533 of 572 people found the following review helpful:
4.0 out of 5 stars
Cheaply made, but still quite good., June 10, 2005
This review is from: H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (DVD)
Pendragon Pictures' new film "H G Wells' War of the Worlds", the first faithful adaptation of the original novel, has been in development for about 5 years. A theatrical release was intended for earlier this year (March, 2005) but this never happened. The DVD was rushed out to coincide with the release of Spielberg's film, which hits theatres June 29.
I liked this film, with certain reservations.
How faithful is the adaptation? It's not quite 100% faithful to Wells' book, but 90 - 95% faithful is good enough for me. At least several scenes were totally new, such as Ogilvy the astronomer's confrontation with a farmer, and the unnamed writer/narrator awkwardly having tea with his cousin. But on the whole, this film follows the book very closely -- certainly much more than the classic 1953 version by George Pal.
Its greatest fault is that it was obviously made on a very cheap budget. The majority of it seems to have been shot blue-screen and composited with digitally rendered backgrounds. This is particularly annoying during most of the interior shots, and scenes of crowded city streets. The overviews of 1898 London look like something from a video game. Numerous scenes in horse-carriages were faked -- I guess they couldn't afford to rent a horse. The only scenes shot for "real" seem to be those in open fields or forests.
But within those budget restrictions, they managed to do quite a lot. Artistically, the film looks right. The Martians and their tripods are quite well done, and very true to Wells' descriptions. I was particularly impressed with the heat ray. Although the Thunder Child sequence, which should have been one of the film's highlights, is very disappointing. It's a great shame that they couldn't afford more actual sets, or better quality animation.
The acting and direction won't win any Oscars. For the most part, they are competent, not bad, but not outstanding. The music is quite good also, though not on a par with any of the major Hollywood composers.
I'm actually glad this didn't get a theatrical release, because the budget limitation would have made it look much worse on a big screen. As it stands, I would rate this similarly to a BBC-TV adaptation of classic literature.
A few nitpicks: Most of the scenes are presented with various colored filters (mostly red). This may have been an artistic choice, but it is used very inconsistently, and seems more like a sloppy job of mastering the DVD. And the writer/narrator's obviously fake moustache mutates from scene to scene.
Bottom line -- Is it worth seeing?
If you can look past the technical and budgetary limitations, and get into the story, I think you will enjoy this, especially if you've actually read the original H G Wells novel. And for only 10 bucks, you shouldn't feel cheated. If, however, you are easily put off by cheap production values, you'd best pass on this (unless you're a MST3K fan). Be warned, however that the film runs a full 3 hours, so I don't recommend watching it all in one sitting.
BTW: An entirely different version of War of the Worlds, aka "INVASION", is due on DVD June 28. This was also made on a budget, but is updated to the present day like the Spielberg film. And to top it off, Jeff Wayne is making an animated film of his best-selling album from 1978, but that won't be out until 2007.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
478 of 540 people found the following review helpful:
5.0 out of 5 stars
Remember Folks, This is ONLY A MOVIE, A MOVIE ... ..., June 9, 2005
This review is from: H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (DVD)
Let me first state that I do not in any way represent Pendragon
Pictures. I happened to enjoy this version of H.G.Wells' The War of the Worlds simply because Tim Hines chose to go back to the original source material found in the book. The aliens looked cool in a Jim Danforth style kinda way. The cinemaphotography was even interesting. Tim Hines photographed the whole film to look like a pre-World War 2 newsreel documentary colorized, complete with bits of jerkiness of movements. Just like the book, the film is set in 1898.
I really feel sorry for all the sour pusses out there spoiled rotten by mega budgets, heavy doses of CGI and thin storytelling. Tim Hines' War of the Worlds is very cool. Check it out.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
37 of 39 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
TERRIBLE, August 3, 2005
This review is from: H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds (DVD)
"He's not going to beat up on a movie that tries so hard to be true to the original novel, is he?"
Yes he is.
Now and then one comes across a movie so badly put together that one comes away astonished that those who made it even bothered. This is one of them.
It is possible to make a movie like this on a shoestring budget. But it is not possible to fall back on really terrible acting and special effects so corny they make cartoons look realistic. Even the main character's mustache looks fake! It sits differently in different scenes.
The woman who plays his wife couldn't act to save her life; the maid was in danger of her eyebrows staying permanently raised; the soldier separated from his unit was so unbelievable that I wanted to send him back to Horsell Common to achieve skeletonhood with the rest of them. Even the extras were terrible! They gaze up at the sky, where cgi effects so poor they are laughable supposedly represent the oncoming Martian war machines, and half the crowd doesn't even look scared. They suddenly start running, obviously cued to do so, some half-smiling, others trying not to laugh as they pretend to be frightened.
This film is a catastrophe. You don't have to have a Spielberg budget to make a decent film. People do it all the time with hand-held video cameras. There is simply no defensible reason to produce a picture this sloppy. The bad editing mentioned by previous reviewers gives the impression that nobody really gave a damn if the sky looks one way from one camera angle--bright--and dark and rainy from another. Did the film even have an editor? I can't be bothered to find out. H. G. Wells would have thanked the makers for the impulse toward fidelity, and then gone home and vomited.
As much as I hate to recommend a Tom Cruise film, go see Spielberg's version. It's much more frightening--in the deliberate sense, that is.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Yes
No
![[Start the discussion]](http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/communities/discussion_boards/start-new-discussion-sec._V192250339_.gif){kind=small}
