Why did a lot of people hate this movie? Genuinely interested?
-
alexandernordby-358-222914 — 13 years ago(August 20, 2012 06:58 PM)
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. -
gtmail77 — 12 years ago(May 03, 2013 09:16 PM)
Because its just so awful. The characters, the lack of logic, plot holes, dialogue, the ending and most of all the damn sonjust 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.
-
janetqsmith — 10 years ago(August 08, 2015 02:11 PM)
Agree 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.
-
Archeoterrex — 13 years ago(August 13, 2012 01:00 PM)
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:- They are human, like us.
- 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.
-
Sergeant343 — 13 years ago(September 12, 2012 03:24 PM)
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 -
uncleosbert — 13 years ago(November 30, 2012 10:22 PM)
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.
-
Archeoterrex — 12 years ago(June 21, 2013 02:15 PM)
No 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. -
frankduxvandamme — 13 years ago(September 24, 2012 12:06 AM)
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. -
hurleycompanies — 10 years ago(May 26, 2015 09:00 PM)
If 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!) -
The-last-to-know — 12 years ago(April 17, 2013 09:47 AM)
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! -
RalphFilthy — 13 years ago(August 15, 2012 12:56 PM)
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 ber-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
