Back to film:
I opened the paper today and saw a full-page color ad featuring an image
taken directly from WOTW. I think it captures the film's true menace,
w/Spielberg coming full-circle (almost), to his thriller-making roots of his
first blockbuster ("Jaws," which I still feel is his best thriller-horror
pix).
When I see ads like this (click link below), I wonder how decisions are made
for one-sheet art that looks uninspiring by comparison (the Style A has
block letters like Ben-Hur and the Style B, a little better, shows a
tentacled grip on Earth):
http://members.cox.net/davidkusumoto/wotw-ad-sunday-07-10-05.jpg
I've since talked to many friends who've seen the film (esp. at my office),
and the reaction is split down the middle; some (mostly women) think WOTW is
super lame. Others consider WOTW (like I do), the "best B-movie ever made."
Note my qualifier. It's the best "B-movie" -- not the best sci-fi movie.
A "B-movie" allows me to forgive almost everything people hate, including
less-than-Oscar caliber acting, writing, directing, etc.; its creators make
no pretense of creating a masterpiece.
Now let me contradict myself. How many "B-movies" cost $135 million to
make? Now that's worth debating. Maybe Spielberg was trying to capture the
"spirit" of the "b-movie" without doing it on the cheap -- using the best
tools available for a director -- whom few in Hollywood can say "no." I'll
take Spielberg any day over directors who produce "similar" fare such as
"Independence Day," "Armageddon" and "The Day After Tomorrow."
-d.
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
