Jeanskynebu
the audience applauded
AniInterview
Sorry, this movie sucks
Glimmerubro
It is not deep, but it is fun to watch. It does have a bit more of an edge to it than other similar films.
daniele-iannarelli
What a travesty!!!I looked forward to watching this, only to find that my valuable relaxation time was wasted!It was a nice idea, badly - soooo badly - executed!A mismatch, hotchpotch, in fact *mess* of old stock footage cuts, old movies depicting the turn of the century (I actually saw Olivia De Havilland at one point!), and awful editing with terrible filters... all clumsily and amateurishly put together.Except for one actress (Darlene Sellers) the acting was terrible, with the *MOST PHONEY British accents I've EVER heard on film*!The lead 'actor' (the old guy with *dubious* Bell's Palsy) really irritated me no end! He was obviously American, trying to put on a British accent... *and* failing miserably with his underlying twang!Overall, an absolute exercise in bad production, bad direction, bad editing and even worse acting!I'd realistically award this somewhere between a 2-2.5. However, the phoney accents and the old guy with the phoney Bell's Palsy... reduced this, for me, to a 1/10.
Andariel Halo
Seeing this title in my Amazon Prime suggestions I jumped right away at giving it a shot. The idea of a mockumentary telling of the War between the Planets as a real event struck me as utter genius and gold. I was wondering if it would be something like World War Z (the book), as an "oral history" in the form of interviews with survivors after the fact in a world irrevocably changed by the events, or perhaps some manner of Alternate 1960s in which Earth has assimilated Martian technology and greatly advanced over the century far more than in reality, or perhaps even some manner of post-apocalyptic telling in a world dominated or partly destroyed by Martians using one of the last remaining video cameras.
I appear to have gotten far ahead of myself in that regard, as what I got instead was a very safe re-telling of the actual novel War of the Worlds, almost completely by the book in the form of an uncovered 1965 interview with the last remaining survivor of the "war" itself.
Given that it follows the book very strictly, there is little room to indulge in historical what-ifs, given that the "war" only lasts a few days/weeks before the Martians succumb to Earthborn illness and bacteria. This rather disappointed me, as I felt that so much more could have been done with the story. About the only thing new with this version is the framing device of a documentary, and nothing more.
Not only is this an immense letdown, but it betrays what you begin to suspect during much of the prologue exposition and the interview itself, and which is painfully revealed in a postlude claiming that Bertie Wells, after surviving the War of the Worlds, went to America and became a war correspondent and served...... in World War I.
So despite the literally species-changing event of an interplanetary invasion, one which has resulted in tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths, the destruction of multiple English towns and cities, and the remains of Martian technology left behind which could conceivably change all of human civilization unlike anything that had preceded it, far beyond that of even internal combustion, electricity, or the radio...... despite all that, Human history continues along basically the exact same path, with a World War I around the same time as real history, and the mere phrasing of it as World War "I" implying a World War II as well.
This was perhaps the biggest disappointment of the film.
Despite that, it was an interesting ride for what it was, and while a lot of the footage relied on documentary-standard re-enactments, most of the "actual footage" is sufficiently realistic looking, while used sparingly enough so as not to oversaturate the piece.
killb-94
Before starting this review, I have one thing to say... STOP BASHING Steven Spielberg's 2005 adaptation!!! It is not a bad movie! It's good! Sure, the way the aliens come to Earth is odd and the two kids are annoying, but the acting is good, especially Tom Cruise and Tim Robbins' performances, and it does more justice to the book than the old one does! It has actually as many flaws as the 1953 has, flaws I'm shocked some people never notice, like the strings that hold the war machines, the characters being undeveloped (in the 2005 film Ray goes through a character development unlike them) and the "explaination" of why the martians wanted to invade Earth is flawed compared to the one in the book which made a lot more sense! Bottomline, quit hating the 2005 movie, it's not a bad film or a bad adaptation! Just STOP....And now that we got that elephant out of the room, let's talk about this film. Now THIS is how Timothy Hines should have done his adaptation from the beginning! Something that does justice to the book and it's original on it's own.The way they played like if the War of the Worlds really happened with fictional documents and pictures while being obvious at times at how they made the effect, has a such old-school charm. That's what this movie is: charming. Well, probably to all the fans of the book like myself, but even so I think everyone can enjoy this little gem of a fictional documentary. I also believe it's a VERY good introduction to someone who knows nothing about the source material. The Tripods look really good and I loved how the martians were haunting creatures that are shown rarely, it really sets a good tone. Everything is so fresh, the idea is genuine and never done before... I probably like it more than others because this is the adaptation I would have done if I was a filmmaker. Just with a bigger budget. And this is where we come to the negatives...For the negatives... This movie carries some of the campy nature and stiff performances that Hines has shown in his previous adaptation. The dramatic scenes, filmed in sepia tones to blend in with the historical footage, are clumsily staged and acted, you know, just like in that film. But again, what saves the movie it's its conception and charm.And so I must give this movie a 7/10 It's not perfect, it's not the ultimate adaptation of WOTW, but it's a damn close one in my opinion. Go see it.
proword
As a youngster, I read WOTW and was absolutely enthralled by it. I watched Hines' original movie and reviewed it (not entirely unkindly) on this bulletin board, and in doing so I noted that one of the major flaws of movie versions was to remove the setting of the story from the end of the 19th Century to "the present day" - which was one of the saving graces of Hines' WOTW I - keeping the time and place, in theory at least, of the book. My reasoning was that even as far back as the 1950s, when George Pal filmed the book, modern day man has reached a comfortable acceptance of at least the possibility of life elsewhere than on this planet, but to the average man or women of Wells' day, this idea was totally unthinkable, which, when the modern day reader accepted this, gave rise to an insight into the utter terror that would have been felt when his book was published.In WOTW II, Hines has done a very interesting piece of mental trickery to convince a modern day movie audience that the fear was more than just a simple fear of death - it was the complete overturning of the fabric on the mind. He keeps the viewer in two disparate worlds, that of the 19th Century, while still being addressed by a citizen of the 1960s. Whilst the method has been used before (eg Little Big Man) of using a participant in the events to relay their story directly to the audience, the device of mixing real footage with "re-enactment" is meritorious in this construct.I watched the movie quite happily until I was struck by an unbelievable error which completely spoiled the entire movie, and that was the episode of the Torpedo Ram "Thunder Child" failing to destroy any enemy. In the book (and indeed in Hines' previous film) this event was absolutely crucial to whole of the story, and indeed much of Wells other literature. Firstly, this gave the reader a burst of hope (as also in the destruction of Sheperton) by showing that as merciless and technologically advanced as the Martians were, they were nevertheless still capable of being destroyed.Secondly, in the book the ship destroyed two of the Martian fighting machines, once by ramming, and the second as the ship exploded, in a battle of human machine versus Martian machine - the humans and the Martians were present, but invisible, as the mechanical warfare was fought.Wells is credited with forecasting aerial warfare, the atomic bomb and armoured fighting vehicles ("The Land Ironclads"). He predicted the outbreak of WWII to within a year ("Shape of Things to Come"). In fact, having re-read "The Land Ironclads" after I finished WOTW II, I was astounded to see that when Wells describes how the "soldiers" in the tanks were killing their infantry opponents, they were within an enclosed space with a projected image of the battlefield, and targeted their victim by the seemingly simple action of using a device like engineers dividers and pushing an electric button. If the shot missed, the operator moved his device, re-aimed and fired again. Sounds remarkably similar to robot warfare of today with operators in remote locations operating drone aircraft to destroy their targets.So in removing the clash of the mechanical Titans in WOTW II, Hines has completely stripped much of Wells' vision of its power by doing what George Pal did (and presumably other film makers, but I've not watched any other versions) and that was to make the Martians supremely indestructible (except for the Shepperton action), thus removing any semblance of hope. "If only the humans could have worked together just a little bit more ... they just might have brought it off." But alas they stumbled almost within reach of the final goal.Apart from that one huge failure, I actually enjoyed the movie, modestly, and think it at least as good as WOTW I, and probably better.
