I can't help myself - this is a bizarre magnet luring me to my own destruction - but I had to check out the latest reviews on Amazon...
Hmm, this doesn't sound like someone who has read the book or seen the film to me - what's the betting Timbo's multiple identies all vote this 'not useful' on Amazon?
'Not true to the spirit of the book at all, July 2, 2005[/b]
Reviewer: Greg Jordan (Perth, Oz) - See all my reviews
There are some odd reviews here, to be sure. I'd be inclined to rate this a star higher for effort, but some of the reviews here are so oddly enthusiastic that I just have to dock a star for balance.
It's strange that in all the talk of accuracy there's no talk of the context or subtext of Wells book. This film includes a LOT of what is inessential about Wells book while completely missing what it is really about. Elements that don't chime with the upbeat cookie cutter exploitation aims of the derivative filmmakers, like the second disturbing Artilleryman scene (where he thanks the Martians for killing the weak and leaving the strong) or the vision of the dead capital city are unceremoniously junked as if they don't matter.
Worse is the total change from Wells point of view. Someone has said that the quotes about religion come from the book. Yes, but not the context. Like everything else, the filmmakers have completely misunderstood. The character is a Christian, so talks of God, but everything he experienced, as he later admits in the epilogue that is completely cut from the film, undermines and disproves that faith. (Wells was an atheist and this book is an attack on religion and imperialism both.) Prayers go unanswered, priests go mad and the world is destroyed by science. Not only that, but the pessimism of the ending is swapped for triumph. In Wells novel it is clearly said that this is not a victory for humanity but a reprieve, that the Martians will return and possibly ultimately conquer mankind. You won't find that in the cookie cutter production line happy ending here. This is a film about bland people in waistcoats with bad accents taking on Martians, nothing more.
And this is cheap production line stuff. One reviewer said comparing this to other versions was like comparing a restaurant to McDonalds. That's unfair. This is no superbly cooked feast, it's a burnt cheeseburger that's fallen on the floor, been dragged out by the cat, chucked up and then put back in the bap in the hope you won't notice the difference. If you do get suckered, my advice is to send it back and demand an apology from the manager. It seems to be infected with the same kind of unhealthy bacillus that did for the Martians.'
We don' need no steenkin' contex! No, THESE are the honest reviws!
First-timer D. Troberman compares it favorably to
Cold Mountain:
'See H.G. Wells' The War Of The Worlds to see a film that is well crafted and returns to the tradition of good cinema, where a film has a great story, great characters, great actors, and something to say about life.'
First-timer Gerson Goldman goes further:
'Movies like this never die because they speak the spirit individuality in storytelling. Yes. This movie was not a cutout as I read by some and others tried to say was somehow a hoax comment. But it is true.
Even the people not getting it or not liking it could not say it was a carbon copy of a typical Hollywood movie.
These filmmakers did not try to copy Spielberg, as I understand another low budget did, just to cash in.
They made it their own way. You can see that the filmmakers really really cared about this project and from all I've read had a deep passion to make it.
They must have for all the heat they've taken for going ahead and not stopping even though Steven Spielberg later decided to make it as well.
You can see the passion on the screen. The music score is giant, epic and passionate like the rest of the production.
These filmmakers are the real thing. Orson Welles, who made the 1930's radio broadcast of The War Of The Worlds was persecuted and attacked by the mainstream for years for doing the projects he wanted even though he stepped on some pretty big toes. And now Orson Welles movies are taught in schools.
The filmmakers don't need any encouragement from me. They seem to have the stuff of courage. I think there is few who could deny that. But I send it to them anyway.
Some will not like this movie. There are those that think Macdonalds cheeseburgers are the best in the world. And there are those who prefer that which is hand made and no two are alike. that is what this The War Of The Worlds is. I will place this movie in my collection next to my classics. It is a one of a kind.'
Bravo for telling it like it is, Mr Goldman!
First timer Kay Broihier says:
'I have an interest in everything Victorian. I appreciate the fine detail that was put into portraying the accuracy of turn-of-the-century living. Their manners, the way people walked and talked, the clothes and hair styles are all very well presented in this movie. I would have loved to be in this story.
The main character was very charming and charismatic, as well as the other supporting characters. There was always a sense of charm about the characters, even when terribly suffering.'
Okay, Kay, we'll send a Martian handling machine around to yours ASAP to suck out all your blood. Enjoy feeding time, and don't forget to bring your suspenders and tiara!
First timer Werner Karimi adds to the already deafening aplause:
'Heartwrenching love and war story. Best telling of Wells ever. Ever. Ever. Thank you for staying true to the story. THANK YOU! '
No, thank YOU, Mr Karimi. Ker-ching!
Meanwhile, first-timer Bonnie Tres has a warning to those who mock:
'H.G. Wells' The War Of The Worlds is about what might happen if we as a society are complacent and arrogant. The martians invading are the way Wells said, "hey, everyone, what if you weren't the greatest force on earth?" The morals that come out of the story are "do onto others as you would like others to do onto you" and that hubris or arrogance is and always will be man's down fall...
I can't think of a single person I know who would not enjoy this movie. If you're a sci-fi fan or a Wells fan you love it all the better.'
You're right, Bonnie: no-one gives hubris like Timbo!
But shame on InLikeFlynn of Chiswick for his totally dishonest...
'How bad? You've got egg on you bad!
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! '
He couldn't be wrong. Nor, for that matter, could Tomas Burton of Texas:
'Not faithful to the book at all + a very very bad film
I keep on noticing identical reviews here saying this film is faithful to the book. It is not. Either they've never read it or they are lying. There are huge changes to the book, esp. in the second half of the film. This may not mean much if you haven't read it, but things like the Red Weed, Dead London and the Artilleryman's demented dreams of a brave new world, the chess game, digging the hole and all of the last two chapters of the book are completely thrown out. There are other big changes all the way through the film, like setting it in 1910s America, and lots of minor ones (the cousin becomes a woman the hero is leering at over dinner, the Ulla war cry has been changed, the man the Martians feed on has turned into a woman in suspenders! tacky!!!). The biggest change is that Wells' atheist take on events and the powerlessness of religion is completely perverted by the writer director.
So, establishing this isn't really the faithful version they claim should that matter? Not if the film were any good. But it's the worst film I've ever seen. It's not like a matter of taste - oh, I don't like Fellini/Lucas/Leone/Milius/old movies. It's bad as in really, really badly made. Bad acting, bad video cam work that shakes all the time, really bad effects. Not funny bad either, BOOORRRING bad!
Somebody said this was an insult to Wells, but it's also an insult to the audience. Not a faithful version, and not a good film. And no, I don't work for Paramount either, but even if I and everybody else here who hates it did, it would still be the worst film ever made from H.G. Wells. Next to this Val Kilmer's Island of Dr Moreau is Apocalypse Now!!! Big boos all round to the cheats who made this!'
Sure, like YOU actually saw the film! Besides, you're a guy and everyone knows that chicks dig this film the most!
Let's leave the last word with another first-timer, Seattle's own Jenny Oakley - why, she might even have bumped into the Divine Emperor Timbo in her local Vons!
'Hello
It is funny reading all the reviews. Since everybody wants to do the Spielberg/Hines comparison thing, I will too. I have seen both versions, and I must say that I liked the Hines version better. Sure, Spielberg's movie is shiny and loud and flashy...kind of like a great big obnoxious SUV. Sure, Spielberg's movie has TOM CRUISE in it (gasp!). Blah blah blah. Spielberg's movie was just like any other big loud hollywood flic. And I heard tell on Oprah that Cruise and Spielberg each gave eachother expensive gifts of a motorcycle and car for the end of production celebration. Hmmmm...must be nice. All the ladies on Oprah thought so, by the orgasmic looks on their faces. Oh wait. That must have been Tom Cruise making their botox sweat.
Now take Timothy Hines War of the Worlds film. Let's say you take the motorcycle and car that Cruise and Spielberg gave eachother. Sell them. Now hold the cash in your hand. It would probably be more than the entire budget that Hines had to work with. With that in mind, One has to be impressed with the result of Hines film. There is a lot of heart in it that you just don't see in the Spielberg movie. Whereas Spielberg's movie was a great gas guzzling SUV, Hines's film is more like a beloved station wagon where you pile all the kids into for a sunday drive. You could tell there was a lot of love put into it. If you don't like low budget, don't see it. If you feel like seeing some unremarkable eye candy that will meld into every other overproduced hollywood action movie ever made, then go see Spielberg's version.'
All hail Timbo! Long live the new flesh!
