Change Your Image
Diplodocus55
Reviews
The Last Exorcism (2010)
Inspired, scary, if a bit frustrating...
A shyster reverend goes to do an exorcist, presented "found footage" style. THE LAST EXORCISM almost lived up to the potential of this idea -- an effective movie that could've been one one of horror's all-time best. However, even this film's flaws are quite thought- provoking themselves. Liking this film relies on the viewer's willingness to forgive blatant movie rip-offs and a number of questions you're not supposed to ask, such as "So did the cult members themselves edit the footage and put music in it?" and "How are we getting multiple shots of things when there's just one camera?". These "flaws/errors" are glaring, but you don't mind they're there... I prefer to see the reverend's unexplainably-"found" footage all spruced-up and narrative-y, rather than sit through a mess of rambling raw footage just because the question of "where exactly did this footage come from" is satisfied (we all know this is fake stuff anyway!)
I left the theater feeling cheated, finding a ton of fault with the movie. I wondered why they devoted so much to the is-she-or-isn't-she-possessed mystery, when it'd be far more effective to simply show her as definitively possessed and spent the rest of the movie in EXORCIST/BLAIR WITCH-hybrid mayhem. And while it seemed the filmmakers were very mindful of not ripping-off THE EXORCIST too much, they clearly had no problems stealing from ROSEMARY'S BABY! I was willing to accept the abrupt cult angle, but felt swindled when credits came up after brother Caleb showed up to cut off the cameraman's head. It felt like the filmmakers didn't know where to go with their crazy story so they just agreed on something that "seemed" to tie everything up. But what about what happens next to Cotton and Nell!
It's only upon further thought (and this film has been stuck pretty solidly in my head since I saw it yesterday) that I appreciate the ending and the film as a whole. While the ending initially seemed hasty and forced, it brings up a lot of frightening notions. By the brother Caleb proving himself as part of the devil-worshipping cult, his actions from earlier are put into perspective. He wanted the reverend to "turn around" when he first met him because he was worried a real-deal exorcist would muck up the deal they had going on w/ the devil. Caleb threatened to kill the preacher if Nell got hurt, not because he cared about Nell, but because he treasured the devil-baby in Nell's womb. When Nell slashed Caleb's face, we think it was the demon making her do so, but in retrospect we realize it was actually Nell (at a time when not completely possessed) lashing out against her brother who was betraying her enormously. And not only do we realize the father was truly innocent all along, but that things might've actually been best if he'd actually killed Nell with the shotgun (at the time he seemed like a nutcase, but perhaps he was the sanest and most logical!? Could he have saved her soul?). Some creepy ideas ya got there. (Just one last complaint: take down the volume of that devil-baby's squeal-- come on, guys! Way to take a dip into cheesesville. Deliberate?)
And while being disappointed that we didn't see exactly what happened Reverend Cotton, I love that last shot we get of him. The reverend, now emboldened by the return of his faith, runs into the middle of the cult ritual calling out to the Devil himself -- PHENOMENAL! The rare instance of a moment in film working effectively on a variety of levels. The film's zenith of fear and excitement is also our lead character's most important moment, and at the same time shows us an (unexpected) explanation for Nell's chilling picture of him from earlier. Great stuff!
High Noon (1952)
A Masterpiece.
My favorite American movie of the 1950s, HIGH NOON is a deliciously tense and emotional powerhouse of a western/drama that delivers pretty much the bravest character ever in Will Kane. Ruthless Frank Miller is coming on the noon train to join his crew of bandits (including a young Lee Van Cleef!) and get revenge on Kane and probably destroy the town, and the freshly-married, former sheriff is having a hard time forming a posse to confront them. The town, including Kane's own friends, abandon him for a variety of reasons (some liked it better when Miller was around, some worry they will only hinder Kane, some think violence will give the town a bad name, but most are just plain scared). The only two who agree to help are a broken-down guy with an eyepatch and a 14-year-old kid, and Kane refuses both their help. The movie was intended to play out in real time, which adds to the suspense as we await the arrival of noon (however, upon reviewing the film I found that it's more like 60 and 1/2 minutes from the time when Kane first hears of Miller returning (10:40am) and the whistle of the arriving train.
Helen Ramirez (the ex-lover of both Kane and Miller and the current lover of Harv the Deputy) stands as one of the strongest woman characters ever, complete with her own Mexican flair of the theme music. The scene in which she tells Harv the difference between he and Kane's manliness is priceless. It's clear she and Kane had a profound effect on each other--they even use the same expressions ("If you don't know, I can't explain it to you..." or the like).
My favorite sequence: An intercutting between Lloyd Bridges (as Harv the Deupty) going through an intense inner turmoil, and Kane walking alone in the street, over a piano version of "Buffalo Gals" playing from the saloon.
Most powerful shot: a push-in on the empty chair where Miller once vowed revenge right before the blaring whistle of the train that has finally arrived.
Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (1980)
A fine curiosity but way inferior to the theatrical version....
I don't blame Donner for wanting to put together a cut of this film with as much of the footage he shot as possible, but the result is a rather dull, way-too-serious mess that is illogical to boot. It was interesting to see the new scenes, but if this was the version released in theaters in 1980, the film would not have been the success it was.
I thought Lois's suspicions of Clark being Superman were played out much better in the original. In the new one, she draws glasses on a newspaper image of Supes, and is suddenly so convinced that she leaps out of the skyscraper a minute later to test Clark. Uh... yeah. Then she shoots a blank out of a pistol at Clark in their honeymoon suite to gauge his reaction. Wouldn't Superman realize it was a blank before admitting that he is indeed Supes?
I know a lot of the new stuff is purportedly "test footage", but some of these scenes come across with less snap than a daytime soap. Scenes are stretched out so much that it kills the tension. It's been said that Donner was fighting the producers to keep the movie camp and slapstick free, but some of the now-eliminated bits are sorely missed. When the Kryptonians are super-blowing away the approaching crowd, we no longer have the oblivious guy who's laughing into the payphone even after he and it are blown over. And where is Lois's co-worker who would comically punctuate the big Metropolis fight scene with her dumb remarks: "the big one's just as strong as Superman!" (Lois pushes her). Maybe Donner cut these things simply because he didn't shoot them, but why throw away these memorable little jokes in a film otherwise almost completely devoid of humor? The sequences of Non, Zod and Ursa getting acquainted with the locals of the Midwest town, and the big sprawling city fight (the highlight of the original Superman II) are now cut up so much that they are flat-out dull. So basically, if you're going to be stuck on a deserted island forever with only a DVD player and a TV, and could only take one version of Superman II, it is my opinion that you should bring the theatrical version.
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
Boo! Shame on you, Spielberg & Co.
Spielberg has had his share of flat-out bad movies (THE TERMINAL, THE LOST WORLD), but couldn't he have spaced it out so that his next bad film was something other than his return to Indiana Jones? I read some early negative reviews and felt they were probably being too mean-spirited, but upon sitting through Indy 4 I believe those critics weren't negative enough! This is an awful installment of the Indiana Jones franchise, lacking in any sort of magic or even the slightest bit of fun. It really does seem like a mere cash grab for all involved. Spielberg, probably smarting from his box office flop MUNICH, wanted to get his mojo back by raking in the inevitable several hundred million from this film. But jeez, couldn't he have least TRIED to capture that ol' Indy magic? The entirety of the movie I was sitting there waiting for the film to start.
No one wanted this movie to rock more than me. Indy was the hero of my childhood, and I consider RAIDERS a rare masterpiece. I think DOOM is one of the most exciting movies around, and although I feel CRUSADE is weak, I still have seen it dozens of times out of sheer principle. But what... was... this?! Indy 4 seemed like a fan-made movie with a Harrison Ford look-alike. Everything about it was sub-par, and IMO there wasn't ONE GREAT SCENE! I dislike CRUSADE, but at least it had a few wonderful moments.
Spielberg claimed he wanted to get the feel of the old Indy movies by not shooting digital, doing a lot of stunts over CGI, and not using his newer, more evolved style as seen in say, MINORITY REPORT or SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. I appreciate that, but why didn't he go all the way, especially in the most significant areas? First of all, the grotesque creatures bit in this film (ants) were CGI! After having the biggest gathering of snakes, insects and rats ever assembled to film in the 1st three movies, Spielberg takes the waaaaay lazy route and uses animated ants, which move toward their victims like a storm cloud as they would in any Sat. morning cartoon. If I'm not mistaken, even what the Paramont logo morphs into was CGI! What happened to you, Steven?
On top of that, there was just no engaging action scenes (really only 4 sequences -- brawl in Area 51 warehouse, motorcycle chase on Indy's campus, then after a looooooooooooooong gap, a jungle jeep chase, and then finally the escape-as-the-kingdom-collapses-all-around-you scene). In RAIDERS there were 8 action set pieces, one per every 15 minutes (idol in beginning, bar fight, marketplace fight, snake and mummy pit, airstrip fight, truck chase, battleship, opening the Ark). Raiders flowed so well you were not conscious of it. This film had long stretches of excruciating talking and gabbing. All for all the talky exposition about the crystal skulls, I still had no idea their history or significance.
Another strikingly awful thing about this film was it's reliance on very silly, cheesy humor, way worse than THE LAST CRUSADE. There were cringe-inducing moments from start to finish. One example comes to mind was when in the midst of a chase scene, Mac (Ray Winstone) seemed to break character, throw his arms up and cry gleefully to the guy he has betrayed over and over: "Jonsey!" (in probably an ode to the Tuco character in THE GOOD, THE BAD & THE UGLY, who would call Eastwood "Blondie"). Shia Lebeouf is not the problem -- in fact, by the end of the film I felt sorry for him this was what his Indy movie turned out to be (he probably felt the same massive disappointment Natalie Portman probably felt when her (1st) Star Wars movie turned out to be PHANTOM MENACE).
For what it's worth, here are some of the references to the original films I detected: *Indy saying "Intolerable" when Mutt got him into trouble (what Connery used to say in Indy 3). *Indy calling the crystal skull myth a "bedtime story", just as he did about the grail in Indy 3. *The Ark exposed through its crate in the warehouse. *Marcus Brody statue (decapitated, no less!) *Cheesy camera push in on Sean Connery production still from Indy 3. *Indy marries that girl from Raiders (Mutt could have been conceived on that battleship). *Wilhelm scream brought to you by nerd in library (might have occurred again later) *No Willie Scott, no Short Round, no Sallah, no guy on motorcycle with eyepatch and Nazi monkey.
Anyway, I hated this movie. I give it a 3 only for the good intentions I hope the director had when he set out to make this. What a let down! Even the bigger long-awaited disappointment than PHANTOM MENACE -- seriously! Boo, Spielberg! Boo! I expected this sort of thing from Lucas, but not from you.
Funny Games (2007)
Less evocative than the original, but an interesting cinematic experiment...
The idea of Haneke remaking FUNNY GAMES for American audiences appealed me from the beginning. I was deliciously disturbed by the original, which was quite thought-provoking as it entertained. I also found the idea of a director remaking his own movie (in a different language, no less) interesting. Cecil B. DeMille directed the THE TEN COMMANDMENTS in 1923 (a silent picture in black and white), then again in 1956 (in color, with sound). Hitchcock did THE MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH twice. Sam Raimi re-explores the events of THE EVIL DEAD in the beginning of EVIL DEAD 2, but in a different tone. FUNNY GAMES 2007 is basically a shot-for-shot/word-for-word remake of the original, so I think it was natural for me to be less affected by it. I found the sequences which were so gut-wrenching in the original be quite underwhelming here. The new villain actors were adequate for the roles, but IMO far less effective than the duo in the original. The villains in both movies are easy to hate, but in the original there was a complex charm to them -- they were not only funnier and scarier, but more believable. I've considered that the original being in a foreign language might have added a nuance in their performances that wouldn't be there for people who understood the language.
The "Ciao belle" moment in the original was one of the most devastating things I'd seen in all my years of watching movies, but I felt quite emotionally distanced during that moment in the new version. I wonder how effective that part would have been had I never seen the original. This brings to mind Gus Van Sant's PSYCHO (another virtual shot-for-shot remake) -- would it have been remotely suspenseful if no one knew of Hitchcock's original? It's hard to determine if my lack of engagement with this film is due to me already knowing the story and what to expect, or if it because of differences in the film-making. Haneke duplicates the same set-ups, angles and lighting schemes -- and sometimes it felt like he was just going through the motions. Maybe the idea of the remake appealed to him, but once he started filming he felt a bit bored by it. At the very least, I appreciate that this new version was made and I hope those who watch it are affected by it like I was the original.
Rocky Legends (2002)
Despite lack of Thunderlips, a great game...
I was not disappointed in this game, which does the Rocky franchise proud by letting you re-create all of the fights from the films. It is obvious that the makers of this game took love and time to simulate all the details from the boxing scenes of the movies -- from the styles of the boxing shorts to the boxing venues and crowds. However, in order to see all the fights from the films, you must do "Career Mode" as all of the 4 main contenders (the fight from ROCKY II is under Rocky's Career Mode only, whereas the fight from ROCKY is actually at the end of Apollo's; the first fight from ROCKY III is at the end of Clubber's Career Mode only; the Drago vs. Apollo fight is only during Drago's career, etc.). The likeness and feel of Rocky, Apollo, Clubber and Drago is amazing. It is very fun to fight in these familiar bouts, but the game also introduces an arsenal of new boxers that you can either play as or fight against. Fans of the franchise will find delight in the inclusions of Spider Rico, Union Cane and even Tony Duke in his younger days! You even get to wallop on Tommy Gunn out in the street. In fact, the only one missing here is Thunderlips.
Live Free or Die Hard (2007)
Strong DIE HARD movie that never quite punches through...
I'm a huge fan of this series. The original DIE HARD was probably the single greatest movie experience of my life the first time I saw it (and I ended up seeing it 7 times in the theater -- a personal record). I prefer the second one to the third because the 2nd seemed to retain more of that DIE HARD feel. This fourth one was a worthy follow-up, very entertaining, and probably as good as 2 or 3 IMO... but still fell short of finding that old DIE HARD (1988) magic.
The scope of these films have widened with each entry and LIVE FREE OR DIE HARD is no exception. After seizing a building in the original movie, an airport in the 1st follow-up and then a city, it seemed the logical choice was for now our entire country to be seized by terrorists (and for McClane's battlefield to encompass several states). In this respect, the film feels like it belongs in this series.
There were some truly cool scenes involving the terrorists mucking up the country (including a very clever video piece of U.S. Presidents that the bad guys fired into every home in the country).
I did find the movie lacking in certain areas, causing it to fall short of the original masterpiece that it stems from:
*The villains didn't have the personality that the villains of DIE HARD did. Comparing Tim Olyphant's character to Hans Gruber is laughable, but I think the even the henchmen of LFODHM could have been thought-out more. In the classic DIE HARD all 12 henchmen were very distinguishable... the henchmen in this film were basically HARD GUY WITH GUN #1, HARD GUY WITH GUN #2, etc., Asian GIRL. Give the henchmen just a little personality--it would be so much satisfying when McClane kills them! I remember cheering in the original DIE HARD when certain henchmen were killed... here, not so much.
*The movie played it a little safe with the violence, and even went as far as showing a pilot land safely with his parachute (just like the ol' GI JOE cartoons used to do to erase the possibility of violence). I wanted more of McClane pounding bad guys with his fists. Really the only significant fistfight in this film was vs. a 101-pound girl.
Overall, pretty solid, not outstanding. A lot of nice touches, including some warm moments with McClane and his sidekick character.
Spider-Man 3 (2007)
Has its moments, but overall disappointing...
I expected this to be less entertaining than SPIDER-MAN 2, but I wasn't prepared to like it less than the original! This movie moves in fits and starts -- never reaching the delightful flow and magic of Part 2. I don't think the problem was too many subplots -- more that the wrong subplots were explored over the more compelling ones. For instance, why not spend more time on Sandman (maddeningly one-dimensional) and Venom (a wickedly-cool creation that seems to be only on screen for a couple minutes total)? Instead, we spend most of the time on Peter/MJ's relationship problems (who cares!). Another element that really bugged me was that we rarely saw the superheroes and villains the way they should be seen (in their glorious superhero garb). We seem to see more of Peter Parker in action sequences rather than Spidey. And when he is in Spidey-gear, he usually has his mask off (as if Tobey Maquire had a stipulation in his contract that demanded more face time). The Venom fights would deflate fast when the creature's "mask" continually pulled back to reveal Topher Grace's mug. In fact, there were hardly any lingering "money" shots of Venom. The New Goblin costume was way uninspired (why not go for one of the ol' actual goblin face masks?). And the look of Thomas H. Church as classic Sandman was terrific except that the filmmakers decided to instead show him more as a King Kong-like sand-beast (like one of those brainless giant trolls from the Lord of the Rings movies). I was also confused as to the physics of Sandman -- he is malleable and can shape his body into any form he wants, yet he seems to get "hurt" when shot by a bullets? And since when does the chief of police call in a family to personally tell them the real killer of their loved one is still on the loose? Also, there was something very unlikable about Aunt May in this film. All that being said, I would still not call this a "bad" movie. But pretty disappointing seeing as that all the elements for a kick arse superhero movie were there. And for all this talk about this being the "dark" Spider-man movie--it was actually more kindergarten-friendly than either of the 1st 2.
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas (2004)
Best Entertainment Product Ever
Have you ever had a lucid dream where you recognize you're dreaming and are able to do whatever you want, exploring your sadistic side, knowing there'll be no real consequence? Playing GRAND THEFT AUTO: SAN ANDREAS is like that. It gives you the closest sensation to going out into the world and creating carnage as is possible w/out actually doing it. You can leave your house, walk down the street, watch people go about their lives... and then run up to an old woman and shoot her in the head. Watch as nearby people scream and run away. Then you shoot them in the back with your UZI machine gun. Or throw a Molotov cocktail into a busy intersection. Then wait as the first police squad car arrives... and blow it up with your grenade launcher. Police choppers on the way now? No worries -- slip into an alley, sprint through downtown on foot. You can hear the sirens around the block. See a guy riding by on a motorcycle? Blow him away and take his bike! This game does not encourage violent behavior but if anything deters it by letting the user release his aggressions on a harmless but nevertheless satisfying stage.
The genius of this game is that you as the player are truly free to do whatever you want--no matter how random or nonsensical. There is nothing to stop you after grabbing some food at a fast food restaurant to suddenly turn your pistol on a patron and blow him/her away (though you will suffer appropriate reaction from police, which lets the game retain a sense of realism). It should be a must for every action film director to play this game for hours -- the car chases and crash scenes that transpire (including the variety of various on screen views) will transcend anything you've ever seen in a movie. The carnage scenes that develop are amazing because they are not "set up", but played out, and chance comes into play with everything. This game allows you to feel the truly chaotic.
It is easy to spend all your time going out and creating carnage in the cities and landscapes, but what many people unfamiliar w/ the game don't realize is that there is a series of missions to accomplish that actually takes you through a story arc with an arsenal of supporting characters. You start performing missions (killing crack dealers, robbing homes, etc) in a ghetto in a city that emulates Los Angeles (a metropolis complete with areas reminiscent of Venice Beach, Santa Monica, Hollywood, Mulholland Drive, Inglewood, downtown, and Compton). Even though every section of the actual Los Angeles isn't covered in this game, I continually noticed buildings and landmarks from those uncovered sections peppered throughout. You continue to have missions through forests and small towns outside the first city (illegal car races, small bank robberies, etc.), a nearby San Francisco-based city (Chinese Mafia dealings, getting revenge on a construction crew, etc), a vast desert (learning to fly planes for a government agent voiced by James Woods, etc.) and a Las Vegas-based city (wining/dining a casino dealer chick so you can get her keycard to assist you in robbing the casino, etc). Overall, I believe the game has over 100 missions.
In between the bouts of carnage, there is plenty to do in this ridiculously-detailed world. A few of the countless examples: You can play pool in a bar (then shoot your opponent if you lose and take your cash back--why not!); leap off the tallest tower in the city and parachute onto a any of a number of buildings below; steal a boat and just cruise around the ocean, rivers or canals. And to any of you true sickos -- you can only kill male or female adults in this game (or yourself)... no children or animals.
I should end this before my 1,000-word maximum is reached, but anyway, awesome game. Honest-to-God best product of entertainment in my lifetime.
Superman Returns (2006)
They missed the mark COMPLETELY
I could write a dissertation on how this movie misfired. It's just not worth it, but here's the gist (it's all been said before anyway):
1. Boring. Far too many shots of Superman "thinking", but hardly any action and zero fights. Singer gleefully shows a henchman throwing Lois Lane around but won't dare show Superman take down a bank robber who just shot him in the eye. Did he realize that showing Superman punch someone would take away from his stupid Jesus allusions (which BTW are overkilled to the point of absurdity). 2. The whole movie feels stifled as if they filmmakers were always trying to keep themselves in check. They never just go balls-out and have fun with it. (Honest to God, the often-ridiculed giant spider robot Kevin Smith said he was asked to include in his screenplay years ago would be a very welcome presence in this dull factory.) We have Parker Posey here... but instead of her bitchy wisecracks, we have continual shots of her saying nothing, just fretting, building up to the pointless "change of heart". And like LEX WOULDN'T IMMEDIATELY KILL HER upon finding out she single-handedly ruined his entire plan? 3. I 1st assumed they decided to have Supes "return", rather than retell the story of his origins, so they could save time and get straight to the plot. However, you won't believe how much time goes by as Supes/Kent re-assimilate in society. They might as well just started from the beginning. 4. Using a Chris Reeve look-alike was interesting, but by the end of the movie, you're just like WHY? Give us something new, for God's sake. Oh, yeah, they did: a completely stagnant Lois Lane and a dopey kid who may or may not be Superman's son (like he's not going to turn out to be Superman's son). 5.Poorly-edited. You could cut 1/2 hour of this movie just by trimming up the scenes w/out having to cut any full scenes out. This movie really does take itself far too seriously. 6. Everyone's miscast. EVERYONE!(said in Gary Oldman voice from The Professional). The most glaring miscast was Frank Langella, who is flat and uninspired. 7. Routh doesnot come across gay as Singer & Co. may have feared, but he comesacross like a boy-toy gay fantasy. And Singer couldn't help himself--he had to have a shot reminiscent of man-on-man sex (when real-life homosexual Spacey "sticks" Supes from behind w/ the Kryptonite shiv).
Dumb, dumb, dumb, and a waste.
King Kong (2005)
A great remake, but doesn't quite reach heights of the original...
KING KONG (2005) is nothing short of amazing, yet it does not fully bring back that Kong magic we all know from the original. For me, there were only a few moments (wide shots of Kong beating his chest in the jungle or some shots on the Empire State Building) that recalled the primeval, majestic experience of KONG 1933.
The effects of Kong himself (visual and sound) are impeccable, but the dinosaur effects (esp. a brontosaurus stampede) were a little clumsy. I'm surprised that the music was so forgettable, seeing as the original had perfect music/visuals harmony. Jackson has commented on how brilliant the '33 score wove with the visuals of Kong, but his movie's score is a little generic and rarely seems to punctuate what's on screen.
I think the film would benefit by a 15-minute trim from the first act, as the characters head over to Skull Island. It takes FOREVER to get to Kong. We get into needless backstories of crewmen which don't pay off. To me, the film got a little off track as one seaman's (the kid who played Billy Elliot) backstory was told by another crew member. Much importance was placed on the kid, who ultimately didn't do much and disappeared halfway through the film. I also felt the many references to the book "Heart of Darkness" were out of place -- for some reason, it didn't seem right for the characters in Kong's world to talk about famous books.
I agree that Jack Black is miscast. He is supposed to be a showman who commands enthusiasm, but Jack rarely arouses much excitement in this film. He almost seems to be holding back, as if he's lost his confidence. When he utters the (many!) verbatim quotes from the original's Denham character in his unmistakable Jack Black voice, it is a little upsetting. His words have nowhere near the power that Robert Armstrong's did. Personally, I felt it was a mistake for Jackson to have Denham's character as a villain -- there was something so exciting about the heroic Denham character from the first movie. It would have been great to see Jack Black going wild as a half-crazy, visionary adventurer, instead of a selfish, shady jerk.
Though this review tended to harp on the negatives, I want to stress that I found the movie thoroughly entertaining and I'd recommend it to anyone.
War of the Worlds (2005)
An intense disaster movie with action, horror and heart. (SPOILERS)
SPOILERS!!!! (Don't read unless want to know what happens).
WAR OF THE WORLDS sucks you in from the get-go and leaves you terror-stricken and captivated for its entirety. It's been commented on before and it's worth mentioning again that this movie will make you think about what you might do during an alien invasion. Through Cruise's eyes you are right there in the middle of the action as the Tripods arrive and start their extermination. We see the Tripods surface and annihilate, then later search for survivors, whom they pluck and cage before using as fertilizer. The prologue with Freeman's narration is slick and sets the tone perfectly, remarking how oblivious we can be to global change.
Some reviews call some exchanges between Tom and his kids too "touchy-feely", but to me those moments played very realistic--I believed that the characters would behave in such ways during an unthinkable crisis.
I don't have any problems with the ending. That the aliens ultimately found our planet inhospitable was the most believable way to wrap things up. Sure, they had planned on the take-over for millenniums but there were microscopic factors they didn't count on. That solution is better to me than the humans suddenly figuring out some alien Achilles Heel.
Coolest parts: 1. Tom getting the movie's first good look at one of the walking Tripods as he hides behind a house.
2. Tom's ex seeing Tom carrying Dakota down the street, back to her.
3. Our one-side view of a military battle with the Tripods. Tanks, men with bazookas and missile-shooting helicopters charge over a hill. After massive explosions the Tripods emerge from behind the hill w/ out a scratch.
Thoroughly entertaining.