War of the worlds

Forums: Movies
Email this Topic • Print this Page

I just watched this today and I would have to nominate this as the biggest (high budget) turkey of all time.

I'm surprised that Spielberg didn't insist on the directors name being credited as Alan Smithee.

What does everybody else think?

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,327 • Replies: 31

No top replies

Disagree. While there is a affection for the George Pal version, Spielberg went back to the original novel and included much that was excised from the Pal version. Just calling it a turkey means nothing -- exactly what put you off about this version?

0 Replies

(And please, not the tired "I hate Tom Cruise" mantra -- specifically, his ridiculous antics last year including, especially, the tirade over Scientology).

0 Replies

There's a lot I disliked about the movie, but no time now....I'll be back.

0 Replies

I just wasn't exciting. There wasn't that "edge of your seat" feeling it should have had.
I thought it was ok.

0 Replies

LW I like Tom Cruise but this was simply the story of a crane driver and his two children trying for two hours to dodge the all powerful bad guys, and whereas the American military had no apparent response to this threat, our Tom disables one with an axe and then brings one down with a hand grenade.

For gawds sake.

Considering the 50 year time difference this wasn't a patch on the 1950 original version.

0 Replies

He threw a grenade directly into the craft and killed off a bunch of the fragile aliens. The axe was used to disable the probe, not protected by the force field.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Can't put it in any better terms than Kenneth Turan of the L.A. Times who is one critic I almost always agree with:

While Spielberg has said in interviews that his focus in this film is depicting an ordinary guy and his children coping with an alien onslaught, in some ways the family dynamic is the weakest link in the story.

His relationship with son Robbie is as much a trial to us as it is to the two of them, an exercise in hackneyed tedium that repeats the clichés of dysfunctional adolescence that have deadened more movies than anyone can count.

LW, I have singled out the two paragraphs above because they express my feelings of everything that is wrong with this film.

First paragraph.

the family dynamic is the weakest link in the story.

Since it is two hours of TC trying to hide from the bad guys with his two kids who do everything they can to be mere irritants, what else is there?

and the second paragraph really sums up this pic.

0 Replies

Absolutely and the personal stories Spielberg tries to depict in all of his films, including his best are not his strongest point. This version of WotW is to 1950's alien invasion flicks as "Raiders of the Lost Ark" was to old movie serials. You're attempting to find something in Spielberg that simply isn't there. Perhaps because sci-fi is seldom about any emotions but for some token characterizations, I suggest not watching sci-fi.

0 Replies

BTW, this has been hashed over in the recent past:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=66802&highlight=war+worlds

I'm sorry but one of my pet peeves is posters deciding they don't like a film so they "get it off their chest" by pronouncing it "crap," or "kerap," or turkey. A turkey refers to a financially unsuccessful movie, stage play or musical, not just it's artistic merit. WotW was one of the top ten blockbusters of the year. Thar may not be saying much as the box office was down 6% last year probably due to too many bad remakes. But "The Dukes of Hazard" would beat out WofW hands down as a bad remake, among others.

0 Replies

Yes I thought this topic was all too familiar...I still thinked this movie sucked! The huge hype about WotW initially, all to be let down once you got into the movie theatre.

I still feel like I was rushed through the entire movie, and while the actors were all good, this was not a well delivered film....sorry to say but it was crap!

0 Replies

I must have missed the "hype" that almost every film except some small art house movies, independents and foreign films get a lot of advance promotion. It's their business to make money. Not a well delivered film? You mean it was late getting to the theater?

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Not a well delivered film?

why yes..thats what I said

0 Replies

And, "You mean it was late getting to the theater" is what I wrote, since you can't hear me.

0 Replies

(And I think the horse died a long time ago on this subject).

0 Replies

so why post then?

0 Replies

Good question -- I'm sure somebody knows.

0 Replies

just my 2 cents worth, no offence I hope.... :wink:

ehbeth just sent me a private email, obviously she thinks Im upsetting you Lightwizard-I hope that is not the case, as I cant see how.

0 Replies

ehbeth is being oversensitive. You're not in the least upsetting me. The cat plays with the mouse until tired of playing.

I do wish posters would get their thoughts together, however, and actually write a somewhat comprehensive review, not just post something which belongs in Yahoo! chat. This is Able2Know, not Able2Troll.

0 Replies

War of the worlds

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know