MovieChat Forums > War of the Worlds (2005) Discussion > THIS VERSION IS BETTER THAN SPIELBERGS!

THIS VERSION IS BETTER THAN SPIELBERGS!


Tom Cruise = one dimension, boring acting, blah. C-
Spielberg = too glossy, too much popcorn, not any substance B
Script = one dimension, didn't follow the book, created unlikable characters, with uncaring goals. D
Effects = B+ (not an A because they spent too much money and I still saw the damn matte lines in some of the effects! They should have been perfect)

Overall = C+


C. Thomas Howell = Great character actor, lots of dimension, control. A-
Latt = Gritty, in your face storytelling. B+
Script = Compelling, great characters, moves along at a great pace. The ending works! B+
Effects = Some great, some not so great. B-

Overall = B+

Plus Latt spent a LOT LESS MONEY. Spielberg should be ashamed of himself for spending a quarter billion dollars (after marketing) with that money. Tsk, tsk.

reply

I would think that you were working for this company, 'xcept I agree with most of what you are saying!

I'd probably give Stevies flick a B, not a C+.

Any thoughts on the Hines film? If there was a grade lower than F, than that's what I give 'em.

reply

Spielberg = A-

Latt = B+

(didn't see the other one)

reply

Spielberg's: D
Hines: Q
Latt: Not Yet Seen


Seriously, tho...how hard could it be to do it better than Speilberg's?? I nearly diea when the emerging aliens caused the lost of power to everything...except that one guy's camcorder, and the other guy's digital still camera. All that money and not a brain to be found among the crew.

Class action lawsuit, anyone?? ;)

reply

Are you people serious? This version of W-F-T-W is definately one of the worst movies I have ever seen. I am not comparing it to Spielburgs, I am comparing it to every movie I have ever watched. My friends and I couldn't WAIT for it to end, but for some reason, continued to watch thinking it would get better. OH MY GOD IT SUCKED!!!

reply

I agree. One of the worst movies I can ever remember watching. And that includes crappy made-for-TV movies.

reply

[deleted]

I agree--just because it wasn't anything like the book doesn't mean it isn't good. I went into the movie without reading the book and thought it was the best movie ever. You shouldn't base your opinions on movies on similarities to the books they are based on, because movies are hardly ever like the books.

reply

If you actually thought that Spielberg crap was a great film then I know some Pauly Shore movies you'd just love. Spielberg, along with John Carpenter and several other 70's-80's greats, completely lost his touch and talent somewhere in the early 90's. Thus we have huge, steaming piles like his travesty of Wells and "Minority Report" among other embarrassments. Latt's version may be cheap and only passable, but at least it was entertaining. The same cannot be said of Spielberg's.

reply

Your comments are not well thought out. The aliens' devices caused power outages and fried most electronics, but not all. Is that impossible???

reply

[deleted]

lost of power to everything...except that one guy's camcorder

The loss of power has been explained extensively on the message boards for Spielberg's movie - check it out. It is completely plausible, and can happen often. There is also the magical van issue, which is also discussed at length, and the fact that this was an ALIEN energy force, and it does not need to follow our ideas of what an EMP should or should not do.


Until today, I never knew these other versions of WOTW existed - that's a big "hmmmmm."

reply

This must be the director because who else knows who this Latt charcter is. BTW, all the positive listings here or in the user comments section are brand new users and they only talk about your WOTW. Hmm, makes you think. So then take a moment to look at the user ratings for Speilberg - 6.8. People like that film. Look at your number 3.0, people don't like your film. In regards to the other version, it too only got a 3.0 but atleast it got into Walmart so the people distributing it could care less. Sorry, your film is an also ran. The last out of three. And quit crying about the fact that you didn't have any money to make a good film. Primer won Sundance and it cost a tenth of what your film cost.

reply

Who's Primer? BTW...sorry, I'm not the director. There are actually people who like this movie that aren't associated with the film. Check out the external reviews. I don't think all 30 of them are the director, either. But maybe, they are...conspiracy? Maybe you're the director of the other crapfest Walmart film trying to piss all over this film? For shame! Or maybe you're Spielberg. Oooo...caught you Steve! You've been outted!

P.S.: I've posted many other comments besides this one, some under different names because my system crashed and I lost some passwords.

reply

No! No! I'M THE DIRECTOR!!!! You're all fired.

reply

IM sorry. IM the director.

All bow down to me.

reply

Sure, system crashed and you lost your password. Anway, still haven't dealt with the issue that there are 125 people who thought that this film was horrid and about 33 who thought it was good. The people have spoken. Ha!

reply

Hey...anyone notice that all the people putting bad reviews on this site only have posted here and on the Hines site? Hmmmmm...

I AM THE DIRECTOR, DAMN IT!!!

reply

[deleted]

I'm the director and so's my wife. :P

reply

I think that you guys are being too harsh on this film. Comparing this film with Spielberg's film is like comparing apples to oranges. The only thing that links these films together is H.G. Wells, but both of these films took a different approach. Spielberg, a brilliant director, took the approach of making it into a rollercoaster movie of sorts. This, combined with his gift of crafting an interesting tale of parenting and redemption (along with stunning special effects), made the movie become quite a success. Asylum's "War of the Worlds" took a different approach by making it in most ways closer to the novel. Instead of focusing solely on special effects, it follows novel more closely, which dictates the experiences of a man who is trying to survive an alien invasion. This film plays with the human emotions, and is more plot-oriented and character-driven than any other movie that I have seen since "Blade Runner." As for the acting, both are amazing, simply put. The special effects were decent except for the aliens. However, I'm beginning to wonder if everyone here was expecting an action movie or mainly cared about special effects. If you're looking for explosions and action, watch "Die Hard" or the Spielberg movie. Or Uwe Boll. If you care about the latter, then I suggest that you get out of here because SPECIAL EFFECTS DO NOT MAKE THE STORY! They are only decorations, nothing more.

reply

Sorry, but no, the tripods weren't even tripods. Are you telling me the idiots that made this film don't know how to count to three? It is impossible to be too harsh to this movie that seems as if it were made by a bunch of 12 yr olds. Instead of actually putting scenes in that advanced the story or contributed to character development, they put in a bunch of scenes of the main character sleeping, walking away from the "tripods" when he should be running, and talking about healing properties of plants and, when asked if he is a botanist-which is ridiculous since the soldier already had been told he was an astronomer-he lets out the lame line that he deals with chemicals a lot in his work-as if that could possibly lead to him being able to tell that such-and-such a flower was rich in antioxidants. I'm sure an astronomer uses antioxidants in his work about as often as a whale uses stilts. Not to mention the fact that they are able just to run away from one of the "tripods" when it has stopped over them without it even noticing or attacking them. Not very menacing there. I have read the original book and this was not anywhere near it. The acting was awful and the "display" of human emotions was totally overdone, melodramatic, and incongruous with the action around them or underdone. Look at the totally unrealistic reaction of the main character to Busey shooting his soldier friend through the head. Howell either completely overdoes it or underdoes it when he shows emotion in reaction to something. Also, a large portion of this ludicrously bad movie seemed merely to be a platform for the moviemakers to attack the Christian faith in the most wanton and nonsensical fashion. This film didn't even deserve a 1. It was like watching the aftermath of a car wreck. You don't really want to look, but can't seem to look away in part because you don't believe it possible that such a horrendously putrid bit of slime was actually financed by someone who presumably had a functioning brain. Until I come across the absolute miracle of something worse, this is officially my worst movie of all time.

reply

RipRip: I agree totally with what you say. In fact, I was so moved by how awful every aspect of this movie was that I wrote a comment for it... one of only two I have written.

I wanted to comment on your observing that the "tripods were not even tripods". In the extras section of the DVD, the effects guy says something to the effect of they were careful not to make the tripods look too organic, so they would not be mistaken for bugs. This amazed me, because my major complaint, after the number of legs, would be that they look exactly like bugs! If someone did not know the story and saw this movie, they would think it was about an invasion of giant bugs.

I studied the book myself, and a few years ago worked on a game. I made animated tripods, attempting to get the motion the same as the Well's version. I do think it is important, and should not be all that hard, to stick to the author's vision in this respect.

I think this might have been a giant bug movie, re-steered into a WOTW movie when they saw Spielber's WOTW was on it's way.

reply

So what if you take in to consideration, Scary Movie 4's version of War of the Worlds, which I thought was better than the Spielberg version, but when you get so far in to the film, its almost shot for shot, the same, the field scene, with the army, and tripods fighting.

reply

Those who saw Hines' version are all in detox.

reply

I don't think so, but the fact that it's not an entirely unreasonable position is pretty damning considering Speilberg's rep and the budget he had to work with.
It comes down to script, I'm not saying Asylum's script was good, but it was better than teh opne used in Paramount's movie.

Tom Cruise = C+
Spielberg = B
Script = D+
Effects = A-

Overall = B


C. Thomas Howell = c+
Latt = C+
Script = c+
Effects = c

Overall = c+


I assume Latt's budget was approx 1/10 of Spielberg's...
He did do a much better job on a per $ basis.
I think SS lost the battle when he settled on that script. I suspect he's drifting into the habit of letting friendships and professional contacts dictate what he does- most people in Hollywood HAVE to do that- he doesn't. He's friends with Koepp and was unwilling or unable to see that the script sucked. Koepp knows SS well enough to know that SS has unresolved father issues to play on....

reply

Well, the difference between C+ and B is still pretty good considering Latt spent about 1/250th of what Steve did.

reply

All three versions of WOTW are poo.
I agree that Spielberg is cheap floss.


reply

Spielbergs film was the best and no other war of the Worlds film can beat it!

reply

roflmao, I hope you were joking :|

reply

This movie sucked ass over all. The acting wasn't that great. The setting, not that great. The only part that was worth watching was in the beginning. And seriously, the main character looks 50, and his girlfriend? 20? A little creepy to me.
The special effects we not good at all. They looked like giant rusty crabs that spit out green lasers. And why did it show the city with a little flame that looked like it came from a lighter?
Save your money and go see Steven Spieldberg's version.

reply

i think latts version is better because its closer to the book its second only to the war of the worlds from 1953.

reply

"i think latts version is better because its closer to the book its second only to the war of the worlds from 1953."

That's where I put it too. My only annoyance with this films is the tripods were way off. C. Thomas Howell was far and away better than Crapcruise

reply

I admit that this movie is lacking in many respects. I do prefer Howell's character to the stiffly-acted one-dimensional Cruise. This is NOT the film to see if you're looking for action, as many other critics have noted. But it does have a good set of auxillary characters (the pastor, the soldier, the woman who lost her faith) and some decent acting amidst the poor effects. Overall, I'd recommend this for a weekend rental.

reply

This one is better.

Really, Cruise was never likable or believable. Effects goes to Spielberg.

reply

*****SPOILERS****** (dont really needed cos dont worth watching)

Sorry for being so acid, but... this cant be better than anything on this earth.
Damn, I barely believed the movie was so bad, kept waiting till the end to see if something would change suddenly and become little more than a big waste of time. I guess it's the worse movie I ever saw, no kidding. The script was SO boring, so senseless. The effects were ridiculous. Not so much technically, but those big aliens were so stupid... what the **** was that soldiers with machine guns shooting at a 40 feet tall metal monster? As if we didnt have lots of tanks and bombs in this world... Btw, after all, they got killed by a godamn anti-rabbic vacine or some stupid stuff like this. Oh god.. Not even the diallogs were good. NOTHING was good. What wasnt stupid-to-hell was boring.

reply

My vote goes to this one.

reply

all i know is i just watched the movie this morning with my boyfriend and we BOTH laughed so hard becuase it was the most ridculous movie we have ever seen - i think it's just as bad as HALF BAKED

reply

[deleted]

I don't think that these films were competing for the same audience -- so I don't know if one was better than the other. The bigger movie was looking for the teenagers and I think this one was going for the adults.

reply

Uh, terrytom1894. You're scaring me. How can this be better than Spieberg's!!!
What are you a, stupid? Listen, first off the acting in the movie you liked sucks. Secondly, I liked the actors, Tom Cruise actually played ... alright. Third, Aliens falling in meteors although accurate to the book, is way too old of an idea. Fourth, the visuals ROCK!!!! Fifth, at least Steven Spielberg's was scary and gritty as well as suspensefull. Finally, the aliens were bug like, why would anyone want to see bug-eyed aliens. STEVEN SPIELBERG"S WAS A MASTERPIECE!!!

reply

Ummm... perhaps you can clarify this point on the Spielberg version for me then, since you cite it as being one of the defining 'great' things about that version:

Why would the aliens visit Earth long enough to bury their highly advance War Machines and then leave, rather than just taking over when they first arrived and there wasn't any opposition? Isn't this rather like saying we should have buried M1 Abrams tanks in the Iraqi desert during the first Gulf War, just in case we might need to use them there again? How embarrassing would it have been to the aliens if they'd returned to Earth only to find we'd descovered their hidden War Machines. "Resistance is futile! You have no ... aw hell, get out of that! You weren't supposed to find those! C'mon!"

If aliens coming out of the sky is too old of an idea, maybe they should have looked around for a more plausible idea than the one they actually used.

I'll admit, Cruise did a good job playing against type, but since when is a deadbeat dad in War of the Worlds, anyway? Howell's character was appropriately thoughtful and played terrifically.

Visual... well, if you like the shiney, sure, Spielberg wins. But you know what? All the shininess in the world doesn't make up for a terrible script, which is just what the Spielberg film was dealing with; a terrible script.

Suspense? Ah, no. The version with C. Thomas Howell was far more suspenseful, and far less predictable than the Spielberg version. While I watched the Spielberg version I could tell you exactly what was going to happen after I watched the main characters for 5 minutes. Was there ever any doubt the teenage boy would show up in the end of the film? Nope. Was there ever any doubt that Cruise and company would escape the Ferry? Nope.

Aliens... Why should it matter whether they looked like bugs? Admittedly, I wish this version would have stuck with the Tripod walkers, but the aliens hardly matter in and of themselves.

No, this version of War of the Worlds addresses itself to the same issues that Wells did: The arrogance of man, and the necessity of even the most trivial creatures in the environment. It wasn't a pop-psychology lesson in parenting but with 50% more explosions, like all of Spielbergs science fiction films seem to have degenerated into.

Oh, and to the person who wnated to know what the deal was with the anti-rabies vaccine? Vaccines are generally made up of of the disease itself, in small doses, so that the body can develop the necessary antibodies to combat the disease. The aliens were not capable of creating antibodies for diseases and illnesses that evolved on Earth, so they were fatal to them. Makes 100% perfect sense.

Have a nice day.

reply

What alien intelligence would wait tens of thousands of years to invade, just that point alone rubbishes the entire script.

reply