si-blog

More movie news

Posted Jul 13, 2005 in Movies.

I've been seeing a fair number of movies recently. Batman Begins was excellent - far better, in my opinion, than previous Batman films. Of particular note was the strong performance from Christian Bale, well backed-up by Morgan Freeman, Liam Neeson, and the talented Gary Oldman. I hope that this new version will be carefully developed into a franchise, restoring what was destroyed by the previous offerings.

For me, War of the Worlds was something of a disappointment. I simply cannot stand Tom Cruise, who I consider to be lacking in any serious acting ability. He plays the same guy he always plays in a movie that didn't really have anybody interesting in it at all. The film stumbled from set piece to set piece, more in the nature of Minority Report than other Spielberg classics like Schindler's List and Jurassic Park.

Fantastic Four, on the other hand, was a wonderful surprise. I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, which was a nice blend of action and humor. After suffering from an accident in orbit, the team begin to discover that they have inherited special powers. An expressive performance from Michael Chiklis (as Ben Grimm) was the highlight for me, but Ioan Gruffudd and Chris Evans also did well.

Comments

  1. Gravatar

    Oh yes, War of the Worlds was a laugh. Tom Cruise wasn't the only issue though: I thought the film was about to start when it, um, ended. So that was a surprise!

    Posted by Rob Mientjes on Jul 14, 2005.

  2. Gravatar

    Fantatic Four was better than I expected. It's a pretty accurate reflection of the comic book, which came about in the era BEFORE heros started to get any kind of moral ambiguity (think Wolverine or Punisher).

    Posted by Graham on Jul 14, 2005.

  3. Gravatar

    Batman Begins actually replaces the original 1989 Tim Burton version of Batman for me, to some extent. The city of Gotham was much darker and gritty than in previous Batman movies and just for the fact that this is a prequel of sorts gives it an interesting scope to work with.

    I haven't seen War of the Worlds, so I'll reserve any judgement on that for now. Although, if it's as true to the original radioplay as Spielberg says then I figure I'll know both the beginning and end, so no surprise there.

    Posted by kartooner on Jul 14, 2005.

  4. Gravatar

    -- Although, if it's as true to the original radioplay as Spielberg says

    It bore some resemblance to both the radioplay and the orginal book, but not nearly enough for my taste. Personally, I would've loved to see a re-creation of the original H.G. Wells story, complete with 19th Century England, Carrie, and the Thunderchild.

    Spielberg's treatment of Ogilvy (the scientist in the book) was particularly annoying for me. Instead of a scientist, he ends up being a creepy wack-job.

    Posted by Simon Jessey on Jul 14, 2005.

  5. Gravatar

    'The War of the Worlds' was certainly not as good as I thought it was going to be.

    I went to Odeon in Leicester Square (London, England for anyone who does not know), paid a small fortune for two of the most expense seats in the house and settled down for what I thought was going to be Spielberg back at his best.

    However, although I thought the film started quite well it quickly got worse and worse with particular low points being the Tim Robbins character and the Disney ending (not wishing to reveal too much for kartooner).

    I should have waited for it to be shown on HBO.

    Posted by Tim on Jul 30, 2005.

  6. Gravatar

    Thought this would interest you (Quicktime Movie). It's from a new film. Eerily topical!

    Posted by Sarah Bull on Aug 03, 2005.

  7. Gravatar

    "War of the Worlds" is not a good movie; though the effects are pretty good but if you noticed, the story is quite boring. I would prefer "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" and "The Island".

    Posted by web designer on Aug 18, 2005.