War of the Worlds
Jul. 3rd, 2005 04:00 pmWell, so, I did end up seeing War of the Worlds, although my Tom Cruise-related conscience remains intact because I bought a ticket for Madagascar instead.
Just for the record, the movie rocked. And now I'm kind of pissed off that it rocked, because I feel compelled to recommend it to everyone I know, but... but... TOM CRUISE. I mean, BADASS TRIPODS. But on the other hand, TOM CRUISE. But BADASS TRIPODS. But TOM CRUISE. You see my dilemma, I'm sure.
Admittedly, the movie had a couple of problems. Most of them were along the lines of, "You know, if you have Character A run over there, and then there's a tremendous explosion that consumes everything over there, you had better have a DAMN GOOD EXPLANATION when Character A shows up again, not even singed, half an hour later." The rest were along the lines of, "You know, if it were at all possible for Tom Cruise to inhabit a role instead of sitting there all, 'I'm Tom Cruise,' that scene might actually have been effective instead of causing the audience to snicker."
But let's face it: it was gorgeous, it had terrific music, it had terrific effects and lots of explosions, it had no more serious logical flaws than your average movie. It had one of the most effective scenes I've ever seen: Tom Cruise and Tim Robbins are behind a wall, Tim Robbins puts his shotgun through a hole in the wall to shoot the aliens, and the audience sees only the side of the wall that Tom Cruise and Tim Robbins aren't on as there's a fight over the shotgun. So basically, all you see is the shotgun moving around sharply, and then finally being pulled back through the hole. It was terrific. So was the scene where everyone is walking along, everything seems okay again, the railroad crossing signs go down, and along comes... a runaway train on fire. And it goes by and everyone carries on as usual. Yeah, it had a few significant differences from the book, but most of them were justifiable by the fact that the book was, um, not that good in spots.
It was a wonderful movie. Go see it.But pay for a ticket to Madagascar instead.
Just for the record, the movie rocked. And now I'm kind of pissed off that it rocked, because I feel compelled to recommend it to everyone I know, but... but... TOM CRUISE. I mean, BADASS TRIPODS. But on the other hand, TOM CRUISE. But BADASS TRIPODS. But TOM CRUISE. You see my dilemma, I'm sure.
Admittedly, the movie had a couple of problems. Most of them were along the lines of, "You know, if you have Character A run over there, and then there's a tremendous explosion that consumes everything over there, you had better have a DAMN GOOD EXPLANATION when Character A shows up again, not even singed, half an hour later." The rest were along the lines of, "You know, if it were at all possible for Tom Cruise to inhabit a role instead of sitting there all, 'I'm Tom Cruise,' that scene might actually have been effective instead of causing the audience to snicker."
But let's face it: it was gorgeous, it had terrific music, it had terrific effects and lots of explosions, it had no more serious logical flaws than your average movie. It had one of the most effective scenes I've ever seen: Tom Cruise and Tim Robbins are behind a wall, Tim Robbins puts his shotgun through a hole in the wall to shoot the aliens, and the audience sees only the side of the wall that Tom Cruise and Tim Robbins aren't on as there's a fight over the shotgun. So basically, all you see is the shotgun moving around sharply, and then finally being pulled back through the hole. It was terrific. So was the scene where everyone is walking along, everything seems okay again, the railroad crossing signs go down, and along comes... a runaway train on fire. And it goes by and everyone carries on as usual. Yeah, it had a few significant differences from the book, but most of them were justifiable by the fact that the book was, um, not that good in spots.
It was a wonderful movie. Go see it.
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-04 01:47 am (UTC)Also, I love you!