taa455

You pick THAT as a serious flaw? I thought it portrayed well that people in their panic clearly weren't thinking logically (essentially making themselves one collective sitting duck). It was absolute chaos when faced with the horror of the tripods.

SteelWill

Why would anyone assume the ferry would still be running? And why the heck was it? The whole bit was a contrived plot device just to have the ferry scene.

SeekOnce

I don't think it's too farfetched to believe that there would be a few people out there who would put the needs of the many before their own.

And besides, I recall seeing military personnel in that scene. So perhaps their job was to keep the ferry running.

SteelWill

This is conceivable, but why? What makes one side of the river any safer than the other? Why is it important for this thing to still be running? What does Cruises' character know that makes him assume the ferry will still be there? What do all these people know that gets them going to the ferry? What does the military know that makes it important to protect it? I'm not saying that certain answers couldn't make it logical, but if these answers were there the audience was never given them.

It's like the deal with the video camera at the beginning of the movie. When the EMP hits a point is made to show all electronic devices are DOA. Yet a few minutes later we see a working video camera. Yes, it's conceivable that the video camera could still be working, but the audience is given no clue as to why.

This movie is full of little details that either are not explained or flat out just don't make sense. These types of things kill a movie for me. I get hung up on them and it kills any suspension of disbelief.

Mr. Cinema

This and King Kong have to be the 2 most nitpicked movies of 2005.

taa455

Could be that it was the established emergency evacuation route. They were near the coast and most coastal areas have an evac route. The military was likely charged with facilitating the evacuation, keeping order, etc.

You must not enjoy many movies with those high standards. No movie is going to get every little detail right or make sure the audience is explained everything.

Mr. Cinema

I definitely prefer movies that don't spell out every detail or explain everything.

riley_dude

Like how the Son of Tom Cruise just happens to survive and be in one piece in the end.

JimRochester

I didn't like it because the boots the soldiers were wearing were the wrong shade of brown and didn't have the correct number of eyelets. That is a travesty of filmmaking

Terrell

I enjoyed this film, but it does have so many leaps in logic that you just have to roll your eyes. The reason it bugged me a bit is because Steven doesn't usually screw up with reasoning that often. But things like a jumbo jet crashes in his ex-wife's cul-de-sac and obliterates everything, but doesn't even scratch their car and it conveniently leaves a little road for them to drive out.

SteelWill

Look, there are two unforgivable sins for me in a movie. One is over-explaning things, and the other is not explaining things enough. There is a happy medium that many movies seem to have no problem staying in. This movie is just not one of them.

resinrats

Simple reason people wanted to go across the river. They knew the Tripods were behind them (to the west) so they wanted to get as far away as possible (in this case, going east). So the ferry might have been the closest way to get across the river. Bridges might be too far away.

Mopower

I can't believe people are still bitching about this movie.

Barney1234

has now topped my "worst movie" list.

omg...

StuddThunders

I thought it was all right. The ending was bogus. Dakota Fanning was annoying. And I hated his son so I was glad to see him walk off into the battlefield. Tim Robbins bugged me, too.

But I thought there were some cool things in it, especially the church moving when the aliens emerge. A few other cool set pieces. I'd give it a C.

"Domino" holds the distinction of the movie I hate the most at this moment.

Obey The D

I thought it was so-so, but it has to be one of the worst dvd transfers I've seen.

DoubleDownAgain

I actually liked it. But it was probably due to low expectations.



I thought the special effects were great. Dakota didn't bug me that much, I thought Tom was hard to watch though.

I wouldn't say it was a great film, but worth seeing IMO.

Michael Corvin

Kudos to finding the search button.

Giles

closing in one... two.... three...

Ketamine

This thread has now topped my "worst thread" list.

omg...

I know thread crap but come on.

Mr. Cinema

Curious....what is your top 10 best of 2005? How many movies did you see in 2005?

Mopower

That's ok. There are a lot of people that aren't smart enough to like it.

Giles

as I have noted before, I didn't think it was a complete disaster, but as a Steven Spielberg film I thought it was a A for special effects and tension, a D for 'acting' (or lackthereof).

Giles

oh ouch!

Lara Means

1) War of the Worlds is a really good movie.
2) There are already several threads concerning this movie.
3) Please use the search function.

You are completely wrong about this.