This message has been deleted.

I disagree. It does look weird and shiny. But it gives it a surreal feeling to it. Almost like being in a nightmare.

I like the movie but the cinematography is horrible. I don't know why Spielberg keeps using that guy.

Troy I agree 100%. I'm watching it again today and it is a great movie. Watching the basement scene right now with Tim Robbins, absolutely love this part. Not very many movies that I'll watch numerous times but this is 1 I can re watch every few years. Tom Cruise is great no matter how weird he is.

Great post

I have to agree. This is one of the greatest films of the 2000's, and it sort of went under the radar in a way. I think give it time. It's an interesting reflection on the minds of the public after 9/11, but aside from that it is probably one of the best, most realistic sci-fi movies ever made. And one of the scariest movies of all time! So disturbing/emotional in so many ways.
CDEGFEDCC. (Shhh!)

Agree, it's a great movie. Very unsettling and well done. Best alien invation movie I've seen as well.
And no way is the 50's versin better, it was really quite boring.

Very few films have created such a terrifying, unnerving and realistic tone as this movie did. It captures the hysteria of the situation incredibly well and the outstanding performances of the cast only enhance this triumph. It has incredibly frightening, profound and unique imagery made better by the use of fantastic cinematography and colour correction. Both help heighten the sense of fear and confusion felt by the characters throughout, allowing us the audience to believe in what's happening. It is a truly great science fiction film and very unsettling. I have to credit Cruise on creating a character that truly makes you forget about Cruise as a star, it's so unheroic and not the kind of role we are used to seeing him in. It's also interesting to see how well liked the film is by the critics, despite a split opinion amoungst audiences. 8/10 for mealthough the ending is a bit rushed.

It's pretty good.

I agree. This movie is woefully underrated.

It's one of the best films of the century.

Criminally under-rated moviestands the test of time too over a decade later.
You look like the poster boy for birth control.

I got the tin Blu-Ray and it's incredible looking
Troyaltrollwalker(Darth Spino)

Agreed. I just watched it for the first time in years. I enjoyed it enough that Ive decided I must get the Blu-ray.

Absolutely agree with you. I guess people just love to hate.

Agreed. Very underrated. Every thing was just done nicely.

The Cinematography was hideous, why was it all bright and blurry at the start? it's like everything was glowing..lol
It's called diffusion. Soft filters and nets on the lens.
That kind of look is not currently widely fashionable but it has been during various points in cinema history.

"You seem to care so much about something so unimportant".
I'm sorry was I the one who replied to some stranger to tell him that he should clarify that his opinion is an opinion, all while intentionally ignoring the fact that he was replying to some dbag who literally says his opinion is a fact? Was I the one who kept bringing the same irrelevant point about the word "mock" over and over again? I mean, that was literally the most unimportant point of discussion and you even went as far as to check on a dictionary!
I simply replied to every single point you made just because I could, but you were the first one to claim that my opinion is an opinion (duh), that I didn't use the word "mock" properly (I did), that the other guy did back up his claim (he didn't), etc. etc. From where I'm standing, it seems that you are the one who cares too much about stuff that doesn't matter at all.
In fact, this may very well be the most pointless imdb discussion I've ever engaged on since I registered years ago. But oh well, at least we kept it civil, am I right? I mean, for the most part right? Yes, we did. I guess. Good bye, sir.

Sorry, I've lost interest in a discussion that is going nowhere, except in the direction of your self justification. You have become a boor and a bore with your determination that I must admit to some fault from which you perceive I am suffering.
You seem to care so much about something so unimportant. Do you have an overweening desire to feel that you are correct, even in the eyes of a person you will never meet? Why does it matter to you what I do or don't admit?

As with the usage of the word "pestering", the word "masochism" is also too strong of a word to use in this situation. I'd simply say I don't feel annoyed enough yet to stop replying to you.
And about your points, frankly I think the fact that you even think you can debate about my intentions (mocking the other guy) or my origins (that I'm not a native speaker) is absolutely silly and plain stupid. It only shows that you are one of those extremely annoying users who love to argue just for the sake of it. Here, let me spell it out for you:
1 -
Clarifying that you are not a native speaker is not a card you use to get out of some situation; it is an absolute, irrefutable fact that many imdb users are from non-english speaking countries. That's not something you can agree or disagree about. It's a fact that anyone with common sense would be aware of.
2 -
Even your own definition of "mocking" is against you. As you yourself said,
to mock someone means that you are laughing at someone
. Your definition claims that it's
often
done by copying someone, but
not that it is
exclusive
to that sort of attitude. So yes, when I wrote the LOL it was a sign of mockery. It doesn't matter if you like it or not, this is not a matter of opinion and my intentions are not debatable. It's an absolute fact that I was mocking him; it doesnt' have to be a lengthy, complex, or even smart comment to be mockery, according to your own definition.
Sorry, but these two points are not debatable in the least. Now, I noticed you didn't say anything about my other argument, you know, the one that actually matters and that is directly related to your original annoying reply to my comment. Here, I'll just quote myself:
The other user didn't back up his statement AT ALL. He simply described the 53 version as one that
1)
keeps the haunting quality,
2)
is colourful and
3)
is creepy. If you are using those adjectives as a basis to claim that he was comparing it to Spielberg's version, thus somehow explaining why it is a fact that it "dumps all over the original story" (oh, what a humble fellow! he's certainly expressing his opinion as such and not trying to making it pass as a fact!), that would only mean that he thinks this version doesn't keep the haunting quality, isn't colorful and isn't creepy, which would be nothing more than subjective gratuituous affirmations. He doesn't give any reasons as to why the film isn't hauting, colorful or creepy.
Now, wouldn't those be bland statements? Oh, yes, I forgot, they wouldn't be because you probably agree with him, which automatically means that he isn't doing what you are bothering me for. And anyway, any reasons he may give would only be subjective reasons, opinions, not FACTS as he claims, but I don't see you bothering him about his usage of the word fact.
Now, either you accept that you were being a hypocrite when you claimed that I should write my opinions as opinions and not facts (because you don't seem to be bothered by the other guy's attitude), or you can just go F yourself. I don't see any other choice here.

I am easily bothered by certain types of imdb users
Yet, again, you put yourself into a position that you will be "bothered" by certain types of users. Why keep doing this? A hint of masochism, perhaps?
I realize you are right about the fact that I wasn't mocking him for thinking the 53 version is better. My bad. I was mocking him for saying the cinematography of the 05 version is hideous.
mocking, meaning - "to laugh at someone, often by copying them in a funny but unkind way" (Cambridge Dictionary). I'll reiterate - sorry to tell you, but what you said is not mockery. Your comment is simply a rather commonplace statement. Certainly nothing of either a humorous or critical nature.
Earlier, you wrote:
And you know? Sometimes I just don't feel like writing essays, or even a paragraph or a sentence.
My word, I dread to think how much you would write if you actually wanted to write an essay.
And, please, don't play that hoary old card of "not a native speaker".
Anyway,
my opinion
is that the 1953 version is a more absorbing, exciting and thrilling experience (and because it's just my opinion, I am not going to give any supporting explanations), whilst neither movie is very like the HG Wells' novel.

Actually, yes, I am easily bothered by certain types of imdb users, including hypocrites like you, who will bother someone for doing something that other users also do, but will give them a pass just because he happens to agree with them. I'll agree that "pestering" is too strong of a word to use in this case though. Maybe my english is a little bit rusty (not a native speaker).
And no, the other user didn't back up his statement AT ALL. He simply described the 53 version as one that
1)
keeps the haunting quality,
2)
is colourful and
3)
is creepy. If you are using those adjectives as a basis to claim that he was comparing it to Spielberg's version, thus somehow explaining why it is a fact that it "dumps all over the original story" (oh, what a humble fellow! he's certainly expressing his opinion as such and not trying to making it pass as a fact!), that would only mean that he thinks this version doesn't keep the haunting quality, isn't colorful and isn't creepy, which would be nothing more than subjective gratuituous affirmations. He doesn't give any reasons as to why the film isn't hauting, colorful or creepy.
Now, wouldn't those be bland statements? Oh, yes, I forgot, they wouldn't be because you probably agree with him, which automatically means that he isn't doing what you are bothering me for. And anyway, any reasons he may give would only be subjective reasons, opinions, not FACTS as he claims, but I don't see you bothering him about his usage of the word fact.
And, after re-reading my comment, I realize you are right about the fact that I wasn't mocking him for thinking the 53 version is better. My bad. I was mocking him for saying the cinematography of the 05 version is hideous.

This message has been deleted.

Or that I didn't clarify that it is an opinion?
That is the point of what I originally wrote.
"The hate some from the fact it's dumps all over the original story". He never explains why
Yes, he does. Read the comment again ( although he is referring to the 1953 film, not the original)
I consider you bothersome
1.Then you're extraordinarily easily bothered.
2. Yet you responded - twice. Just ignore me.
The fact is that you are
pestering me with this issue
because you are probably one of those people who like the 50s version better and you were annoyed that I
mocked
the other guy for thinking so. And you know? Sometimes I just don't feel like writing essays, or even a paragraph or a sentence
.
My goodness, you do have a low threshold for irritation if you consider that "pestering". And, yes, I prefer the 1953 version - my opinion, not a fact.
Additionally, you wrote you "
mocked the other guy
". Sorry to disappoint you, but what you responded to the earlier poster is nowhere near mocking. Rather it was just a bland statement.