User Reviews

Seeing this title in my Amazon Prime suggestions I jumped right away at giving it a shot. The idea of a mockumentary telling of the War between the Planets as a real event struck me as utter genius and gold. I was wondering if it would be something like World War Z (the book), as an "oral history" in the form of interviews with survivors after the fact in a world irrevocably changed by the events, or perhaps some manner of Alternate 1960s in which Earth has assimilated Martian technology and greatly advanced over the century far more than in reality, or perhaps even some manner of post-apocalyptic telling in a world dominated or partly destroyed by Martians using one of the last remaining video cameras.

I appear to have gotten far ahead of myself in that regard, as what I got instead was a very safe re-telling of the actual novel War of the Worlds, almost completely by the book in the form of an uncovered 1965 interview with the last remaining survivor of the "war" itself.

Given that it follows the book very strictly, there is little room to indulge in historical what-ifs, given that the "war" only lasts a few days/weeks before the Martians succumb to Earthborn illness and bacteria. This rather disappointed me, as I felt that so much more could have been done with the story. About the only thing new with this version is the framing device of a documentary, and nothing more.

Not only is this an immense letdown, but it betrays what you begin to suspect during much of the prologue exposition and the interview itself, and which is painfully revealed in a postlude claiming that Bertie Wells, after surviving the War of the Worlds, went to America and became a war correspondent and served...

... in World War I.

So despite the literally species-changing event of an interplanetary invasion, one which has resulted in tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths, the destruction of multiple English towns and cities, and the remains of Martian technology left behind which could conceivably change all of human civilization unlike anything that had preceded it, far beyond that of even internal combustion, electricity, or the radio...

... despite all that, Human history continues along basically the exact same path, with a World War I around the same time as real history, and the mere phrasing of it as World War "I" implying a World War II as well.

This was perhaps the biggest disappointment of the film.

Despite that, it was an interesting ride for what it was, and while a lot of the footage relied on documentary-standard re-enactments, most of the "actual footage" is sufficiently realistic looking, while used sparingly enough so as not to oversaturate the piece.

Before starting this review, I have one thing to say... STOP BASHING Steven Spielberg's 2005 adaptation!!! It is not a bad movie! It's good! Sure, the way the aliens come to Earth is odd and the two kids are annoying, but the acting is good, especially Tom Cruise and Tim Robbins' performances, and it does more justice to the book than the old one does! It has actually as many flaws as the 1953 has, flaws I'm shocked some people never notice, like the strings that hold the war machines, the characters being undeveloped (in the 2005 film Ray goes through a character development unlike them) and the "explaination" of why the martians wanted to invade Earth is flawed compared to the one in the book which made a lot more sense! Bottomline, quit hating the 2005 movie, it's not a bad film or a bad adaptation! Just STOP.

...And now that we got that elephant out of the room, let's talk about this film. Now THIS is how Timothy Hines should have done his adaptation from the beginning! Something that does justice to the book and it's original on it's own.

The way they played like if the War of the Worlds really happened with fictional documents and pictures while being obvious at times at how they made the effect, has a such old-school charm. That's what this movie is: charming. Well, probably to all the fans of the book like myself, but even so I think everyone can enjoy this little gem of a fictional documentary. I also believe it's a VERY good introduction to someone who knows nothing about the source material. The Tripods look really good and I loved how the martians were haunting creatures that are shown rarely, it really sets a good tone. Everything is so fresh, the idea is genuine and never done before... I probably like it more than others because this is the adaptation I would have done if I was a filmmaker. Just with a bigger budget. And this is where we come to the negatives...

For the negatives... This movie carries some of the campy nature and stiff performances that Hines has shown in his previous adaptation. The dramatic scenes, filmed in sepia tones to blend in with the historical footage, are clumsily staged and acted, you know, just like in that film. But again, what saves the movie it's its conception and charm.

And so I must give this movie a 7/10 It's not perfect, it's not the ultimate adaptation of WOTW, but it's a damn close one in my opinion. Go see it.

Not great cinema, but an above average audio book with video and illustrations.

I'd rather read the book or listen to the audio book in my car. Not a good use of TV time for me.

As a youngster, I read WOTW and was absolutely enthralled by it. I watched Hines' original movie and reviewed it (not entirely unkindly) on this bulletin board, and in doing so I noted that one of the major flaws of movie versions was to remove the setting of the story from the end of the 19th Century to "the present day" - which was one of the saving graces of Hines' WOTW I - keeping the time and place, in theory at least, of the book. My reasoning was that even as far back as the 1950s, when George Pal filmed the book, modern day man has reached a comfortable acceptance of at least the possibility of life elsewhere than on this planet, but to the average man or women of Wells' day, this idea was totally unthinkable, which, when the modern day reader accepted this, gave rise to an insight into the utter terror that would have been felt when his book was published.

In WOTW II, Hines has done a very interesting piece of mental trickery to convince a modern day movie audience that the fear was more than just a simple fear of death - it was the complete overturning of the fabric on the mind. He keeps the viewer in two disparate worlds, that of the 19th Century, while still being addressed by a citizen of the 1960s. Whilst the method has been used before (eg Little Big Man) of using a participant in the events to relay their story directly to the audience, the device of mixing real footage with "re-enactment" is meritorious in this construct.

I watched the movie quite happily until I was struck by an unbelievable error which completely spoiled the entire movie, and that was the episode of the Torpedo Ram "Thunder Child" failing to destroy any enemy. In the book (and indeed in Hines' previous film) this event was absolutely crucial to whole of the story, and indeed much of Wells other literature. Firstly, this gave the reader a burst of hope (as also in the destruction of Sheperton) by showing that as merciless and technologically advanced as the Martians were, they were nevertheless still capable of being destroyed.

Secondly, in the book the ship destroyed two of the Martian fighting machines, once by ramming, and the second as the ship exploded, in a battle of human machine versus Martian machine - the humans and the Martians were present, but invisible, as the mechanical warfare was fought.

Wells is credited with forecasting aerial warfare, the atomic bomb and armoured fighting vehicles ("The Land Ironclads"). He predicted the outbreak of WWII to within a year ("Shape of Things to Come"). In fact, having re-read "The Land Ironclads" after I finished WOTW II, I was astounded to see that when Wells describes how the "soldiers" in the tanks were killing their infantry opponents, they were within an enclosed space with a projected image of the battlefield, and targeted their victim by the seemingly simple action of using a device like engineers dividers and pushing an electric button. If the shot missed, the operator moved his device, re-aimed and fired again. Sounds remarkably similar to robot warfare of today with operators in remote locations operating drone aircraft to destroy their targets.

So in removing the clash of the mechanical Titans in WOTW II, Hines has completely stripped much of Wells' vision of its power by doing what George Pal did (and presumably other film makers, but I've not watched any other versions) and that was to make the Martians supremely indestructible (except for the Shepperton action), thus removing any semblance of hope. "If only the humans could have worked together just a little bit more ... they just might have brought it off." But alas they stumbled almost within reach of the final goal.

Apart from that one huge failure, I actually enjoyed the movie, modestly, and think it at least as good as WOTW I, and probably better.

Forget Tim's 2005 fiasco. This was a complete vindication. The story is told from the POV of the last living survivor, Bertie Wells, in a 1965 interview. Once you accept that premise, settle in for a fast moving pastiche of stock footage images blended with re-creations, ala the History Channel, with images of the Martian machines woven, fairly believably, into the ancient film. The SFX are very well done; not standing out like a sore thumb especially as the Martian machines make their march burning everything in their path. The dialog of "Bertie" are the exact words written by Wells in his novel and the actor brings a sense of authority and gravitas to his role. Yes, there are some niggling little things that history buffs and film nerds will be quick to latch onto (I saw Shirley Temple in one scene). But, that can be a source of fun when the Blue-Ray comes out. If you love the source material as much as I do, WotW:TTS is an excellent tribute to H.G. Wells' novel and I recommend that it be seen when it gets to your town. - Jim Corvill, Portland Science Fiction Society

I have read H. G. Wells my whole life. This is the most delightful movie version of War of the Worlds I have ever seen. Left me wondering whether there was a cover up. Jumped a few times. I really appreciated how accurate to the novel this movie was. Because it's available on Prime I get to watch it over and over. It's the kind of movie that reveals more and more as you watch it.

...that at the 4th attempt, this film does nothing to raise Mr Hines from the level of a modern day Ed Wood. This is not a character assassination (although the actors do a good job themselves) of Mr Hines, this is my opinion after having purchased and watched all four versions of this film: the original three hour debacle, the director's cut, the 'classic' version and this, the 'True Story'.

Plus marks do need to be given for the idea of making an eye witness documentary, for it was a good idea. Unfortunately, as with the previous efforts, the execution of said idea is very poor indeed.

Despite claims previously made to the contrary, there is a large amount of footage form the previous films used. Not a massive problem but when (as previously stated) this was supposed to be a new, fresh, properly done version coupled with the fact that a lot of the old scenes seem to have been given the sort of filter effects that one could perform with basic video editing software, one such as I who has loyally bought all versions is left feeling rather robbed.

Even the documentary/interview sections seem to have been processed with some dreadful and unnecessary effects in post.

There is new CGI, a lot of which barely improves on the previous attempts, but the reason I have raised this from a 2 out of 10 to a 3 is that some time and effort has clearly been made on a new 'tripod' design. It does look very good, in a 'steam punk' kind of way.

Perhaps if I was not a previously loyal (if demonstrably misguided) customer I would have marked this higher. Perhaps if I was a newbie and bought this film with no real expectations of greatness that had been promised I wouldn't feel so disappointed. Alas, I do, and I will not be spending any of my hard earned money on any future endeavours by Tim Hines.

Still, it was nice to see that he included a bit of footage from his long forgotten film-that-was-never-made 'Chrome' as a video ident at the beginning.

Actually, the music was pretty good, but alas whoever was in charge of final production appears to have the aural and mixing dexterity of a deaf baboon.

So, what next for the half Ed Wood, half Walter Mitty? Frankly, I am not in the least bit interested anymore.

Actually, I am raising this to a 4 out of 10, because after all it is better than the woeful Tom Cruise version and especially the dreadful version by Asylum.

I am surprised most people consider this to be fiction. My great-grandfather tells me of the huge machines marching across the landscape, their heat rays blasting great swaths across the...

Okay, maybe not. I enjoyed this film quite a bit, for several reasons. One: it didn't take itself too seriously. This is comprised of a great deal of "found footage" scenes... none of which is so blatant as a young Shirley Temple stepping out on a balcony to view the destruction. Similar "popular actor" scenes can be found if one is watching closely. I found that enjoyable, a sort of built-in easter egg they added for the fun of it.

Two: the dialog/script was excellent. People today are largely unaware that the language we speak in the U.S. today is vastly different from that of the 1800s and early 1900s. The film stuck true to the language of the day, giving it a greater feel of authenticity.

I also enjoyed the "Steampunk" element to it, visible nowhere so much as in the design of the Martian Tripods.

There were three major flaws in the film, which is why I give it 8 rather than 10 stars.

1) The distance / time correlation was faulty in several areas of the film. People walking on foot could not possibly have traveled as far as indicated in the film within the short time given. Similarly, at the beginning of the film, they would have had to have newspaper printing presses faster than the Internet to publish the number of editions rolling out within a very short period of time. These were continuity errors that are forgivable within the otherwise interesting presentation of the film in general.

2) Blatantly missing (and contradictory to logic) is the concept that scientists of the day would have been hard at work disassembling the Martian machinery and reverse-engineering it to create their own massive war machines in preparation for a future invasion. The idea that this invasion was very closely followed by World War I really made little sense-- and the total lack of Martian weaponry during that war difficult to believe. At the very least they could have mentioned, "Great effort was made to reproduce the Martian death weapons, but they were simply too far advanced beyond the science of the day." That would have at least explained such a glaring omission.

3) The utter inability of mankind to fight back. They showed one scene where an artillery shell by sheer coincidence made direct contact and blew a Martian Tripod apart. Why then, weren't the battleships at sea able to do the same? (I believe in the original work a couple of Tripods were indeed taken out in such a manner.) Most of the cannons shown were mass-destruction "lob" types. Where though, were the far-more-accurate sight-aimed artillery weapons? Those could have done some significant damage.

So those items knocked the film down a couple of stars. Beyond that the acting (especially of the elderly "Wells") was superb, the directing well-done, and the story, though pretty much by-the-book and nothing-new-here... was enjoyable (a story well told, even if known, is still a good story). Also two thumbs up for the ancient-but-effective special effects. The results of the Martian death rays were as well-done as the Tom Cruise remake... which was one of the original-concept high points of that movie.

I enjoyed the fake-documentary style of this, the occasional obviously-fake-footage while making the whole film relatively believable, and the effort in general of simply telling a good tale. In that, I believe they succeeded.

This lousy POS is just more crap piled upon the last pile of crap. How can anyone waste the time and money to create a POS like this?

Ever since I read the book I wanted to see HG Wells version and now I have , this docudrama is about 95% of the book so it's the closest we will get , it's not perfect as there's some ropy acting but it stays faithful to the book so I can forgive that

If you loved the book I recommend this version as a must see , you can watch it on prime video and also buy it if you wish it's not expensive

Really cute idea. Found footage, fill the obvious gaps with a narration from a survivor, and also use basically the text of the original source novel.

And that's it. Nothing else worked. The overall style is just a total mess. It doesn't emulate any documentary done by anyone, anywhere, with the weird titles flying across the screen, etc. All graphics look like they were done on an Amiga. Yes, in the 90s. had to look several times to confirm this is from 2012.

The fake found footage is hilariously bad. Even the stills are just atrocious, junior high project level bad. Newspapers with Comic Sans hastily over-printed for example. The film is... I can't tell. The conceit admits they have some re-enactments, but it's not clear which badly done bits are supposed to be re-enacted, which are supposed to be stock, and which are supposed to be the original footage.

And all the film is... weird. Like post-processed to reduce quality I /guess/ but it looks just strange instead.

Good idea, someone should do it. Just none of the people involved with this. Ever.

I've never had the desire to read any book by HG Wells, but have made several attempts at getting past the first 10 minutes of this oh-so-boring 'pile of crap'.

This is a special treat. I enjoyed it very much. The vintage footage flowed easily with the new footage. Well, not too bad. Anyway, a great tribute to the story.

Literally the SAME EXACT story as the Tom Cruise movie, just set in the early 1900s, right down to the end where the germs kill the Martians. It felt an hour longer than it actually was. The main character reads from an off-camera script rather than learning the lines and never moves anything but his eyebrows. The 1 star is for decent special effects, but otherwise it's just horrible.

My introduction to H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds is the George Pal movie, which I saw at a downtown theater that showed not-quite first run movies on Saturday morning for free with six Pepsi bottlecaps around 1958.

Since then, I have learned that modern big budget special effects don't make a better movie. I've heard the recording of the Orson Welles radio production. And I've seen a TV movie or two ABOUT the radio production. This was really different and refreshing in that it seems to follow the novel accurately.

One complaint. Science mis-stated in the screenplay. The lead/narrator is trying to point out Mars in the sky to his lady friend. He says see it twinkle more than the stars. Wrong. Backwards. Stars twinkle, planets don't, but rather are steady lights in the sky. Reason has to do with being closer to earth and being discs from our perspective as seen from earth, while stars, since they are SO FAR away, are points of light even in a telescope, and so are affected more by the atmosphere.

Otherwise, entertaining and great mix of archive and new footage, plus original text by H. G. Wells.