Hey, not looking for an argument but I am really curious as to why this movie got quite a bit of hate?
I have not read the novel and would like to know what was changed or how they differ? Regardless, I stand by that the acting was top, whether the story was up to scratch or not. Thanks :)
Don't think it was 'hate' as such, just that it's not a very good film and the plot holes are so numerous and glaring that they overwhelm the narrative.
And Dakota Fanning's character screaming the whole *beep* time didn't help either.
[deleted]
Not as much plot holes as plot "blanks".
I like the first half of the movie, and I loved the second part. It would have been better if the kids weren't raging retards most of the time, but yeah. I loved the cinematography, the grittiness, the atmosphere and the design of the aliens/tripods.
I'm going to read the book too, hopefully that will fill in the blanks.
Critics seemed not to mind it, so do the general audience. I have never seen a blockbuster that critics like and audiences don't like
HI *beep* YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
critics are bought and paid for lately.
The film had a great first half and one of the worst second halves I have ever seen
That's a ridiculous argument though. Anyone can use it anytime their taste disagree with critics: "oh, they were paid!" "oh, they weren't paid enough!".
shareTrue, which is why we should never listen to critics. Do your own research and decide for yourself if you want to go see something or not. Be your own critic.
SpiltPersonality
Because its just so awful. The characters, the lack of logic, plot holes, dialogue, the ending and most of all the damn son...just a total dbag. Its like Spielberg had to jam some forced reality where it didnt belong. And the ending where his ultra yuppie in laws emerge totally unaware of the cataclysm around them. The effects are good and a few scenes are interesting but just an awful movie.
shareAgree with your assessment 100%. I cannot tolerate movies with non-stop screaming. The high pitched, shrill, piercing made me have to turn down the volume, which means real dialogue was hard to hear. Well, it cuts down on her having to memorize too many lines, I suppose.
Couple of reasons.
*Annoying kids is pretty much at the top of the list. You know the movie f*&ked up when you are rooting for the aliens to kill the main chars.
*Annoying, stupid, unlikable characters. Kids aside, none of the other characters were interesting or even likable for that matter. I was happy when Manny the Mechanic was fried.
*Dumb 9/11 references. The 9/11 references really highlight a major problem the movie had. It highlights that reaction to disasters are NOT the same, and when you try to equivocate them, it becomes unrealistic and stupid. The whole anger, and "we gotta get them back!" attitude just doesn't make sense and feels out of place when it's aliens and not terrorists. The reason why people get mad as a result of terrorism is because:
1) They are human, like us.
2) They represent smaller, weaker organizations which can easily be crushed by America's military.
If aliens are attacking us, we won't be angry. We'll just be afraid.
That would be bad enough, but there's more problems. At the time (during the 2000s) seeing all of the 9/11 allusions just take you out of the movie, and remind you of reality. Anything that destroys the suspension of disbelief is counter productive. Today in 2012, they make the film feel dated.
They were only crushed by america and OTHER countries' armies is when they got sick from drinking Earth's water, which is from the book. Spiderman(2001) has ton of 9-11 allusions yet people love that movie. Besides terrorism effects more than murica. You have a pessimistic or cynical attitude on life, Spielberg has an optimistic view on life and I can see people getting upset over an alien invasion and wanting to kick their ass for killing our friends and family, instead of being cowards and begging for mercy while hiding in a hole. When watching movies you MUST rate according to the time, other 2001 is a bad movie since that didn't happen in 2001. In a sense aliens are terrorists since an invasion would invoke, "terror."
HI *beep* YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
aliens are not terrorists: they're aliens. terrorists have as their goal the promotion of terror to achieve political or social goals, aliens have absolutely inscrutable goals because they're (wait for it!) aliens. and if you want to try thinking about it, these aliens seem to be harvesting human beings. the idea that they made their harvesting devices intentionally terrifying to us doesn't make any sense, any more than it would make sense for us to intentionally terrify a chicken or a cow before you ate it.
shareNo dumb child, you did not understand. Spiderman had zero references to 9/11, the only thing it has was the American flag at the end, and that was a display of patriotism which is independent of 9/11.
"Besides terrorism effects more than murica."
Red herring, really has nothing to do with what I was talking about.
"You have a pessimistic or cynical attitude on life,"
No I don't, that's actually an ad hominem, and you're an idiot for making it.
"Spielberg has an optimistic view on life and I can see people getting upset over an alien invasion and wanting to kick their ass for killing our friends and family, instead of being cowards and begging for mercy while hiding in a hole. "
That's idiotic logic when you consider that the aliens have invincible shields and were defeating the military. Sure you can be upset, and WANT to kick their asses, but you can only have a "gun ho" attitude if you actually believe you are more powerful than your opponent, which of course does not apply in this case. If your opponent is more powerful than you, you'll just be afraid. This is Murican arrogance 101.
"In a sense aliens are terrorists since an invasion would invoke, "terror." "
That's a genetic fallacy. The word "terrorist" is a political term, and has little to do with the etymology of the word. An nuclear war with the USSR 1990s would also invoke terror, but no one referred to them as terrorist. They referred to them as commies, another political term that has little to do with what the word actually means.
Typical murican hick.
All good points you make, but I think you meant to use the word "equate" not "equivocate," which means something different entirely. :)
share
What I liked:
-the first half hour was pretty exciting
-the visuals
-the sound effects were really cool
What I didn't like:
-the story after the first half hour
-that scene in the basement went on for way too long and was just so dumb
-the teenage son. his actions were so stupid to the point of being unbelievable.
-the ending. it was clever for a hundred year old story, but it just doesn't hold up anymore.
overall, i'd give the movie a 6.5 out of 10. It's watchable and entertaining if nothing else is on, but it's far from being a great movie.
No, I meant equivocate. :)
shareIf that's what you meant, then your sentence makes zero sense. It's better that you just admit that you erred rather than defend your mistake. You'll come across much smarter, which is obviously your goal. Humility is your friend!
(Sorry for the almost two-years-later reply!)
dated in 2012? you are still fighting the war you started over 9/11 in 2013! If its so dated then bring your troops home - imagine how dated THEY think it is
You call that a cameltoe? Put your cheeks into it!
I dont particularly hate it, but I dont like.
Reasons?
Spielberg's "dysfunctional family" motif is shoved down your throat from the kick off - annoying kids and absent father. Change the feckin record, man.
Dakota Fannings performance - that constant screaming is bad enough but she's an über-smug little brat, annoying beyond description. Pity the "bad guys" didn't wipe her out. The son is pretty annoying as well now that I think about it.
I can except the setting being changed from Victorian England to modern-day USA but it would be great to see a proper big screen version of the book, perhaps using the same style of tripods that appear on "Jeff Wayne's Musical Version of The War of the Worlds". That would be awesome - as long as Dakota Fanning's not in it...
--
What could be worse? Venting on a movie website about how much you hate a movie, secretly hoping sharing your chagrin will make it cease to exist. Bahaha.
CDEGFEDCC. (Shhh!)
People vent all the time, nothing wrong with it. Especially when a movie is hyped and overrated.
shareWell to be fair the OP started this thread asking specifically why people DIDN'T like it, so it take it up with them.
I'm writing this signature in bold so people know it's a signature
No no no dumb child. Everything you said is wrong. I actually like popcorn flicks, CGI, and even Tom Cruise. He's genuinely a great actor and I couldn't give two sh#$s about his personal life. The Last Samurai is one of my fav movies as is A Few Good Men and Rain Man.
Tom Cruise did not bother me much in this movie and if you even read what I said, I didn't say a damn thing about Tom. The only thing that bothered me about Tom was that he actually gave two sh#$s about those two worthless brats.
The CGI in this movie was fantastic and has some really awe inspiring scenes. Seeing the tripods move along the country side is really something to behold.
And as a dumb popcorn flick it succeeds in capturing the viewer's attention. It's definitely not boring by any stretch of the imagination. It's just bad.
[deleted]
[deleted]
really?dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb,dumb do you not have any other words in your vocabulary?personally I find people who have to use the adjectives "dumb" and "stupid" to describe something,as fairly uneducated themselves
Hello,Mister sniper sir!!-Riggs
I count six shots n*****!!
I count two guns n*****
Yes. This. And referring to someone as a child simply because they disagree with you is the most childish thing I can imagine. Archeoterrex: your own words betray you and expose your insecurities.
(Sorry for the year-late post!)
This.
Archeoterrex is a 13-15 years old adolescent.
Case closed.
I think it fails because:
-The Robby subplot was just dead weight.
-The farmhouse scene went on too long, and the threatening situation with Tim Robbins's character was extraneous to the plot.
-The story ending from the book is only semi-credible and anti-climactic. Both films suffer as a result.
____________________
No it wasn't extraneous, it was a metaphor between the two types of personalites. Those who want to live(cruise) and those who have basically given up(Tim robbin's character) or something along those lines.
I rather them keep the book ending, because there is no way in hell you destroy alien technology with our technology right now. Unless you want to upload a virus via mac.
HI *beep* YA
Nicholas Cage Deadfall
TR's character did not give up - quite the opposite, he was ranting about how they had to dig a tunnel to connect up with the resistance because it's a fact of history that occupiers can never hold territory against insurgencies. You are projecting your ideology into your memory of the film.
sharethe girl is so damn annoying.
share I always got the impression that this film was not well regarded by most. I was shocked to see the Metascore was so high. I like the film quite a bit, but I can understand some of the criticisms.
The idea of plot holes and annoying performances seems valid, but this is a movie about aliens invading. I can't say I care about those plot holes in light of that.
This is also a lot darker than I would expect from Spielberg. He cuts the violent scene from "Jaws," yet in this film aliens vaporize people left and right, and spray blood all over the place. I would not have guessed he made this if I did not know any better.
There was no blood spraying all over the place unless you are talking about the red weeds.
I couldn't care less about the plot holes, the movie sucked because of the kids and everything I mentioned before.
"There was no blood spraying all over the place unless you are talking about the red weeds."
There was blood spraying all over the place, are you blind?
Sometimes you have to lose yourself before you can find anything.
There was no blood spraying, you are the one that is blind, and quite obviously very dim as well. :)
shareTroll.
There is a scene in the film that clearly shows the Martians sucking the blood out of a captured human and fertilizing the red weed with it.
Nitwit.
Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to it's awesomeness.
You're the troll my dim friend.
"There was no blood spraying all over the place unless you are talking about the red weeds. "
Hooked on phonics didn't work for you apparently. :)
Well what do you call the scene where the tripod picks up a human, pins him to the ground, drains the blood out of his body, and spray it all over the place and across Tim Robbins face?
That is blood spraying all over the place. It is used to fertilize the weeds. It is not the red weeds. Stop trying to save face because you made a dumb comment.
Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to it's awesomeness.
When I said red weeds, I was referring to that entire scene dumb child. You're the one trying to save face because you embarrassed yourself on the internet. You're a loser kid.
shareYou are such a whiny *beep* it is unbelievable. Here, let me break it down for you.
You clearly stated: There was no blood spraying all over the place unless you are talking about the red weeds.
And you act all nonchalant, like it's not the dumbest thing you could have said. Believe it or not, you probably would have sounded smarter if you'd said There were no people being vaporized, unless you're talking about the scene where the aliens rise up and start vaporizing people.
Then why would you even include the part of the sentence "there was no blood spraying all over the place".
You could have just said, "you're right, there was blood spraying all over the place, as shown in the scene with the red weeds."
It's quite obvious you just said it that way in an arrogant way of trying to appear to be in the right.
People like you make me facepalm in wonder at you stupidity. 'Tard.
Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to it's awesomeness.
I didn't even waste my time reading your whiny rant. You have anger problems kid, go get help. And don't bother responding to this because I already added you to my ignore list. Have a nice day. :)
shareHaha, that roughly translates to "I give up."
Limit of the Willing Suspension of Disbelief: directly proportional to it's awesomeness.
[Post ignored]
by [ignored]
This message has been hidden because the poster is in your ignore list
ROFL, so predictable. Reminds me of a retarded child banging his head against a wall. XD
It's a Witch Hunt. Nothing complicated about it. It's not about CGI or quality acting or any other variable that normally defines a movie. These guys are on a Witch Hunt. It's the same IDs over and over and over giving the negative responses.
My opinion on the movie. TC's acting was about what it always is, somewhere between OK and pretty good. Would you rather I gave him 3.5 stars. LOL. The effects were good as was the story. I also read the book and really don't care if the movie matches the book. Almost every movie based on a famous novel gets trashed by the people who love the book so this one shouldn't be any different.
I think some of the hate might come for the characters, especially for Rachel.
People thought she annoying, irritating and what not. Which I always thought was unfair. I mean, she's a kid! How is she supposed to act? Like some smart kid that knows everything about the situation?
Some also hated it for the ending, which was a huge let down. Other obviously hated it for the plot and plot lines, which is stupid to complain about in a movie about an alien invasion.
That's some of the reason I think people hated it. I also think it's interesting that most of the critics liked it, while the audience is more cool towards it.
can't stand when they make the children smarter or more mature than the adults
share