War of the Worlds

[Quintus 5,391]

I believe it is. You probably disagree, but I think its a horrible mess of a movie, so bad even the superb opener fails to save it from downright awfulness. Forget 1941 and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - WotW is a dire, dire movie. Do I really have to explain why?

[crocodile 6,294]

It's as good as you can make it with such a weak script. There are great sequnces in the movie, great effects, some solid scoring, great sound etc. I appreciate many of these elements the film, even though it is itself very weak. But it's not the worst Spielberg.

Karol

[Quintus 5,391]

There are great sequnces in the movie, great effects, some solid scoring, great sound etc. I appreciate many of these elements in the film

I do too and in any film, but without a coherent and believable whole, aren't such qualified elements nothing more than mere window dressing? The long rotating tracking shot of the car on the highway for instance - a good sequence with or without the movie, but it is without a doubt flashy for flashy sake - the movie as a piece of storytelling does not benefit from it.

[Wojo 2,442]

If you're discussing a film like Cutthroat Island, yes.

If you're discussing a film directed by Spielberg, people might feel inclined to throw rocks at you.

[Richard Penna 2,082]

Not the worst, but I was heavily disappointed in the cinema. I found the trailer way more exciting.

The worst Spielberg for me at the moment is the one that gets worse every time I see it - KotCS.

There's something clunky and awkward about nearly every element in this film. For me, their attempts to put humour and comical action sequences completely failed, and Ford just doesn't have what he did back in the 80s.

I think he's dropping the ball as a director.

[Ollie 859]

It's far from Spielberg's worst film. Outside of a few issues with the script, it's actually good.

[Henry B 49]

Naturally, KotCS is the worst in my book... but War of the Worlds is pretty cringe inducing itself. With a longer production period and the dismissal of David Koepp, it could have been special. Instead, it's a lousy summer blockbuster with a few interesting moments.

[Quintus 5,391]

I think the reason I rate KotCS slightly higher is just because I love Harrison Ford and admire his vain attempt at trying to carry the movie. He failed miserably, but there are one or two times when he makes it seem almost right, good even.

[Luke Skywalker 1,284]

I believe it is. You probably disagree, but I think its a horrible mess of a movie, so bad even the superb opener fails to save it from downright awfulness. Forget 1941 and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull - WotW is a dire, dire movie. Do I really have to explain why?

yeah, explain why 1941 is to be excluded...

wotw is not definately spielberg's worse movie.

[Pieter Boelen 633]

For me, a film must be REALLY bad for me to register it as being bad.

War of the Worlds isn't REALLY bad at all. In fact, I thought it was pretty good.

Not brilliant, but pretty good.

If you're discussing a film like Cutthroat Island, yes.

I have yet to understand what's wrong with Cutthroat Island.

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

It's a good film, hampered by some problems with the core plot, but with some brilliant crowd sequences. Spielberg's worst, as far as I can remember (having seen it only once, a long time ago) was 1941.

[John Crichton 4]

No, no, no. It's better than Hook, for starters.

And WotW is not a bad movie, in spots it's actually very good. As Mark mentioned, some script polishing to improve the pacing and get rid of the cop-out ending with the son surviving, and you've got the makings of quite a good movie.

[Diego 21]

The thing I remember the most about WOTW was how loud it was in the theater, I just wanted the damn thing to be over, add Tom Cruise and Dakota Fanning and it is indeed a bad movie. I've only been able to make it through the score twice and it was hard, it made me reconsider the whole Williams blind-buy thing.

[Henry B 49]

The score is great!

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,476]

It's hard to believe it's a Spielberg picture. Nothing really sets it apart.

I snooze right through the soundtrack.

The characters are highly disagreeable. The film as a whole is largely unremarkable. His worst? It may be 1941 since I've never even made it through that one in two viewings.

[QMM 4]

No.

I love everything about the movie, script included, up until they pull over and Bobby yells at the passing Army trucks, then it starts to go downhill. The boat scene is great but the movie never hits the highs it has in the beginning.

[Datameister 1,394]

I'm not particularly impressed or offended by the film. I don't have anything against it, but I'm not particularly interested in it either. As for the score...it has moments I really enjoy, particularly at the beginning and at the end, but a lot of it feels like it needs to either be a little more evocative or a little more thematic. I can handle a score that eschews leitmotifs in favor of creating really strong, nonthematic moods, but those moods need to be strong indeed, and something about WotW just feels a little generic to me. Not all of it, though.

[indy4 152]

I think it's among his best works (not the masterpieces, but maybe one rank lower). Certainly miles in front of 1941.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

It's far from Spielberg's worst film. Outside of a few issues with the script, it's actually good.

what Mark said.

I can name several Spielberg movies worse than WOTW. Terminal, Munich, Always, Hook, AI KOTCS, LC.

[Datameister 1,394]

I liked The Terminal and KOTCS better than WOTW.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,765]

Looking back on War of the Worlds, this is just more Gaia cult propaganda.

[David Coscina 3]

It's far from Spielberg's worst film. Outside of a few issues with the script, it's actually good.

I agree. Terrific Williams score too. On my 10 Best of the decade actually.

[AC1 3,565]

It's okay if you watch it with young children. I think Quint calls it Spielberg's worst because he expected this one to be really good. A far better War Of The Worlds is Cloverfield, even though its characters are a bunch of dull, rich, MTV-raised yuppies.

Alex

[Greg1138 2]

it's another film that suffers badly from expctation - just as Kingdom of the Crystal Skull does. If you accept it as what it is - a rehash of a 100+ year old book, with a grittiness and world-weariness that Spielberg pulls off so effortlessly - it's a stunning piece of work. Sure there are elements that bug me (the camcorder....oh man, the f***ing camcorder!!!!), but as a piece of work it is epic (look at some of the camera work once the first tripod starts blasting things to hell.....only Spielberg could pull that off - it is as truly brilliant as it is terrifying). I remember people on these boards complaining when it was released that the soundtrack was "uncomfortable to listen to" - well, that's more backhanded praise than criticism. It's a war movie - none of it is supposed to be confortable.

I wanted to hate the movie - after all, as a kid I used to play on Horsell Common a fair bit (read the book) and grew up with the radio dramas, spins-off, etc etc etc.....but I don't hate it at all. I don't love it - it's not a loveable film - but it's among the top 10 Spielberg films easily - and maybe knocking on the door of the top 5.

There were rumours at the time (I think, if I remember rightly, fuelled by The 'Berg himself) that if WOTW was successful then it wold become the first part of a trilogy. Spiritually, it already the third part of a trilogy (after Close Encounters and ET), but I would like to see where the story got taken next...will probably never happen though - that would just be too good.

Greg

[AC1 3,565]

it's another film that suffers badly from expctation

I don't think that's true. I, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, don't expect that much from Spielberg anymore. If anything, I actually expect to be disappointed. And even then he manages to disappoint me.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

it's another film that suffers badly from expctation

I don't think that's true. I, and I'm sure I'm not the only one, don't expect that much from Spielberg anymore. If anything, I actually expect to be disappointed. And even then he manages to disappoint me.

That doesn't surprise me one bit.

[Wojo 2,442]

A sequel to Spielberg's WOTW? Yea right, how? The movie ends with the demise of the Martian invaders. Tom Cruise's character is neither as compelling nor interesting as the protagonists in E.T. or Close Encounters, which did a lot better theatrically yet didn't get sequels.

ID4 fared better at the theater and has become more popular than WOTW, and both would feature the same type of sequel story: rebuild Earth after the aliens get whooped. <yawn>

I've been disappointed by every Spielberg flick since Jurassic Park. The man doesn't impress me anymore, I've accepted this, I've moved on.

[David Coscina 3]

I think Munich was a very accomplished film. Spielberg has simply graduated past the popcorn thrillers he made his name on. I also found The Terminal and Catch Me if You Can to be fine films- not spectacular but mature in that they don't say "hey, look how cool I am" the way some of his films did when he was younger. I still think JAWS is his best ever film but that's just me.

[AC1 3,565]

I've been disappointed by every Spielberg flick since Jurassic Park. The man doesn't impress me anymore, I've accepted this, I've moved on.

Save for a few scenes in Saving Private Ryan, Munich and Catch Me If You Can, it's more or less the same for me.

[Charlie Brigden 5]

Out of his "new age" films, only A.I. and CMIYC have managed to have any sort of a similar effect as his older films on me, although I thought MUNICH was superb. JURASSIC PARK was probably the first of his films which I recognised as not being great, and that followed through with THE LOST WORLD. WOTW was ok, I just can't stand Tom Cruise which probably gave me an instant dislike to it, and the Tim Robbins subplot was annoying. But I can usually still find stuff to enjoy about even his lesser films though, even KOTCS.

[Greg1138 2]

A sequel to Spielberg's WOTW? Yea right, how? The movie ends with the demise of the Martian invaders. Tom Cruise's character is neither as compelling nor interesting as the protagonists in E.T. or Close Encounters, which did a lot better theatrically yet didn't get sequels.

The "Invaders" in Spielberg's WOTW are not Martian. Sequels have already been done to other versions of War of the Worlds - why not this one?

ID4 fared better at the theater and has become more popular than WOTW, and both would feature the same type of sequel story: rebuild Earth after the aliens get whooped. <yawn>

Given that Independence Day is an adaptation of War of the Worlds (albeit unofficial), the fact that any follow up would hold similar storylines is hardly surprising. ID4 also DID receive a follow-up - just not on the big screen - look in your local library.

ID4 was a popcorn blockbuster - and a good one at that - War of the Worlds is a war movie - how can you compare them? That's almost like saying that Schindler's List did better at the box ofice than Space Jam.

[Wojo 2,442]

ID4 was a popcorn blockbuster - and a good one at that - War of the Worlds is a war movie - how can you compare them? That's almost like saying that Schindler's List did better at the box ofice than Space Jam.

Mr. Madison, what you just said...

[SF1_freeze 104]

Hm, it isn't that good but i would consider Amistad worse and there are some movies (like 1941, Poltergeist,..) i don't have seen yet

@those who say Spielberg movies are all more or less the same nowadays:

Minority Report is completely unique and NOT like anything Spielberg has done earlier or later. In my opinion his best film since Jurassic Park

[Charlie Brigden 5]

POLTERGEIST is an excellent movie, albeit technically not directed by Spielberg.

[Wojo 2,442]

I've been disappointed by every Spielberg flick since Jurassic Park. The man doesn't impress me anymore, I've accepted this, I've moved on.

Save for a few scenes in Saving Private Ryan, Munich and Catch Me If You Can, it's more or less the same for me.

Let me rephrase that. I've only seen four Spielberg's since Jurassic Park: Saving Private Ryan, The Lost World, Catch Me If You Can, and War of the Worlds. I don't know if the others are good or bad, but they don't look like the kinds of movies I want to see, so I have not bothered.

[JoeinAR 1,759]

Even though I am hard on the man, the name Spielberg as a director virtually requires me to give his film a viewing, even though the end results may disappoint me, I owe it to him to give it a shot.

[Greg1138 2]

ID4 was a popcorn blockbuster - and a good one at that - War of the Worlds is a war movie - how can you compare them? That's almost like saying that Schindler's List did better at the box ofice than Space Jam.

Mr. Madison, what you just said...

But you seem to miss the point - Space jam was a successful movie amongst it's aimed demographic (and one or two others) and - for what it was - well-made, so how do you qaulify this?

[Ollie 859]

Space Jam woefully underperformed at the box office and Schindler's List did gross more.

[Wojo 2,442]

ID4 was a popcorn blockbuster - and a good one at that - War of the Worlds is a war movie - how can you compare them? That's almost like saying that Schindler's List did better at the box ofice than Space Jam.

Mr. Madison, what you just said...

But you seem to miss the point - Space jam was a successful movie amongst it's aimed demographic (and one or two others) and - for what it was - well-made, so how do you qaulify this?

I seem to miss the point? Which is what exactly? Space Jam is a movie about cartoons, NBA'ers, and space aliens playing professional basketball. Schindler's List is not.

Independence Day is a movie about aliens who try to conquer the earth, the humans who use military prowess to resist, and eventually win the day using a silly computer virus which permits a nuclear bomb and military airplanes to bring down all the spaceships.

War of the Worlds is a movie about aliens who are already on the earth and try to conquer it, the humans who use military prowess to resist, and who eventually win the day by just running away and dodging the aliens for the entire movie, waiting for the bacteria on Earth to make the aliens sick enough to lower their defenses, at which time the military prowess overwhelms and defeats the aliens.

They seem pretty similar enough to me. The only thing Space Jam and Schindler's List have in common is they're two word titles with the first word starting with S.

If War of the Worlds is a war movie, so is Independence Day. If Independence Day is not a war movie, then neither is War of the Worlds, regardless of that arbitrary first word in its title. Independence Day became a popcorn blockbuster because of a stellar cast, prevalent humor, and a campy refusal to take itself seriously. War of the Worlds didn't become a popcorn blockbuster because it was more of a sci-fi horror movie, with frightening scenes, very little humor, and so much seriousness in itself that it was not as enjoyable.

[Greg1138 2]

You simply can not compare the two. Not by box office take, not by design, not by impact, not by anything. They are from completely different genres. They just happen to be based on the same material.

War of the Worlds was not supposed to be "enjoyable". It was not supposed to have humour. It was supposed to be serious.

This typifies the problem so many had with War of the Worlds - it simply wasn't what they expected or wanted to see. That doesn't make it a bad movie though.

[Wojo 2,442]

You simply can not compare the two.

Maybe you simply can't, but I simply did.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,476]

What would be considered modern Spielberg? Hook-present?

[Wojo 2,442]

Hook's almost 20 years old. Is that still "modern?"

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,476]

I consider it more neo-classic. I don't get where "modern" Spielberg begins. I see the term used when describing his films, but does that basically mean his 2000 era films?

[Hlao-roo 388]

"Modern" Spielberg means bad Spielberg.

[Wojo 2,442]

"Modern" Spielberg means bad Spielberg.

[John Crichton 4]

A far better War Of The Worlds is Cloverfield, even though its characters are a bunch of dull, rich, MTV-raised yuppies.

Which is one of the reasons the movie works so well, it's almost fun to see them get offed! That's not a comparison I would have thought of though, I'm not sure the Cloverfield monster is meant to be an alien.

John- who still thinks Cloverfield is highly underrated and is one of his favorite movies of the decade

[Red 73]

What would be considered modern Spielberg? Hook-present?

Roughly post-Schindler's List.

War of the Worlds definitely is not Spielberg's worst, far from it. I think it's quite enjoyable actually, save for the last act where the ball is really dropped. I still think out of all the Beard's films that I've seen (which doesn't include 1941) The Lost World is the worst.

[Uni 306]

War of the Worlds was disappointing, yes, but not terrible. It did have some excellent effects, and--dammit, I just can't help being drawn in by big alien invasion stories like this. I can't call it his worst movie. 1941 was bad, but it was a confusing sort of bad--did this really happen? Did Spielberg really make this? It left me more baffled than disappointed. The Lost World was bad, but it was a sequel misfire, which gives it a sort of built-in excuse (though I couldn't fault anyone for calling this one his worst). Hook wasn't nearly as bad as most people make it out to be, and had in its intent and deepest heart a good story. I'd say the same thing about A.I., though that one was handled even worse than Hook.

What does that leave? His worst film, of course: Always. This turd, out of all his films, was the one that never once, not for an instant, looked or felt or played like anything Steven Spielberg had anything to do with. In all of his other films, at some point, there's at least a glimpse of his magic, his epic scale, his childlike wonder. Always was like a depository (more like a suppository) of all his leftover magic, the stuff lining his bowels that he didn't have any real use for. It is pointless, aimless, sleep-inducing garbage.

Did I mention I don't like it much. . . ?

- Uni

P.S. Not all of Spielberg's "modern" films are bad at all. Catch Me If You Can is superb, as is The Terminal--and Minority Report is among the best five films he's ever made.

[AC1 3,565]

A far better War Of The Worlds is Cloverfield, even though its characters are a bunch of dull, rich, MTV-raised yuppies.

Which is one of the reasons the movie works so well, it's almost fun to see them get offed! That's not a comparison I would have thought of though, I'm not sure the Cloverfield monster is meant to be an alien.

John- who still thinks Cloverfield is highly underrated and is one of his favorite movies of the decade

Whether it's aliens or a monster, their function is the same. They both form a serious and unknown threat to mankind. The films are mainly about a group of people trying to survive during the apocalypse.

Let's just say that I had a far better 'War Of The Worlds' feeling during Cloverfield than with WOTW itself.

Alex