Customer Reviews

H.G. Wells' The War of the Worlds

5 star:		(202)
4 star:		(174)
3 star:		(72)
2 star:		(43)
1 star:		(231)

 

 

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.

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.

"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.

All in all this is a fair DVD outing if you feel so inclined. I have read the message boards on IMDB and yes, the acting is sub par at best. The story is faithful to the book about 90% of the time and the CGI is, at best, like that of a first year art student. Was that supposed to be a cow? The alian tripods are a great rendering. Concerning teh CGI, we are so spoiled by state of the art effects that when something doesn't meet or exceed our expectations we become critical. This might have been due to budgetary restraints.

When it comes to the "style" the film was made (cinematography), to me, that was ingenious. It was almost like seeing some of the old tinted Victorian stereo-opticon(?)cards and "magic lanterns" of the same time period come alive. The tintings used were in stark contrast to say the normal color of whatever it would be in nature. (ex. red bush (bright reds), cool blues, sickly greens. We all forget that "Technicolor", either two (2) strip or three (3)strip was not true color. That's what made them so colorful and phony looking. Watch Dario Argento's "Suspiria" for one of the last and greatest uses of the three (3)strip process. Very surreal!

The jerky picture style in some areas reflects that of the early silent movies from the time. Anyone here ever heard of George Melies? His early films were similar to the style used.

Getting to the movie (acting, etc). Yes the acting IS 3rd rate at best but watchable for one viewing - especially the priest -- very "Plan 9". Most reactions are far too broad. The story itself, as I said, does go by the book almost all the time.

Maybe more money, a real studio backing it and better direction could have improved on the movie. I saw all the negatives about Mr. Hines (aka "Timbo") on the IMDB along with these on Amazon and, well, 'nuf said. Never met the guy but he had a good idea. It's too bad the studios could not back his vision and given us a better product.

With the near release of the Spielberg version of "War of the Worlds" I thought I would take a chance, bought it and really do not regret it. If asked would I sit through another viewing, well, if I will-I will, but I'm in no hurry. I will in the future. Beautiful visuals, throughout!! Yes it was not a great film, but I have seen much worse and done by major studios. "Plan 9 from Outer Space"? Not at all.

I have just lost three hours of my life to this travesty, and I can honestly say I feel violated. I had read the reviews and heard the warnings, and I thought I was prepared for anything - at best I thought, a faithful (if misguided) attempt at an original adaptation; at worst, a so-good-it's-bad "Plan 9" for the new millennium. So when I managed to pick up a copy in Walmart while in Florida and brought it back to the UK, I joked to my friends "Prepare for the worst movie ever made!"

Oh, cruel Karma.

There is absolutely NOTHING to recommend this film. The "special" effects look like the work of a first year design student using a Spectrum ZX81. The acting is terrible, the accents are WORSE than terrible (one artillery mans' accent seems to take us on a tour of the British Isles, from Scotland to Wales via Northern Ireland), the dialogue is stilted, the editing is non-existent, the production values prove that no expense has been gone to. Words really cannot describe how bad this movie is; from the Union Flag flying from the horribly CGI'd Thunderchild (the Royal Navy flies the White Ensign, NOT the Union flag) to the woodworm ridden acting, this is quite simply a crime against film making.

When you consider some of the literally-zero-budget fan films that are available on the 'net (the Star Wars short "Troops" for example), the whole "we're enthusiastic amateurs" argument goes right out of the window. And if you believe an interview with Hines on the Pendragon website, this film had an 8 figure budget! I can only assume that dodgy facial hair does not come cheap in the US. Maybe the problem is that Hines & co didn't seem to bother with a screenplay, and just lifted the text straight out of the book. Characters and extras spout chunks of text verbatim without trying to convey the feelings behind the words. Just about the ONLY person who even comes close to giving a decent performance is Darlene Sellers, the ex-soft porn actress.

Now I know there are people out there who probably did like this film, but a lot of the positive reviews on this board seem HIGHLY suspect to me, especially the ones that talk about the "Epic, state-of-the-art special effects" and the "Oscar-winning acting". It's not my place to point fingers, but in my opinion I would be very wary of the reviews that paint this film as some kind of cinematic Tour de Force.

My advice? Pray like crazy that Jeff Wayne's 2007 animated movie doesn't get screwed up, and go watch the Spielberg version. It may not be true to the text of the book, but I can say this; As a lifelong HG Wells fan (and Englishman as well) Speilbergs film IS true to the Spirit of the book. Maybe customs were wrong to let me carry this monster into the country, but I will say this: Timothy Hines stole three hours of my life, and I want them back.

I have read all of the previous reviews-as of 6/17/2005-and I am puzzled why some people keep comparing this movie to "Plan 9 from Outer Space." Although both suffer from a limited budget, the source material is quite different. At first the low production value was distracting, as was a number of scenes that needed to be cut, but once the invasion got under way I was emotionally involved all the way to the end.

If you have not seen it, consider this: a large budget does not always ensure a quality film. "Star Wars Episode I" and "Independence Day" both come to mind. In spite of the excellent special effects, neither one had a compelling story; however the original WOTW's plot is so gripping that it has been copied numerous times.

Those of you that fast forwarded after watching a few minutes, missed out on that story that was supported by worthy performances, especially the artillery man who underwent a transformation from fearless solider to harden veteran and then to a man with a deluded sense of reality. I was convinced of his conversion as I had seen it happen to many Vietnam vets.

For the record, I am not affiliated with Pendragon Pictures, but I can relate to their experience. In my youth I was in community theatre which also dealt with limited funds. We made due with what we had and we were hammered because of it, in spite of our hard work. Most of you have never experienced being on public display. If you have then asks yourself these questions. Do you have all the necessary resources to do your job? Can your work stand up to public scrutiny?

I recommend this picture for its effort to capture the essence of the original text. As flaw as it is, no major studio would have undertaken this project without setting the story in contemporary time, casting it with beautiful people, and having at least one sex scene. In other words, the standard Hollywood cookie-cutter production that fails to become quality science fiction.

You've got to laugh at all these rabid nutters saying all the bad reviews are written by Steven Spielberg. Trust me, the guy has nothing to worry about from this practical joke, unless its busting a rib laughing. It's obvious five minutes in this isn't a proper movie, it's all just a big con on the audience. They're trying for something Orson Welles, conning the audience into thinking it's a real movie, but they don't have Welles' smarts. They've got just enough in focus stuff to put together a trailer for this that could look good, but after that it's really, really cheap stuff all the way, like watching a really bad live TV play from the early 70s only with worse effects. By the time you find this out, of course, they've got yer money and you've got egg on you!

Spielberg's film is a long way from his best, but the people who made this turkey on their best day couldn't even hope to be 1/10000th as good a him on his worst. If you want to see a really good version of the film, stick to the old 1953 version, which is better than any of them - and still the closest to the feel of the book!

I love science fiction but this has to be the worst Sci-fi movie I have ever seen. The dialog is poor, the acting is like a black & white silent movie. Stay with the earlier version please....

I've just finished watching this movie, and wanted to say that I actually enjoyed it, though with reservations.
First of all the directing and editing are pathetic, pathetic, pathetic. The composition of scenes and choices of filters and settings are for the most part amatuerish, to be charitable. In this regard I would like to say that those other reviewers who compare Mr. Hines talents to those of Ed Wood are not far from the mark.
Much the same can be said of the special effects, except that there are a few good effects, notably the design of the fighting machines. However the failings in graphics are more forgivable given the movie's limited budget.
What is much harder to forgive is the seeming total lack of planning and basic knowledge of filmmaking methods evident in the crowd scenes (or should I say the same crowd scene seen over and over again). An especially gross example of this lack of skill is the Thunder Child sequence, as other reviewers have pointed out.
The movie none the less deserves some praise simply because it does manage to convey the intensity and serious implications of the novel. It does this for two reasons. One is that it faithfully adheres to the book (with only one small exception that I observed). The other, and perhaps more important, is the marvelous performance delivered by Mr. Piana as the lead. He is totally believable in the role, and manages to carry the movie, despite sometimes completely incompetant performances by the rest of the cast.
I watched the movie in one sitting, and will probably watch it again some day, though I'm not in a hurry to do so. For the price of $9 I paid I feel I got my money's worth.

Without repeating much as the other reviews, this film is a faithful adaption of the Wells novel. It translates and works well with the technically difficult classic with resources the producers had to work with to create an epic 180 minute film, including the budget (10 million, I have heard). For a period piece, it works. However, the film does not fail to entertain despite the spots of rough editing, difficult acting, and SOME lower quality CGI computer effects-not all CGI.

Most people are judging the visuals and that is what people see in any film. That's fair. I bought my 9.00 copy at Walmart.

As a science fiction and horror fan, I have seen every version of Wells there is- from Pal's 1953 manta saucer Martians to Marvel's 1970ish Killraven comic series to book drawings published from early on. Without reservation I say this Pendragon vision of the Tripods in relation to most actual photograph scenes of roaming the countryside, black smoking victims, action of the artillery battles and actual Martians is worth experiencing. The pit scenes of the Martians after the first landing, and the ruins of the house pit in the third (or fourth)later landing, are excellent, as Wells may have envisioned the Handling Machines and Martian interaction with the trapped men. With a project like this, it is difficult to compare to effects of Minority Report, Empire Strikes Back (the Imperial Walkers), or even the 1953 Pal War of the Worlds to the modern Pendragon period piece, with bigger budgets in dollar per year comparison.

I think the decision to use CGI and actual scenes was not well made in 30% of the visual effects of the film.

So IT DOES show the problems of sticking to TOO MUCH CGI to save money, Mr Hines! Therefore the film loses MUCH in the visual experience to me. The TRUE problem really is when the crowd scenes fleeing the English towns are repeated in relation constantly to the fleeing of the narrator's brother with the two woman in the wagon, the obvious fake country homes and buildings are betrayed. The producers should have flown to England and just shot them for real with 50 actors and real wagon. Most of these CGI scenes LOOK like they were shot in a greenscreen studio, showing the problem of using this medium for cutting costs. It does not work well at all and loses the viewers focus. The Thunderchild is another example. They should have used a frigate in Seattle with sailors and firing gun closeups rather than a total CGI Thunderchild with no crew shots, bridge shots, ect, as I expected. That scene suffers, especially when the actors are sitting on a bench on the ferry that is an obvious green screen too. The London invasion, when the Martians are attacking, are not good and lose everything for those scenes because it LOOKS like a video game and greenscreen people running. TOO MANY SCENES WERE CGI'D rather than shot with real photographs or sets to save money. That is what lost me in the Pendragon production.

To demonstrate this, imagine if PAL had been able to use CGI for big crown scenes on low budget. Or Cleopatra had used CGI to show the sea battle with Richard Burton swinging at air across CGI ships on low budget. Or Lord of the Rings had low budget CGI armies battle on low budget CGI fields. It would not work. This is where the Pendragon epic fell for me-they used too much CGI in wrong places to keep the movie flowing without me saying-"wait, that CGI rendered background in relation to those characters looks wrong for that angle!" And so on. It works on types of films like Alien, close quartered shots, but not these kind.

Regular people can equate with what is a real background against what is a wrong one.

The long distance army formation shots were great but were shown briefly. This CGI worked. It was mixed with real backgrounds.

Simply put, in the most Tripod and Handling Machine cases, the CGI Martian Machines mixed with real photos work really well, with the exception of the pit scenes-NOW THAT WORKED IN A WOW WAY- but the total CGI rendered scenes in differing yellows, reds, blues and greens that involve real people and places do not seem to click well and interrupted my concentration on the film.

This film could be cut and sold to the networks, no doubt. But it will stand out regardless as a Wells faithful period piece vision that I found as enjoyable as the book. It was worth my $10.00. I think Wells would be so happily running to Woking to let everyone know he saw his Martians!