The second movie I watched as part of the [Martian Movie Marathon](/2003/08/27/martian-movie-marathon/) was **War of the Worlds**. Yup, the 1953 movie that put H.G. Well’s classic on the big screen. If you do not know the story, or the outcome, then you have been living under an (earth) rock for way too long. Go and watch the movie. Or better yet, go and read the book, then watch the movie.

I never quite liked the movie adaptation of the novel. The problem is, I had forgotten why. When I started watching the movie, I couldn’t help but wonder what it was that I disliked. It started off well enough, if you ignore the disintegration effect as the Martians attack – I mean, this is 1952 we’re talking about so you really can not pay attention to it. When the main protagonists – that is the science guy and his female scream-babe – are locked in the abandoned farm, confronted by real life Martians, I was really enjoying myself. The fleeing Martian – actually nice puppetry for 1953 – caused a huge deal of laughter. It had something very comical about it. I know it’s unfair. This was probably as scary 1952 as the first time I watched ALIEN was for me.

Anyway, once the Martians begin to really lay waste to Earth, I remembered why I disliked the movie. There’s endless scenes of chaos and mayhem. Normally, that’s a good thing; nothing like kicking civilisation in the groin area. But they’re all stock scenes. Endless, endless stock scenes. And I never really liked the flying saucers of the Martians either. They’re supposed to be land juggernauts on three legs – Tripods – damn it. Olav said that the makers of the movie wanted to be “innovative”. Okay, I’ll grant them that… but the endless stock scenes with superimposed flying saucers are still very annoying. And all the time the female lead does one thing and one thing only: scream and cower in fear. Yeah, back then, that was the acceptable role for women – but after a while, it really got on my nerves. The movie runs 82 minutes, according to the dust jacket; it felt easily twice that.

The DVD is reasonably well done, but there is no bonus material. The exception to this is the theatrical trailer that was shown back when the movie was released. It’s quite interesting to see how these things have changed in the past 50 years, yet still retain the same basic makeup. It’s a little sad that the makers of the DVD did not produce any kind of bonus material – I am sure something could have been found, about this movie or about the genre. Then again, I realise that the audience of this DVD is likely limited. That would also explain the last positive thing about the DVD: it includes a goodly thirteen languages.

I guess in summary I have to say that I am undecided about the movie. It starts of very fun, but really lets you down in the end. Still, it’s a classic in the genre of Invasion science fiction, and as such it’s definitely worth seeing.

I started off my [Martian Movie Marathon](/2003/08/27/martian-movie-marathon/) by watching Total Recall, mostly because I’ve seen it two or three times and it looked like a relaxing way to get going. It’s also the least “cool” of the movies I borrowed for the weekend because it’s pretty weak as a Martian Movie. Sure, most of it is set on Mars, but that’s all it is: A stage. There are no Martians, no flying saucers, nothing. At least it’s got alien artefacts.

Not that this means it’s a bad movie. It starts off simple enough, but builds up quickly to become a typical Arnold movie. Schwarzenegger gets to kill bad guys left and right and because this is the uncut version, gratuitous scenes of blood and gore can be enjoyed by the entire family while munching popcorn. I thought i had seen the uncut version before, but maybe I was wrong. Some pretty nasty scenes in there – For example when Arnold has Michael Ironside’s cut-off arms in his hand; or near the beginning when Ironside steps on the chest of a dead henchman, complete with squishy sound.

What distinguishes Total Recall from pretty much all Arnold movies is that it actually has a bit of an intelligent premise / back-story. By this I mean the entire mind-games theory. We can never be sure whether what is happening to Arnold is real, or whether it is, after-all, only his imagination. Evidence does point to the story portraying the reality; I assume that making the story truly ambiguous was a big “no no”. It probably was seen as being detrimental to what Arnold fans usually enjoy: Brawn over brains.

The acting is decent – except for Arnold, who comes across as pretty wooden. Then again, when did Arnold ever get hired for actual acting? I especially enjoyed Michael Ironside, but then he’s always a favourite of mine. The set is convincing, the special effects are all right – they were probably top-notch when the movie came out, but are of course dated now. I did not like the mutants – I thought they distracted from the story; and the make-up is cheesy anyway.

The DVD – German edition, RC 2 – has German, English and Spanish sound tracks as well as some meagre extras: A trailer, a teaser, and a short “Making Of”. Nothing special to see there, move along. The quality is okay, overall, though I did not really like the menu design. Still, it’s an okay DVD.

Overall, Total Recall is still one of the better Action-Science Fiction movies. The story, based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, is an added bonus. If you like Science Fiction and Arnold Action, then you can’t really go wrong with Total Recall.

I went to see Charlie’s Engle 2 tonight. I’d never have thought of seeing it, but a co worker wanted to go and I spontaneously decided that it’d beat sitting around. At least the cinema would be air conditioned – a real boon with our summer here.

Charlie’s Angels is the second movie in that re-creation of the 70′s TV Show of the same name, just with up-to-date special effects (sort of) and modern celebrities in the roles of the three angels. Whatever their names. Does anybody really care?

The movie is just that: Cute girls beating the living hell out of the bad guys, with actually quite nice choreography and effects. Okay, I guess it’s really standard fare these days. The story is nonexistent (“Angels, you are to recover item X which should it fall into the wrong hands would cause terrible problems.”) I would actually liek to compare it to Tripple X, but where Tripple X failes, Charlie’s Angels 2 succeeds: It buils a fun movie. It does require you to turn off your brain at the cinema cashier, but it’s good clean fun. And of the three angels, at least Lucy Liu is really pleasant on the eyes.

The movie quite clearly does not take itself very seriously, and that’s a good thing because it could never stand on any other leg. Story? Huh? Acting? Beg your pardon? Effects? Yeah it’s got some. Coolness factor? Are you kidding?

There are some problems, especially later in the movie. Lucy’s boyfriend (played by Matt LeBlanc) explains to her father (John Cleese) about the “real” job of Lucy; however Lucy burts in and tells her father things which are sexually explicit – the joke being, of course, that he supposedly thinks Lucy and her friends are prostitutes. This is a really cheap, stupid gag that simply isn’t funny. A short mention would have been okay, but like this it serves no purpose and just makes the director, script-writers and actors look like idiots. And as if this was not enough, they pick the joke up at the very end.

The second problem is the overuse of really bad puns. I like puns. Puns are cool. But when the villain gets toasted in a ball of fire, the phrase “he’s fired” really, really, **really** is unimaginative and dumb. There are much better jokes in this movie; why did the writers have to do this? Maybe the average audience member is just stupid enough to enjoy this kind of trite; there certainly were many people around laughing at these substandard punchlines.

So in the end, can I recommend this movie? A conditional yes – if you can stand mindless action movies with a lot of cleavage and some cute girls in it. My advcie is to go to a half price screening. I paid 6.50 Euros; I think about 2-3 would be about right for Charlie’s Angels 2.