby,
It seems you answer your own question. Aside from a few nits picked,
you admit the film is a fine one. So yes, everyone over 11 years old should
see it -- and on the big screen with the big sound which really add a huge
amount -- despite the small flaws you point out (and with which I agree for
the most part). None of them are significant enough to seriously detract
from the overall effect of the film. It's not Truffaut or Fellini or even
George Cukor or Frank Capra, but what is these days?
--JR
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, July 04, 2005
8:53
Subject: Re: [MOPO] 2 bits worth of
War of the Worlds
What hyperbolic drugs did you take? Did we see the
same picture?
It's an OK sci-fi pic with exceptional special effects,
and a terrific
performance by a child actor. Cruise soldiers thru
capably and assures
the producers they will get their money back.
Tim Robbin's sequence
almost pointless. Suspension of disbelief
issues aside, these three are
the ONLY guys with a car? And where
are all these people walking to
and why?
Visual effects,
yes. Emotional effects, no. As I said in my little
review,
it
is successful at finding the DREAD note in the beginning parts of
the
picture.
The tripod snout snooping around bit in Robbin's house
is tedious,
however. The
sentiment at the end feels false to
me. Cruise does not do male bonding
well, that we know of, and I
thought the whole father/son turf wars
typical of Spielberg.
When
they arrive at the grandmother's house, it's practically
thanksgiving
day.
Spielberg is better at setting things up than playing them
out, in my
opinion. Both
physically (blocking actors, using
locales) and dramatically. The
endings are
usually
disappointing. The ending of this film is typical: Gene
Barry walks
out of the house
like some avuncular
presence.
Special effects in films are so omnipresent today than
when truly vivid
ones appear,
it stands out. It is true that this
whole picture looks terrific.
Spielberg's films
usually do.
And arguably he has done this old war-horse justice.
But films
start with a script. And while this is not the worst script,
if
the producers had cared
as much about the words these actors should say
and the actions they
should make as they did
about the tripods, then
your statement below might not require so much
suspension of
disbelief.
Just about everyone over 11 years old will see it, but
should they?
Really?
Kirby
On Jul 4, 2005, at 2:52 AM, JR
wrote:
> I thought the first two-thirds of the picture a flamin'
masterpiece.
> Just about everyone over 11 years old should see it.
It is dynamite
> film-making and creates visual and emotional
effects I don't think any
> other film has ever achieved to this
extent.
Visit the
MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing
List
Send a message addressed
to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its
content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its
content.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
|
