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

THIS VERSION IS BETTER THAN SPIELBERGS!

posted 19 years ago by terrytom1894
96 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] Jetfire59 18 years ago

Surely you jest. I haven't seen Spielberg's yet, but even if its nothing but two hours of Cruise lecturing the aliens about the evils of anti-depressants and the wonders of Scientology, it would still be better than this cinematic trainwreck. Yes, I know it has more elements of the book, but that's not necessarily a good thing. I read the book years ago and it was basically a snoozefest. There, I said it. I realize this is considered blasphemy, but I calls 'em as I sees 'em. The book is BORING.

"That object you're tracking isn't a large asteroid, its a very large spacecraft."

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] mac8136 18 years ago

This movie sucked. The characters and situations are so dumb. I almost laughed when the main character and that soldier were being yelled at by the Lieutenant. Why did they just stand around like that if he's being an ass? What morons.

And at the beginning when the ship crashed and that chick's boyfriend was stuck in the hole and she was screaming at him to get out. LAME.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Radalan 18 years ago

"script = one dimension, didn't follow the book, created unlikable characters, with uncaring goals. D"

Ohhh, and with that you mean that a movie should follow the novel totally.
So its good? And what about this "unlikable characters with uncaring goals". What uncaring goals, would you mind telling more about those?

[–] brandon1836 18 years ago

Are you serious this had to be the worst movie i have ever seen. I can't believe i actually sat through all of this.

[–] Jetfire59 18 years ago

Spielberg's was a let down, I'll grant you. However, this cinematic trainwreck was NOT better.

"What do you do, anyway?"
"I'm a Naval Aviator."
"You fly belly buttons?"

[–] djaxis1 18 years ago

No way. "War of the Worlds" Speilberg style had me on the edge of my seat the whole time. And that's hard to do.

[–] wrongturn138 18 years ago

Yeah, but it didn't follow the book. Plus Cruise was awful. LOVED Tim Robbins in it, and the tripods kicked ass.

[–] sixgunbuddyguy 18 years ago

oh like this one DID follow the book? how about entirely getting rid of the three pattern? hows that for following the book? id say the best movie so far was the original 1953 version.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] slimtremmer 18 years ago

Didn't see the Sci-Fi show...I rented it from Hollywood Video.

So, like, I dug it.

Don't get the big blockbuster version. Are we supposed to like this guy? Plus, that script was LAME! The writers were really proud of themselves and they showed it with ever carefully constructed -- unnaturally spoken piece of dialogue. The only thing to take away from the big $$$ flick were the cool action sequences...but that had nothing to do with acting or a great script. Take that away from that film, and it's crap pure and simple.

A opposed to this version. Give this film the $$$$ and you'll have a great film with great actors, great script and great action. A perfect and deadly combo.

BTW anybody see "Munich?" I think Spielberg has lost it. His last great film was "Jurrasic Park".

[–] neodog 18 years ago

I think this version could have been a lot better than Speilburg's had it been given an appropriate budget.

[–] Sexy_bear80 18 years ago

are you kidding me??, Steven speilbergs war of the worlds kicked ass, this version was worst than ever!!, you guys have a really bad tastes for sci-fic films.

[–] jt2002b 18 years ago

You obviously don't get out much if you think this version was better than Spielbergs...

This movie was so lame and i've burned it so many times i'm tired of talking about it...

Anyways the 2 versions that aren't Spielbergs work suck like black holes...

"Don't get high off your own supply."

[–] RichN36 18 years ago

I actualy liked this version better then Spielberg It it had any other actor then Mr. Cruse I would have like his War of the worlds better. Tom Cruse spoiles everything he is in. Even Rain Man.

[–] cool_splash1 16 years ago

You obviously are used to big budget the special effects are the story movies. The movie was slow in some parts, but it really made you think of how people can really be. The movie was made for $1mill SS's for 100mil.

[–] inmate2948 18 years ago

**MAJOR SPOILERS**

...But he doesn't battle to be more loved by his kids.

He let his older son (presumably) die in the battle by letting him go...plus, in the end, he gives Dakota back to mom. Plus, as an extra bonus, when he sees his son in the doorway...does he go running out to hug/kiss/hold him? Nope. He lets his kid go to him.

Oh, and now that I'm thinking about it...what was the goal of Tom? To give his kids back to mom and step-dad. At the point that he wanted to be a 'better' father and be 'loved' by his children...he should have abandoned the goal of giving back his kids and just try to protect them from the monsters.

...not to mention that he kills a man in cold blood in front of his little girl.

He started out as a jerk dad, and ended up being a jerk dad.

I'm not saying this film was great, but there was NO character arch in the other one...

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] superratbombs 18 years ago

Meh, I thought they were both OK. I'm still waiting for a version of The War of the Worlds that's a period peice. It loses alot of its charm when it's modernized.