If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Saw War of the Worlds for the first time, and even though it wasn't great, after the first thirty minutes, the film is so damn tense and suspenseful I can't help but give this a solid recommendation even though it has quite a bit of flaws. The images and CGI are simply incredible. Really nothing more than a purely survival film with little character development, which isn't too much of problem for me. The ending was meh... a little pretentious and quite abrupt, but some of those scenes work so well, especially the scenes where Cruise and Fanning are stuck in the basement and the aliens are probing the area and there's this very long, prolonged search of the area... it had me on the edge of my seat. The last ten minutes of the film is excessively rushed and quite bad. The family waiting at the steps? They looked like they just had their morning tea and facial. Not a scratch or tea. Just perms and smiles. I did recognize a bunch of head scratchers... like video cameras working, but nothing else, not even a wrist watch... people stopping and starring when something completely monstrous is coming out of the ground and ripping up the road underneath them. I understand some people will be mesmerized, but there's going to be a lot more people running for the goddamn hills.
The huge problem I have with it is the fact that everyone you think is going to live does. It tries to be too much of a crowd pleaser instead of the dark attack on the world it supposedly wants to be. It's way too optimistic with too much of a perfect little ending. Wasn't dark enough for me. Sci-fi is not my genre, but I really enjoyed so much of it that I can ignore some of the cory coincidences and generally bad acting from Cruise. The more you inspect you, the more problems you'll find, but they're mostly in the opening and the ending. The majority of the film is taut and masterful filmmaking. As usual, a technically brilliant film from Spielberg if nothing else.
Mr Blonde is more badass then both. Best Tarantino character in a landslide.
As far as those casting choices go, I know that after Simon Pegg turned down that role, Tim Roth was supposed to take it but also had some scheduling conflicts. I think its important to remember while Roth is supposedly more "physically imposing", he put on 15 lbs of muscle for this role, and Sandler isnt really a slouch either if you have seen him in Zohan and Chuck and Larry. I think he would of been great. As would of Pegg and Roth. Leo would of been awesome as well, but I liked having Waltz in the role, he was quite good. As far as the lines/language go, for actors, learning their lines in English and learning them in Italian/German/French would be pretty similar. Its just memorization, after all. It eliminates the improvisation that comes with alot of movies, but from what I understand, Tarantino isnt one for improv anyways.
Originally posted by Mr. Goosemahn
The APS is strong in this one.
Originally posted by killxswitch
Tears for Fears is better than whatever it is you happen to be thinking about right now.
Seeing Leo and especially Sandler in those roles would have maybe ruined that movie for me.
I remember many people questionned the choice of Eli Roth when it was first announced, saying he was a terrible actor who had gotten the part only because of his directing involvement. Turned out pretty well. Point is, Tarantino never miscasts, so I'm sure they would have been pretty amazing too had they done it.
I watched Battle Royale last night and Holy ****. That movie is ******* crazy. I loved the concept and the movie was well done. So intense. So many asians get ****** up. As far as a pure action movie, one of the best I've seen in a long time. If you haven't seen, find a way a watch it tonight. You won't regret it.