Eve Of The War

Picked up WotW today
Page 1 of 2

Author:  Optichris [ Tue Jun 07, 2005 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:  Picked up WotW today

Havent watched it yet, but did pick it up at Walmart (Im sure you guys have that over in the UK? I'm in Tx.) The cost was about US $9.00 after taxes...running time is 180 minutes, so I won't have time to watch it until tomorrow at the earliest, but it is out for those of you in the US that might be looking for it. I'll post again as soon as I've had a chance to check it out...

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Tue Jun 07, 2005 11:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

So it's official, it realy does exist =D>

So now we wait for the verdict [-o<

Author:  eveofthewar [ Wed Jun 08, 2005 6:19 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Picked up WotW today

Optichris wrote:
Havent watched it yet, but did pick it up at Walmart (Im sure you guys have that over in the UK? I'm in Tx.) The cost was about US $9.00 after taxes...running time is 180 minutes, so I won't have time to watch it until tomorrow at the earliest, but it is out for those of you in the US that might be looking for it. I'll post again as soon as I've had a chance to check it out...

Thanks for the info, if you want to email or post a review, then I'll probably put it on the main site if you like :-k

Author:  Adam Bear [ Wed Jun 08, 2005 1:11 pm ]
Post subject: 

There are 22 reviews on the Amazon (.com) website


The reviews are very, very bad!

"This is the worst movie I've ever seen"

It also looks like someone has posted fake reviews to try to hipe the film up.

Sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere...


Author:  Thunder Child [ Wed Jun 08, 2005 2:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

Judging by reviews, the sequence involving my namesake is especially bad.

Author:  Adam Bear [ Wed Jun 08, 2005 3:55 pm ]
Post subject: 

The awful thing is it appears that people working for Hines are trying to say this is a great movie; and giving 5* reviews to try to get people to buy it!

Anyway heres a selection of quotes, and one well written review.

"Some of the special effects look like simple illustrations. At several points where you see the Martians Or the Thunder Child, I suddenly felt like humming the Monty Python flying circus theme. "

"Some of the graphics (CGI) reminded me of my C-64 I used 18 years ago."

"the ONE thing that bothered me the most....was the people who played the villagers, the "extras". I saw the exact same girl in the same outfit and in the same hairstyle running back and forth during the villagers 'fleeing' scenes. In one take, I saw her literally running one way and in a few seconds later, the exact same girl ran back in the exact same direction! I saw her die about 4 or 5 times, and every time they were in a new village, the same girl in the same outfit miraculously comes back to life."

"Carve out all the needless scenes of people walking about aimlessly, the whole movie might last about an hour, hour-and-a-half tops. But the director obviously felt the continuing motif of people just strolling about was important. Perhaps by having people constantly walking in the film, he was trying to provide a counterbalance to all the people who would be walking out on the film. Or maybe the in-title-only actors were trying to escape this disaster, but they just couldn't outrun the multiple cameras which caught their each and every move, no matter how boring and trivial, from at least THREE SEPARATE ANGLES ALL OF WHICH WERE PUT IN THE FINAL FILM FOR ABSOLUTELY NO REASON OTHER THAN THE DIRECTOR'S DEEP AND SEETHING HATRED FOR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY AND YOUR PETS AND POSSIBLY EVEN YOUR HOUSEPLANTS AND WALLPAPER. "

Lastly, this was the best, most balanced review:

Phillip G. Ostroff (Austin, TX United States)
This film is a college-level production. From editing, to sound, character development/acting, to special effects, this film misses the mark.

First, editing. I lost count of the number of different color filters used throughout the film. It seemed to jump here and there, even on the same scene. I also lost track of space of time, as one moment it was dark night, then (same scene) - blue skies. Seriously. Camera work was poor, sometimes jumpy itself. Hines tried to bring the Narrator's and his brother's storylines more in parallel during the film, but this failed. The same actor played both the Narrator and his brother. If the moustache wasn't on the narrator, I wouldn't have been able to tell which part of the story I was looking at in parts.

Next, sound. The music was okay. I liked it initially. But then it went on, and on, and on... Most times it was very loud and overdramatic, sometimes drowning out the dialogue. The cries of the Martians were disappointing. I barely could detect an "alloo" sound; it sounded more like an eagle's cry. I thought their cries were supposed to roar like thunder? The sound of the heat wave was also weird. Also, with the panic in the streets sounds, it seemed a lot of cries were reused over and over (i.e. woman's cry heard from left speaker, more screaming, woman's cry heard from left speaker, screaming and crying, woman's cry heard from left speaker (get the drift?)).

Acting/character development. Not good! First, I have to say that the fake English accents were appalling. Being a Londoner myself, I should know. My wife, a native Texan, rolled her eyes an awful lot during this film. That should say it all. Anyway, the Narrator is annoying. He does try, and I give him credit for trying. But after a while, he, like the rest of the film, seems incoherent and does not draw you in to his predicament. The same actor plays the character of the brother. Except for the moustache, there is no difference. It's the same acting. There are no different nuances between the two. I found this quite annoying. Sure, H.G. Wells might not have gone into details regarding the differences of the two, but I would have used a little poetic license here. The Artilleryman was a tad disappointing; his performances were ravaged by poor editing and music that was just too loud, and his delivery was unbelievable and matter-of-factly. It seemed as though his scene towards the end of the movie was cut short. Ogilvy was over performed, but had its moments. The Curate was annoying - not because he was meant to be for the story, but because his performance was extremely transparent. The extras were really not good actors, and added to a plastic, "just parade them in front of the camera but try and have them look terrified" type of approach. Narration was used oddly. There were parts in the film that I think would have been assisted by some narration, but it just didn't happen. Overall, I don't think any of the performances were good enough to draw you into the story.

Now to Special Effects. Everyone wants to know about the fighting machines (FMs). There are scenes where you see just the tripod legs, and they are fine. They present something menacing and powerful, much like I had envisioned. But then you see the whole machine. Their tentacles and bodies/hoods are awkward. The spinning mirror design for the heat ray "generator" is an interesting one, but still looks awkward. Seeing the machines walk around was tricky to watch. Sometimes they were fluid, sometimes they skipped along; almost like a Michael Jackson moonwalk slide. The handling machine looked halfway decent, until you see them in the pit/camp during the Curate scenes. Cylinders looked okay, but more detail was needed to really point out their features. The Heat Ray did remain invisible except for when Big Ben was struck (refer to green lightning effect in previous trailer). The flying Machine (yes, you do see it) was not what I envisioned, and what exactly it was doing was not abundantly clear (I knew the reference from the book, but folks watching this without reading will wonder what the point was!). The Red Weed was scattered here and there, but did not play a very prominent role in the film. I thought it appeared too early in the story.

The Thunderchild scene was the greatest disappointment to me. This was a scene I had always envisioned as being the greatest battle of the story, as do many of the fans. The way Hines portrayed this was just bewildering. The animated boats, the way the actors sat on the ferry and watched the "battle", and the way the Martians were portrayed during the battle was just way below par. The animation was not fluid at all, and I did not feel in the slightest attached or concerned about the exploits of the Thunderchild or the Ferry it was attempting to protect.

There were some good elements to the film. The cannon emplacement scenes were fine. The costumes really were first class. There were also some pretty good-looking scenes that depicted the destroyed homes and towns. Some of the scenes in the house trapped under the cylinder were also quite good.

I just don't know what happened with this film. I wanted it to work, I really did. Finally I thought that here was a small outfit that were going to make a good adaptation and put it out there for all to see. The entire presentation was extremely amateurish, and I felt that it was a laborious three hours' experience. My wife felt the same way. It seemed to end very abruptly. I know the story ends the same way, but the Hines' ending was just too abrupt. The poor editing plagued the film throughout, and Hines' reliance upon the musical score and the actor's skill sets to carry the movie through failed. Did he lose sponsorship during production? Did his SPFX team withdraw for unknown reasons? Was Paramount really applying so much pressure that everyone fled his production for fear of legal consequences, leaving just Hines and a skeletal crew to finish it off? I know his budget was limited, but for 12 million dollars, I think something better than this still could have been produced.

I am not sure how Hines could have looked at the end product and say "Yep, let's release it!" I don't know how the distributor did the same. If I were Hines, I would have waited. Sure, the fans would have been disappointed, but with a public announcement of another delay which was honest and open, and with a little more effort and energy, this film could have been much better. Or, if there was a more personal reason for the film's delay or quality, Hines, again, should have had his PR department communicate it. Hines did not realize that he actually had a fan base from the start. With each release of a picture or trailer, that fan base degenerated. If he had maintained open, well-intended communication with these fans (perhaps through the website admins of the fan sites), he could have nurtured them instead of alienate them. If this were the case, he would have developed a loyal fan base that would have perhaps understood and rallied him further...

To buy the DVDS or not? I bought it, obviously. It was just US$8.50. I sat through it (barely) and it will sit on my DVD shelf as part of the War of the Worlds collection that will grow enormously (hopefully) during the next couple of months (knowing nod to the Asylum DVD< those few WOTW documentaries out there and the eventual DVD release of Spielberg's version). For the fans, we've waited this long, so we may as well see it. For those who are not as fanatic about WOTW as the rest of us, read the book, listen to Jeff Wayne's version, maybe see Spielberg's flick later this month. But for an image of a Martian invasion during Victorian England, just rely on your own imagination.

Author:  Optichris [ Wed Jun 08, 2005 5:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

I read the reviews prior to buying it yesterday afternoon...I'm withholding any judgement on the movie until I see it myself tonight (in about 6 hours.) I am looking forward to it, even if my expectations are pretty low. Will update the moment the movie is over :)

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:17 pm ]
Post subject: 

Thanks "Adam Bear " for a very detailed account, I'm sad to say, it sound worse than I would have guessed. I'll probably still buy it, Ive always liked Monty Python.
Today is a sad day :a009:

Author:  Loz [ Wed Jun 08, 2005 7:45 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lonesome Crow wrote:
Thanks "Adam Bear " for a very detailed account, I'm sad to say, it sound worse than I would have guessed. I'll probably still buy it, Ive always liked Monty Python.
Today is a sad day :a009:

I'll second that! :alien2:

Author:  Carioca [ Wed Jun 08, 2005 11:25 pm ]
Post subject: 

" But for an image of a Martian invasion during Victorian England, just rely on your own imagination." :?:

OR, one could travel to Seattle, Washington to visit the Science Fiction Museum & Hall of Fame, where the Alvim Corrêa collection is on display or view his work in the Corrêa gallery at EveoftheWar.com or Dr. Zeus' site!


Author:  Optichris [ Thu Jun 09, 2005 3:34 am ]
Post subject: 

Ok guys, Here's the "review so far" with some minor "movie" spoilers. I have to do it this way, becuase quite frankly, its pretty bad. I can appreciate bad movies, but this one is 3 hours long, and even I have my limits. I quit just after we first see the Tripods (when he is returning the cart to the innkeeper.)

After the all-to-familiar opening monologue, the movie starts off rather quickly paced, with Ogilvy and the narrator looking at Mars through the telescope, and the first cylinders being launched. After that, the movie slows to a crawl. Lots of unnecessary facial shots, added dialogue and "humourous" scenes, before we finally get underway with the first cylinder. Most of you reading this are familiar with the story, so I'll skip the details of it and highlight more on what the movie aspect. The Horsell common scenes are not too bad, and I have to admit, when we first get a glimpse of one of the martians emerging from the cylinder, it does look ALOT like I had pictured it based on the description in the book (A "brain" looking thing with a beak and several tentacles/arms sticking out the side. I can get screen captures if any of you want some.) The Heat Ray, while it's damage is hardly believable, is very well done in that Hines has kept the "Invisible" part intact (so far, with no cheesy "lightning bolts.") Alot of the effects, and quite frankly, the lighting, are just horrible. We see a night shot, for example, of the narrator running home after the heat ray hits, the next thing you know, he's in his house telling his wife everything, and the lighting from the outside indicates sunset/sunrise. Its hard to keep the pacing, when one minute it's at night, the next minute, it's lighting indicates midday. The Tripods...what can I say about the tripods? First of all, I wasnt too opposed to the design of them, and still don't think they look all that bad in still-shots. In motion, however, they don't move. And by that, I mean, literally, they don't move. The legs seem to stay static while the whole thing moves, and the only leg movement we see is when we DONT see the entire tripod, but rather only it's feet. I just heard the "Ulla" sound, which is barely audible over the music, which isnt bad, but is VERY intrusive (Lots of brass and percusson, for example, over quiet dialogue scenes.) Also, I have seen the same extra's several times so far in several scenes, and the narrator's brother looks to be played by the same actor (sans the fake mustache.)

It's late, and I'll actually write a "review" of sorts when I finish this sucker, but for now, those are my "first thoughts and opinions" on what I have seen so far.


Author:  Loz [ Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:52 am ]
Post subject: 

First off, Carioca, I wish I could get over to that Alvim Corrêa exabition, his Tripods are by far my favourite designs when it comes to the older artists depictions. I just love them and have them all printed out and on my hard drive. They are spectacular and so bloody spooky. I think the eyes make them and the one where a fighting machine is stood in the background watching the revelers outside the public house is just perfect.
And the one in the streets of London when the martians are dead is brilliant. The way the folks are pulling them apart and examining the eye is just wonderful. I( wish I could see these works in the flesh.

Second off, Optichris, thanks for your first bit of what will probably be a long review. Sounds like its everything we feared and worse. Something like this seen by someone who hasn't read the book, sounds like it could have them wondering why its a so called classic.
I think it is by far worse to make an incredibly poor version of War of the Worlds, set at the end of 19th centuary than it is to make a skillfully made updated version.
Sounds like Hines has insulted us all. He's like the artillary man in the story, full of big ideas with no ability to realize them.
I'll still get it, and endure the pain. Role on Jeff Wayne's version, that'll do me for closeness to the book and I'm looking forward to Speilberg's bonanza for what I can get out of it.

Author:  Martian Myster The New Ma [ Thu Jun 09, 2005 12:27 pm ]
Post subject: 

Thanks for the mini review Optichris. I had noticed that people were writing review on Amazon a few days ago but forgot to post it (sorry Guys n Gals).
However there did seem to be some people really raving on about it but I think they are plants.

Ive just had an email of Amazon saying my copy of Hines version has been despatched so hope fully might have it by the weekend.

Im in the UK just so people know.


Author:  Loz [ Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:43 pm ]
Post subject: 

Martian Myster The New Ma wrote:
Thanks for the mini review Optichris. I had noticed that people were writing review on Amazon a few days ago but forgot to post it (sorry Guys n Gals).
However there did seem to be some people really raving on about it but I think they are plants.

What kinda plants? Pot plants?

Author:  Klaatu [ Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:18 am ]
Post subject: 

Oh dear !...It all sounds so depressing.

Author:  Loz [ Fri Jun 10, 2005 7:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

I take it that you haven't managed to get through any more yet then Optichris?

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Fri Jun 10, 2005 11:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

I think he may have hanged himself rather than finish a review on what sounds like a real turkey. thanks for your comments 'Optichris' don't worry, we won't shoot the messenger.
And Loz I like your analogy between the Artillary man and Hines. very good =D>

Author:  Optichris [ Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:34 am ]
Post subject: 

Sorry about the delay, guys. I had a water softener break at my Grandmother’s house yesterday, and between that and the San Antonio Spurs (Basketball) game last night, I just couldn’t get around to finishing the movie. Here’s some random thoughts, since I just finished it (and ran upstairs to write this):

I started it up today right where I left off the other day, with the Narrator having just seen the tripods, and managed to limp my way to the end of the movie from there, oftentimes staring at the “running time” on my DVD player to see how far we were in. Did any of you ever play those old CD-ROM games that had full motion video in it back in the early 90’s? Oftentimes, it was actors in front of a blue/green screen, with backgrounds added in later (Wing Commander 3, for example.) This movie was very much that. I really cannot see how Hines could have looked at the finished product and thought that it was good enough to release, unless he had a deadline to meet to get the movie out.

There are a couple of scenes that did seem to look A LOT better, such as the Artilleryman’s “flashback” scene (where we see him escape the Martians to meet up with the Narrator,) and when the cylinder and the house decide to meet. The CG here looked much better, and it looked to me that Hines may have spent a larger amount of time working on those particular scenes, and had to rush the rest, explaining why it looked so poorly. The Handling machines looked decent in some scenes, although still obviously CG, they did look better. My biggest beef, and one that actually had me embarrassed to be showing this to my wife (who is unfamiliar with the story) was the Thunderchild scenes. These are SO bad that its not even funny (maybe it is, I’m probably going to take some screen captures of it just to get my moneys worth out of the DVD.)

Everyone’s favorite Big Ben scene is in the film, exactly as you see it in the trailer. The Flying machines do make an appearance in the film, though really aren’t very awe-inspiring. The acting, as expected, is pretty bad. The actor playing the narrator and his brother can hide behind that fake mustache most of the film, but his “talents” (or lack thereof,) are exposed when he plays the brother. Don’t expect much of “Dead London” either, as the movie seems to end abruptly. We don’t even see the Artilleryman’s hole, or hear of his grand plots. He only briefly mentions the drains. All of a sudden, the narrator goes through a row of trees, and meets a Martian that’s dying. It’s literally that quick.

I don’t want to come across as “defending” the film, as the other reviews state, if you’re expecting something great, don’t waste your time. I don’t think Hines made this to spit on the story, as, although he adds things here and there to the story, none of the additions take away from the fact that he did follow the source materials VERY closely, story-wise. He switched the order of a few things in the story (Thunderchild is near the end, not in the middle) but, the movie does get a SLIGHT kudos from me because my wife is now interested in reading the book (which I had to explain is MUCH better  ) Finally, you wont hear me defend Hines, since the film IS very amateurish, however, I think he started a project and had no idea what he was getting himself into, budget and time-wise. If you can watch something this bad and not get angry about it, it is worth a chuckle or two, however, I wouldn’t recommend buying it. Rental or borrowing from a friend will make it much easier to accept.

I apologize if this didn’t cover something that some of you may have been looking for. I browse the forums daily, and will be happy to answer any questions you have about anything specific in the movie if I didn’t address it here.



Author:  Loz [ Sat Jun 11, 2005 10:16 am ]
Post subject: 

They'll make a film about Hines one day. Maybe Tim Burton will direct it and Jonny Depp can play Hines. :a112:

You mention that the artillary man doesn't really go into his plan, and we don't see the whole he has dug. Maybe Hines thought folks watching it would go, hey that's a metaphor for the idiot who directed this.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sat Jun 11, 2005 5:47 pm ]
Post subject: 

Thanks 'Optichris' for your review, as I said before we won't shoot the messenger, but I dare say there are a few who would like to soot Hines.
You could be right and he just 'bit off more than he could chew',
I won't be rushing off to buy my copy just yet. :a009: I'll wait for the Director's cut :a037:

Author:  Loz [ Sat Jun 11, 2005 8:57 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lonesome Crow wrote:
I won't be rushing off to buy my copy just yet. :a009: I'll wait for the Director's cut :a037:

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Apperently its 14 hours long and you get rotten eggs with it to throw at the tv whilst its on.

Author:  Brad Smith [ Sun Jun 12, 2005 4:36 am ]
Post subject: 

First off, I do applaud Hines and his crew for attempting a faithful adaptation of the HG Wells' novel. I did a double-take when I saw the DVD at Wally-World the other night; so, I paid my $9-plus dollars and took it home to watch it.

Three hours . . . . I only made it halfway before I had to stop.

OK . . . on http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/, it states that the film was shot on location in Seattle and the UK. Was it?

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sun Jun 12, 2005 6:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

I can't remember where it was shot, I think Seattle was where it was going to be shot, but 9/11 forced Hines to change his plans.
when I saw the trailers I thought, that's the wrong type of vegetation for England, some of it was tropical :a009: the plants were more alien than the Martians :a037:

Author:  Loz [ Sun Jun 12, 2005 11:00 pm ]
Post subject: 

I remember reading an article way back. Hines was talking about ditching the moveie because of 9/11 so it must of been just after then. And he said there had been a forest fire close to location and he had shot it. He couldn't believe his luck at being able to shoot a forest inferno and would have included it in the film. Is this fire in the version he eventually made?

Author:  Alland [ Tue Jun 14, 2005 10:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

Let's get to the nitty-gritty: How are the battle sequences (aside from the apparently lousy naval battle)?

Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group