Andy120290
Full Member
The Invasion begins.
Posts: 55
|
Post by Andy120290 on Jan 30, 2007 2:10:46 GMT
I was just on the IMDB looking up War of the Worlds when I noticed something interesting. Both the Asylum version and Pendragon version have a rating of only 2.8 out of 10. That may seem right for Pendragon, but I always thought that Asylum's was better. Surely Asylum deserves a rating higher than 2.8. At least something higher than Pendragon.
|
|
|
|
Post by EvilNerfherder on Jan 30, 2007 13:21:46 GMT
Asylum's is miles better. End of.  |
|
|
|
Post by Ashe Raven on Jan 30, 2007 14:03:42 GMT
And they kept us informed, directly, that counts for a lot more
|
|
|
|
Post by richardburton on Jan 30, 2007 15:33:16 GMT
Well, I've just gone and cast a healthy vote in favour of it!
|
|
|
|
Post by Anim8tr on Jan 30, 2007 22:23:45 GMT
Asylum's is miles better. End of. Agreed. And consider what director David Latt faced. The adversity of a minuscule budget with the hype of two similar movies of the same title. Both sold with bigger and better promises. A commendable movie and director who's hand I'd gladly shake. Anyday. |
|
|
|
Post by Lensman on Jan 30, 2007 22:44:45 GMT
A rating of 2.8 for Pendragon's film is *not* appropriate for what many post-ers have called "the worst film of all time" or "Plan 9 from Mars" or compared it to Ed Wood's work.
Keep in mind that some IMDb.com reviewers' ratings are not based on how "good" a film is, but how entertaining they found it. So they may give a movie a high rating if they think it's "so bad it's good".
Some of the IMDb.com ratings may be from Pendragon -shells- shills-- it's been awhile since I looked at their reviews. If so, that would certainly push the rating up undeservedly.
As far as actually comparing the two films: I found the Asylum production unmemorable, but certainly not laughably inept, as Pendragon's was.
|
|
|
|
Post by RustiSwordz on Jan 31, 2007 7:39:38 GMT
I#d like to have seen latt's version with a Spielberg budget.
|
|
