War of the Worlds vs. The War of the Worlds

2 comments

2 comments

The original, by far.

you know what, I actually think this is one of those rare cases where the remake is better than the original. But that's just my opinion, I understand not many would agree with me there.

Byron Haskin's War of the Worlds is far better than Steven Spielberg's War of the Worlds. Spielberg's version is a big, clunky mess that has some good special effects but does not have the emotion and the tension that Haskin's version has. Plus, Haskin's UFOs are the best UFOs ever put on film.

Spielberg's War of the Worlds is far more precise, imaginative, horrifying, suspenseful and human with a couple of sequences that show the director in top form. The original is one of the better science fiction films of its time but is permeated by religious sentimentality, stock characters played by uncharacteristic actors; and the aliens look silly except for their arms. Also, when a movie is based on a book it's not a remake but an adaptation.

the remake is visual and emotional some of the best and scary scenes in sci-fi in the last 10 years its smart while the original is clever and unique with standout effects for its time Cruise and Spielberg were in top form with War of Worlds the hate is from those who havnt seen it or understand and people who Hate Cruise on a personal level but you should never take that into account!