ID:276237
 
One of the worst movies of the year.

Batman returns was awesome, however. I'll post some opinions about War of the Worlds later after everyone has commented on what they think... I don't want to ruin it for anyone who hasn't seen it yet but I also don't want anyone to go see it with the hopes in mind that it is a great movie. Have low expectations, and think screaming little annoying kid and annoying stupid people.

I will comment that it depicts humans as little rats running around in fright, helplessly being farmed.
I've heard some people say they love it and some people who are indifferent to it, but this is the first time I've heard of someone who hates it. =) Care to explain why? I haven't seen it myself, and was planning to at some point (though Batman is higher on my list).
In response to Crispy
Crispy wrote:
I've heard some people say they love it and some people who are indifferent to it, but this is the first time I've heard of someone who hates it. =) Care to explain why? I haven't seen it myself, and was planning to at some point (though Batman is higher on my list).

I have not seen war of the worlds yet but i do want to see it the coming attractions looked pretty good but i saw batman and it was outstanding i would recomend to watch batman first to be on the safer side i will see war of the worlds soon so i will post back to tell you how it was.
~Johnny911
I personally thought it was awesome. Not the best ending ever, but even that was pretty good.

I will comment that it depicts humans as little rats running around in fright, helplessly being farmed.

Lets see....Giant machine things coming up from nowhere turning everyone into dust and all electricity being out and cars not working.......
I'm positive that with all that was going on, every sane human alive would be trying to get the hell away from those things.
I will comment that it depicts humans as little rats running around in fright, helplessly being farmed.

That is what humans are... We are just an experiment for a stronger race.

Also, I saw the movie it was pretty good.
In response to Crispy
Sure - *SPOILER ALERT*

First off, nothing was really explained. The red plant/fungus stuff? Never really explained. All electronic devices weren't permanently knocked out... only temporarily. The newscaster had a working tv.

Secondly, all the main characters were annoying and stupid. The little girl had the most annoying scream to me which she did alll the time and I don't know anyone who screams like that when they're scared (even when watching really scary movies with my nephew who is 4... she usually closes her eyes and zones out due to panic). The young boy was a retard and would go on these primal urges to fight the machines which everyone knew had a shield up that made them impenetrable so why would they try the same tactic that fails every time and not try something different like kamikazi grenaders or something... Or how about mines? I mean it just doesn't accurately depict what the SMART people would do, but more so the idiots. The aliens also seemed like morons... they didn't consider disease? You're telling me they can shoot down in lightning bolts into machines that have insanely powerful weapons, etc... but in all their millions of years of life they've never ever come across disease and developed a machine for ridding themselves of microscopic things? I mean today we're even moving towards nanotechnology...

So many times the main characters were stupid, and NONE OF THEM DIED. Like the time when they were driving through all those people with their car and how they didn't predict something like that would happen? How about the time when they stopped to go pee and the little girl felt the need to run waaaayyy off, and they took their time ever getting back in to the car without ever knowing what ELSE these aliens might have for machinery to harvest them that might be stealthed, or whatever... it's like they knew the whole entire time of the movie that the aliens only had one type of machine, and that there were very few aliens attacking so they'd know when they hit again. The shield didn't make sense as well, since when they pick up human beings wouldn't they have to lower the shield to bring them through? Howcome the nade detonated on impact on the shield but when the machine picked up the guy with the nade belt the nades didn't go off when they hit the shield? I could go on and on about the horrible writing of the movie... it seemed rushed and incomplete. For a fun movie to go watch it's a good one to go see once in theaters since it's got a lot of animations in it that are really great and some cool concepts...


Oh ya... and how about the fact they actually thought their family was still alive sitting in their home like morons? I think if my family knew about a bunch of aliens trying to harvest us they wouldn't be hiding in the most obvious of places.
"Honey I'm home!"

One last thing - the guy he had to kill in the basement, HE HAD TO KILL HIM? WHY? Man I would have felt bad when a few minutes later in the movie the machines find them ANYWAYS. The aliens also looked harmless, and when they traveled never took weapons with them of any kind to make sure that they were safe... Nor protective gear to protect them from disease.








In response to Jon Snow
The red fungus was suppose to be a way to show the "aliens" taking over/claiming Earth as there own by changing it to fit there environment.
In response to Digital Samurai

That is what humans are... We are just an experiment for a stronger race.

Yes. White mice.

Anyways, to address something else elsewhere in this thread, Batman Begins (not Returns) was awesome... Mrs. Cruise (her name isn't worth remembering) can't act, but she didn't manage to spoil the movie.
In response to Jon Snow
About the disease thing: Its highly likely they had diseases, but its also highly likely they ahve different diseases where they come from, so their immune system was not sufficient to protect them from the disease only on Earth. And, I think it likely they got the disease when they were swimming around in all that blood in their machine thing.

Also, the people were desperate. They were throwing everything at them, hoping beyond hope it would work.

And how do you know they didn't have some kind of weapon to keep them safe?

And, no, he didn't have to kill the guy in the basement, just, like I said, they were desperate.
And the main reason behind them heading to see their family was to keep the little girl even just a little calm. When in a major crisis, people like hanging onto hopes they are positive are false.

Yeah, none of the main characters died (except Tim-the step dad (I think...))

Yes, they could have explained the plant better, but who cares?
In response to Digital Samurai
Yeah. I haven't even seen the movie, but the fungus is one of the major background elements in the book. It's there for pure creepiness, and as a symbol of invasion and conquest. Even their native spores travel along with them. Invasion by terraforming (or would that be aresforming, in the case of Martians?)

I find it disheartening that modern movie audiences want so much explained for them. Part of what makes horrific things horrific is there is no immediate explanation. The tendency to set aside something as invalid if it's not explained is, I think, a defense mechanism on the part of the rational mind... finding a reason to take something that bothers it and write it off.

I'd forgot about the red stuff... been a while since I read the book. Makes me wonder if that's where Stephen King got the idea for the red fungus in Dreamcatchers (the book... haven't seen the movie.) Now that I think about it, I'm inclined to think so.
In response to Jon Snow
Well when I started reading this I was thinking wow, maybe this guy has some honest qualms against the movie, but then once I got to the end I realized that you just don't like the movie because it isn't realistic and logical, welcome to the Sci-Fi genre!
In response to Hedgemistress
Yes, I read the book that "War of the Worlds" was based off then saw "Dream Catchers" it's too similar to be a coincidence.

Err, the red fungus that is.
In response to Kusanagi
Kusanagi wrote:
Well when I started reading this I was thinking wow, maybe this guy has some honest qualms against the movie, but then once I got to the end I realized that you just don't like the movie because it isn't realistic and logical, welcome to the Sci-Fi genre!

True dat.

Well, Jon Snow, I guess that's a fair enough opinion - but I'm still going to go and see it. =)
In response to Crispy
Has anyone seen the independent film of War of the Worlds by the different director? Funny stuff, that green-screen and clip-artesque CGI. It came out this year. The main character is walking from place to place for about 1-2 of the 3 hour movie. However, it stays pretty close to the book which I liked.
In response to Hedgemistress
the reason I want things explained because it's intelligent to know what you're dealing with, and if no one bothers to figure out what the heck is going on then it's "stupid" in my eyes. The film I give some credit to because it's based on a book written a long time ago... but to say the least, I like highly intelligent and thought provoking movies. I'm not just a go along with it and be horrified kind of person... if I was in that situation I would know the worst thing to possibly do would be panic and freak out. I reject it because it's not logical to me.

Also, I was assuming that's what the fungus was... terraforming if you will (or to take it further, something that absorbs the nutrients of the world and then they harvest it).
In response to Jon Snow
I'm not even sure it was meant to be an intelligent act of cultivation, though... it could have just been spores that got carried along with the spacecraft. Either way, though, the symbolism was there: the invaders were making themselves at home.

The problem with your objection is that, in a case like that, there is -no way- for the characters to figure out what they're dealing with. The conveniently placed superscientist who spouts a theory off the top of his head that ties it all up in a neat package is, if anythng, more of an affront to the intelligence of the audience. :P

The fact that the "book written long ago" wasn't long on explanations wasn't a weakness to be excused, it was a deliberate and intelligent design point. H.G. Wells accomplished what he set out to do: he told a terrifying story about invaders so ruthless and so advanced that humankind could do nothing to stop them, and "we" were only saved through a happenstance of biology. It was horror, not adventure... no real heroics, no brilliant deductions, and nobody saved the day.

Of course, that's only the official version of story. If you want to know what really happened, read The League of Extraordinary Gentelmen volume 2 by Alan Moore. :P Wells' little novel was just a cover-up presenting the government's sanitized version of events.
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
Mrs. Cruise (her name isn't worth remembering) can't act, but she didn't manage to spoil the movie.

I wouldn't say she's a bad actor. I'll admit I spent a lot of time picturing her naked and not paying attention to what she was saying/doing, which is odd because there was nothing particuly sexual about her character or appearance, but I can't remember any bad acting on her part.
I was more annoyed that Alfred was fish n' chips English and not classy English. Even though I liked the character and it made the movie better, I still think it was a pretty big part of the character to rewrite.
In response to DarkView
Yes, the working class accent was a bit of a surprise, since we all know that Michael Caine can do class in his sleep. I forgave it, insofar that he perfectly captured the "respectful impudence" the character has carried in the modern mythology. Even Tim Burton's Batmovies borrowed too much from the 60s TV show Alfred, who, along with all the other supporting characters, was basically a prop.
In response to Hedgemistress
Hedgemistress wrote:
I find it disheartening that modern movie audiences want so much explained for them. Part of what makes horrific things horrific is there is no immediate explanation.

Yeah, people seem to think it's pure genious when they do something obvious like not show the killer. However when they do something like not fully explaining the killer's motive in a Scooby-Doo style summary at the end they hate it.


I'd forgot about the red stuff... been a while since I read the book. Makes me wonder if that's where Stephen King got the idea for the red fungus in Dreamcatchers (the book... haven't seen the movie.) Now that I think about it, I'm inclined to think so.

Come to think of it I've seen similar stuff in a few alien invasion movies/shows/books (well, movies based on books, reading is for chumps =P).
Although a lot of the time it's used as a plot device to destroy the aliens. "We'll, they've got technology billions of years ahead of ours, let's just kill their pot plants so they can't breath".
I think like you said it's just a way to show the aliens are taking over. It also makes them seem like they're there for more than just random destruction.
In response to DarkView
D:
You dirt boy, you.
Page: 1 2