Answer for: What is the worst movie ever?
#6 War of the Worlds
| 
4 Comments
Cookie-cutter characters, ham-handed commentary on 9/11, humankind saved by bacteria. Need I say more?
Help Report a Bug About Grupthink Contact Us Blog/Press
© 2008 by Grupthink, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
No claim of copyright or trademark is made to any material submitted by individual users. Any user-submitted material subject to copyright or trademark protection by third-parties is used solely for comment, criticism and discussion ("fair use").
Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | Report alleged copyright infringement
Powered by grūpthink
Revision: 2059
Comments |
Leave a comment
I thought it was one of the most involving films I've seen in a while. Frankly, I was blown away by it. One of the darkest Hollywood films I've seen, marred only by the survival of the son.
The whole thing gave me the feeling of watching a person step on an anthill for two hours. I don't think that makes for a "dark" or "involving" or "sophisticated" film, just a really boring and exhausting plotline that had me alternating between boredom and disgust. I think Spielberg was just trying to appeal to people who for some reason equate all dark and depressing cinema with good cinema.
The fact that humankind saved by bacteria is one of the most powerful endings in literature. Remember, this story was written at the end of the 1800s when we were going into a much different world than we were leaving behind and this concept of bacteria was radical at the time.
It wasn't the George Pal version.It was ok.I think though,War of the Worlds-done was an adaption-not that other bad tv series would be better.You take the book-flesh it out-might work.
Doc Thompson