COMMENTS ON REVIEWS ONLY

[recumbentrider]

mctoddridesagain said:

During the meal at his cousin’s, he throws her such a malign leer that I half expected him to run off with her over his shoulder and tie her to the nearest railway track.

Out of all of the bizzare things about this movie, this was one scene that really made me shout 'WTF??'!!!! What was supposed to be going on in this scene? The writer was playing with something on the table, making strange leers and faces at his cousin, while his wife was asleep! For the life of me, I couldn't figure out what this was all about! Was this Anthony Piana's attempt to be Charlie Chaplin??

[RickyB]

After all this negativity...I have to see the film!

R

[recumbentrider]

rickyb said:

After all this negativity...I have to see the film!

R

I don't blame you for wanting to see this film, no matter what anyone says; I know that I had to see it for myself.

Well, there are at least a few people that liked the movie to some degree, and even though I personally thought the movie was bad, I did have some fun watching it! I still can't seem to bring myself to watch it again, though. If I do watch it again, I'll be sure to watch it with some friends so we can all have fun laughing together at it!

I am sure that the best way to enjoy watching this film is to watch it with friends and family, if you can persuade them to watch it with you.

[EvilNerfherder]

With reference to this review that Obiwannabee posted that he'd seen elsewhere..
www.computercrowsnest.com/features/arc/2005/nz8272.php
I've never heard of this Mark Leeper (anyone know who he is?) guy but he seems to take a completely different view to all previous reviews. For example...
He thinks that the films jerkiness is intentional as an 'emulation of early cinema'. He suggests that the 'stagy' acting is something Hines was aiming for.
Could it be that us mere mortals have totally missed the point of Tim's movie and that he intended it to be an attempt to emulate how a victorian would have filmed the movie? Or is it a reviewer who hasn't a clue what he is talking about and is digging far too deeply into a shallow hole?
Sounds like a crock to me, but if all that was the case, why the hell didn't Tim say so?
I had fun reading that review though.

[mctoddridesagain]

It was an interesting review, though I totally disagree with him. Someone posted it on another board, and my response was (yes it's lengthy, but skip two thirds down and there are some vaguely interesting factoids and links regarding the visual effects crew):

To compare Hines with Zeman is absurd. Zeman set out to explicitly emulate the appearance of nineteenth century book illustrations. He did so with great skill and panache, getting the most out of the equipment of the day. Hines, with the latest CGI technology at his fingertips, produces only a parody, a sub-Playstation mishmash of images, which fall well short of the capabilities of his equipment (assuming he spent even only about two grand on computers). Mr Leeper is not the only one to defend the vfx with a spurious comparison – people elsewhere have written that if it had been made in the 1970s it wouldn't look too bad. Well, ignoring the fact that it wasn't, it was made in the 21st century, quite frankly if the Lumiere brothers had made it in 1898 they'd have been laughed out of Paris and had their mistresses confiscated.

And I don’t mind leisurely films, but Hines just takes the biscuit. He shoehorns into the film’s dialogue great slabs of expository prose from the novel, failing dismally to understand what the function of that prose originally was – to describe things in a non-visual medium. Hines is working in a visual medium, so let the images speak.

And, quite frankly, what’s this about the actors parodying turn-of-the-century acting styles? Was the reviewer around in 1900 at the theatre? And this is film, not theatre. No, nothing can excuse Bad Acting, plain and simple.

Intentionally bad visual effects? Come on now… Timbo’s effects are bad because he didn’t hire any visual effects people – have you looked at the credits? I have. And I’ve searched on the net for the various vfx and CGI personnel. I found a couple:

Jonelle Ashby (VFX Associate Producer; CGI Artist; extra)
Cherelle Ashby (CGI Artist; The Cousin)

Both are credited on Tangent Productions’ ‘Snow Day, Bloody Snow Day’ as:
Wardrobe supervisor: Cherelle Ashby
Assistant wardrobe: Jonelle Ashby
www.tangentproductions.net/snow%20day%20crew.htm

Ironically, Tangent Productions (based in Seattle) hold a Bad Movie Monday every week: www.tangentproductions.net/BMM.htm
I expect Timbo’s film to turn up on the schedule soon…

Ironically (again!), considering Mr Leeper’s reference to ‘marionette theatre’, we have:
Jean Enticknap – Puppeteer Coordinator
Artistic Director of www.thistletheatre.org
Based in Seattle. Quelle bleeding surprise.

I suspect their effects may have been better had they not used local costumiers. I couldn’t find references to anyone else.

I am also getting rather tired of the excuse, trotted out by others as well, that ‘To fans of only lavish fantasy filmmaking with completely convincing special effects, this film may be a disappointment.’ Subtext: only refined connoisseurs with impeccable taste and intelligence will appreciate this film, ignorant proles looking for thrills won’t. Well, I have a message for you: I grew up loving this novel, I first read at the age of nine; since then I have read all around it, I understand the historical, social and scientific context of the novel, I appreciate what Wells had set out to achieve, I love this novel. But this film sucks big time. It sucks more than all the delegates of the World Convention of Sex Workers combined.

[nervouspete]

Excellent post, McTodd. Especially like the amusing line about the Lumierre brothers, though I think the effects would have amazed everyone at the time then, just for what they show and their mere 'impossible' existence despite the appalling quality of them.

Ever seen that lil'l silent B&W film, about that scientist who keeps people in little glass jars? It's oddly sinister, and the effects are quite convincing for all their low tech.

And what about Metropolis? Bloody hell, eh!? The effects in that are amazing for the time, and still have an art direction, style, ambition and execution that Hines can only dream of. I'll never forget seeing the M Machine explode sending workers literally flying hundreds of feet into the air, the dead and wounded being stretchered off, and then the hero looking on feeverishly as the M Machine turns into the gaping mouth of Moloch, as slaves are led struggling up the steps and thrown into the industrial maw of it's mouth.

*Cough* Sorry, brilliant film! Saw it at the cinema to live musical piano work. Bloody hell! Ace!

Back to your post, the 'to fans of only lavish... yadda yadda... " Well, Mr Hines, I adore Metropolis and it's effects are eighty years old now. My fave film a few years ago was Donnie Darko and that had a low budget. I read more science fiction works than I watch sci-fi films and I have an abiding love for independent films. I almost consider myself 'arthouse', sneaking off to see innovative foreign films like 'Russian Ark' and 'Spirited Away'.

But from the trailers, the many screenshots (that Goforth is attempting to supress, it seems) the many, many reviews I've read and the sheer overblown hype that Hines indulged in... I can't think of this as anything over than a failure. And the trouble is, I can't watch it now, because I have a philosophy on not buying bad films (crazy, huh?)... even if I am a 'The War of the Worlds' fan. I'll have to wait until somebody either just gives me a copy, or until it's on TV. Until then I shall observe from afar people's reactions with a morbid interest.

[recumbentrider]

nerfherder said:

With reference to this review that Obiwannabee posted that he'd seen elsewhere..
www.computercrowsnest.com/features/arc/2005/nz8272.php
I've never heard of this Mark Leeper (anyone know who he is?) guy but he seems to take a completely different view to all previous reviews.

This is the first time I have heard of Mark Leeper. I noticed that he gave Mr. Hines' movie a rating of 7/10. In order to get at least a simple insight into his reviews, I looked into the archives of the 'compuetercrowsnest' website. To borrow a page to a show that is often mentioned on this board, Mystery Science Theater 3000, this how other movies rated on Mr. Leeper's 0 to 10 scale:

Movies That Mr. Leeper Thought Were As Good As Tim Hines' War of the Worlds (or, movies that he also gave a 7/10 rating):

Batman Begins
The Incredibles
Shark Tale
Shaun of the Dead
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Star Trek: Nemesis
28 Days Later
X2


Movies That Mr. Leeper Thought Were Not As Good As Tim Hines' War of the Worlds (or, movies that he gave a 6/10 rating or worse):

Sin City (6/10)
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (6/10)
Robots (5/10)
Alexander (6/10)
The Day After Tomorrow (6/10)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (6/10)
Shrek 2 (6/10)
The Hulk (5/10)
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (5/10)
The League of Extraordinary Gentlement (4/10)
Matrix Reloaded (6/10)

I hope those filmakers whose films fall into the second group do not get to discouraged. Keep trying, guys, and with hard work you too may someday be able to make a movie every bit as good as Tim Hines' War of the Worlds!

[recumbentrider]

nervouspete said:

And what about Metropolis? Bloody hell, eh!? The effects in that are amazing for the time, and still have an art direction, style, ambition and execution that Hines can only dream of. I'll never forget seeing the M Machine explode sending workers literally flying hundreds of feet into the air, the dead and wounded being stretchered off, and then the hero looking on feeverishly as the M Machine turns into the gaping mouth of Moloch, as slaves are led struggling up the steps and thrown into the industrial maw of it's mouth.

I cannot help buy agree. I thought that the effects in the film Metropolis were far superior to anything in Mr. Hines' film.

I frankly cannot think of any films with worse effects than Mr. Hines' film. I am sure they are out there, but I guess I just haven't seen them. As you can tell from my posts, I have seen most of the episodes of the show 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'. I don't even remember seeing any film they made fun of on that show with effects that were worse than the effects in Mr. Hines' film, not to mention the film's bad acting and horrible editing and pacing.

[Zoe]

recumbentrider said:

nerfherder said:

With reference to this review that Obiwannabee posted that he'd seen elsewhere..
www.computercrowsnest.com/features/arc/2005/nz8272.php
I've never heard of this Mark Leeper (anyone know who he is?) guy but he seems to take a completely different view to all previous reviews.

This is the first time I have heard of Mark Leeper. I noticed that he gave Mr. Hines' movie a rating of 7/10. In order to get at least a simple insight into his reviews, I looked into the archives of the 'compuetercrowsnest' website. To borrow a page to a show that is often mentioned on this board, Mystery Science Theater 3000, this how other movies rated on Mr. Leeper's 0 to 10 scale:

Movies That Mr. Leeper Thought Were As Good As Tim Hines' War of the Worlds (or, movies that he also gave a 7/10 rating):

Batman Begins
The Incredibles
Shark Tale
Shaun of the Dead
Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow
Star Trek: Nemesis
28 Days Later
X2


Movies That Mr. Leeper Thought Were Not As Good As Tim Hines' War of the Worlds (or, movies that he gave a 6/10 rating or worse):

Sin City (6/10)
The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy (6/10)
Robots (5/10)
Alexander (6/10)
The Day After Tomorrow (6/10)
Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (6/10)
Shrek 2 (6/10)
The Hulk (5/10)
Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines (5/10)
The League of Extraordinary Gentlement (4/10)
Matrix Reloaded (6/10)

I hope those filmakers whose films fall into the second group do not get to discouraged. Keep trying, guys, and with hard work you too may someday be able to make a movie every bit as good as Tim Hines' War of the Worlds!

Well I know a couple of 'cineastes' - their prefered term - who could well agree with Mr Leaper. They hate megabuck cloud pleasers and prefer German Expressionist classics such as 'Caligari' and anything new that goes against the popular trend. They loved 'Blair Witch' without quite getting the joke..... can empty the kitchen at any party telling people why they should not like the latest blockbuster. If they had their way cinema would die as an art form because nobody would ever watch it.

On the other hand, I have not seen it yet so Leaper could be right. A case of 'Look before Leaper'?

Zoe.

[recumbentrider]

zoe said:

Well I know a couple of 'cineastes' - their prefered term - who could well agree with Mr Leaper. They hate megabuck cloud pleasers and prefer German Expressionist classics such as 'Caligari' and anything new that goes against the popular trend.

All I can say is wait until you see this film, Zoe. I am not so sure you will put it on a level with 'Caligari' after you do. After having seen Mr. Hines' film, I think a laxitive commercial on television has more in common with German Expressionist films that Mr. Hines' film does.

I hope you get the chance to see this film soon! Who knows, you might be more impressed with it that I was. I am pretty sure you will not be less impressed!

[EvilNerfherder]

Here's on that'll probably wind up the 'cineastes'
I've tried to watch Metropolis twice and had to give up both times after a half hour as it was so dull.
Fritz Lang's 'M' was so much better.

[obiwanbeeohbee]

nerfherder said:

With reference to this review that Obiwannabee posted that he'd seen elsewhere..
www.computercrowsnest.com/features/arc/2005/nz8272.php
I've never heard of this Mark Leeper (anyone know who he is?) guy but he seems to take a completely different view to all previous reviews. For example...
He thinks that the films jerkiness is intentional as an 'emulation of early cinema'. He suggests that the 'stagy' acting is something Hines was aiming for.
Could it be that us mere mortals have totally missed the point of Tim's movie and that he intended it to be an attempt to emulate how a victorian would have filmed the movie? Or is it a reviewer who hasn't a clue what he is talking about and is digging far too deeply into a shallow hole?
Sounds like a crock to me, but if all that was the case, why the hell didn't Tim say so?
I had fun reading that review though.

I kind of wanted to wait to actually give my opinion on the Leeper review until I found out if anybody here had actually heard of him. Personally I thought the Leeper review was an example of:

1. An artsy/fartsy psuedo-intellectual who outsmarted himself by trying to read too much into the PP version, or

2. Was a rabid fan who had so many hopes and dreams built upon this version of the film, that when it turned out to be so bad he lapsed into complete denial.

I was kind of hoping he was a regular here so we could ask him what in the world he was thinking.

[HTT]

[glow=purple,2,300]Mark Leper makes some valid points - but it sounds like typical PP propoganda & excuses.

He points out some of the flaws...and then states that they are intentional. Typical arty-farty blather!

Personally I would have liked the first period adaptation of WAR OF THE WORLDS to have been done well and seriously with believable effects. That would probably have met with more audience approval.

But that is what Tim Hines wanted (and promised) to deliver! Saying that the bad FX, compositing and diabolical acting is intentional art-house-too-intellectual-for-the-plebs cinema is an insult to the average movie goer.

Any fool can say that this film is a stark contrast to moderm movies, employing a paradigm shift to cater for the dichotomy of light and shadow through the medium of alienating the audience through retro-visualization. Yeah, all sounds impressive, but who's actually interested in all that bollox? Most normal people see a movie for entertainment, not to consider the autonomy of man utilizing the trans-perambualtion of pseudo-cosmic anti-matter in relation to the feminine alter-ego.

Cut through the waffle, and what the Leper actually says is that it's basically a badly acted, poorly filmed movie with awful FX and won't appeal to the general movie-goer. He liked it because it was accurate to the book and appealed to his arty-farty nature.

Me? It appeals to my off the wall sense of humour!
[/glow]

[maniacs]

recumbentrider said:

nervouspete said:

And what about Metropolis? Bloody hell, eh!? The effects in that are amazing for the time, and still have an art direction, style, ambition and execution that Hines can only dream of. I'll never forget seeing the M Machine explode sending workers literally flying hundreds of feet into the air, the dead and wounded being stretchered off, and then the hero looking on feeverishly as the M Machine turns into the gaping mouth of Moloch, as slaves are led struggling up the steps and thrown into the industrial maw of it's mouth.

I cannot help buy agree. I thought that the effects in the film Metropolis were far superior to anything in Mr. Hines' film.

I frankly cannot think of any films with worse effects than Mr. Hines' film. I am sure they are out there, but I guess I just haven't seen them. As you can tell from my posts, I have seen most of the episodes of the show 'Mystery Science Theater 3000'. I don't even remember seeing any film they made fun of on that show with effects that were worse than the effects in Mr. Hines' film, not to mention the film's bad acting and horrible editing and pacing.

Some truly awful films have made it here(Uk) from there(USA) and this film is slightly better. I watched the first Dr Who(with Daleks) and I paid £20 for the priv(back in 1990). I enjoyed it and watched it a few times. PP WotW was better value.

[Lensman]

After some reflection on what others have written about how bad the pacing and editing in this movie are, I've re-written one of the paragraphs in my review as follows:

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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 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.

[Lensman]

McTodd: I really enjoyed your review! (Ouch!) It was much more entertaining than the movie. Are you a professional writer?

[Lensman]

nerfherder said:

He thinks that the films jerkiness is intentional as an 'emulation of early cinema'. He suggests that the 'stagy' acting is something Hines was aiming for.
Could it be that us mere mortals have totally missed the point of Tim's movie and that he intended it to be an attempt to emulate how a victorian would have filmed the movie?

It was my initial impression on watching the movie that Hines had attempted to do it as it would have been done "in period".

However, if I understand correctly what's been said, if you watch the film on a computer the jerkiness disappears. Also, the jerkiness is not consistant thruout the film; it mainly appears in the walking scenes only. So I think those who have suggested the jerkiness is a technical problem with the DVD mastering are correct.

And IIRC Hines said he used stage actors because he couldn't afford actors with actual film experience.

nerfherder said:

if all that was the case, why the hell didn't Tim say so?

Hines has been very reticent about giving out any "behind the scenes" details of his film, so it's hardly surprising he hasn't addressed these points.

This review compares Pendragon's WotW to "The Fabulous World of Jules Verne". Well I've seen that, and enjoyed it quite a bit. (I like Verne more than Wells-- heresy on this board, I know!) Yes the FX in that are obviously just that, in a very stylized manner. But the style of the FX is *consistant*, which is hardly a charge one could level at Hines' film.

I am also a fan of Gilbert and Sullivan. But G&S is entirely farcical, very broadly so. Supposedly Hines was attempting to make a movie true to the spirit of Wells' novel. A serious novel, not a farcical or comedic one. The broad comedic style of acting appropriate for G&S is entirely inappropriate for WotW... unless you intend it to be a farce. Was that Hines' intention? Given the amateur level of direction and editing, I very seriously doubt it.

In short: It may be an interesting perspective on the film, but to be blunt I think the reviewer is entirely wrong.

[mctoddridesagain]

lensman said:

McTodd: I really enjoyed your review! (Ouch!) It was much more entertaining than the movie. Are you a professional writer?

Thanks Lensman, but no, I'm an unprofessional p*sstaker! ;D

Oddly, despite all I've written about the film, I have to agree with you on another thread when you wrote that there were parts you enjoyed. I find myself dipping into the film, revisiting scenes. Every now and then there's a little glimmer of hope, sadly always dashed!

Good points there about 'The Fabulous World of Jules Verne' and Gilbert & Sullivan, spot on.

I think the reason why I've been so obsessed with Hines's film, and probably why everyone else has too, is that he promised so much for so long. When your hopes are built up that much, when they're dashed, boy are they dashed! Still, it's provided endless entertainment* for hundreds of people.

*Slagging it off and taking the mick!

[chickenstu]

Man, is it really that bad?

[amber14]

No not really.....if you look at it with a bit of objection. Seen it three times now. the Brother gets better...can't get over pronunciations though. Aldersho' that was one I missed in the first viewing, one of my cousin's spotted that
The general view from them was good in places though a lot was wrong with it. Mebbe I could get one to post up thier own review this week while they are here.