Matt's Movie Blog

Sunday, July 24, 2005

War of the Worlds

Tuesday, July 5; Loews Boston Common
* * * ¼ (out of four)

It’s a little clichéd, but I think it still applies. Every form of entertainment – whether it be a movie, a TV show, a theatre production or a book – will fail if you can’t hook an audience from the beginning. If there is anything Spielberg knows how to do, it’s get an audience to pay attention. War of the Worlds has a hook that basically refuses to let go.

Spielberg’s decision to start the movie with a direct reading from the H.G. Wells classic (with a near-flawless by Morgan Freeman) immediately establishes a sense of foreboding and danger. “Yet across the gulf of space… intellects vast and unsympathetic regarded this earth with envious eyes, and slowly and surely drew their plans against us.” The movie begins with those plans more than adequately drawn, and almost immediately (within 20 minutes) the plans are in motion.

What makes War of the Worlds stand out from other alien invasion movies (Independence Day, Mars Attacks, etc) is that nothing’s really explained. In this case, it’s a good thing. There was no real surprise when the tripods rose out of the ground and starting blowing crap up; it’s pretty standard fare. What got me was that shortly thereafter the exterminations started. War implies that there are two sides involved; that’s not the case here. We (as humans) are getting heartlessly, mercilessly annihilated, with no reason being made clear. And that’s scary.

The range the movie shows enhances that fear. New York has been hit by every imaginable disaster on film, so that’s no so shocking. To see my home city of Boston getting hit, or London, or some small village in Africa (all of which are shown in the film) changes it from an attack on “The City of _______” to an attack on the people of the world. A city is impersonal… but I am a citizen of Earth, and the small time stuff sends the message that the little house that just got trampled could very well have been mine.

I also like how there are no heroes here. Sure, Tom Cruise learns how to be a father and care for his kids in a way he didn’t previously understand, but with the exception of one out-of-character moment, he’s just as terrified and justifiably cowardly as anyone else would be in his situation. His concern lies with his family and with himself, not with the overall safety and security of humankind.

During the promotional stage for the movie, Cruise got a lot of flack for his antics, which I addressed in a previous post. All I will say on him is that I was happy to see him not playing the same caricature of himself to which he is prone. As a father, he’s an asshole, for lack of a better term. He’s more Vanilla Sky than anything else. Dakota Fanning continues to demonstrate why she is (or should be) the most sought-after child star in a very long time. She demonstrated that no one sells pure, unadulterated fear like she does. The only person who doesn’t quite work for me is Tim Robbins. He’s playing a stereotype in a movie that until that point had done pretty decent in avoiding the vast majority. He’s token Crazy Paranoid Guy Who Happens To Be Right, but he doesn’t mix well with Cruise’s family or the dynamic of , and thus forces Cruise into a situation where he has to react in a completely out-of-character way.

The best parts in War of the Worlds are nearly the same as the best parts in Signs, another “normal-guy” alien thriller. These are the parts which show people reacting as real people would, especially when worked into a frenzy. To me, the theft of Cruise’s car is akin in Joaquin Phoenix with tin foil on his head. This is what people do when they are very, very scared. War of the Worlds kept me very scared for a good half hour, because it hits all the right buttons to make you say, “That could be me!”

Wednesday, July 20, 2005

July 22: THE ISLAND

The Island



The Story: Ewan McGregor and Scarlett Johansson star as two members of a seemingly utopian society. They are selected to travel to "The Island," the last natural, uncontaminated location on the planet, a supposed paradise. When they find out all is not what they seem, and that they are actually clones used for "spare parts," they escape into the real world with their captives hot in pursuit.

The Good: Great trailers. Two of the hottest stars around right now. A guy with lots of experience in action movies... even if that guy is Michael Bay. I can't quite explain it... this just looks fun. It's got a fun style to it, not just the streamlined future look (at least once they get into the real world). And Scarlett Johansson is really, really hot. Really hot.

The Bad: Michael Bay sucks. And quite a lot. Looking at his IMDb list I find one movie that I enjoyed in The Rock. And every thing else was "Meh" to "Clawing my Eyes Out." It makes me very, very nervous to like a Michael Bay preview. It just feels like I'm setting myself up to be disappointed, and perhaps cry. But maybe, hopefully, please Dear God allow it, he's gotten better. I'd be willing to blame some of his crapfests on writing, and the guy who wrote this one is someone who worked on a few things I thoroughly enjoyed.

The Verdict: Fun, I think. Michael Bay's tendancy to be Michael Bay may get in the way a bit, but hopefully a good script, a good cast, and Scarlett Johansson's hotness can suppress it. She's younger than me!

My Guess: * * 3/4, thanks to the MB factor

July 15: CHARLIE AND THE CHOCOLATE FACTORY and THE WEDDING CRASHERS

Charlie and the Chocolate Factory



The Story: Tim Burton takes a stab at retelling Roald Dahl's children's book while trying to remake the 1971 classic starring Gene Wilder. Burton's version stars Johnny Depp as the eccentric/downright crazy candymaker Willy Wonka, who has hidden five golden tickets in candy packaging which will allow five children to enter his equally eccentric/downright crazy candy factory. Freddie Highmore plays the title character of Charlie, a lower-class boy who nabs a ticket.

The Good: Johnny Depp is the new golden boy of Hollywood, catapulting to any role he likes after getting a rare Oscar nod for a comedic performance as Jack Sparrow in Pirates of the Caribbean. It's a well deserved distinction for someone who has almost always delivered, and he looks to keep doing it here. The pairing with Burton seems to work, as it did in Edward Scissorhands, and the preview for Tim Burton's Corpse Bride, starring Depp's vocal talents, looks just as promising as the Charlie trailer. It's pretty well known that Depp insisted on young Highmore getting the title role after working with him in Finding Neverland, and I'm willing to take Depp's endorsement. Burton is pretty well proven, if a bit of an acquired taste in some instances. Even screenwriter John August has a pretty good fantastical background, having penned Big Fish and Titan A.E. (we won't hold the Charlie's Angels movies against him... much), and a decent base for characters in those two and Go.

The Bad: Natural and inevitable comparisons to the Gene Wilder version. My hope is that this will prove itself to be an entirely different movie, but that won't stop anyone. And as great as some of Burton's record is, some of the rest is a little more questionable (for everyone's Big Fish, they have a Planet of the Apes). Let's hope this one falls on the right side of the tracks.

The Verdict: Looks to be good. I'm getting remake-cautious, so as long as they demonstrate that this is a new adaptation instead, I'll be happy. I'll see nearly anything Depp is in at this point (yeah, I saw Secret Window), so I expect to be amused.

My Guess: * * * 1/2

The Wedding Crashers


The Story: Uhhh... pretty faint, as I'm aware. Apparently, Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson play best friends who spend their free time sneaking into weddings uninvited in order to hook up with the single women present. Everything goes awry when Wilson actually starts to fall for one of his marks (Rachel McAdams) and Vaughn nets one that just won't go away.

The Good: Vaughn and Wilson will do ANYTHING for a laugh, and I expect to see a good amount of that anything... on a side note, remember when Vaughn tried to be a serious actor? Aren't you glad he stopped? Helmer David Dobkin doesn't have a lot of experience, but he did have fun with Wilson in the still-kinda fun sequel Shanghai Knights. The inherent chemistry between Wilson and Vaughn should be all different kinds of fun.

The Bad: There are those in the world who might be turned off by the blatant lack of any real redeeming theme or message. Stay away from my movie.

The Verdict: More fun than it probably should be. Vaughn and Wilson is a teams that has needed to happen for awhile. So long as you can forget that someone in the studio demanded some sort of plot, this'll be great fun.

My Guess: * * *

Sunday, July 10, 2005

Attention "Ain't It Cool" Talkbackers, Nay-sayers, and general assholes: Shut Your Big Freakin' Mouths

There's a War of the Worlds review forthcoming, but I've wanted to say something along these lines for months now... ranting ahead...

There are times I really wish people would just be quiet, and let something exist as it is. Between internet posters and ‘journalists’ in local papers *glaring at the Boston Phoenix*, I came dangerously close to losing all interest in Revenge of the Sith, a movie I’ve been dying to see for about 15 years. I realize me basically saying I want people to keep their opinions to themselves is kind of hypocritical, especially when I post it in my review blog. But these were comments made before the movie even came out, where people who hadn’t seen the movie said it was going to suck… despite one of the most kick-ass trailers in a long time. This, if you haven’t figured it, doesn’t make any freakin’ sense. But I let it get to me a little bit, and even questioned my love for the film after I saw it the first time. That was very, very silly of me.

Something similar apparently happened before War of the Worlds. I’m just happy I didn’t hear about any of that crap until after I saw the movie. Tom Cruise makes a jackass of himself on Oprah, and now people say his relationship is a publicity stunt? He’s outspoken and supportive of his chosen religion, and now people say they won’t go see his new movie – which has nothing to do with Scientology? Hell, Mel Gibson went a hundred steps further with The Passion of the Christ, and that managed to make $370 million domestically. Sure, I found Tom Cruise kinda tiresome when he was talking to Matt Lauer, and I’m not entirely sure his arguments stand up the way he wants to believe they do, but if that’s what the man thinks, then that’s that… no longer my problem

So… point being… take the movie for what it is. Let the actor do what he wants outside the film. Would the average business owner want to be boycotted for his religious beliefs if they had nothing to do with his business? Sure, that’s been done on a massive scale before… in Nazi Germany. It still happens today, but it’s not something we ought to be proud of. Support the movie if you want to see the movie… not because you think one of the actors has a big mouth on completely unrelated issues.