worst. movie. ever.

[shoot ur shot]

I see your points Hoya and did pick up on a few of those plotholes but I guess I didn't go in expecting the same things out of the movie as you did. I really didn't expect a goof film at all. I thought there might be a chance since I do actually like AI and Catch Me if You Can, but all I really asked from this movie was at least 30-45 minutes of great action and for the most part it delivered but definitely didn't go the whole way or even close really. I agree that the movie is not an optimistic film, but I don't know about nihilistic. This sounds dumb but Spielberg does seem to share a sort of bleak view on humanity in hi films that's almost Kubrick-esque, but he just always wimps out towards the end of all his movies. He's gotten a lot better in the past few years about his imagery but one thing he will never understand in filmmaking is ambiguity.
 
 I also got the impression while watching this movie that Spielberg didn't even want to make a movie about aliens but was more interested in making a movie about his father (Spielberg grew up without a father.) The whole story seems to be centered around the relationship between the boy and his dad. That's why I think this movie ultimately fails as being a convincing horror/sci-fi flick and why I think audiences will not make this the #1 film of the summer. It's almost as if Speilberg just threw in all that shit with the aliens to make his company happy.

[HoyaSaxa03]

Originally posted by shoot ur shot:
  I agree that the movie is not an optimistic film, but I don't know about nihilistic. This sounds dumb but Spielberg does seem to share a sort of bleak view on humanity in hi films that's almost Kubrick-esque, but he just always wimps out towards the end of all his movies. He's gotten a lot better in the past few years about his imagery but one thing he will never understand in filmmaking is ambiguity.

very true about the endings, he's a sucker for hollywood endings, and this one was just horrible ... and his imagery is just smack-you-over-the-head, all the time
 
 

Originally posted by shoot ur shot:
  I also got the impression while watching this movie that Spielberg didn't even want to make a movie about aliens but was more interested in making a movie about his father (Spielberg grew up without a father.) The whole story seems to be centered around the relationship between the boy and his dad.

well, that's the constant knock on spielberg, but i'm not sure if this movie is as blatant in the whole father-son thing as some of his others ... i read somewhere that 'the day after tomorrow' flopped because it was too macro, and it was good to take a micro approach here ... i completely disagree, i think the macro-perspective would have been infinitely more interesting in this movie, especially with the ham-fisted approach to the characters and flimsy/retarded plot.

Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
  the great part about independence day was that it was winking at you  

I once saw a porno flick that was winking at you.

[rfredley]

I read somewhere that Spielberg wanted to make a micro movie, to change the POV completely on this genre of movie and keep it from a single perspective the entire time.  I think he did that.  Unfortunately it left the movie a bit flat.
 
 It starts off big and very cool.  It definitely has its moments.  But I'll say it again, he needs an editor.
 
 Cut the majority of the crap with Robbins, re-order the scenes a bit, and kill the ending, and the movie ain't too bad.
 
 Robbins was so horribly miscast, it isn't even funny.  He can't play blue collar to save his life.  
 
 Cruise didn't bother or help.
 
 My opinion: see the first hour or so, and then go sneak into another movie starting in the same theater.

[Chip Chanko]

I just got back from seeing it. I think that anyone who's disappointed hasn't read the book or seen the 1953 version. Spielberg pretty much remained true to both of them. The ending was anti-climactic becuase the story is anti-climactic.
 
 Don't ask me why it looked like his wife and her family were just getting done with their thanksgiving dinner at the end, though. Why wasn't their street all destroyed?? Did they even know what was going on? That's what I want to know.
 
 In my opinion, Garden State was much worse.

[Shadrach]

All the Spielberg hating here is sad. I mean you have a director who is largely responsible for much of what big-budget films have become. I mean if you want to go see some low-budget indie film all shot in one room with only two actors, bad sound and shaky cinematography fine, but Spielberg doesn't make those kinds of movies. He makes movies where you can sit in a dark theater for two hours and be entertained. The fact is that if you watch the movie and allow yourself to get caught up visually you will see him paying tribute to sci-fi flicks from the 50's. This movie was no different than Tarentino paying homage to the martial arts movies of the 70's when he made Kill Bill. Anyone who goes into a movie like "War of the Worlds" expecting amazing acting and a realistic plot is just dumb. If you want great acting go watch "The Color Purple", if you want a realistic plot check out "Catch Me If You Can", both Spielberg films. If you just want to get lost and be entertained watch "E.T.", "Jurassic Park", "Jaws" or "War of the Worlds".

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by Shadrach:
  All the Spielberg hating here is sad. I mean you have a director who is largely responsible for much of what big-budget films have become.

shouldnt he be hated for that
 
   

Originally posted by Shadrach:
  I mean if you want to go see some low-budget indie film all shot in one room with only two actors, bad sound and shaky cinematography fine

what a fucking sad comment, is that what you think the alternative to big budget movies is, hope you enjoyed Cinderella man, boy that Ron Howard sure can direct
 
   

Originally posted by Shadrach:
 He makes movies where you can sit in a dark theater for two hours and be entertained. The fact is that if you watch the movie and allow yourself to get caught up visually you will see him paying tribute to sci-fi flicks from the 50's. This movie was no different than Tarentino paying homage to the martial arts movies of the 70's when he made Kill Bill. Anyone who goes into a movie like "War of the Worlds" expecting amazing acting and a realistic plot is just dumb. If you want great acting go watch "The Color Purple", if you want a realistic plot check out "Catch Me If You Can", both Spielberg films. If you just want to get lost and be entertained watch "E.T.", "Jurassic Park", "Jaws" or "War of the Worlds".

I have not seen War of the Worlds, but the fact is Spielberg has made a series of movies with horrible endings.  Even for blockbusters.  So I think it is fair to say he is off his game from when he was making most of his classic blockbusters.  The only recent movie of his that I thought was any good was AI, and even that lasted about a half hour too long.

[kosmo vinyl]

so wait can i like "cinderella man" or does that blow any cred gained by occasionally going to see a film at a landmark theatre... really enjoyed the movie even got caught up in the moment and cheered at point during one of the fights.  while they took liberties with how they portrayed the evil boxer, he wasn't a boastful womanizer in real life.  the movie was certainly better then the pile of horse dung called "seabiscuit" where the real life story was totally glossed over to make it a hollywood story.

[kurosawa-b/w]

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. As shoot ur shot said, you can't go into it expecting high art. It's a big summer flick. The special effects are fantastic and the story is engaging. I was entertained and that's what I was looking for.

[ratioci nation]

Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
  so wait can i like "cinderella man" or does that blow any cred gained by occasionally going to see a film at a landmark theatre...

you can like it, but that just means you like ron howard movies, thats up to you
 
 obviously i dont care if you like ron howard movies or not, I just reserve the right to poke fun

[Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer]

I thought Ron Howard was great in Happy Days. He did stuff AFTER that?

[Dr. Anton Phibes]

That would be "Signs" correct?? You did say worst movie ever.........

[markie]

This thread is a cellebration of the fallacy of the excluded middle.
 
 Remember long ago when movies with large budgets were actually good, won oscars, stood the test of time? Something has gone horribly wrong in the last ten or so years. It is amazing to me that no one has noticed that it correlates with th the ascendance of Ron Howard as a director.

[kosmo vinyl]

don't you think it has more to do with the likes of jerry bruckheimer and his now dead partner don simpson, joel silver,and james cameron spending scads of money on special effects, car crashes, etc. verses creating compeling stories.  titanic was quite possibly the worst movie ever made was.. it really necessary to smash thousands of dollars of specially made china for a paper thin storyline?  that of course is followed by Matrix 2 and 3, the fast and the furious, XXX, King Arthur, etc, etc, etc.
 
 some of ron howards movies will stand the test of time, apollo 13, a beautiful mind, and the new boxing movies.  sure he's had clunkers but so has george "marketing" lucas

[markie]

Originally posted by kosmo vinyl:
  some of ron howards movies will stand the test of time, apollo 13, a beautiful mind, and the new boxing movies.  

No, they are instantly forgettable pap.