|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2021 2:11:07 GMT
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.
Yes. Interestingly they both have sequels that are well liked. You are correct about the spoof movies. Movies like Speed 2 and Battlefield Earth would fall into the same category as well. Movies where you would be hard pressed to find a true fan.
|
|
|
|
Post by alpha128 on Jun 21, 2021 2:16:14 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2021 2:26:00 GMT
I agree with your point about Robbie's actions not being well-expressed, but I understood his actions completely. Though I do think the part where he runs off is poorly written into the story. I honestly think Spielberg just wanted to get rid of his character, but found a lazy reason for it. As for him "needing to see what is happening and wanting to help the fight" that I am on board with and I give some of the characters a break in this kind of movie, because people start not thinking straight in these kinds of situations. I also think the purpose is to reverse the original relationship between the father and son. Now Tom Cruise's character cares about his son and is trying to be a responsible father and the son abandons him. I do however agree that him being alive at the end is really dumb. I think the big difference between us is that I do connect emotionally with the characters, whereas in the 1953 film I don't on any level.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 21, 2021 2:51:52 GMT
Some comments about the original movie.
As a representation for the fear related to atomic weapons, cold war etc. at the time it is somewhat effective, but it fails thoroughly as entertainment imo. Part of this is due to it not really focusing on any characters in an effective emotional way and the alien designs, alien tech designs being as cheesy as anything I have seen in a movie. I think much of the reason the movie fails is because it was directed by a VFX person rather than a talented director and has bad acting throughout. The most effective stuff in the movie is the farmhouse scene and most of the last 25 minutes with the evacuations and the mob of people turning on each other, though the religious stuff is laughably heavy-handed and cringe-inducing. I find it interesting how in the remake that stuff is more in the first parts of the movie and in the original it is in the last parts of the movie.
2005 version - 8/10
1953 version - 5.5/10
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Jun 21, 2021 4:44:43 GMT
1953 is in my October sci-fi/horror rota. It's a fun pulpy movie, with legit memorable audio & visuals.  Shoutout the original Welles radio production. |
|
|
|
Post by jcush on Jun 22, 2021 22:39:12 GMT
2005
|
|
|
|
Post by spooner5020 on Jun 22, 2021 23:07:10 GMT
Is this even really a question. 1953 duh. It’s creepier too. Especially in the scene where they’re hiding in the house and that alien thing is scanning for humans. The remake did the exact same thing, but less creepy.
|
|
|
|
Post by moviemouth on Jun 22, 2021 23:16:09 GMT
Is this even really a question. 1953 duh. It’s creepier too. Especially in the scene where they’re hiding in the house and that alien thing is scanning for humans. The remake did the exact same thing, but less creepy. Obviously it is a question. I far prefer the remake for example. I actually dislike the 1953 movie. The farmhouse scene is one of the few scenes in the original that I do find effective, though the design of the tech and alien is extremely cheesy imo. It was like this odd combination of creepy, but almost funny at the same time. By contrast the initial invasion scene in the 2005 movie is one of the scariest scenes in any movie I have seen. It chills me to the bone. The farmhouse search scene in the remake is much more suspenseful imo, but admittedly less creepy.
|
|
|
|
Post by millar70 on Jun 23, 2021 0:13:02 GMT
Personally, I'd rather listen to the Orson Welles radio version.
Let your mind do the visualizing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Downey on Jun 23, 2021 0:42:46 GMT
1953 is in my October sci-fi/horror rota. It's a fun pulpy movie, with legit memorable audio & visuals. Shoutout the original Welles radio production. That clown garden hose was meant to be scary? |
|
|
|
Post by lune7000 on Jun 23, 2021 2:44:23 GMT
Both versions suffer from an overwhelming logic hole: that aliens could master space travel, levitation, beams, etc. and not understand germs. It really kills the ending and endings are pretty important.
Between the two versions I would give it a tie
53 version looks more staged in a studio but the people are nice (for the most part) and you care whether they live
05 version looks way more real, has cool effects- but the people are just very hard to give a damn about
|
|
|
|
Post by FridayOnElmStreet on Jun 23, 2021 3:01:35 GMT
2005 by a hair.
|
|
|
|
Post by janntosh on Aug 2, 2021 1:50:04 GMT
The kids ruin the 2005 version. They’re awful
|
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Aug 4, 2021 4:12:11 GMT
The old sci-fi movie I mildly enjoyed as a kid but now puts me to sleep. The Tom Cruise version is suspenseful and exciting, the horns are nightmare fuel.
|
|
