Change Your Image
Entilza72
Reviews
Carnivore Reflux (2006)
Nicely animated, a clever little piece
Saw this one at a traveling film festival.
It's a clever little number. A well written (and well read) narration forms the basis of the piece, around which are what I would describe as "some wonderfully animated Russian style" figures depicting the action. The presentation reminds me of the style of a kids' animated fable, but more for adults.
Often short film "gems" can be hard to get to see. So I can tell you this one is worth a look if you have the chance to see it at a festival - especially if you're a vegetarian! Having said that, it's for vegetarians and carnivores alike!
War of the Worlds (2005)
A well made small budget film, sadly confused with another...
As a filmmaker myself, I was very interested to see the David Latt version of War of the Worlds. With the over hyped over Americanized Spielberg/Cruise version of this British tail, and the much mauled Victorian offering of Hines, I was keen to see something that was watchable and story driven, and not over the top with CGI. Whilst the Latt film has its faults, I would say this is perhaps one of (if not THE) best independently produced sci-fi films I have seen for a long time. The film clearly has budget constraints, however, they have made an effort to give us a decent offering. Its shot on film, an expensive undertaking in a market that today widely believes that consumers don't know the difference and won't care. It has some recognisable name actors, all of whom do a great job. In particular, mention should be make of C Thomas Howell, who's experience and skill is evident from the very first line. But most importantly, those making the film (including the actors) obviously cared enough to do a good job, no matter how limited the budget. I like to think that it's not the size of your budget, but what you do with it that counts.
The script won't win any awards, but it is a perfectly functional piece of work capable of supporting a film. It gives the old story War of the Worlds story a slightly different spin. The cinematography ranges from "weekly TV series" quality in some scenes (functional, but nothing exciting), to very good in others. Cinematography can make or break a film, just as acting can. Fortunately for this film, the camera department was clearly competent.
On the boards of IMDb, the film has constantly been confused with the Timothy Hines version http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/combined which has received many negative comments. A shame, because this invariably will have lead to votes being miscast against the Latt version. To make it plain: the Hines version is shot on video and is set in Victorian England. The Latt version (this version) is shot on film, and is set in modern times in the US.
This film doesn't have the CGI whiz bang effects of the Spielberg version. However, effects do not play a major role in the script. I for one applaud anyone who tries to return to good old fashion story telling, without relying on CGI to "wow em senseless". But, if you like to see shots of the aliens and their machines all the time, and aren't particularly interested in story and character development, then perhaps this film is not for you. But if you're more interested to see what happens when story and acting are what keeps your film going, then this one might be worth a look.
In giving the film a score of 7 out of 10, I took into consideration the obvious low budget of the film, verses the result. It has its flaws, and isn't as tight as it could be, but none the less for the market, it's a very good effort.