Shall we start positively- what did Tim get right?

[Wastedyuthe]

Okay- NO slagging off please. NO naughty or insulting or negative comments JUST FOR A CHANGE, with regards to Tims film. Like it or loathe it, maybe, just maybe, some of us can find something positive to say about Tim Hines' War Of The Worlds. What did he get right?
I'll start by saying I liked Piana. He gave a good performance and found him very entertaining- it looked like he might have added his own manerisms here and there to give the writer some character. I liked the score- it was very suitable for the story, and fitted well. I was pleasantly suprised by the artillery mans flashback to the initial tripod attack- budget and effects limitations aside, I thought it was very well made. Finally, for the moment, I thought Piana and Susan Goforth did a good job at the end when they finally got back together again- good acting, good score, and a decent edit of that scene made it a good one. Anyone else have any other positive comments to make?

[Stu]

OK - you know why people are going to slag it off, simply because of its cheap special effects & because of its long, drawn out manner......that aside, on a positive note, I think its good in the way that its probably going to be the closest you'll get to an equal adaptation on film in terms of the actual storyline and sequence of events. I thought the old guy who played Ogilvy was quite good & along with wastedyuthe, I thought the wife (can't remember her name either - sorry) was pretty decent also.

I thought the film was.....mmmmm........ok - 5/10

[Reppu]

I have not seen the movie, just yet. But i think the main good thing about it would be that Tim took the risk and the effort to allocate it in the origial context, that is, the victorian era in England. That, i'm afraid, is something we will never ever see in any other movie that could be made in the future (saving CGI). And definitely, no picture allocated nowadays would fulfill our hope for a perfect rendition of the novel, don't you agree?

[David Faltskog]

I kinda liked it in a "Is this for real or just a Crazy Dream" way, it's too long (well in it's original form) and the FX's and dodgy acting knock points off my score but risking the wrath of Rusti and others it's ok and worth at least 3/10

Balance need not reply!

D.F.

[Wastedyuthe]

reppu said:

I have not seen the movie, just yet. But i think the main good thing about it would be that Tim took the risk and the effort to allocate it in the origial context, that is, the victorian era in England. That, i'm afraid, is something we will never ever see in any other movie that could be made in the future (saving CGI). And definitely, no picture allocated nowadays would fulfill our hope for a perfect rendition of the novel, don't you agree?

Yes, I commend him for choosing to set it in the original period, rather than the other films choices of present day. However, I think it was at least partly due to his budget though- with it being set in present day, he would have needed more effects work with the cities etc. With the period he set it in, we barely see any cities, and most of it was set in the countryside. Admitedly, in that day and age there would have been more countryside than we have now, but perhaps not as much as was perceived by his film. Basically, I can see why he chose to do so with the budget he had.

I am looking forward to Mr Wayne's version, CG or not.

[Reppu]

But it was a good decision regarding the story itself nonetheless

[Wastedyuthe]

Agreed.

[thedonal]

I think it's positive as a test of character to sit through the original 3-day version- if you can do that, there's not much you can't!

And also, without it, we'd not have had the Blackmoon version which makes me larf so hard.

I agree on the faithfulness of the script and I was strangely neutral on it- I think it's awful, but it it's own naive 'trying too hard' kind of way, I found it hard to actually dislike as such.

[Thunder Child]

There were a few things in the movie that I liked:

First of all the first part of the movie. Seeing the writer walk to and from Horsell Common, with the music and seeing him just enjoying life so to speak. Gives a real feel to the "safety" that he felt. Also the conversation between the writer en the butcher and his son, in the pit was well done, turning the tekst that Wells gave into a conversation that really made sence.

I also liked the "Ruined House" bit, the 2 actors were doing a good job.

The music was wonderfull and kept sticking in my mind for days.

[Wastedyuthe]

thunderchild said:

Also the conversation between the writer en the butcher and his son, in the pit was well done, turning the tekst that Wells gave into a conversation that really made sence.

Agreed. Although the boys acting was a little suspect, it was well scripted, and I like the way the characters are looking at the cylinder in wonderment and excitement, but are totally oblivious to the terror to come.

[andy120290]

I liked how they kept to the original story. Settting it in the early 20th century instead of a modernized version was a change of pace from the other movies. I also liked the overall design of the tripods and handling-machines.

Good idea, wastedyuthe, to start off on a high note.

[Wastedyuthe]

Thank you- thought it would make a change . This may even get some of us to maybe want to watch it again soon perhaps. Keep 'em comin' peeps.

[Scifishocks]

No, you are right. It wasn't ALL bad and I think it doesn't hurt at all to remember that. I am being serious. The film really did have some good points. And I will probably watch it again soon.
I really did enjoy Piana's performance. Except the walking bits.
Using the period setting was commendable... as was the adherance to the original story.

[Rocka]

To be honest, I thought the best bit of the whole film was that shot in the trailer where the FM's legs are coming over the guns on the battlefield towards the camera. I could've handled seeing 'em just shot like that throughout.
Oh, and the music. Thought that was very professoinal, unlike my truly creative spelling.

[killraven]

Most people here will know I've always tended to look on the positive side of this film!

As has been said before, I believe it was brave for Hines to set the film in period. I don't agree that this might not or could not be done again. But it won't be a while, since we were overloaded for films a couple of years back.

I also thought Piana did a workmanlike job. I was also impressed with Kaufmann (who I believe is a hospital chaplain in real life!?) and the Under the Ruined House scenes were by far the best realised in the film. I also liked the battle sequence, the design of the handling machine and elements of the Horsell Common segment

I'm seriously considering getting this "2nd Director's Cut". Seeing as I don't own either of the earlier versions, it should be at least worth part of what I pay for it!

KR