"War of the Worlds" Will be my new Moron test

[flair1239]

From now on when I am trying to get to know somebody, I will ask them if they enjoyed Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds".

If they say they thought it was a good movie, I will be able to say with 85% certainty that they are a moron.

This was the worst movie ever. I feel as if my money has been stolen from me.

[Morpheus]

hahahahahahaahaaaaaaaa

I will only watch that movie if it is on television and it's free and even then, I doubt it.

Spielberg is a dumbass and he basically just does those movies for the money. He has to support his 100 million dollar house.

[webmonarch]

[ QUOTE ]
If they say they thought it was a good movie, I will be able to say with 85% certainty that they are a moron.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's +EV. And funny.

[Duke]

I've heard that the writing is actually well done, and despite the numerous plot holes and Spielberg-esque absurdities it can be enjoyable.

~D

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
the writing is actually well done...numerous plot holes and Spielberg-esque absurdities

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that the writing is actually well done, and despite the numerous plot holes and Spielberg-esque absurdities it can be enjoyable.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no plot. If there were only holes in the plot, the movie may have been enjoyable.

As for writing.... the writing for the las "Star Wars" movie was ten times better, and I am not exagerating.

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
Spielberg is a dumbass and he basically just does those movies for the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 'cause most people don't do their job primarily for the money. Accepting tens of millions of dollars to make a mediocre movie is a really dumbass thing to do.

GoT

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Spielberg is a dumbass and he basically just does those movies for the money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, 'cause most people don't do their job primarily for the money. Accepting tens of millions of dollars to make a mediocre movie is a really dumbass thing to do.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

We don;t often agree, but this was an excellent response.

[Alobar]

The ending sucked, and I'm not talking about the whole virus angle. But it was still pretty well done, and as far as most movies go, it was enjoyable. Will I ever own it on DVD, no. Do I Think anyone who liked it is a moron, no.

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
He has to support his 100 million dollar house.


[/ QUOTE ]

before war of the worlds, which was not terrible, but not great either, he was worth an est. $2billion.

i dont think he's sweating the mortgage payments.

[Superfluous Man]

[ QUOTE ]
From now on when I am trying to get to know somebody, I will ask them if they enjoyed Steven Spielberg's "War of the Worlds".

If they say they thought it was a good movie, I will be able to say with 85% certainty that they are a moron.

This was the worst movie ever. I feel as if my money has been stolen from me.

[/ QUOTE ]
I categorically agree with the above in its entirety.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
The ending sucked, and I'm not talking about the whole virus angle. But it was still pretty well done, and as far as most movies go, it was enjoyable. Will I ever own it on DVD, no. Do I Think anyone who liked it is a moron, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am too old at 30 and am missing something. But this is definetly the worst movie I have ever sat through. To call it mediocre is to be too kind.

The first 20 min were fun, but after that it never grew. I guess if all you want is special effects maybe it is watchable. But I really don't see how anybody above the age of 15 could be even remotely impressed with this movie.

I am only slightly joking when I say that someone who really enjoyed this movie is probably a moron. Or maybe more accurately, I would probably have very little in common with such a person.

I did not go in looking for great acting or Oscar caliber story telling. I also typically enjoy fun movies. I enjoyed "Independence Day", despite it's shortcomings. Because that was a consistent movie that told a complete story. This movie was not plausible in anyway shap or form, and did not even advance the thin plotline that it orginally put forward.

[fsuplayer]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The ending sucked, and I'm not talking about the whole virus angle. But it was still pretty well done, and as far as most movies go, it was enjoyable. Will I ever own it on DVD, no. Do I Think anyone who liked it is a moron, no.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe I am too old at 30 and am missing something. But this is definetly the worst movie I have ever sat through. To call it mediocre is to be too kind.

The first 20 min were fun, but after that it never grew. I guess if all you want is special effects maybe it is watchable. But I really don't see how anybody above the age of 15 could be even remotely impressed with this movie.

I am only slightly joking when I say that someone who really enjoyed this movie is probably a moron. Or maybe more accurately, I would probably have very little in common with such a person.

I did not go in looking for great acting or Oscar caliber story telling. I also typically enjoy fun movies. I enjoyed "Independence Day", despite it's shortcomings. Because that was a consistent movie that told a complete story. This movie was not plausible in anyway shap or form, and did not even advance the thin plotline that it orginally put forward.

[/ QUOTE ]

you are very right, for rewatchability, ID4 pwns WOTW.

[Klepton]

this movie was entertaining and took 2 hours of my life that i would have spent talking to you guys...

and now i know that instead of swerving out of the way of a mother with a baby in her arms i will step on the gas harder

[x2ski]

I just got home 10 minutes ago lol, and I thought it was pretty good, but I knew what to expect and didn't have my hopes up.

I think what made it enjoyable for me was that whenever I watch movies like this, I put myself in the position of the main character(s), and ask myself what I would do if this situation was presented to me. Normally if the answer is simple (run, hide, fight etc.), and the characters do otherwise, the movie gets put on my gay-list.


I didn't have an answer to this one, which made it more fun and exciting.

(I was baked too)

I'm glad I saw it.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
this movie was entertaining and took 2 hours of my life that i would have spent talking to you guys...

and now i know that instead of swerving out of the way of a mother with a baby in her arms i will step on the gas harder

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not even amusing in a "Water World" sort of way.

With "Water World" you knew in the first 15min that it sucked. "Water World" was so bad that it crossed a line that only a few bad movies can cross. The line from complete garbage, to unintentionaly hilarious. I watch "Water World" every chance I get, because it makes me laugh.

This movie has such large holes, that it is hard to adhere to any "willful suspension of disbelief", mainly because any plots or subplots just languish.

I am sorry about the ramble. But guys, if you can't call this a bad movie.... I don't know what is. I mean this is really bad and I mean "these guys should be ashamed of themselves bad". If any of us with jobs, went to work Monday morning and performed as awful as this movie... we would all be professional poker players come Tuesday morning.

[Klepton]

i watched this movie knowing it was gonna be just cool special effects and not much plot development.

i also watched it at the chinese theatre, which seats about 1000 people and plays it volume so loud it actually hurts.

to me, that made it entertaining

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this movie was entertaining and took 2 hours of my life that i would have spent talking to you guys...

and now i know that instead of swerving out of the way of a mother with a baby in her arms i will step on the gas harder

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not even amusing in a "Water World" sort of way.

With "Water World" you knew in the first 15min that it sucked. "Water World" was so bad that it crossed a line that only a few bad movies can cross. The line from complete garbage, to unintentionaly hilarious. I watch "Water World" every chance I get, because it makes me laugh.

This movie has such large holes, that it is hard to adhere to any "willful suspension of disbelief", mainly because any plots or subplots just languish.

I am sorry about the ramble. But guys, if you can't call this a bad movie.... I don't know what is. I mean this is really bad and I mean "these guys should be ashamed of themselves bad". If any of us with jobs, went to work Monday morning and performed as awful as this movie... we would all be professional poker players come Tuesday morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the movie's "Fun-Factor"?

Not the plot, the holes or all that languishing, but the pow, zing and zooie?

Nothing there, either?

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this movie was entertaining and took 2 hours of my life that i would have spent talking to you guys...

and now i know that instead of swerving out of the way of a mother with a baby in her arms i will step on the gas harder

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not even amusing in a "Water World" sort of way.

With "Water World" you knew in the first 15min that it sucked. "Water World" was so bad that it crossed a line that only a few bad movies can cross. The line from complete garbage, to unintentionaly hilarious. I watch "Water World" every chance I get, because it makes me laugh.

This movie has such large holes, that it is hard to adhere to any "willful suspension of disbelief", mainly because any plots or subplots just languish.

I am sorry about the ramble. But guys, if you can't call this a bad movie.... I don't know what is. I mean this is really bad and I mean "these guys should be ashamed of themselves bad". If any of us with jobs, went to work Monday morning and performed as awful as this movie... we would all be professional poker players come Tuesday morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the movie's "Fun-Factor"?

Not the plot, the holes or all that languishing, but the pow, zing and zooie?

Nothing there, either?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, the first 20min were fun. After that I kept waiting for it to get to the point.

Let's try it this way. Becuase I don't want to come off as a complete dick. To you guys who liked it... give a paragraph about what you liked.

As I said I am 30, so it is very possible, that the whole thing just lost me.

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this movie was entertaining and took 2 hours of my life that i would have spent talking to you guys...

and now i know that instead of swerving out of the way of a mother with a baby in her arms i will step on the gas harder

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not even amusing in a "Water World" sort of way.

With "Water World" you knew in the first 15min that it sucked. "Water World" was so bad that it crossed a line that only a few bad movies can cross. The line from complete garbage, to unintentionaly hilarious. I watch "Water World" every chance I get, because it makes me laugh.

This movie has such large holes, that it is hard to adhere to any "willful suspension of disbelief", mainly because any plots or subplots just languish.

I am sorry about the ramble. But guys, if you can't call this a bad movie.... I don't know what is. I mean this is really bad and I mean "these guys should be ashamed of themselves bad". If any of us with jobs, went to work Monday morning and performed as awful as this movie... we would all be professional poker players come Tuesday morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the movie's "Fun-Factor"?

Not the plot, the holes or all that languishing, but the pow, zing and zooie?

Nothing there, either?

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I said, the first 20min were fun. After that I kept waiting for it to get to the point.

Let's try it this way. Becuase I don't want to come off as a complete dick. To you guys who liked it... give a paragraph about what you liked.

As I said I am 30, so it is very possible, that the whole thing just lost me.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am 29 years of age:

When the clouds were forming that was awesome.

When the lightning came down and made that crazy sound (sans thunder) that was awesome.

When the first machine came out of the ground and busted that church up that was awesome.

When aforementioned machine then began to vaporize people that was awesome.

One more since I don't want to ruin the entire movie (even though there isn't much of a story)... Timothy Robbins' character made that 20-30 minutes of the movie awesome.

It's all about the Fun-Factor baby.

[kerssens]

I didn't like or hate the movie....but go ahead and mark me down as a moron.

[Cumulonimbus]

Watch it after smoking a blunt. It will scare the living [censored] out of you.

[x2ski]

[ QUOTE ]
Watch it after smoking a blunt. It will scare the living [censored] out of you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Amen brother.

[YourFoxyGrandma]

The movie has lots of flaws and is by no means great, but I was entertained throughout. I'm not sure exactly what you were expecting when you decided to head over to the theatre. Quit being elitist.

[The Yugoslavian]

I pretty much agree...although it wasn't the worst movie ever....there were some haunting scenes and cool special effects/excitement.

It definitely was a pretty big disappointment though.

Yugoslav

[Iron Tigran]

[ QUOTE ]


When the clouds were forming that was awesome.

When the lightning came down and made that crazy sound (sans thunder) that was awesome.

When the first machine came out of the ground and busted that church up that was awesome.

When aforementioned machine then began to vaporize people that was awesome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Those are lame paragraphs.

[-Skeme-]

Cool effects. Decent plot. Poor execution. Running around like idiots for 2 hours = crappy. Abrupt ending with weak explanation = crappy. Overall = a strong 5.8, maybe even a 6.

[trying2learn]

i thought the movie looked great. maybe that's what you meant about special effects being the only good thing. i didn't even mind the end...i wouldn't say i loved the flick, but it didn't make me feel like i wasted my money.

[-Skeme-]

I enjoyed the movie. It has no replay value at all, though.

[whiskeytown]

and you probably thought Independance Day was the bomb, right?

Cause we all know that when you write an alien computer virus with a Mac, it's much cooler then when actual reality comes into play...

RB

[HopeydaFish]

The real morans are those who will watch a bad movie, and then report back that it was the "worst movie ever made"...despite the fact that they've said the exact same thing about movies in the past, and will inevitably say the same thing about movies in the future. There can be only one "worst", and War of the Worlds was not it.

What's even worse is when people will talk about the parts they *did* like, and then still call the movie "The worst ever". IMHO, if you liked parts of it, it's not the worst movie ever made.

Ishtar, anyone? Showgirls? The Road to Wellville? These were all movies that I saw in theatres, that were easily much worse than War of the Worlds.

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel as if my money has been stolen from me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say, you don't happen to own and operate a batting cage, by chance?

[Wintermute]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
this movie was entertaining and took 2 hours of my life that i would have spent talking to you guys...

and now i know that instead of swerving out of the way of a mother with a baby in her arms i will step on the gas harder

[/ QUOTE ]

It was not even amusing in a "Water World" sort of way.

With "Water World" you knew in the first 15min that it sucked. "Water World" was so bad that it crossed a line that only a few bad movies can cross. The line from complete garbage, to unintentionaly hilarious. I watch "Water World" every chance I get, because it makes me laugh.

This movie has such large holes, that it is hard to adhere to any "willful suspension of disbelief", mainly because any plots or subplots just languish.

I am sorry about the ramble. But guys, if you can't call this a bad movie.... I don't know what is. I mean this is really bad and I mean "these guys should be ashamed of themselves bad". If any of us with jobs, went to work Monday morning and performed as awful as this movie... we would all be professional poker players come Tuesday morning.

[/ QUOTE ]

Massive exaggeration. The movie was not unwatchable, you obviously did not leave the theater.

And I know the type of horrible movie you're describing. Moulin Rouge fits the description pretty well. I lasted 15 minutes. Also, The Big Hit is a movie that I couldn't bring myself to watch the 2nd half of, even under favorable circumstances (at friend's apartment, attractive women there, etc)... that movie sucked impossible amounts of cock.

[whiskeytown]

No [censored] way could any of those be as bad as Battlefield Earth - LOL

RB

[swede123]

[ QUOTE ]

And I know the type of horrible movie you're describing. Moulin Rouge fits the description pretty well. I lasted 15 minutes. Also, The Big Hit is a movie that I couldn't bring myself to watch the 2nd half of, even under favorable circumstances (at friend's apartment, attractive women there, etc)... that movie sucked impossible amounts of cock.

[/ QUOTE ]

People will throw the "worst movie evar!!!111!!" flag way way too frequently, in my opinion. There are certainly movies that suck ass, no arguing that. But to say that War of the Worlds is the worst movie ever, that's just a damn joke. Yes, you can argue that it was a monumental waste of hundreds of millions of dollars, or that it was one of Spielberg's weakest movies in recent history. But by calling it the worst movie ever you label yourself as a moron in my book. Same goes for hating Waterworld in this way. Now, The Postman was way worse than Waterworld, and I wouldn't even call it the worst ever. Battlefield Earth, on the other hand, might actually qualify for "worst ever" consideration...

Swede

Cheers,

Swede

[beernutz]

Well said.

[ QUOTE ]
The real morans are those who will watch a bad movie, and then report back that it was the "worst movie ever made"...despite the fact that they've said the exact same thing about movies in the past, and will inevitably say the same thing about movies in the future. There can be only one "worst", and War of the Worlds was not it.

What's even worse is when people will talk about the parts they *did* like, and then still call the movie "The worst ever". IMHO, if you liked parts of it, it's not the worst movie ever made.

Ishtar, anyone? Showgirls? The Road to Wellville? These were all movies that I saw in theatres, that were easily much worse than War of the Worlds.

[/ QUOTE ]

[wayabvpar]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I feel as if my money has been stolen from me.

[/ QUOTE ]

Say, you don't happen to own and operate a batting cage, by chance?

[/ QUOTE ]

Classic.

[West]

No offense to anyone or anything, but I laughed at your moron test line, and then immediately thought of Independence Day. Hey people like movies for different reasons, but Independence Day to me is the epitome of the big dumb "blockbuster" movie. Refresh my memory, didn't they save the world by hacking into the alien computers at the end? Whew, good thing they were IBM compatible.

[swede123]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense to anyone or anything, but I laughed at your moron test line, and then immediately thought of Independence Day. Hey people like movies for different reasons, but Independence Day to me is the epitome of the big dumb "blockbuster" movie. Refresh my memory, didn't they save the world by hacking into the alien computers at the end? Whew, good thing they were IBM compatible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually Jeff Goldblum used a Mac (prominently displayed at any possible opportunity, along with about fifteen other brands) to hack and upload a virus into the alien computer.

Swede

[miajag81]

[ QUOTE ]
No offense to anyone or anything, but I laughed at your moron test line, and then immediately thought of Independence Day. Hey people like movies for different reasons, but Independence Day to me is the epitome of the big dumb "blockbuster" movie. Refresh my memory, didn't they save the world by hacking into the alien computers at the end? Whew, good thing they were IBM compatible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Actually, it was a Mac. Duhh.....

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I've heard that the writing is actually well done, and despite the numerous plot holes and Spielberg-esque absurdities it can be enjoyable.

~D

[/ QUOTE ]

There is no plot. If there were only holes in the plot, the movie may have been enjoyable.

As for writing.... the writing for the las "Star Wars" movie was ten times better, and I am not exagerating.

[/ QUOTE ]
There is no plot? what the hell are you talking about, do you know what a plot is? ALIEN INVASION!! dumbass, and Speilberg didn't write it, it was written by HG Wells in 1897, maybe you can blame the crappy plot on that, loser.

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
The real morans are those who will watch a bad movie, and then report back that it was the "worst movie ever made"...despite the fact that they've said the exact same thing about movies in the past, and will inevitably say the same thing about movies in the future. There can be only one "worst"...

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously going off on a tangent, but your logically is so horrible that I have to say something.

So if there were a definitive metric to measure the quality of a movie, and newly released MovieA received the lowest score in the history of film, I could say "Worst movie ever," yes? Then a year later MovieB received an even lower rating, setting the new all-time low, and I again said "Worst movie ever." Were either of those statements false? There's nothing necessarily incorrect about saying "Worst movie ever" about multiple films over time. Just because you've said it before doesn't make that instance or any past instances of saying it untrue, nor does the fact that you may say it again in the future.

GoT

[West]

I stand corrected /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[wacki]

Haha, nice posts.

[HopeydaFish]

Yes, this is very true. However, in this instance, I don't think the OP went through a complicated rating system when he arrived at the conclusion that War of the Worlds is the "worst movie ever". He didn't like the movie, and used the strongest possible hyperbole to get his point across. Anyone who refers to "War of the Worlds" as the current title-holder of "Worst Movie Ever" is obviously not using any sort of rational metric. Keep in mind that he didn't say "I think that it is the worst movie", he said "This *is* the worst movie", which implies that he believes that this is fact and not just his opinion.

There are plenty of worse movies that have come out in recent memory. How about Gigli? How about Catwoman? How about Surviving Christmas? How about "White Chicks"? How about "Alexander"? Some people may argue that some of those movies were better than War of the Worlds, but I doubt that anybody (save the OP, perhaps) would argue that each and everyone one of those movies is better.

[Claunchy]

Jeez, what a hyperbole nazi.

[GuyOnTilt]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think the OP went through a complicated rating system when he arrived at the conclusion that War of the Worlds is the "worst movie ever".

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course he didn't use a definitive metric to come to the conclusion that War of the Worlds was the worst movie ever. That wasn't my point and it wasn't yours either. Yours was, "There can be only one 'worst', and War of the Worlds was not it," which is clearly a horribly illogical statement. My point was not that the movie in question is, in fact, the worst movie ever; it was that you suck at thinking logically.

[ QUOTE ]
He didn't like the movie, and used the strongest possible hyperbole to get his point across.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like you said, it's hyperbole. Of course he exaggerated; that's what hyperbole is.

[ QUOTE ]
Keep in mind that he didn't say "I think that it is the worst movie", he said "This *is* the worst movie", which implies that he believes that this is fact and not just his opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh huh. Right. So, I really like ginger ale, so much so that I could say, "Ginger ale tastes amazingly good," and feel very confident about that statement, despite the fact that I know not everybody would agree. Do you want to try and convince me and everybody else who uses similar phrasing to refer to things they like/dislike that we should all be adding in "I think"? Of course it's only my opinion! That's obviously implied when I state something that's completely subjective. "This is such a good song." "Wow, this steak is amazing." "That girl is definitely the hottest of the three." Are you telling me you don't do that, and furthermore that you think you're justified in telling anybody who does that they're "the real morons" for doing so?

Once again you have proven that you suck at thinking logically.

GoT

[beernutz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The real morans are those who will watch a bad movie, and then report back that it was the "worst movie ever made"...despite the fact that they've said the exact same thing about movies in the past, and will inevitably say the same thing about movies in the future. There can be only one "worst"...

[/ QUOTE ]

Obviously going off on a tangent, but your logically is so horrible that I have to say something.

So if there were a definitive metric to measure the quality of a movie, and newly released MovieA received the lowest score in the history of film, I could say "Worst movie ever," yes? Then a year later MovieB received an even lower rating, setting the new all-time low, and I again said "Worst movie ever." Were either of those statements false? There's nothing necessarily incorrect about saying "Worst movie ever" about multiple films over time. Just because you've said it before doesn't make that instance or any past instances of saying it untrue, nor does the fact that you may say it again in the future.

GoT

[/ QUOTE ]

His logic doesn't suck. He is saying, at least in my interpretation, that there are people who repeatedly assign the label 'worst ever' to things without evaluating each new assignment against the other possible choices/offerings for that label. I don't believe he was saying that 'worst ever' can't be assigned multiple times, only that to assign it without an adequate (or even cursory) assessment of other candidates for the moniker is incorrect.