MOVIE REVIEWS ONLY.

[EvilNerfherder]

Several people have pointed out that it's getting harder to find the member's movie reviews amongst all the threads and other stuff that this movie generates.
This thread is for reviews of the movie ONLY. There will be no discussion or replies to these, just reviews.
If anyone really wants to discuss the reviews, they can do so in another existing thread.
Anything OT here will be removed.

[neuronomad]

I was going to make a long review of Tim Hines / Pendragon Film’s H.G. Wells’ War of the Worlds. But you know what? Trash doesn’t take that long to review.

No don’t get me wrong I don’t mind a “good” B Sci-Fi flick. Heck I settle for C and D ones every now and then, <grin>, but this is more like a Y or Z flick.

I am a fan of the old classic Sci-Fi films like “The Day the Earth Stood Still”, “Earth Vs. The Flying Saucers”, “The Thing”, and the Pal version of “War o the Worlds”. So as you can see I don’t let bad FX keep me from enjoying the movie. Also I try not to let bad acting but good FX not let me enjoy it one either.

But Mr. Hine’s flick has neither in my opinion. The effects could have been done by ANY, and I do stress ANY first year graphic artist. My pre-teen nephews could do about as good with Microsoft Paint.

Examples: Most of these examples will have already been mentioned by other’s but I will mention them again because well frankly they are so truly bad that if you haven’t seen the flick you just don’t realize how bad….

1) The fact that in some scenes we are lead to believe that it is night, but clearly the scene was filmed in broad daylight.
2) The Heat Ray. The Heat Ray’s use is NEVER consistent. At the beginning it starts off by apparently only affecting people and their clothing. People burst into flames (well small parts of them do anyway) and they fray about (if you can call it that) until suddenly they turn into skeletons. But does it end there? Nope, they actually start fraying about more as a bare skeleton than they did when they had Skin and muscle surrounding bone. Ever seen a skeleton thrash around in pain? Well it’s almost painful to watch in itself.
3) As mentioned, the Heat Ray is not consistent. The first scene we see it cooking only the people alive (and maybe a tree here or there) but then suddenly it just starts blowing things up. We see houses (look more like a clay models) being blown up and then we start even seeing people being blown up. It’s almost like they saw the Paramount explosions and Hines said to his staff, “No let’s make things explode”.
4) Way, Way too much green screen crap. Just because you can green screen a horse pulling your stars around, doesn’t mean you should. Every time I saw a horse or person walking in the distance I laughed out loud. It is truly pitiful and hard to watch just how bad their CGI looks.
5) The Tripods. Well to me they just look plain stupid. Their tentacles are WAY too large for the rest of the tripod. They never held to scale. As mentioned elsewhere they tended to just glide along the surface and usually never even touched the ground. They weren’t scary looking at all.
6) The use of Black Smoke was comical. It was more like “very un scary dark mist”.
7) Red Weed. It was more like Red Blobs. Another example of very poor CGI and in fact even a place where CGI wasn’t needed. Paramount proves that some things are better just being real.
8) The Acting. It was pretty rough, but comical at times. Though it was laughable, had it not been for the horrible CGI this movie might have been almost entertaining.
9) The gore scenes where supposed to invoke fear, but instead they invoke laughter.
10) And finally the biggest joke to me, and others it would sound was the Thunderchild and the Ferry. They both skirted across the water like they were being pushed. Actually the Ferry moved at one point like it had a freaking rocket pushing it.

All in all I must say, even though it is a $9.00 flick, don’t waste the $9.00 on it. I thought hey it would be worth the $9.00 for a laugh, but it is so bad that you are going to want to cry as much as you want to laugh.

This was CLEARLY just a ploy to cash in on the current “War of the Worlds” crazy. Period piece or not, it is a joke and if Mr. Hines EVER is given money to produce and direct a film before, I want to meet the investor, because they must be in the business of throwing good money away.

In closing I do have one good thing to say about this MS3TK worthy flick. They do keep for the most part to the book. There are some scenes as mentioned before like the rape / blood draining scene with the rag doll that aren’t true to the book, but other than that, we are given pretty much word for word the book. Of course that is most likely not because Hines is a purist but because he was too lazy to think for himself.

[wargasm]

I posted this on Amazon's review page just recently........



Like most, I had been keeping up with this project since the pre-911 days when this was going to be a present day piece.

I watched the trailers that had come out in the past year with the Big Ben floating sequence being in one of them.

I bought this last weekend from Wal-mart due to some snafu from Pendragon's distributor, UAV.

This movie is 3 hours long. After watching it, it becomes apparent that nothing was left out that was shot. There are so many scenes of the writer walking down paths that the movie could be shortened to at least half that running time. The sepia tone that was talked about being used is done haphazardly. With scenes not having it all, to overly saturated. There are also scenes that look like they were edited in last minute with poorly shot grainy video.

The acting is what you would expect from stage actors which was good, with the exception of the producer who get's the role of the writer's wife probably because it was promised to get funding.

Probably the best acting was during the ruined house scene with the Curate and the writer.

The musical score was actually the best thing in the movie, but, it was overly used and their wasn't much of a variety. There is probably about 4 different tracks through the whole movie, and one of them is during the ending rolling credits!

No, the one thing that this movie will be remembered for is the promised "Matrix like SFX" from it's director. He forgot to tell that to his SFX crew because most of the SFX shots are unfinished or look like what SFX houses use for "storyboarding" sequences.

The Thunderchild scene comes off as the worst offender. A scene that could of saved this film, possibly, was wasted with no sense of why this was taking place. Poorly CG renderings of the ship and not a soul shown onboard were just one. No, I take that back. There is the scene when the ship is sinking and two Lego men are sliding down the railings! This whole sequence will have you laughing so much you'll forget the next 30 minutes of the film which is when the floating Big Ben sequences comes in. Not only is that totally geographically inaccurate but the way it was caused was also suspect as we see a lighting bolt or ray different from the rest of the heat ray sequences blasts it from it's spot.

Also during that 30 minute time span is the totally absurd blood draining sequence of first a blob for a bull and the singer (seen in one of the trailers) changing from a real person to a CG rendered Goth Barbie, complete with garters.

The Dead London sequence consists of one dead girl sitting on a window ledge that commited suicide.

I think you get the picture.

If you like really bad movies, like the ones seen on Mystery Science Theater, then you'll adore this movie. If you were expecting more then I wouldn't recommend it.

[Lensman]

[NOTE: This is a re-edited version of the review I originally posted on June 6 in the "Review of Movie" thread]

Fans of H.G. Wells' classic of alien invasion have looked forward to what independent studio Pendragon Productions has called an "authentic period production" of "H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds".

Unfortunately, I must report this is a truly awful movie. I can accept the very "stagy" acting, even from the Ogilvy character (he's *supposed* to be pompous), but some of the acting-- particularly by whoever plays Miss Elphinstone-- is on the amateur level. I was also completely unimpressed by the depiction of the Curate-- one-note blubbering and whining.

But the acting is, if anything, the best part of the film. The direction varies between uninspired and incompetent (such as the scene where the Narrator and his wife are stargazing... in broad daylight!), and the editing is worse. There are all too many long scenes of the Narrator (and his brother) walking from place to place. This movie doesn't deserve its three-hour length; those walking scenes need to be trimmed. Auteur Timothy Hines also added unnecessary expository dialogue-- despite the fact that modern audiences may think there are too many "talking heads" scenes already present in the novel.

But all this truly pales in comparison to the grade-Z "special effects" (...or not-so-special effects). Most of the CGI shots in this movie-- and there are a lot of them-- are unfinished, untextured, and monochrome, and noticeably lacking in detail.

The H.M.S. Thunder Child scene is particularly embarrassing. No wonder they didn't show it in the trailer! The scene intercuts shots of people on the ferry with shots of the Thunder Child versus the Martian tripods. However, due to the poor animation, the impression the audience gets is *not* of people watching a British warship in action against the alien invaders, but rather that these people are watching a not-particularly-well-done cartoon! As if this were not bad enough, there is almost no indication at any time that there is anyone on board the Thunder Child. So when the warship does meet its end, we don't care.

And there are other problems with this scene. Many of the background shots are helicopter shots, so the ships appear to be whizzing around at speeds far greater than any ship of the era could possibly attain-- let alone the slow-moving ferry! Also, at one point a tripod hits the Thunder Child with a Heat Ray. But instead of cutting thru the ship like a hot knife thru butter-- as the novel describes-- it merely blows a hole in the side as though the ship had been hit with a shell, and the ship continues whizzing on its merry way. As if that's not bad enough, the hole disappears later on in the scene. When the ship finally does sink, it very suddenly lists to one side and sinks as rapidly as if it were a toy boat, reinforcing the cartoon-like appearance.

Now I have no doubt that some reading this are saying "Oh come come Lensman-- surely you exaggerate!" All I can say is-- you haven't seen it.

More bad FX #1: When the Heat Ray hits people, we see small bits of CGI fire obviously pasted on them. When they move, the flames continue to point straight up, undisturbed by the movement. Then the figure blurs to white, after which a grey skeleton fades in... mysteriously lacking any burnt or blackened remains. (Perhaps the Heat Ray magically removes all the carbon from the bodies? ) Vegetation behind people hit by the Heat Ray is mysteriously unaffected.

More bad FX #2: While we see real cannons (artillery) loaded with real charges, apparently they couldn't afford to actually fire a cannon even once. All we see, in the numerous artillery firing sequences, is a tiny cotton-ball puff coming from the gun's muzzle, as though the cannon were merely smoking a pipe and had politely emitted a small puff. *Real* cannon put out fire and lots of smoke!

More bad FX #3: Before seeing this movie I said numerous times in this forum that even if the FX were bad, we could still enjoy the live-action scenes. Unfortunately, this is often untrue because of bad CGI in scenes which don't *require* FX. There are numerous shots of people fleeing through the streets (presumably of London, although the movie doesn't make that clear), set against a bad CGI "building." Why? Couldn't they have matted in backgrounds from real London locations? Or at least found some street in Seattle (where Pendragon Productions is based) that could double for Victorian England?

More bad FX #4: These Martians aren't content to merely drain their victims of blood, as Wells writes. Apparently these feed like spiders-- injecting their victims with digestive juices and then sucking out their victims' liquefied insides, leaving just skin over bones as a husk sucked dry. In the Martian "feeding" scene, first we see a vague CGI blob (the outline of which I guess is intended to suggest a cow) drained in this manner. Then the handling-machines spend some time pointlessly waving their claws around a woman before she-- or rather, her bad-CGI stand-in-- is similarly sucked dry. No doubt the film-makers intended this scene to be horrifying, but it's so badly done it's laughable.

More bad FX #5: There are quite a few scenes, both interior and exterior, where it is painfully obvious the foreground actors were matted in on a background shot filmed elsewhere. I haven't seen matte lines this obvious since before "Star Wars" (1977), and I've seen plenty of fan films with *much* better matte work than this. Particularly bad is a shot of a woman with frizzed-up hair. The fine detail on hair is particularly hard to matte properly, and the director should have *known* better than to put someone with this sort of hairdo (or lack of hairdo) in front of a bluescreen.

I could go on... and on... but I think you get the gist. I do have to include a comment by another reviewer, who said (as best as I can recall) "The state of Washington unconvincingly plays the role of the English countryside."

This movie invites comparisons to Ed Wood. In some respects it's not that bad; the acting is generally better, and some of the FX are much better than anything Wood could afford at the time. But then we've come to expect better from modern theatrically released science fiction films... which is how Pendragon advertised this, although it seems to have turned into a straight-to-DVD production. More importantly, even Ed Wood had at least a vague idea of how to stage and pace a scene for dramatic tension, and knew how to edit a film so the story flowed from one shot to another in a coherent manner. Tim Hines is apparently incabable of even that much-- the direction and editing mainly come off as strictly amateur. So perhaps comparisons to Wood's work *are* appropriate.

Now there are a few bits of the film I *did* like. The opening sequence, including credits, was very well done, and it was great to hear those famous, classic words from the novel's first page: "...across the gulf of space... intellects vast and cool and unsympathetic, regarded this earth with envious eyes..." The stop-motion animation of the tripods-- unlike the very poor CGI-- in many scenes is passable in a "B movie" fashion, and the shots of just the lower legs are actually well done in most cases-- those shots are generally effective and occasionally impressive. There were also two or three brief scenes near the end which I thought were actually well acted and competently directed, and did provoke a bit of emotion in this viewer-- unlike the rest of the film.

In summary: Unless you really have some desperate need to have a complete collection of Wells material, save your money and give this turkey of a DVD a pass.

[stew]

Despite all I've read on this thread, I think I'll still end up buying this DVD. The reviews I've seen have lowered my expectations so far that the risk of my being totally disapointed by the movie are somewhat diminished. (thanks to all you sacrificial lambs out there) Now that I've been warned, I know of only one sure fire way to enjoy this stinker; and that is to light up a *peace pipe, have some munchies handy, and then watch and piss myself laughing like an idiot !

[Thunder Child]

Not being an *sshole or anything, but when do we get a review by anyone who's been here longer than 2005?

Charles?

Johan

[Tripod]

Well, Thunders most of the ones who already have this DVD are American and actually we didn't have so much Americans on the Forum. I'm still hoping for the movie to come out in the Netherlands. And I think we'll get more reviews from older members when it comes out in Britain.

Tripod

[EvilNerfherder]

Movie reviews here only please peeps. Comments go in the review comments thread.
As soon as some of us old 'uns get to see the thing we'll post a review too. But Tripod is right. Most of the older members were Brits with a few Dutchies ( ) and others from Europe. There were a few Americans though.
Hopefully Charles will see this and post a review too. His expert eye from the point of view of accuracy in the plot and so on would be most welcome.

[timeship2]

Well I've been here since September 2004 and am I the only Brit who has seen it so far...?

[RossH]

I'm a Brit living and working in the US; y copy is speeding towards me as a type courtesy of UPS. So, in a month or two ;-) I should have it in my hands and be able to add another Brit review to this thread...

[timeship2]

rossh said:

I'm a Brit living and working in the US; y copy is speeding towards me as a type courtesy of UPS. So, in a month or two ;-) I should have it in my hands and be able to add another Brit review to this thread...

Why a month or two? I didn't think think UPS were *that* bad LOL

[malfunkshun]

I posted this review in another thread, but since there's an 'official' review thread now, I'll re-post it here, and its also updated.

Greetings all. Its Malfunkshun. Remember me? I left of my own accord back in February because I disagreed with the mod practices here. However, after seeing Hines' movie, i feel i must make one more statement.

I am truly, amazingly, sorrowfully dissappointed. I was one of the big optimists back when the Hines wars were going on several months ago. I was always looking on the bright side and trying to find the good points as opposed to the bad. I did understand that this movie was going to be lacking in a lot of areas because of the low budget, but I was prepared to accept this because I was of the faith that possibly a good movie could be created anyway with a great screenplay, great direction, great editing, and great cast and score. I was sorely dissapointed in almost every regard. Let me expound.

1. First off... the only thing I can say about this movie that was halfway ok was the acting. I know that most people will disagree with me, but I found the narrator, the parson, and the artilleryman sufficient with their acting capabilities. Miss Elphinstone (Jamie Sease) was horrid. A couple of other small roles were less than talented. But for the most part, the acting was acceptable... the scenes under the house were actually quite good. If the rest of the movie had been done at this level of quality, editing, acting and directing-wise, this movie might have been saved. One more thing... the score is quite good in my opinion. I find myself humming it throughout the day. Its catchy, and moody enough to suit the subject matter of the moody pretty well. However, the way it was interspersed throughout the movie was... not that good. At times it didn't seem to match, moodwise, what was going on on screen. And at times there just seemed too much music going on and too little action.

2. The special effects were... on a scale of 1 to 10... a 3 1/2. The only decent scenes were during the artillerymans account, when

a) the fighting machine rose up out of the pit and began walking forward, with the camera facing it. Another scene, which was in the trailer, of

b) the fighting machine marching towards the artillery cannon, was decent. One other ok scene was at the battle of Weybridge, when

c) three Martians were striding along the edge of town shown with a wide shot. This scene is the best scene in the movie of the Martians actually walking for any length of time, long enough to get a good idea of how the animation looks, and its actually not that bad. Most of the other scenes of the Martians striding along look like they're slipping on ice, or doing the 'moonwalk'. Cheesy. The rest of the tripod scenes, walking or otherwise, pretty much sucked.

d) The shot of the cylinder smashing into the house was actually quite good I thought, considering the budget. The house collapsed satisfactorily, and it didn't look cheesy as compared to some other special effects shots. All in all I was satisfied with this shot.

e) There were a lot of shots of CG cityscapes panning by, with no real intention as to what these shots were supposed to lead into. They seemed just 'thrown in' to add some CG effects, and they weren't that good... some textures and better use of lighting would have made these scenes, as nonsensical as they were, look better.

f) The heat ray at the beginning, turning humans into skeletons, was pitifully pathetic. Hilarious actually, in a sad way. It would have been a lot better if they had just left out the skeleton CG effects and just had the bodies collapse, and be done with it. Why they decided to include such apparently cheesy scenes is beyond me, unless this movie is set up to really take the cake in some third world country, where effects like that are state of the art.

g) The Thunderchild scene was the ultimate dissappointment of this movie. It made me want to cry with frustration. There was NO sense of dread, of tension, or euphoria when the Martians were killed. There were no crowds trying to get onto the packed steamer. No shots of people drowning as they were thrown overboard and hit with paddles. No activity. There was supposed to be a lot going on in that harbor! A route of thousands of people fleeing for their lives! Instead we get the brother casually asking a crewmember of the steamer if there were tickets available, to which he casually answers 'yeah' for 30 pouonds. No biggie. This scene was an utter failure. It sucked. Ass. Balls. BAD. I mourn for the Thunderchild scene more than any other in this movie... its what I was looking forward to the most, and it wound up sucking the most.

h) Compositing shots all through the movie were less than sub par. It seems as though almost every shot, even simple shots of people talking in front of a building, were bluescreened and compositited. Why? Even interior shots, simple ones, were edited with CG. Badly. Again, why? Why spend all of the money shooting this damn thing on location in London, and there is absolutely nothing in the movie that makes this apparent?

i) I do like the design of the Martian fighting machine very much however. I just wish there would have been some decent, dramatic shots of it striding along and wreaking havoc.

j) The scene of the clock tower flying over the Thames has been debated into the ground so I won't even go into that. Suffice to say that I was dissappointed that this scene wasn't improved upon any from the time the trailer was released and the release of the DVD. Also, there seems to be some sort of rendering glitch, right as the top of the tower is blow apart... the left and top sides of the screen appear to 'jitter' for a second, as if the framing of the shot got knocked out of whack for half a second. Did anyone else notice this?

3. Editing. It sucked. A lot of scenes seemed to be thrown together, one after another after another, with no apparent connection. Dialogue was spotty and non-linear. Conversations seemed to end before they even got started, with the scene changing inexplicably to something else. Lots of walking occured with no particular reason... the artilleryman and the narrator for instance, inspecting burning and ruined buildings on their way to Shepperton. Why? Just to fill space? The scenes where the Martians were destroying London were not dramatic at all, partly due to poor editing... switching from intense shots to boring shots in another locale with no real warning (not to mention that the effects didn't really lend themselves well to creating a dramatic atmosphere anyway). And finally, the end seemed to be just stuck on and generally ignored. Brave New World was basically skipped with only a cursory nod, and Dead London was completely forgotten. And what happened to the Martian howls? Nothing apparently... they aren't there. The end of the movie stinks of RUSH RUSH RUSH. We don't have time to film Brave New World and Dead London, so lets just skip those parts and ship this movie in June. It sucks anyway, so who cares? I can imagine words like these floating across the table at a Pendragon board meeting.

I want to cry (not really... I want to wring Hines' neck actually). I have never been more dissappointed before in my life. I was hoping that we would at least get a movie that was quality in other areas, like editing, screenplay, photography, storyboarding, etc. Instead we get handed a piece of garbage that is even WORSE than the sub par special effects in just about every other respect. Again... the one scene that I actually liked was the struggling between the narrator and the parson. I though the acting in these scenes was very good and the sense of dread was conveyed well. That is the only thing, aside from the few scenes where the special effects were merely ok, and the musical score, that I found good in this movie.

Mr. Hines, you have failed us.

[lanceradvanced]

Well, I've gotten about half way though it, taking it starts and stops, mosly because of the weather here, and I'm gonna say this, I actually kinda liked it...

But let me put this in context, It's not something I'd waste my money on in the theater, but as a DVD that costs about 1/3 of what I dropped to go into NYC to see Howl's Moving Castle, it's an okay buy, and probaably worth a rental...

What it mostly puts me in mind of is a costume drama colliding with 70's era BBC sci fi... but the one thing that sticks out for me is that the scenery just doesn't look -british- it's like they've dropped the cast into sets from "A little house on the prarie" houses are set widly apart, stuff is absurdly over grown, even before the red weed some how gets everywhere, and all the ruined buildings are well weathered..

[RossH]

Well I must say I liked the 1st 10 minutes- even with the poor bright-and-sunny-but-the-sky-is-black scenes. But after that is was basically 160 minutes of 2 men in a forest...

I watched it all in one sitting- partly out of interest to see what came next, but mainly because I thought if I stopped I'd never sit down and watch the rest of it another night.

[Amasov]

lanceradvanced said:

Well, I've gotten about half way though it, taking it starts and stops, mosly because of the weather here, and I'm gonna say this, I actually kinda liked it...

But let me put this in context, It's not something I'd waste my money on in the theater, but as a DVD that costs about 1/3 of what I dropped to go into NYC to see Howl's Moving Castle, it's an okay buy, and probaably worth a rental...

What it mostly puts me in mind of is a costume drama colliding with 70's era BBC sci fi... but the one thing that sticks out for me is that the scenery just doesn't look -british- it's like they've dropped the cast into sets from "A little house on the prarie" houses are set widly apart, stuff is absurdly over grown, even before the red weed some how gets everywhere, and all the ruined buildings are well weathered..

I kind of agree with this as well and for me Anthony Piana was actually pretty good in his role especially towards the end I thought, the jerky motion mentioned before only seemed to me anyway to effect the first 20-30 minutes I didn't really notice any more after that.

[somersetman]

Well, having read these boards for the last year or so, my dvd finally arrived from the USA yesterday to downtown Somerset in the UK. Hmmm..........sadly it is a waste of twenty quid and its a shame. I could actually cope with the naff effects but it the overall lack of drama.
Editing is poor that any sense of urgency or fear is really lost. The military elements are abysmal. The British Army seems to have a habit of never buttoning their uniforms. The Cardigan regiment who attacked the pit in skimishing order seems to have been reduced to handful of troops in dubious headgear. The scenery just isnt British, it has little resembelence to some of suburban areas areas in the book. There are good points to the film and its interesting to see it after this long wait but I just sadly feel this is not what we have been waiting for. The poor effects I could have coped with if it had been compensated by a sense of drama, a tightness, a fear that they book itself conveys so very well. The exodus from towns as the Martians advance is reduced to 8 people going for a stroll....By tightly controlled editing, removing the expanse of countryside and a different style of filming, this could have been an excellent film, not masses of effects but something to stiumlate your imagination and capture the elements of the book that have made it such an enjoyable story. Britain did actually have roads, etc in 1898 and not just grassy verges. The army would have had cap badges, buttoned up their collars and officers would not have sported beards like the one officer who is based outside Sheppertion (Pioneer Corps perhaps!!).

Enough of my ramblings but all in all a major disappointment. I think I get more entertainment watching the mini movie at the start of the JW WOTW's game!

[SEAN]

Hi there.

My dvd arrrived today. However, I am going to Paris this afternoon for my stag weekend so am not able to watch the whole film. However....

I watched the first 60 mins or so as well as the thunderchild chapter. I have to say that I have not had so much fun watching a film in years. IT'S HILARIOUS! ! BRILLIANT! ! ! Def worth the money!!

It just has to be a spoof. The acting is so bloody funny. Including Mr Piana (in my opinion). Serious question, is he Australian? I loved the "Lawrence" bit. Classic! Ogilvy is a complete wag.

I can put up with the day/night/day scenes being all over the shop. However, whoever came up with the idea of cross breeding a giant squid and some dog excrement needs a full frontal lobotomy. And I stifled a guffaw when the guy "falls" into the pit! Brilliant! ;D

I actually liked the "heat ray" section. However I see peoples points re. moshing skeletons. And the Thunderchild, ha ha ha. Excellent! Great effects (!), and acting so wooden they should of tried swimming to France. Would of saved them £36.

In all seriousness. When I get back, I'm off to arrange a War of the Worlds party. Will be a great night in! I really, realy can't think of anything else to say, and I know that a lot of people reading this may think it is a pointless, unproductive review. So I apologise. But, it like watching the Eurovison Song Contest on smack!

BUY THIS FILM! ! ! ! ! !
FANTASTIC! ! ! !

[Gnorn]

Going to Paris for your stag weekend. Your name's not Tom, is it? ;-)

-Gnorn

[the Donal]

Hmmmm...where to begin and what to say that hasn't already been said?

I have to say, for all of its faults (yes- 99.8% of the movie!), I actually found it rather hard to actually dislike the film. I really thought I would be cringing all the way through it, but I only did this for most of the film, with a few laughs at it's expense.

The acting ranges from terrible to absolutely atrocious (but we've seen this in big movies- Keanu Reeves in Dracula, anyone?! (that's what sprang to my mind)). The Hussar who the narrator meets on the way back to his home manages to go from Geordie to West Country to Scottish to Northern Irish in the same sentence! As for the artilleryman..... And Miss Elphinstone? Dire!

There are a few moments, though, when Anthony Piana does an OK job and Ogilvy is very hammy, but just about watchable. The scenes that seem to come off best are those with the narrator and the curate- the curate is one of the better actors in the film.

The editing is poor (in fact there is no real editing- just scene after scene cut together in a row) and the colour use an interesting idea, but woefully executed. I have to say that I didn't mind the tripods at all in the film- despite previously disliking the design but the martians themselves are laughable, as are the feeding scenes and the 'storm'- CGI rain? CGI RAIN? There's enough of it about without having to resort to comical drops of water racing down the screen and the horse and cart- not the quickest mode of transport in this film, is it? I could have walked quicker!

The curious thing is, it doesn't really feel like a film- more like the book in pictures- some of our older UK members will remember Jackanory- to me it was more like the equivalent of that- someone reading the book to you while showing some knocked together acting and scenery.Or even a kids program about how the old days were, again with something to look at to give you a visual impression.

By the way- where is the rest of London around Primrose Hill?! To be honest, despite geographical references in the dialogue, it doesn't look like it was set anywhere- apart from the few London scenes with the people set against backdrops of vintage photos of London streets and buildings.

It was odder still to be watching it after all these months of speculation, raised hopes, dashed hopes and just about giving up on the whole affair. I did the film in 2 sittings (with some heavy drinking in between)- I don't think I could really handle 3 hours of this film from start to finish.... But the only thing it really delivers is on is pretty much being true to the book's narrative, but at the expense of watchability.

I'll leave it at that- I could go on and on, but I won't- the film does that aplenty!

[DarkElastic]

The film arrived on Saturday, and I watched it that night.

Even though most reviews have been bad, I still was extremely excited to watch this. I have been looking forward to its delivery ever since I ordered it. Here is my review:

You turn it on, it gets going, and your excited. Slowly, but surely it ebbs the excitement away, and you end up yawning. In fact it became very boring.

The actor who played Ogilvy liked to shout when they were at the telescope, and it obviously wasn't him who climbed in and out of the pit (stunt double!!). But, saying that, he wasn't too bad.

The actor who played the Artilleryman was terrible. His voice always sounded dubbed. I didn't like the way that the writer greeted him in his garden, there was no need for hostility at that moment, and it wasn't in the book. The part where the writer and Artilleryman were reunited was cut, so you get him walking to the house, and then walking away.

The actress who played his wife was OK. When they reunite at the end they do pull it off, and you feel for them.

I thought the actor who played the Curate did the job well – his gradual loss of sanity, and the way he put them in danger made you glad of his demise.

Anthony Piana was the best thing in this movie. The best scenes - trapped in the house with the Curate, giving himself to the Martians, and reuniting with his wife - were carried off by him. He pulled off his gradual loss of sanity well, and he didn’t look out of place striking the Curate.

I enjoyed this movie from the moment he met the Curate. They worked well together to pull off their troublesome relationship. But, between that, It was cr@p. To create the tension of the book you need some nice sets and decent effects, this film had none. From half way through, they replaced women's screams with something that sounded computerised. What happened to mixing some fake blood and throwing it around a bit, why use special effects for something so simple? The same can be said for the red weed and fire. It is a nicer effect to do them real, than add them in after! Your actors have something to work with, and visual point to act off.

The long shots of building’s destruction did not get you involved with the movie. The inaccuracy of the heat ray did not help – frying humans one minute, blowing them up the next. The tops of the tripods weren't great, but I liked the shots of their legs. The whole Thunderchild scene was nasty. Also, the extras were awful - I can act better than most of them.

The morale of this Timothy Hines (Pendragon Pictures) story is this:

If you really were a fan of 'The War of the Worlds' then you would not attempt to make this movie unless you had the budget, the actors, and the sets to do so. Because of this, Hines concentrated on the things that weren't important - walking around, adding effects in afterwards - instead of real effects, and tension moments of the film - the massacre at Weybridge, the suffering and needless deaths of people in the exodus, and his brother’s slow escape thanks to the Thunderchild's sacrifice.

I give this film 1 out of 5.