War of the Worlds

[Luke Skywalker 1,284]

I think every one has a worse Spielberg movie which is the next man's favourite and viceversa.

Let's just leave it at that...

[Uni 306]

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

I agree (with the "underrated" part--not necessarily that it was one of the best of the decade). I found I was moved, even a little disturbed--in a positive way, the way you're supposed to be in a film like this--and that the movie lingered with me for several days after I saw it. Improvements could've been made, sure, but the concept was so intriguing and the execution close enough to the mark that I had to admit it was a darn near brilliant piece of work.

I disagree, however, with the notion that the story is anything like WotW. This thing didn't pose a threat to "mankind." It destroyed a fair portion of one city. It didn't portray any intent or purpose with its attack; it was just a rampaging monster, a different (though much better) version of Godzilla. The Martians came to subdue and "terraform" the entire planet for their own use. Comparing these two films is like comparing ID4 with King Kong.

- Uni

[Ollie 859]

I enjoyed Cloverfield and its concept but I will say that it looks much better on the small screen. It's much easier to view and the picture is crisper.

[AC1 3,565]

It didn't portray any intent or purpose with its attack; it was just a rampaging monster, a different (though much better) version of Godzilla. The Martians came to subdue and "terraform" the entire planet for their own use.

Superficial details. I look at what the films are focussing on. In both films, mankind is attacked by an powerful, unknown, unstoppable force and we follow a group a people who are running from the threat and who are adjusting to the apocalypse.

[John Crichton 4]

And these are New Yorkers we're talking about. As far as they're concerned their city is the entire world.

[AC1 3,565]

And these are New Yorkers we're talking about. As far as they're concerned their city is the entire world.

Both stories take place in New York too?!!! I rest my case.

[Romão 1,931]

War of the Worlds, at least the first half, takes place in Newark, I think

[John Crichton 4]

Isn't that one of the circles of hell?

[indy4 152]

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.

I thought Always wasn't that terrible. It certainly has its faults, but I remember thinking that there were several very positive Spielbergian aspects. I think it's easily better than 1941, which was just an awful film (although the score is excellent).

[Marian Schedenig 5,520]

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

I agree (with the "underrated" part--not necessarily that it was one of the best of the decade). I found I was moved, even a little disturbed--in a positive way, the way you're supposed to be in a film like this--and that the movie lingered with me for several days after I saw it. Improvements could've been made, sure, but the concept was so intriguing and the execution close enough to the mark that I had to admit it was a darn near brilliant piece of work.

Actually, I've always said that I think there's hardly anything about it that could be improved. Not a masterpiece, perhaps, due to its somewhat limited concept, but quite perfect for what it is. I was very positively surprised.

[Uni 306]

Not a masterpiece, perhaps, due to its somewhat limited concept, but quite perfect for what it is.

That's a fascinating way of putting it. Not a masterpiece, no, but . . . is there any way it could've been, given the concept and the format? Of course not. No reason to expect it. It never had to be. It just had to be what every film of that sort ought to be--good, compelling fiction. And it was certainly that.

- Uni

[AC1 3,565]

There's another fascinating link between War Of The Worlds and Cloverfield. Orson Welles once made a radio play of War Of The Worlds told from a 'live, as it happens' perspective, which is comparable to the video footage of Cloverfield. Both are coverages from 'reporters' in the field. That also means Cloverfield is closer to WOTW the radio play then it is to one of the movies.

Alex

[BurgaFlippinMan 7]

I dont know who said this before, but I agree with with him that Cloverfield feels like a film made out of footage shot by an extra on the set of Spielberg's War of the Worlds and the said extra decided it would be better to shoot tonnes of footage of his friends instead of the aliens.

Yes I know the aliens were CG and arent really there on set but you get the point.

[crocodile 6,294]

I enjoyed Cloverfield and its concept but I will say that it looks much better on the small screen. It's much easier to view and the picture is crisper.

Yes, that's true.

Karol