2006-07-23 16:54:18 · 6 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
The original of course-its a classic and much scarier!
2006-07-23 16:57:41 · answer #1 · answered by SidTheKid 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In most cases the original is better than the 'copy'.
But Spielberg's version is by no means a copy of the 1950s film (which is worse than the H.H. Wells but still a great movie). He's made something completely different: I love the way he avoids disaster movie stereotypes and his 'unsentimentally'. This is one of the most underrated movies of the last years.
And, by the way, I can't stand Tom Cruise! He seems to be a miscast - but maybe this film needs an actor who can't act. Hitchcock also did this!
2006-07-24 05:52:58 · answer #2 · answered by msmiligan 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The original of any item is always the best, and so true in this case. Better acting, directing, and more human, and a more understandable movie.
The second one, lacked heart. You didn't find yourself, rooting for the humans, in the film.
I think, that when you get enough answers, from those who have seen both, the original will win, hands down.
2006-07-23 18:50:32 · answer #3 · answered by johnb693 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the original
2006-07-23 17:19:20 · answer #4 · answered by Pirate 4 Life 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The original because it didn't have Tom Cruise in it. Weren't those Scientologist ships in the movie?
2006-07-23 16:59:05 · answer #5 · answered by mr.mister 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
both sucked
2006-07-23 17:22:14 · answer #6 · answered by A 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋