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

[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.