War Of The Worlds

I suppose, that it is not "the film of the year". It is just an average. I don't see the explicit purpose of it. I thought it would impose something new, but it didn't

this is not a considerable film of S.S. , and I think he cannot cope with new demands for a modern film.
 
I don't see the explicit purpose of it.
Click to expand...

To entertain and make a profit ?

I thought it would impose something new, but it didn't
Click to expand...

It's based off of a classic

.... I think he cannot cope with new demands for a modern film.
Click to expand...

What are these demands Mr. Marketing Guru?

His last four films have a combined domestic gross of $607,000,000

Elighten us with your wisdom.
 
The first short I ever made returned 6800% on investment. The total budget was only £18.60 though:). I haven't managed the same level of %age success again. :(
 
first of all it is a remake...
there were too many digital effects, and I didn't belive what I saw.
it was not frightening, it did't grab my attention.

people watch this film because S.S and T.C.
and people watch S.S. films because he has already directed some "bigs"
but this is my personal opinion.
 
Got the DVD tonight; watched it again; loved it.

Wondered why people don't like it; it's so easy to enjoy. It isnt too many CGI FX (Star Wars anyone?) and even so; who cares?

I'm not sure it was meant to be terribly frightening; it was PG-13. Although I find it a mature PG-13 Rating with the blood, the killing of Tim Robbins character and the overall Doom atmosphere....

Oh **** who cares. Either you liked it or you did'nt. I think people try too hard not too like movies these days. I mean, they ether suck or they don't. War of the Worlds did'nt suck; it was a 1st Rate Holllywood Popcornfest and much better than most **** films that came out this year

Heres some links to the TOP 150 Grossing films of the year

1 - 100

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?yr=2005&p=.htm

101 - 150

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?page=2&view=releasedate&view2=domestic&yr=2005&p=.htm

Jesus; most of them just suck.
 
i dont care what anyone says. a movie doesnt make 200+ milltion for no one to have liked it.

EDIT: unless its star wars episode 3...hehehehe.....:grin: :huh: :undecided :cry:

surf - about the digital effects. there were not nearly as many vfx in this movie then there usualy are in movies of its caliber. i wanna say there were only about 250ish vfx shots. compared to a movie like say x-men2 which had 900+...star wars episode 3? like 2000+ the whole fricken movie was a digital effects.

ss was trying to keep the cgi cost down, so they did alot of miniature work.

i tend to think of myself as a pretty observant guy when it comes to things like visual and special effects...and i was for the most part totaly captivated by scenes in this movie that envolved the tripods. scared the crap out of me in the begining. and the times we didnt see them had me freaked. like the scene with the military on the hill. i think i kinda skipped out on the dialog and kept thinking, WTF is on the otherside of that hill.

anyway...all people opinions i guess.
 
Nice take Rich

I agree; the opening sequence in the theatre was silence amongst the crowd; good times.

"i dont care what anyone says. a movie doesnt make 200+ milltion for no one to have liked it.

EDIT: unless its star wars episode 3...hehehehe..... "
Click to expand...

LOL Too true
 
How come this thread keeps popping up? :huh: And it's always the same "Bleh, the movie was crap... Spielberg hasn't done anything good since... OMG Tom Cruise is a joke... If I had that much money I would... C G I..."
Why can't people just enjoy good movies instead of ripping 'em apart?

John_Hudson said:
I think people try too hard not too like movies these days.
Click to expand...

I think you might be onto something there :(
 
i loved it. i thought they built the characters very well. and i think cruise did an excellent job. the basement scene=very suspensful. along with your quote john

I think people try too hard not to like movies these days.
Click to expand...

i have to disagree. i think people try to hard trying to sound smart by going against what everyone else thinks. :D thats why i hate most critics. they all seem like smart asses to me. the only one i KIND OF like is roger ebert.
 
I don't know if it's people trying to sound smart, I think it's just that filmmakers are the biggest critics. I'm not surprised at the strong opinions on this board. Most people will watch crap and like it. It's like wine, cigars, or beer, once you start to appreciate the finer ones you don't want to go back to Natty Light. :beer:
 
Regardless of whether or not you liked the film the Production Diaries on disc 2 are worth the price of admission alone.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I Most people will watch crap and like it. It's like wine, cigars, or beer, once you start to appreciate the finer ones you don't want to go back to Natty Light. :beer:
Click to expand...

LOL thats a funny way to put it. I actually used to love natty for its high alcohol content and cheapness. Then, I tried a 60 year old bottle of red wine and thats all I drink now. Regardless, I LOVED War of the Worlds.
 
This movie was absolutely horrible. I'm glad I only spent $4 to see it. Cruise's acting was sub-par and I think I speak for most people when I say that I'm getting sick of Dakota Fanning. The special effects looked way too much like CGI, and the only part of the film worth watching was the scene with Tim Robbins. What happened to you, Spielberg? You used to be cool.
 
i watch any film, for the good reasons and the bad reason i want to know what makes a good film and a bad film.
 
For me, it's not that it's BAD (except for the ending with the boy and the family). It's that it's . . . utterly unremarkable. Not a single distinctive thing about it. Average. Run-of-the-mill.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top