War of the Worlds Sucks - don't go see it!

[yoda313]

Hi,

Just got back from seeing this.

DON'T GO SEE IT!!!!!

Ugh its horrible. There's no suspense, no humor, no real action. It's just a bunch of staring and screaming. It's really a poor excuse for a movie.

Tom Cruise ought to be ashamed of himself for this piece of junk.

Kevin

[canadateck]

NO..... Really?

[yoda313]

NO..... Really?

Hi,

Yes. There's no excitement or any reason to care for the characters.

It's like Spielberg went on cruise control (no pun intended! ). There was no imagination or anything original.

Save your money don't go.

Kevin

[Roz]

The trailer looked so good - it was on my list as must see.

Was it really that bad yoda?

[yoda313]

Hi,

Yes. Even strangers I didn't know who were coming out were complaining and yelling don't go see it.

There's no heart in it. And its really dull and plodding. Not much suspense either. What is there is kind of obvious and done before.

Kevin

[yoda313]

Hi,

Don't take my word for it. Roger Ebert also panned it:

WARNING SPOILERS:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050628/REVIEWS/50606007

Kevin

[Conquest10]

I wouldn't be surprised. They were making a big deal at how Spielberg was working on this and another movie at the same time. Seems the work suffered, huh?

[yoda313]

I wouldn't be surprised. They were making a big deal at how Spielberg was working on this and another movie at the same time. Seems the work suffered, huh?

Hi,

Oh that would explain it. It didn't seem like it was very focused. Kind of drifted. He wasn't giving it his all.

Kevin

[bigmicka]

i agree with yoda, went with a couple of friends last night, we all walked out going WTF? where is the story? i wasted 2.5 hours and 14.80

mic

[lordsmurf]

I knew it would suck as soon as they headlined it with Tom Cruise.

[Conquest10]

I knew it would suck as soon as they headlined it with Tom Cruise.

Yeah, overrated "actor".

[Forum Troll]

It's a lot like "Signs". But that was a good movie. This isn't.

[JohnnyCNote]

When they previewed WOTW to the press last week, everyone was forced to sign a non-disclosure agreement requiring them to keep mum about it until it opened. This is usually the practice when they fear bad reviews. Also, I heard real budget is more like two hundred million, not one! I can't even conceive of how they could spend so much if it cost the lower amount.

The problem is that when movie companies invest such huge sums of money into a release, they simply can't risk it not making a profit. So instead of being daring and trying something new or different, they just rehash the same old crap. Now now long ago was it that another big alien invasion movie opened during the July 4th weekend?

Ebert made some very good points in his review. For example, why would such an advanced civilization use 3-legged machined when it's so easy to knock them out of commission? Also, how did these things remain buried undetected for all these years in areas where major construction was going on?

To put it another way, he found it rather difficult to "suspend his disbelief". I might catch it on satellite if there's absolutely nothing else on. On the other hand, I'm watching Collateral for the 50th (at least) time (and I'm not even a Cruise fan!). Will it be the last good thing Cruise ever did????

[Conquest10]

My favorite line from the review:

Martians have journeyed millions of miles to attack a crane operator and his neighbors

[Cole]

I am still smarting that this wasn't a 'proper' Victorian England version as in HG Wells' original book, but just another Aliens-Invade-the-US movie.

There is a Victorian version but what I have seen looks really amateurish and low budget. http://www.pendragonpictures.com/WOTWTeaser.html and looks to be straight to video anyway...

It is just this was the first real Alien invasion novel written and it has just not been done properly.

[AlecWest]

I am still smarting that this wasn't a 'proper' Victorian England version as in HG Wells' original book, but just another Aliens-Invade-the-US movie.

I haven't seen it yet and probably won't after what's been said here. And, I think Ebert agreed with you. He said he may have liked the film better if it had been a "period piece" taking place in H.G.'s time. And if it had been a period piece taking place in the Victorian era, Liam Neeson would have been my choice for the lead. But, it's too late now I guess.

Oh, well. Maybe someone else can remake it. The way King Kong gets remade every so many years, the new one coming out may get it right. And, a remake of a Victorian version might get WOTW right (though I actually did like the Gene Barry version).

P.S. BTW, even Swedish reviewers don't like it. I can't read Swedish but one reviewer rated the film 5 out of 10:

http://www.cine.se/recensioner2.php?id=163

[stryker]

But the preview makes it look soooo good! Thanks for the warning, but I still gotta see it for myself.

[pfh]

The original radio broadcast was cool. Many, many years ago I stayed up late one night as a young boy to record and hear it re-broadcast in it's originality on public radio. Too bad my old cassette tape is long gone........

[Forum Troll]

The original radio broadcast was cool. Many, many years ago I stayed up late one night as a young boy to record and hear it re-broadcast in it's originality on public radio. Too bad my old cassette tape is long gone........

http://www.earthstation1.com/wotw.html

[smearbrick1]

Hi,

Just got back from seeing this.

DON'T GO SEE IT!!!!!

Ugh its horrible. There's no suspense, no humor, no real action. It's just a bunch of staring and screaming. It's really a poor excuse for a movie.

Tom Cruise ought to be ashamed of himself for this piece of junk.

Kevin

Sorry, I'm still going to see it myself. I don't put much stock in critics who think Star Wars is the be-all, end-all of movies.

Why does every movie you comment about have to have humor? Did you see "Schindler's List"? I imagine there wasn't enough humor in that for you either.

Disclaimer: Schindler's List was just used as an example of a great movie without an iota of humor. If you find this movie funny in any way, you may have issues.

[waheed]

Everyone has different taste in movies. Some may like it and some may not.

[yoda313]

Hi,

Sorry, I'm still going to see it myself. I don't put much stock in critics who think Star Wars is the be-all, end-all of movies.

Why does every movie you comment about have to have humor?

Fine waste your money. I'm not alone in my displeasure with this movie. I'm just trying to save you money.

And this movie needed something. It wasn't a real horror movie. It needed something in it to make it worth watching. If there was some levity in it it would have made it a little more tolerable. But there was nothing to save it. You'll find out for yourself.

Kevin

[smearbrick1]

Hi,

Sorry, I'm still going to see it myself. I don't put much stock in critics who think Star Wars is the be-all, end-all of movies.

Why does every movie you comment about have to have humor?

Fine waste your money. I'm not alone in my displeasure with this movie. I'm just trying to save you money.

And this movie needed something. It wasn't a real horror movie. It needed something in it to make it worth watching. If there was some levity in it it would have made it a little more tolerable. But there was nothing to save it. You'll find out for yourself.

Kevin

I imagine that it was not intended as a horror film. I also don't think this film was billed as campy, schlockfest. Maybe you're right. Of course, most people have a biased opinion toward any movie that stars Tom Cruise, and that film usually loses points right from beginning. We'll see. We'll definately see. In fact, I may just see it tonight if it's possible.

[JohnnyCNote]

More likely people's expectations are high after "Minority Report", in which Cruise and Spielberg collaborated, and "Collateral", which starred Cruise. I was never a fan of either Cruise or Spielberg, but "Minority Report" was quite good....

[stryker]

@yoda313

Just out of curiosity, if someone had told you WOTWs was horrible, and to NOT go see it. Would you have listened?

[LSchafroth]

It's a lot like "Signs". But that was a good movie. This isn't.

Actually I was very dissapointed in Signs. It was slow and boring.

LS

PS I would watch it agaim, it was good enough to watch more then once, but not as good as I hoped it to be.

[yoda313]

@yoda313

Just out of curiosity, if someone had told you WOTWs was horrible, and to NOT go see it. Would you have listened?

Hi,

Maybe. Depends on whether or not we share similar interests in movies. Though when a lot of people bad mouth a movie that I have no preconceived notions about I tend to stay away.

Kevin

[ukb007]

Probably the Spielberg that we are thinking of isn't there any more? Maybe he has crossed the peak and it's only descent now?

I can't think of the man who made Raiders of the Lost ark/Jaws/Jurassic Park to be the same one who made Catch Me if You Can/Terminal. Although the last two named aren't unbearable, but they aren't in his league either.

Thanks.

[Cole]

Maybe. Depends on whether or not we share similar interests in movies. Though when a lot of people bad mouth a movie that I have no preconceived notions about I tend to stay away.

But then of course there was this:

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=270165

[smearbrick1]

I tend to ignore critics and other's opinions on movies. Example: I have friends that said the movie Darkness Falls was excellent... anyone seen this movie? It may be just about the worst movie ever to call itself a horror movie in the entire history of filmmaking, but I prefer to make that decision on my own. As the previous poster referenced, check out my thread on movies that you liked that everyone else thought was crap. (this was later ripped off and turned into "movies that you thought were crap that everyone else liked.")