MovieChat Forums > War of the Worlds (2005) Discussion > bad movie or worst movie?? you decide

bad movie or worst movie?? you decide

posted 17 years ago by trilok_dex
16 replies | jump to latest

this is by far the worst version of them all. 97 mins of unbearbly painful acting and special effects that could not even match the 1950's original. its as though a bunch of evangelical rednecks got together to make a "family friendly" alternative to spielbergs version, with over half of the screen time given to ramblings about god, the rapture etc... and lets not forget the reference to aliens as the "demons" by that crazy ozzie priest. infact why doesnt anyone in the entire movie use the word "alien" or "extraterrestrial" ???

even the main character, who is supposedly a scientist/astronomer, keeps refering to the aliens as "those things" - coz obviously if ure a redneck scientist you would probably "know" for a fact that space doesnt exist and therefore the existence of other life sustaining planets is also not possible. the earth is also the center of the universe and anyone who thinks otherwise - well they wont be mentioned in the film :)

so please DO watch this movie and decide for yourself if any of my comments make sense or if i came down too hard on what is undoubtedly a regular "B Movie"

[–] DirectorDave 17 years ago

Sorry you didn't care for my film...but thanks for your response. I will say that most of this stuff is taken from the book (not the bad CG or the 'unbearbly painful acting', of course), but the heavy religious content, aliens, priest, etc.

Spielberg's film strayed away from the book quite a bit -- which ultimately proved to be a better audience grabber than this one....which is why he will always remain the king.

The most faithful rendition to the text has got to be Timothy Hines version, and that faired even worse with the critics than mine.

And so the moral to this story is, find themes that work in a classic book and make them more accessible to a modern audience. The die-hard fans of the book will hate you, but the masses won't. And ultimately, I suppose, we make films for the masses.

[–] resevil80 17 years ago

Pretty enjoyable actually. When you look at the budget, everything that was done is really good. And storywise it is the best of the three. And the acting is actually quite good, especially Howell who was pretty much flawless. I admit that Spielbergs versionw as entertaing, but I enjoyed the Dialogue driven version the Asylum produced.

By the way, Since Scott is doing a Sci Fi Channel movie, is there any chance that you are going to jump back into the directors chair soon? I hope so.

Get to da Choppa!

Billy, Get me outa dis Hole!

[–] DirectorDave 17 years ago

I'd love to get back in the chair (my first love), but even with Scott getting his shot at the mini-majors (Universal will soon follow I'm sure), I still have a pretty busy slate producing a feature every four weeks.

Thanks for the props, though. You made me happy on my Birthday.

[–] resevil80 17 years ago

Well, Since it doesn't look like you will be helming anything soon, is there any chance of Mervis or The Mallachi brothers coming back? And If not, is there any chance of me directing your next high octane action joy ride.....lol.

And by the way, what kinda budget does Transmorphers have...I am actually looking forward to seeing it and Transformers in the same week.

P.S. Bring back the Mallachis...not only are they talented, but their commentary on Snakes on a Train is some truly funny stuff.

Get to da Choppa!

Billy, Get me outa dis Hole!

[–] jaywolfenstien 17 years ago

DirectorDave,

And so the moral to this story is, find themes that work in a classic book and make them more accessible to a modern audience. The die-hard fans of the book will hate you, but the masses won't. And ultimately, I suppose, we make films for the masses.

I disagree. The moral of the story, in my humble opinion, is that film is a different medium with different strengths and weaknesses. To do a book justice, the filmmaker has to realize the difference between mediums and make the appropriate adjustments. Wells was more concerned with thoughtful observation, detailed explanations, and long passages that linger on his human themes -- I adore Wells' style because it's so detached and lacking in sensationalism that it reads more like a science-journal than fiction -- Wells, more so than any other writer, could make anything plausible.

A film cannot get away with this.

A writer has to fill his page with interesting ideas. A filmmaker has to fill his frame -- it is, after all, a visual medium. I'm tempted to say this is why Spielberg's version was so successful (it IS the most visually impressive of all the versions that I've seen), but truth be told, the argument has little weight since the advertising campaign combined with Spielberg and Cruise's name on the film guaranteed a #1 opening at the box office.

I am a die hard fan of the novel, and I dread the thought of watching the Hines version because I strongly feel that the novels greatest strengths happen to be cinema's greatest weaknesses. But I'll still give it a chance (someday) despite the overwhelming negative reputation. I'm also a die hard film fanatic. My favorite book-movie adaptations are the ones that are smart enough to know what material to carry over, what material needs alterations, and what material to be left behind.

If I wanted to experience War of the Worlds again exactly like the book ... I'll take it down off my shelf and read it again.
---
Truffaut: Do dreams have a bearing on your work?
Hitchcock: Daydreams, probably.

[–] matthewli8 17 years ago

Worst movie i've ever seen in my life. Just saw it on the SciFi network. OMG..that must've been the biggest waste of time in my life.

[–] Spycat 17 years ago

I can't say it is the worst I have ever seen, but I just kept waiting for something to *happen*.
Too much talking -- especially with that exaggerated "stage whisper" most spoke in.
"War of the Worlds"?
More like "War of the Words".

[–] DirectorDave 17 years ago

jaywriterXIII:

Amen.

I've actually said that bit myself (not as nicely put, however) in other interviews.

...

Thanks for your comments. I really do appreciate them.
-David

[–] manthecamera 17 years ago

Hey there Director Dave, decided to check out WOTW and Beast of Bray Road last night. I wanted to let you know both movies are completely different and very fun movies to watch!!!! I have seen 9/11 Commission Report, and that is how I fell upon your company!Just wanted to say bonafide fan keep up the great work!

[–] Dietcoke218 17 years ago

Allow me to jump in and say I just finished watching this on the Sci/Fi channel and really enjoyed it. It was very thought provoking and the actors who played George and the priest were excellent. I really enjoyed the conversations they had about faith and hope. I normally don't enjoy Sci/Fi but this was really well done.

[–] SinisterCreep 17 years ago

A writer has to fill his page with interesting ideas. A filmmaker has to fill his frame -- it is, after all, a visual medium. I'm tempted to say this is why Spielberg's version was so successful (it IS the most visually impressive of all the versions that I've seen), but truth be told, the argument has little weight since the advertising campaign combined with Spielberg and Cruise's name on the film guaranteed a #1 opening at the box office.

Visually impressive but otherwise mediocre!

Spielbergs WOTW is an insult to Hg Wells! LotRings 11 Oscars, King Kong 3 Oscars, WotW 0

[–] RipRip 15 years ago

Yes, you make films for the masses. Perhaps people who make films "for the masses" are the reason "the masses" watch films made for "the masses". If all you feed the masses is easily-digested, don't-have-to-think-too-much, talentless crap, then maybe you encourage the masses to be satisfied with-or even enjoy-such crap. I'm sorry, I really like that you are actually brave enough to come on here and talk to people about your movies, knowing beforehand that it isn't going to be pretty. However, I feel I have a valid point that all artists and aspiring artists would do well to consider. On second thought, this post doesn't apply as much to you as to the major studio guys, since your distribution and audience are limited enough that it is much more likely that the ruination of the masses comes primarily from them, rather than you. My apologies and kudos for having big enough balls to come on here. Also, I do actually recognize that my point isn't entirely original. Others have said it before, but I think it bears repeating.

Sometimes evil is just applied stupidity-Ronar

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 15 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Dwright1212 14 years ago

Neither. I gave it a 9 because it was actually pretty cool and entertaining. Yes. I said it. Go ahead, point and laugh.

Armed and Dangerous

~Tremors~
http://www.tremors3movie.com/

[–] ReasonlsOutToLunch 14 years ago

Well I am not going to point and laugh at anyone who enjoyed this movie. However, I found it to be incredibly boring with fits of mayhem. The special effects were sub par, the acting was for the most part ok, C.Thomas Howell did his best to rescue the film and his buddy was pretty good as well. Anyway, I don't like slow so there was no chance I was going to like this.

If you love Cheezits 100% copy this and make it your signature.