Sasha Walton (![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} zorinth) wrote,@ 2005-07-07 09:19:00 |
|
Some more film reviews
Films:
The War of the Worlds
This adatation is as close to the novel as it could to be judging the different setting. The original book takes place in 19th Century England, whereas the film is set in Modern America. The protagonist is landed looking after his son and daughter while his divorced wife goes on vacation. Unfortunately they stayed with him at the wrong time. The film starts off with the voiceover from the original, with changed dates of course: "In the first years of the twentyfirst century...", it shows it really quite well. For some reason they decided to change the original "Pod from the sky" idea to be that the tripods had been buried there for millions of years and that the martians were beamed down through lightning on the day the attacks started. The tripods are superbly done as is the general story structure, it's true to the original and hasn't been Hollywoodized as you would've thought a Steven Speilberg film would be. Dakota fanning is a remarkable actor as usual, she is in the role of Rachel, the daughter of the protagonist, played by Tom Cruise. I loved this film, it's definitely one of the best disaster films that's come out for a while. Much better than The day after tomorrow
The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
There seem to be a spree of films that are almost but not quite entirely unlike the original book. War of The Worlds, this, Howl's Moving Castle. I think it's best to consider this not a film version of the book, but another adaptation, in the same way there were two different radio versions that are different from the novel. The basic storyline is the same, but the film ends way before the events in the book had really even got started. That's a good thing really since the film was already two hours long and had enough sillyness in it.
I liked most of the characters, Marvin isn't how I pictured him but that's not a big problem. I liked the Zaphod I think they got him right, though
Films:
The War of the Worlds
This adatation is as close to the novel as it could to be judging the different setting. The original book takes place in 19th Century England, whereas the film is set in Modern America. The protagonist is landed looking after his son and daughter while his divorced wife goes on vacation. Unfortunately they stayed with him at the wrong time. The film starts off with the voiceover from the original, with changed dates of course: "In the first years of the twentyfirst century...", it shows it really quite well. For some reason they decided to change the original "Pod from the sky" idea to be that the tripods had been buried there for millions of years and that the martians were beamed down through lightning on the day the attacks started. The tripods are superbly done as is the general story structure, it's true to the original and hasn't been Hollywoodized as you would've thought a Steven Speilberg film would be. Dakota fanning is a remarkable actor as usual, she is in the role of Rachel, the daughter of the protagonist, played by Tom Cruise. I loved this film, it's definitely one of the best disaster films that's come out for a while. Much better than The day after tomorrow
The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy
There seem to be a spree of films that are almost but not quite entirely unlike the original book. War of The Worlds, this, Howl's Moving Castle. I think it's best to consider this not a film version of the book, but another adaptation, in the same way there were two different radio versions that are different from the novel. The basic storyline is the same, but the film ends way before the events in the book had really even got started. That's a good thing really since the film was already two hours long and had enough sillyness in it.
I liked most of the characters, Marvin isn't how I pictured him but that's not a big problem. I liked the Zaphod I think they got him right, though
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<lj-user="papersky">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]
Films:
<b>The War of the Worlds</b>
This adatation is as close to the novel as it could to be judging the different setting. The original book takes place in 19th Century England, whereas the film is set in Modern America. The protagonist is landed looking after his son and daughter while his divorced wife goes on vacation. Unfortunately they stayed with him at the wrong time. The film starts off with the voiceover from the original, with changed dates of course: "<i>In the first years of the twentyfirst century...</i>", it shows it really quite well. For some reason they decided to change the original "Pod from the sky" idea to be that the tripods had been buried there for millions of years and that the martians were beamed down through lightning on the day the attacks started. The tripods are superbly done as is the general story structure, it's true to the original and hasn't been Hollywoodized as you would've thought a Steven Speilberg film would be. Dakota fanning is a remarkable actor as usual, she is in the role of Rachel, the daughter of the protagonist, played by Tom Cruise. I loved this film, it's definitely one of the best disaster films that's come out for a while. Much better than <b>The day after tomorrow</b>
<B>The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy</b>
There seem to be a spree of films that are almost but not quite entirely unlike the original book. War of The Worlds, this, Howl's Moving Castle. I think it's best to consider this not a film version of the book, but another adaptation, in the same way there were two different radio versions that are different from the novel. The basic storyline is the same, but the film ends way before the events in the book had really even got started. That's a good thing really since the film was already two hours long and had enough sillyness in it.
I liked most of the characters, Marvin isn't how I pictured him but that's not a big problem. I liked the Zaphod I think they got him right, though <lj-user="Papersky"> disagrees. The vogons are great, and so is the Guide itself. If you are the kind of fan who screams if even ONE word has been changed from the original then you will hate this, otherwise I highly recommend it!
Oh, and the song at the beginning is really really great, it should get an Oscar for best Film music
<b>Batman Begins</b>
I don't know much about the original Batman comics to know how good an adaptation this is, but rysmiel says that it was very true to the spirit of the Batman legacy. Unlike previous films such as Batman and Robin and the batman TV show. Personally, I liked it; a lot. It had a good storyline, believable characters, GREAT acting, and, always a bonus: Liam Neeson. The directing was good too, the scenes were very well put together and looked great. I recomend this film
<b>The War of the Worlds</b>
This adatation is as close to the novel as it could to be judging the different setting. The original book takes place in 19th Century England, whereas the film is set in Modern America. The protagonist is landed looking after his son and daughter while his divorced wife goes on vacation. Unfortunately they stayed with him at the wrong time. The film starts off with the voiceover from the original, with changed dates of course: "<i>In the first years of the twentyfirst century...</i>", it shows it really quite well. For some reason they decided to change the original "Pod from the sky" idea to be that the tripods had been buried there for millions of years and that the martians were beamed down through lightning on the day the attacks started. The tripods are superbly done as is the general story structure, it's true to the original and hasn't been Hollywoodized as you would've thought a Steven Speilberg film would be. Dakota fanning is a remarkable actor as usual, she is in the role of Rachel, the daughter of the protagonist, played by Tom Cruise. I loved this film, it's definitely one of the best disaster films that's come out for a while. Much better than <b>The day after tomorrow</b>
<B>The Hitch-Hikers Guide to the Galaxy</b>
There seem to be a spree of films that are almost but not quite entirely unlike the original book. War of The Worlds, this, Howl's Moving Castle. I think it's best to consider this not a film version of the book, but another adaptation, in the same way there were two different radio versions that are different from the novel. The basic storyline is the same, but the film ends way before the events in the book had really even got started. That's a good thing really since the film was already two hours long and had enough sillyness in it.
I liked most of the characters, Marvin isn't how I pictured him but that's not a big problem. I liked the Zaphod I think they got him right, though <lj-user="Papersky"> disagrees. The vogons are great, and so is the Guide itself. If you are the kind of fan who screams if even ONE word has been changed from the original then you will hate this, otherwise I highly recommend it!
Oh, and the song at the beginning is really really great, it should get an Oscar for best Film music
<b>Batman Begins</b>
I don't know much about the original Batman comics to know how good an adaptation this is, but rysmiel says that it was very true to the spirit of the Batman legacy. Unlike previous films such as Batman and Robin and the batman TV show. Personally, I liked it; a lot. It had a good storyline, believable characters, GREAT acting, and, always a bonus: Liam Neeson. The directing was good too, the scenes were very well put together and looked great. I recomend this film
