|
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
|
Author
|
Topic: War of the Worlds (plus OT Spielberg's love affair with 1.85)
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-08-2005 08:23 PM
I've been unable to find any general consensus on whether "War of the Worlds" is good or not. Comments here at Film-Tech have been decidedly negative. But Rotten Tomatoes' tomato-meter score on this movie is 73% -close to "certified fresh." So I figured I just needed to check it out to form my own opinion. I did just that last night at the Carmike 8 in Lawton.
Movie Review
Overall, I liked "War of the Worlds" and give it a positive review -three stars out of four (barely). My positive judgment comes in part over not having high expectations when entering the theater. The show delivered what I expected and I thought it did it well -for the most part.
I'm familiar with the H.G. Wells novel. So I expected most of the events in the third act (which so many others disliked). Spielberg was pretty much stuck ending it the way he did, otherwise it would be a huge betrayal to the book and even the older movie version. The ending does fail an aspect of character arc and development you would learn in screenwriting 101. The protagonist (or "hero") needs to defeat the bad guys through his own efforts. If an external factor defeats the bad guys that turns the protagonist into merely a bystander. Characters need to affect the plot line of a story, not just run away from shit that happens.
The first two-thirds of the movie was really good. The carnage unleashed by the first tripod seen in the movie reminded me a little of the D-Day beach landing in "Saving Private Ryan." I got a pretty creepy feeling watching the Bayonne Bridge get exploded. I drove over that bridge a good number of times when I lived on Staten Island.
This isn't to say the movie didn't come close a few times to making me hate it. One of my coworkers loves the performances of Dakota Fanning, including the one in this movie. I didn't feel the same way. I found her character irritating for a list of reasons. I was expecting Tom Cruise to toss the irrational, tantrum throwing girl out of the SUV onto the West Shore Expressway. The son wasn't much better, with his motivation to run where the danger is to get stupidly cooked rather than travel the more logical direction. I've seen worse, audience angering levels of stupidity in characters -such as the last wench alive in the recent "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" remake.
To me, the most glaring act of character stupidity in "War of the Worlds" is all those people clamoring to get on board a ferry traveling over very chilly, deep water. Real smart move with three tripods moving into town toward the ferry terminal. To paraphrase Tom Sizemore from "Saving Private Ryan,": one man is a waste of ammo, a ferry full of stupid humans is a juicy target.
Although I went into detail more about complaints rather than positives, I still liked the movie; I'm not too sure I'll buy the DVD though. If so, we'll just have to turn the stupid parts into a drinking game. When a character does or says something stupid, take a drink.
Sound Quality
The show was playing on two screens; I picked #4 (THX-DTS). The sound mix was really very good. I should note this auditorium was retuned during the past week. So my experience is likely skewed to a more noticeably positive degree than what others will experience on average. With all the sub-par experiences I've had at a lot of other venues, I really appreciate it when a movie has a good mix and its playing in a good auditorium with all the settings well set.
CAP Code
CAP Code was a problem in this movie. The chicken pox shit popped up on flash edits within the first tripod sequence. Someone needs a slap across the face for that. Really, this stuff should not be used at all on 35mm prints. But if it is used, pick a freaking boring spot to place it. There's a chance I might be in the restroom and will be able to miss seeing it.
Cinematography
Yeah, the cinematography could have been better. The color was greatly washed out of the frame for much of the show. Some shots were out of focus and blurry. Others, like the bodies floating in the river, looked like it had been badly underexposed on 16mm. Maybe it was for artistic intent. But I argue that whole grunge, home movie, documentary look has turned into really bad schtique. It reminds me of all those shitty looking music videos of the late 1980's that vomited out the home movie look over and over and over and over again. Damn!!
It would be nice if a director or cinematographer could make the artistic statement of shooting a movie in as high a level of quality as possible. Maybe we'll have to dig Nestor Almendros out of his grave and re-animate him.
The Flat versus 'Scope Issue
I didn't have any problem with "War of the Worlds" being shot flat. It had the loose composition and higher amount of headroom typical of a flat film. Sure, it might have been nice if the movie had been in 'scope. And that would have demanded a pretty different look for the film (which may not have been a bad thing either). Nevertheless, the 1.85:1 ratio didn't spoil the movie for me.
Now, here's the axe I have to grind regarding the 'scope versus flat thing: lots of movies are released with 'scope prints when they really should have been released flat.
There is a LOT of bullshit widescreen being vomited into theaters. This is aimed squarely at a lot of the Super 1.85/Super35 crowd. A bunch of these movies are basically composed as if they're being produced as a flat film or even for square TV sets. They just get cropped at the top and bottom a bit further. It takes more than that to produce a real widescreen movie. The director and DP need to design shots specifically for that frame. The production designer and set decorator also must make adjustments as well. It's a whole different animal.
It is a rare thing for someone to shoot in Super35 format and actually compose for the 2.39:1 frame. David Fincher and James Cameron are the only directors I can immediately name who do this. Most others who want to do widescreen right are going to shoot anamorphic.
Sure, there's examples of bad anamorphic cinematography. I hate the trend of recent decades to crop in way the hell too tight and chop off foreheads and chins just to use up more negative space on the sides. Still, I see more problems with a 1.85:1 produced movie trying to bullshit its way onto a scope print. I think its equally as bad as those movies shot on video, thrown through a film step and released onto DVD in that manner. The video looks like ass that way. If a director wants to shoot a movie on video he should have some balls and stand behind that video look. The same rule should be applied to filming with spherical lenses. It's called, "hey DP, choose a fucking format!" Either frame and release for 1.85:1 or frame and release for 2.39:1. Enough with so much of this halfway bullshit.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Paul Linfesty
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1383
From: Bakersfield, CA, USA
Registered: Nov 1999
|
posted 07-10-2005 10:21 PM
Except for the ridiculous "feel-good" ending that was totally out of place, this was one wild ride. I happened to think the cinematography was appropriate in this case, as it portrayed the level of confusion that the characters were going through, and had the rough-edged feel that the action portrayed.
The sound was truly extroadinary, with deep bass that filled the huge theatre with no clipping. And even though the screen was huge, the 1.85 image was well-lit, with perfect corner-to-corner brightness and focus. Only disappointment: The Chinese has finally sold out and started showing Screenvision video ads before the movie. The brand-new curtains duplicating the original design did close between previews and main attraction, but still!!! Boo, Hiss!!!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Coate
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1904
From: Los Angeles, California
Registered: Feb 2001
|
posted 07-12-2005 10:53 AM
quote: Steve Guttag
I actually have for a long time stated that Spielberg isn't the Director that people make him out to be and his films vary in quality based on DP more than Steven himself.
Spielberg's DPs and the number of times working together
Janusz Kaminski (9)
Allen Daviau (3 1/4)
Douglas Slocombe (3)
Dean Cundey (2)
Vilmos Zsigmond (2)
Bill Butler (1)
William Fraker (1)
Mikael Salomon (1)
Spielberg's Feature Films as Director
The Sugarland Express (1974, scope, DP: Zsigmond)
Jaws (1975, scope, Butler)
Close Encounters Of The Third Kind (1977, scope, Zsigmond)
1941 (1979, scope, Fraker)
Raiders Of The Lost Ark (1981, scope, Slocombe)
E.T. The Extra-Terrestrial (1982, flat, Daviau)
Twilight Zone: The Movie (one segment, 1983, flat, Daviau)
Indiana Jones And The Temple Of Doom (1984, scope, Slocombe)
The Color Purple (1985, flat, Daviau)
Empire Of The Sun (1987, flat, Daviau)
Indiana Jones And The Last Crusade (1989, scope, Slocombe)
Always (1989, flat, Salomon)
Hook (1991, scope, Cundey)
Jurassic Park (1993, flat, Cundey)
Schindler's List (1993, flat, Kaminski)
The Lost World (1997, flat, Kaminski)
Amistad (1997, flat, Kaminski)
Saving Private Ryan (1998, flat, Kaminski)
A.I. (2001, flat, Kaminski)
Minority Report (2002, scope [super-35], Kaminski)
Catch Me If You Can (2002, flat, Kaminski)
The Terminal (2004, flat, Kaminski)
War Of The Worlds (2005, flat, Kaminski)
Since much of this thread has focused on image quality and scope vs. flat issues, I thought I'd mention that Allen Daviau told me a few years ago that they came very close to shooting "Empire Of The Sun" in 65mm. Now how coooooool would that've been?!
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Jorgenson
Phenomenal Film Handler
Posts: 1002
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Registered: Feb 2005
|
posted 07-12-2005 03:36 PM
*+spoilers+*
quote: Bobby Henderson
The ending does fail an aspect of character arc and development you would learn in screenwriting 101. The protagonist (or "hero") needs to defeat the bad guys through his own efforts. If an external factor defeats the bad guys that turns the protagonist into merely a bystander. Characters need to affect the plot line of a story, not just run away from shit that happens.
I disagree. For proper "screenwriting 101" character development: the protagonist has a want or a need, something keeps him/her from that want/need... this is generally a flaw or shortcoming of the protagonist. To develop, the protagonist will have to recognize this shortcoming and ultimately make a decision about (or act upon) it (the shortcoming). If the decision or action finally made is very different from how that character would've acted in the beginning of the film, then the character has developed.
So, re: WOTW. I think the character development is fine... granted IF you contend that Ray Ferrier's want/need is to destroy the tripods and kill all the aliens, then bringing in germs to eliminate the aliens does cheat the audience. I don't think that is Ray's want, but Earth's want (one of the titular "worlds" and, our world, Earth, succeeds) ... but I contend that the specific wants/needs of Ray Ferrier are more on the lines of say ... he want to just get through the weekend with the kids, half-assed as usual & drop them off at their mother's place (beginning of the film). Some events bring a conflict to this want (the whole alien invasion thing, then the "bad father" stuff, then being forced to chose between protecting the son or the daughter ... etc). He fails, midway through, by losing his son. He begins to realize that he is not the father figure he thought he was, and his actions change now that he feels he has only his daughter left (singing to her, eliminating a possible threat ...). He does indeed succeed, with his daughter anyway, in his initial goal of getting through the weekend & dropping her off with her mom. But the character development is that whereas before he would have been happy to drop the kids off & be alone again, he now realizes that he hadn't been the best father & we, the audience, get the impression (as was mentioned above by Kurt & David) that being alone isn't going to be as "fun" for him as it was before.
Just my opinion, dunno what David Koepp or Josh Friedman would think of it though. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
| IP: Logged
|
|
Andy Summers
Master Film Handler
Posts: 397
From: Bournemouth Dorset United kingdom
Registered: Jun 2005
|
posted 07-13-2005 11:05 AM
I like to see a comeback with 65mm films with its higher imaging and colour satiation, as there doesn’t seam to be enough DLP cinema presentations going on and if there is it’s like the 70mm road show movie eventful days now almost lost, with only a few cinemas showing the re-runs.
Sure it’s great for a new technology like DLP, but I don’t see it taking off in the grandness of what 70mm did all those decades ago, and I miss the look of it and the sound of 70mm is cool.
As for super 35 I’m 50/50 on that I hate the format and though I have seen so many films from the mid 1980’s which is when it came about, films like “Top Gun”1986 thinking it was anamorphic lenses, and then reading about it real depressed me, though I like the film it really bugs me that more and more directors are turning cheep.
“Martin Scorsese” said that widescreen TV’s are not the right shape and raving about anamorphic lenses, films like “Cape Fear”1991 which looked fantastic at the “Empire Leicester Square #1” “Dolby SR” sound and the “Lucasfilm THX” and the rocker chairs front row and centre was kicking fun.
And though I didn’t see “The Aviator” in the cinema and when buying this on DVD the major downside was it was super 35 and boy did I feel robed by him, there is a 95% chance that the new films today are going to be in super 35, just don’t tell the majority of the public that like going to the cinema, the rate of suicides will be on a major increase.
Conclusion super 35 sucks, Anamorphic Lenses rule OK.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pravin Ratnam
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 844
From: Atlanta, GA,USA
Registered: Sep 2002
|
posted 07-13-2005 07:26 PM
I was underwhelmed by this OK movie. I hated the decision to film flat which was made worse by Regal Perimeter Point overmasking the movie to what I assume is 1.7:1 or near to it. There was image bleed on the masking areas. The movie had the same old tired washed out look spielberg has been giving us for a while now. That dreamy look worked only during the river floating bodies scene.
SPOILERS GALORE
By the way, just because something's in a book doesnt mean you cant improve upon it. I didnt hate the ending. I was disappointed not because because of the choice of germs killing people. I think it's a wonderful statement how many generations of humans have passed on immunity to successive generations giving some kind of importance to every death in a way not many would think of. However it really had no cathartic or ironic effect on this story arc other than bring the story to an end because there was no good buildup in the final act. Why not kill off the son or at least have the son be injured and realize he would have been better off waiting it out and letting the aliens die. Or have him die and teach cruise a lesson on sacrifice. I also did not like the way Spielberg kept showing Cruise just running randomly and seemingly escaping death or even injury by enormous shards of glass blowing by him or other flying debris. I know a lot of movies use this to provide tension and a dynamic visual, but they overdid it in this movie. Almost every single scene with an explosion, Cruise should have been dead. And the germ killing happens after Cruise finally gets some breathing room with that grenade attack anyway. So it's not like Cruise was on his last legs and was contemplating something desperate to do and the germs just came in time.
What was disappointing was this movie wasnt boring, but wasn't memorable in any way. Tripods didn't scare me. Some of the early scenes were good to look at but was the surprise any more effective than the scene in the intentionally cheesy Mars Attacks where the aliens go batshit on the legislators with their cartoony beams? What about the basement scene in the eventually disappointing Signs. Much better way of building tension by Shyamalan(too bad his ending sucked).
The probe scene was silly. Such a clunky probe was selectively deaf. THe tension was nothing compared to Spielberg's own earlier efforts like the crawlers in Minority Report or the kitchen scene in Jurassic Park. The ferry scene was quite silly. Why everyone would want to be a sitting duck on a ferry was beyond reason.
The opening scenes to me werent any more effective than the opening Corolla scenes in the Dawn of the Dead remake. You expect more from an event movie like War of the Worlds if all they have going in the thrills department is that opening scene.
Then, there are problems with the book concept itself. While an invading army can encounter plagues and other problems since it is tough to anticipate everything, this scenario was supposed to be about aliens who supposedly buried these things under the earth before mankind existed. And all this time, they didnt bother finetuning their plans? No waves of invaders? They just send everyone in one wave not trying to see what happens with the first wave? Even Predator 2 had better logic where they showed the hunters on a competitive safari of sorts.
OK so if we dont find anything about the aliens throughout the whole movie, then we should consider this movie to be about the family and nothing else because the alien invasion is just a sidebar and are just background material. How does Cruise feel killing Robbins considering what he feared would happen because of Robbins happens anyway. He and his daughter get caught easily right after that. How is Cruise much different at the end compared to the beginning? sure , he grows closer to his kids. It is an obvious change. But is that it? Does he really do anything where he finds something in himself during the journey? All he does is dive on his daughter when both are captured. Thats something he would have done at the very beginning ofthe movie too. Was he ingenious helping his daughter escape? A collapsing tripod into a tree would have killed almost everyone in that cage. Everything he does during the movie is nothing great. He just runs in the direction of boston because his ex lives there. He gets on the ferry just because.
The only big moment was when he realizes his son could be a better man than he is. Once he lets go of his son. there is no character progression. I dont consider it acquired wisdom or even great survival instincts , but just lucky, when they scamper around that basement hiding from that probe.
For a movie with the title War of the Worlds, a lot of the destruction seemed to center near Tom Cruise. Nothing happens in Boston to his ex wife's house? Possible, i guess, but another unlikely event favoring the Cruise character.
Review getting long. Will end it here abruptly like the movie.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."
Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 07-15-2005 12:21 AM
I'm not saying that the guy should single handedly beat the aliens. That would be laughably hokey bullcrap. All I'm suggesting is that the character would overcome some specific situations in a tough or clever (and therefore more entertaining) fashion.
Ordinary people in real life do heroic things. It isn't all just cops, doctors and lawyers (the only three occupations TV series writers think exists). The occupation doesn't make the hero, the actions do.
quote: Pravin Ratnam
I also did not like the way Spielberg kept showing Cruise just running randomly and seemingly escaping death or even injury by enormous shards of glass blowing by him or other flying debris. I know a lot of movies use this to provide tension and a dynamic visual, but they overdid it in this movie.
Actually, when you examine the story mechanics of it, there really isn't much tension delivered in a character running away from an adversary -such as some oversized tripods in this movie. A single human being might be insignificant or easily overlooked by them.
It's more scary for a character to hatch a seemingly practical plan that has only a slim chance of working and then using that plan to confront a deadly adversary.
Since we're dealing with Spielberg films here, I'll bring "Saving Private Ryan" as another example. There's a lot of tension in the scene where the group confronts the German machine gun nest at the radar tower. Some suggest sneaking around the tower to avoid the very real danger, but Captain Miller decides to attack anyway. And you just know someone is going to get killed in the process.
Of course there's lots of examples in movies where this kind of story mechanism doesn't work worth a damn. A lot of it is in the way you sell it. And that mainly involves characters getting things accomplished throughout the film in a steady, consistent, character building fashion.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 7 pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[thumbsup]](graemlins/thumbsup.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic