speedbumps on the autobahn - movie karma balance
faves flickr ... LJ pix ... vox ... travelocity ... IMDb ... cliffhanger ... K&C travels ... NO, Bill Gates Will NOT Send You Money ... zefrank ... basic inquiry ... the 751 ... design nerds ... google news ... friends' friends ... feeds filter ... friends filter May 2009
 
 
 
 
 
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
 
 
 
 
 
 
seekme
seekme
sylvia
Saturday, July 16th, 2005 @11:51
movie karma balance

stephen spielberg's the war of the worlds SUCKED. this is the worst movie i've seen in a long time. it was generic, it was boring as hell, was more predictable than i predicted; i walked out at the end thinking i'd only seen half a movie. all anyone did was run around, get stuck in crowds and hide in basements. i suppose this was all about what happens when you have too many people and they're all desperate but jesus. i just wasted 118 minutes of my life, and i wants it back, preciousss. i broke my policy of not seeing "remakes" but only because we couldn't get into the i-know-it's-dumb-but-i-heard-it-was-actually-funny the wedding crashers. sure, i got the references to 9/11 and iraq, but, enough, already! Mr. HG: i apologise. some people only understand butchery. with ALL that money they have to throw around, why the hell can't they just get the right people and make a good movie??*

but, never mind. i suppose i asked for it. because i lead a truly charmed life, earlier this week i saw the second half of The Best of Youth. don't just *think* about seeing this movie, put it at the top of your list. i tend to shy away from what i consider "epic soap operas" (not to mention long, multi-part ones) but i won tickets to Part 1 last month, at which viewing they kindly gave out free tickets to Part 2. it was a great deal: one 10-second email yielded one double pass, two single passes and six hours of fabulously free filmgoing.

the con: it's 6 hours of film. the pro: it's 6 hours of great film. i'm going to gush here, but it has this brilliant handle on the holy trinity of excellent filmmaking: flawless storytelling that always keeps you guessing, decent casting, and great cinematography - all of which are "of a piece" and perfectly suited for the genre: traditional, intimate, understated. it's an epic that spans some 40 years in the life of an italian family, spinning primarily off the lives of the two brothers. it was deeply touching, unpredictable, funny and endearing, and after seeing the first 3 hours a month ago, i taped the ticket to the wall in front of my desk so i'd remember to keep checking for the second half to come out. definitely see the parts in order, however - it's not a series, they are two chronological halves of one movie. it won the cannes jury prize and a slew of others.

stephen spielberg, because you seemed to be making the war of the worlds into a movie about family values for some stupid [9/11] reason, je vous presente Marco Tullio Giordana. he could teach you a thing or two.

*okay, so the tripods were cool. but that's it.

Current Mood: bitchy begrudging

7CommentReplyAdd to MemoriesShare

earthlingmike
earthlingmike
The Great Cornholio
Saturday, July 16th, 2005 @21:14 (UTC)

Interesting. I usually like Spielberg's stuff, so it's unfortunate if 'War of the Worlds' isn't good. Sometimes Spielberg overdoes things, and Hollywood in general seems to overdo it with the ones predicted to be larger hits/the ones they hype more or whatever.


ReplyThread
seekme
seekme
sylvia
Saturday, July 16th, 2005 @21:48 (UTC)

this was both overdone and underdone... i dunno. tastes vary wildly. i'm actually no snob when it comes to watching "hollywood movies" but i do like good film, which means it has to have SOME merit on one of the three for me to like it at all - script, acting, camerawork/ visual. i guess i wasn't in the mood for a "special-effects-only movie", which this one is.


ReplyThread Parent
halfcore
halfcore
Mahatma John
Saturday, July 16th, 2005 @21:35 (UTC)

Argh, I'm supposed to see it tomorrow with a friend :O maybe I shouldn't.
I don't really like Spielberg anyway, he's become much too sated with his own *cough*greatness.


ReplyThread
seekme
seekme
sylvia
Saturday, July 16th, 2005 @21:44 (UTC)

ah, hell. the special effects were just fine. if you like sci-fi, go see it anyway. just think, i've set you up perfectly: go in with low expectations and exit satisfied, perhaps even surprised!


ReplyThread Parent
halfcore
halfcore
Mahatma John
Sunday, July 17th, 2005 @00:34 (UTC)

Uhm... yeah ô_o


ReplyThread Parent
seekme
seekme
sylvia
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005 @08:48 (UTC)

and... so?!


ReplyThread Parent
halfcore
halfcore
Mahatma John
Wednesday, July 20th, 2005 @14:31 (UTC)

So?
Oh!
Well uhmm the tripods were pretty cool =) And Dakota Fanning can do no wrong since I saw her in Man On Fire.
But the rest was mindless drivel. Drivel!
The already meagre plot had holes in it, the scenes usually lacked something (hmm drive?) and the dialogue was written by a drunk bum.
I was pleasantly surprised that Spielberg decided to try out some directing effects that other directors had perfected long ago, like the unsteady steadycam in non-action scenes. There was one decent one-shot scene, when they're first driving away in the car (it's called a 'long take' or 'oner' in the lingo although I have no idea how to spell that), but he didn't really make it a trademark of the movie which is a shame (it paled in comparison to Brian "I can keep this shot going for hours" de Palma's work anyway, but still...).

All in all I thought it was bad, but I wasn't in a state of unentertainment either, so ... I don't know what that means.
Official rating: Eh.


ReplyThread Parent

header text test/>