|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 20, 2021 23:31:56 GMT
I'm watching the original for the first time and I am curious as to who prefers which version.   |
|
|
|
Post by Prime etc. on Jun 20, 2021 23:36:53 GMT
The original.
The war machines in the remake are neat but the scenes of the attempt to blow them up in the original are still more suspenseful.
This radio version of the 1953 is pretty good. They use the same death ray sound effect.
|
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Jun 20, 2021 23:38:33 GMT
1953
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 20, 2021 23:39:26 GMT
The 2005 version is dangerously close to being one of my favorite Spielberg movies. Maybe it's because I like WOTW in general. It's one of the films whose near universal disdain I understand the least.
So, War of the Worlds (2005).
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 20, 2021 23:45:15 GMT
The 2005 version is dangerously close to being one of my favorite Spielberg movies. Maybe it's because I like WOTW in general. It's one of the films whose near universal disdain I understand the least.
So, War of the Worlds (2005).
You are going to get serious flack for that. Not from me though. "Near universal disdain" is hyperbole of the highest degree imo. In fact, it was critically acclaimed at the time and has a moderate fanbase of moviegoers in general. www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_of_the_worldswww.metacritic.com/movie/war-of-the-worlds
|
|
|
|
Post by sdrew13163 on Jun 20, 2021 23:45:40 GMT
The 05 version definitely has higher highs and lower lows, but it can be really effective in parts.
The original is good too, but I’ll give the slight edge to Spielberg’s. I also need to rewatch the old one.
|
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Jun 21, 2021 0:19:46 GMT
I've only seen parts of the 1953 version. I liked the Spielberg film quite a bit when it came out and revisiting it, there are still some gripping moments and unsettling imagery. The kids remain annoying though.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 21, 2021 0:29:35 GMT
The 2005 version is dangerously close to being one of my favorite Spielberg movies. Maybe it's because I like WOTW in general. It's one of the films whose near universal disdain I understand the least.
So, War of the Worlds (2005).
You are going to get serious flack for that. Not from me though. "Near universal disdain" is hyperbole of the highest degree imo. In fact, it was critically acclaimed at the time and has a moderate fanbase of moviegoers in general. www.rottentomatoes.com/m/war_of_the_worldswww.metacritic.com/movie/war-of-the-worlds Neat. That would replace the impression I had from when I saw it. When I saw it and later discovered the internet, I got the impression it was a laughingstock. Not like, hated, but maybe a step back for Stephen Spielberg as a director, which is something I wouldn't have thought about when I was 15.
I liked it so the rants and jokes I've heard about it never landed.
|
|
|
|
Post by drystyx on Jun 21, 2021 0:32:15 GMT
This shouldn't even be close. We can tell how many people here were part of the 2005 movie by how many people voted for it. There's absolutely no other reason to vote for it.
The 1953 version has great atmosphere, great characters, what appears to be non stop action even when there isn't action (due to the sheer dynamic.
nature of the story)
The 2005 version is dull because the characters are dull and impossible to relate to. There's just no way to empathize with any of them. Maybe this is some ritzy high class family way of life they describe, but it isn't something anyone who isn't one of the snobs can relate to.
Sure, Dr. Forester is a big shot with a plane in the original, but he still lets us relate to him. He comes across as a credible character in incredible circumstances. You can't say that about the waste that 2005 became.
Maybe I'm not fair to the 2005 version because I just lumber through it, and try to fight dozing off to the boredom, but that's the fault of the director and his team.
War of the Worlds 1953 9/10
War of the Worlds 2005 2/10
|
|
|
|
Post by kolchak92 on Jun 21, 2021 0:33:32 GMT
In my opinion, the original 1953 film blows Spielberg's out of the water.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikef6 on Jun 21, 2021 0:40:15 GMT
The 1953 with its primary colors and general creativity. The shock of the minister's holding up a cross and his sanctimonious Christianity not working, just getting him blasted, was a real jolt to early '50s conservative America.
The 2005 was just another head-banging headache inducing modern CGI action movie noise machine. The scene with Tim Robbins was the only thing I liked about it. Back on the old boards I suggested a drinking game: you had to down a shot or chug-a-lug a beer every time Cruise said, "Rachel, Robbie stay together."
|
|
|
|
Post by rudeboy on Jun 21, 2021 0:42:30 GMT
53, which I found genuinely creepy with some impressive effects.
I found Spielberg’s film a messy bore.
|
|
|
|
Post by Downey on Jun 21, 2021 0:46:40 GMT
Tom Cruise's children were annoying as fuck it was meh if the 1953 version didn't have ghost girl Dakota Fanning or Justin Chatwin then it's automatically better.
|
|
|
|
Post by phantomparticle on Jun 21, 2021 0:53:10 GMT
I'll give the 1953 movie a slim edge.
I really like Spielberg's version but its faults come close to wrecking the whole film. Most egregious is the relationship between Cruise and his son. There is the father doing everything he can to save his family and all he gets is attitude from the kid. I wish Spielberg had had the guts to kill the insufferable bastard and not bring him back for the last scene. Most fans feel the same way about Dakota Fanning and her incessant crying, but how else would a little girl act under such conditions.
The scene in the basement is another major problem. For crying out loud, isn't there enough mayhem going on without adding a madman to the mix? Neither the 2005 nor the original measures up to the chilling description in the novel, but Pal's version is quicker, works up some real suspense, then tops the moment off with a great monster.
What I think really works in the Spielberg movie is that we don't know anything more than the characters. There are no cuts to military and political planning, nothing but the unending rush to escape. There is no release from the tension from the moment the Martian machines are revealed to their destruction.
I wasn't sure that moving the story from 19th Century England to 20th Century America was the right choice, but was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the result.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2021 0:54:44 GMT
Neat. That would replace the impression I had from when I saw it. When I saw it and later discovered the internet, I got the impression it was a laughingstock. Not like, hated, but maybe a step back for Stephen Spielberg as a director, which is something I wouldn't have thought about when I was 15.
I liked it so the rants and jokes I've heard about it never landed.
I have never heard of it being a laughing stock, just a very flawed. Though there are definitely a group of people who do consider it a laughing stock, but that is much different than being considered a laughing stock in general. Indiana Jones 4 isn't even universally hated. There are plenty of fans of that movie right here on IMDB 2 even. I would call those movies divisive, not universally disliked/hated. I don't even think Alexander (2004) fits that criteria. I go for low hanging fruit like Battlefield Earth, so I will go with something like Ouija or Annabelle. Those 2 I would wouldn't raise a fuss if someone said they were universally hated/disliked. They still have fans, but the fans seem to be in the vast minority. I know I am being a bit pedantic.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2021 0:59:14 GMT
I'll give the 1953 movie a slim edge. I really like Spielberg's version but its faults come close to wrecking the whole film. Most egregious is the relationship between Cruise and his son. There is the father doing everything he can to save his family and all he gets is attitude from the kid. I wish Spielberg had had the guts to kill the insufferable bastard and not bring him back for the last scene. Most fans feel the same way about Dakota Fanning and her incessant crying, but how else would a little girl act under such conditions. The scene in the basement is another major problem. For crying out loud, isn't there enough mayhem going on without adding a madman to the mix? Neither the 2005 nor the original measures up to the chilling description in the novel, but Pal's version is quicker, works up some real suspense, then tops the moment off with a great monster. What I think really works in the Spielberg movie is that we don't know anything more than the characters. There are no cuts to military and political planning, nothing but the unending rush to escape. There is no release from the tension from the moment the Martian machines are revealed to their destruction. I wasn't sure that moving the story from 19th Century England to 20th Century America was the right choice, but was pleasantly surprised at how much I enjoyed the result. We are on the same page with the son, but I love the Tim Robbins scene. It is my second favorite scene in the movie after the initial attack, which is one of the most viscerally terrifying scenes I have ever watched.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2021 0:59:46 GMT
2005
Flaws aside, the movie is intense, emotional, visually stunning, sometimes extremely frightening and character driven. The kids are annoying and the end is dumb, but the majority of the movie is well done entertainment.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2021 1:08:52 GMT
53, which I found genuinely creepy with some impressive effects. I found Spielberg’s film a messy bore. I actually have the opposite opinion, though I agree the 2005 version is a bit of a mess. I am sort of bored watching the 1953 version and I don't think it is creepy at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2021 1:59:18 GMT
53, which I found genuinely creepy with some impressive effects. I found Spielberg’s film a messy bore. The most interesting and directly comparable scene from the 1953 movie to the 2005 movie is the Tim Robbins scene. It is a similar scene, but without the Tim Robbins character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cat on Jun 21, 2021 2:07:02 GMT
Neat. That would replace the impression I had from when I saw it. When I saw it and later discovered the internet, I got the impression it was a laughingstock. Not like, hated, but maybe a step back for Stephen Spielberg as a director, which is something I wouldn't have thought about when I was 15.
I liked it so the rants and jokes I've heard about it never landed.
I have never heard of it being a laughing stock, just a very flawed. Though there are definitely a group of people who do consider it a laughing stock, but that is much different than being considered a laughing stock in general. Indiana Jones 4 isn't even universally hated. There are plenty of fans of that movie right here on IMDB 2 even. I would call those movies divisive, not universally disliked/hated. I don't even think Alexander (2004) fits that criteria. I go for low hanging fruit like Battlefield Earth, so I will go with something like Ouija or Annabelle. Those 2 I would wouldn't raise a fuss if someone said they were universally hated/disliked. They still have fans, but the fans seem to be in the vast minority. I know I am being a bit pedantic. I never even heard of it being flawed. The emotional energy towards the film that I recall never got that far, which is why it never made sense to me. Of course it's flawed, but I didn't even think about it at the time because the criticisms (a term which I use loosely) never went into specifics.
I vaguely recall it starting to come out that Tom Cruise was...um, special, so maybe that contributed to the atmosphere around the movie that I recall. I usually don't think in terms of popular/unpopular. It's interesting but it's usually scoreboard arguments. Yeah? Well so and so made a million, take that! It's not how I see movies. Are Ouija and Annabelle generally disliked movies? I'm honestly curious. I've never seen them but they look okay.
You know what? The only movies I'm almost, almost certain I know are hated are that string of spoof movies a decade ago. Epic Movie, Date Movie, Disaster Movie.
|
|
