Why did a lot of people hate this movie? Genuinely interested?
-
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 -
Archeoterrex — 13 years ago(August 21, 2012 05:43 PM)
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.
