Eve Of The War
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/

A third review -- 4 out of 10
http://www.focusgaming.co.uk/eveofthewar/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=611
Page 1 of 1

Author:  gypsywlf [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 12:55 pm ]
Post subject:  A third review -- 4 out of 10

First off, I'm not sorry I bought the DVD. It helps that it was only 9 dollars, but I do not regret it.

Hines' film should not be viewed with Hollywood eyes. Modern audiences have become jaded, generally, expecting bigger sets, larger casts, bigger fire balls, etc. Spielberg is courting -that- audience. Hines is clearly not.

That said, Hines' film may be a bit of an ugly child which only a mother (HG Wells fan) can love. Wells' tale is strong enough to carry a weak production, but it cannot make it into a silk purse.

The amateurish special effects can be forgiven, somewhat, on the basis of it being a low budget production. You can be pretty sure that NO artists/SFX director's vision of the tripods will match what each reader imagined from the novel. Hines' tripods were at least tall and used an invisible heat ray. The animation of them was, at times, almost painful to watch. Better to show only glimpes and let the audience fill in the visual blanks.

Some effects clearly took up more time and budget than they should have. Time wasted animating the pointless scene of writhing skeletons (of Henderson and Ogilvy) could have been better spent elsewhere.

Often, the overall effect was akin to a school project done with no budget. Frequent use of matt art overlaying actors walking along a grassy path virtually screams of "Done with no money." A similar message comes through when you see the same crowd-walking-by footage used several times. (I didn't see the woman others mentioned, but did note the guy with crate on his shoulder at least four times) Even these low-low-budget aspects didn't put me off, though. I know it's a low budget film.

Yes, the acting was...uninspired. They, too, had a sort of school-project aura about them. At times too flat, at times too extendedly upset, and often with a look of "my line is coming up soon" on their faces. I have to wonder how much of their weak acting is their own inexperience, or a -lack- of strong directing. For all I know, Hines himself told them to act the way they did. "You're terrified. Squint. Breathe fast and deeply through your nose." So they did.

One problem may be that Hines is listed as having both filmed AND edited the work. It could well be that the cameraman side of Hines prevailed too often over the director/editor side, keeping what should have been cut.

Many scenes are too long, with repetition (or extension) which adds nothing, but instead, allows the audience to cool off. For example, in the scene where the narrator is driving the cart back to the inn, and he encounters a tripod, short gasp and look up in horror would work. You'd know he'd seen something big and frightful. But it goes on and on for dozens of seconds. Instead of feeling his fear, I found myself with time to wonder, 'what's wrong with -him-?' The mood was ruined by having too much.

Given that this film currently has almost three hours of footage. I think a stronger editor could shorten this work up to two hour, or hour and a half film and it will be much stronger. At present, I would give it a 4 out of 10, mostly because it followed the novel fairly well. If this same level of film production quality were used on a different popular novel of the era (say, Riddle of the Sands) which did not have WotW cache, it would rate barely a 1 or a 2. But, with stronger editing, a shorter Hines' WotW could be more of a 6. Campy, but era-genuine.

Scene comments:

Thunder Child -- yes, a very lame battle with almost embarrasing 'special effects'. For a major emotional event in the story, it comes off flacid at best. Too much time/money was spent on the CGI model of the torpedo ram, and hence a 'need' to show it off more than the story merited.

The Ruined House -- actually, this came off passibly well. The acting was still B grade, but better. The Curate may have been the only character which did not (most of the time) seem to be an actor reciting lines.

The Man on Putney Hill -- significant amounts of Wells' dialogue survived, but what was a major story element (to me) -- the spartan dream of resistence and resurgence -- just fell flat.

Conclusion:
I'll watch it again, with my kids, after they read the novel (I bought them both copies to read FIRST). I don't regret buying the Hines' DVD, but might have if the price had been much more than 10 bucks. Someone out there needs to really edit the work into a 90 minute piece. It will be much better then.

For me, Wells carried Hines over the finish line. There's nothing to make me desire to see any more of Hines' work.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Fri Jun 17, 2005 10:12 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
I don't regret buying the Hines' DVD

But if the acting, Directing, Editing and special FX are so bad and someone said the music was so load you couldn't hear the dialogue in places, then I have to ask "why bother", I'll stick to the book and my imagination.
=D> Thanks for the review, quite funny in parts :lol:
You say 'you don't regret buying It' but I bet you hide it behind the porno DVDs when someone visits :lol:

Author:  crc32 [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 5:48 am ]
Post subject: 

Funny you should mention that. The Music was pretty good during the film. The music almost doesn't seem to fit in with the low budget acting and effects of the movie. An Excellent soundtrack none the less.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 2:51 pm ]
Post subject: 

crc32 wrote:
Funny you should mention that. The Music was pretty good during the film. The music almost doesn't seem to fit in with the low budget acting and effects of the movie. An Excellent soundtrack none the less.

I've not seen the film myself, so i'm just going on what someone else has said. It would be nice to think this film has something good about it. :D

Author:  Loz [ Sat Jun 18, 2005 4:33 pm ]
Post subject: 

Everyone has ifferent standards, mine are very high, and from what I have seen in the trailers and screenshots, this film has very low standards. I should have my copy soon, and I will endure it, and I'll post my review.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sun Jun 19, 2005 12:14 pm ]
Post subject: 

Loz wrote:
Everyone has different standards, mine are very high.
:a103: No they're not, we all know you're a Dr Who fan :lol: :lol:
Sorry I couldn't resist that one [-X

Author:  Loz [ Sun Jun 19, 2005 5:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

Mainly because the ideas are so unique. The police box TARDIS regenerating into different actors, the scope of the thing and of course the great Tom Baker. And it was good for its time, as a kids show.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sun Jun 19, 2005 7:49 pm ]
Post subject: 

Agreed. I just couldn't resist it :lol:
I am also a bit of a fan.

Author:  gypsywlf [ Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:23 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lonesome Crow wrote:
Quote:
I don't regret buying the Hines' DVD

But if the acting, Directing, Editing and special FX are so bad... then I have to ask "why bother", I'll stick to the book and my imagination.

You say 'you don't regret buying It' but I bet you hide it behind the porno DVDs when someone visits :lol:


Hehe, well, hiding Hines as you suggested wouldn't afford it any cover, as there aren't any of -those- DVDs for it to hide behind. [-X

But seriously, Hines' product seems much akin to the ugly tie purchased for father's day, or the lumpy clay 'ashtray' little Jimmy made for his mother (who doesn't smoke). It's a tacky blight of a thing in itself, but it's kept as a token of love. For me, Hines' film is little Timmy's tribute to a great story -- even though it's pretty much an ugly ashtray.

I've watched it again with my wife and kids. (after they read the book) They all agree that it's quite lame as a "real" movie, but between it and the book, we've had several lively meal conversations on WotW. That's not a bad thing.

Going forward, I'll preface any future viewings with friends by saying, "Now, think of this as what a college acting class did one summer as a group project."

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Sun Jun 19, 2005 9:40 pm ]
Post subject: 

It's a good point, but this group project took 5 years and cost $ 12 million, My fears are that many people will see this as the "official version of H. G. Wells' 'The War of the Worlds' instead of the poor parody it seems to be :a009:

Author:  Alland [ Sun Jun 19, 2005 11:13 pm ]
Post subject: 

I took the plunge and bought the VHS version at Wal-Mart, and I've actually watched the thing several times already. Odd someone complained about the music; that was one of the best things about the movie.

Actually, I don't think it will be classed as the worst sci fi film in history, though it certainly won't be near the top, or even the middle section. My reasoning is this: the archaic aura the film gives off. This film gives one the general impression of having been made during the early decades of movie-making. For instance, the scenes that are mostly in one color remind me of similar scenes in old silent films, most notably the Willis O'Brien version of Doyle's "The Lost World". Even the cornball dialogue reminds one of bad Victorian fiction. The land battle sequences were fascinating, and give the impression of being newsreel films from some turn-of-the-century war. I think this film will survive through sheer quaintness. Heck, look at how popular the Godzilla movies were, and they were nothing but a man in a monster suit.

I'm actually watching the film again as I type this, and I'm at the part where the Martian comes out of the cylinder. Ironically, the special effects guys did too good a job with the creature, making it far too lively. Wells' Martians, after all, could only crawl slowly and painfully over the ground due to Earth's greater gravity. They would have done better to get a real octopus to come out of the cylinder model, particularly since there aren't that many scenes where we actually see the Martians themselves.

Author:  Loz [ Mon Jun 20, 2005 1:35 pm ]
Post subject: 

Alland wrote:
I took the plunge and bought the VHS version at Wal-Mart, and I've actually watched the thing several times already. Odd someone complained about the music; that was one of the best things about the movie.

Actually, I don't think it will be classed as the worst sci fi film in history, though it certainly won't be near the top, or even the middle section. My reasoning is this: the archaic aura the film gives off. This film gives one the general impression of having been made during the early decades of movie-making. For instance, the scenes that are mostly in one color remind me of similar scenes in old silent films, most notably the Willis O'Brien version of Doyle's "The Lost World". Even the cornball dialogue reminds one of bad Victorian fiction. The land battle sequences were fascinating, and give the impression of being newsreel films from some turn-of-the-century war. I think this film will survive through sheer quaintness. Heck, look at how popular the Godzilla movies were, and they were nothing but a man in a monster suit.

I'm actually watching the film again as I type this, and I'm at the part where the Martian comes out of the cylinder. Ironically, the special effects guys did too good a job with the creature, making it far too lively. Wells' Martians, after all, could only crawl slowly and painfully over the ground due to Earth's greater gravity. They would have done better to get a real octopus to come out of the cylinder model, particularly since there aren't that many scenes where we actually see the Martians themselves.


Just want to pick up on a couple of points here -

(1) I dislike it when the Martians are compared to Octopi, the descriptions are very disimmilar. The Martians have 16 slender tenticals in clusters of two under the mouth. Octopus have eight thick tenticals eminating from around the body. The Martians are basically huge brains, Octopi are not. The Octopus beak is hidden underneath at the center of the tenticals and The Martain beak is just below their eyes.

(2) If you made a Godzilla movie now with the same level of effects as the old ones, ie a man in a suit it would be derided. In fact they made it with modern effects and it still bombed.

I'm not having ago just making a couple of points.

I agree with the sluggishness of the Martians, and its a shame he didn't show that, hell its a shame the man was ever born!

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Mon Jun 20, 2005 9:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Quote:
hell its a shame the man was ever born!

A little harsh maybe :D but I agree he couldn't organize a p*ss-up in a brewery. :a112:

Author:  Loz [ Mon Jun 20, 2005 10:05 pm ]
Post subject: 

Lonesome Crow wrote:
Quote:
hell its a shame the man was ever born!

A little harsh maybe :D but I agree he couldn't organize a p*ss-up in a brewery. :a112:


Hey we are talking about the greatest Science Fiction Novel of all time here. When that man touched it that Blob from the Blob should have ran up his arm and devoured him.

:a093:

Author:  Alland [ Tue Jun 21, 2005 10:46 pm ]
Post subject: 

Well, a REAL octopus would have been a sluggish crawler, and as for being all brain, it might interest you to know that the octopus is the most intelligent invertebrate known to exist today. Tests have been done on their intelligence, and they've even done such things as screwing off the tops of water-filled bottles with fish and shrimp inside to get at their prey. So a race of intelligent octopi is quite possible (yes, I remember that Wells' Martians were supposedly physically degenerate humanoids).

The land battle sequences, particularly the first, were pretty good, as was the destruction of Woking when the fighting started, and I always partially rewind the tape so I can watch them over again.

Author:  seymour [ Wed Jun 22, 2005 6:39 am ]
Post subject: 

Four out of ten? Four?

Sorry but NO! I can safely say that this is possibly the worst film I have ever seen and, as discussed elsewhere, I'm a Dr Who fan. There are effects in there that would embarass the rubber monsters from 'Invasion Of The Dinosaurs", 'acting' that would be outshone at a nursery's Nativity play, editing that looked like different people did certain parts without talking to each other...

I could go on. The effects were okay in a chessy way until the attempts to show the thunder child and the steamer.

It stinks more than a two week old martian corpes (and don't get me onto them). I cannot believe they spent time and money doing cgi streets (aften made of up of modern UK housing) but animated the Tripods using what seems like stop-motion!

This was poor, wporkmanship from everyone but the composer and his synth. THAT was good work, making a fairly 'true' sound most of the time.

I'd call this a "whinge and wine" film. Get pissed and whinge about it with your friends. I can safely say that my partner and I (he's never read the book) were laughing so loud I neighbours knocked on the door to see if we were okay.

Author:  Loz [ Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:23 am ]
Post subject: 

Alland wrote:
Well, a REAL octopus would have been a sluggish crawler, and as for being all brain, it might interest you to know that the octopus is the most intelligent invertebrate known to exist today. Tests have been done on their intelligence, and they've even done such things as screwing off the tops of water-filled bottles with fish and shrimp inside to get at their prey. So a race of intelligent octopi is quite possible (yes, I remember that Wells' Martians were supposedly physically degenerate humanoids).

The land battle sequences, particularly the first, were pretty good, as was the destruction of Woking when the fighting started, and I always partially rewind the tape so I can watch them over again.


Been a fan of Octupi since I was a nipper, so didn't need the lesson. they are as simmilar to the Martians as star fish are simmilar to stars.

Author:  Lonesome Crow [ Wed Jun 22, 2005 10:02 pm ]
Post subject: 

seymour wrote:
I can safely say that my partner and I (he's never read the book) were laughing so loud I neighbours knocked on the door to see if we were okay.


I hope this film has not put your partner off reading the book, that would be a shame. :a009:

Author:  McTodd [ Sat Jun 25, 2005 4:36 pm ]
Post subject: 

Alland wrote:
Ironically, the special effects guys did too good a job with the creature, making it far too lively. Wells' Martians, after all, could only crawl slowly and painfully over the ground due to Earth's greater gravity. They would have done better to get a real octopus to come out of the cylinder model, particularly since there aren't that many scenes where we actually see the Martians themselves.


It would have been cruelty to octopi to get one to crawl out of a model cylinder, Timbo would have got done by the ASPCA! Mind you, it might have stopped his film from being made...

Author:  Loz [ Sat Jun 25, 2005 9:48 pm ]
Post subject: 

What about squids?

Author:  Alland [ Sat Jul 02, 2005 12:50 am ]
Post subject: 

They're smart, too, but since they're made solely for swimming (the octopus can crawl along the ocean bottom, go ashore, and come back out to sea again), they don't get much of a chance to utilize their intelligence and improve it. Since the octopus can lie around, it can use its tentacles to manipulate and examine items around it, in the same way that human brains were helped by the fact that we have grasping hands. Heck, even an elephant can do a lot of interesting things with its trunk, and they're about the smartest herbivorous mammals around today.

Author:  Loz [ Sat Jul 02, 2005 1:00 am ]
Post subject: 

Alland wrote:
They're smart, too, but since they're made solely for swimming (the octopus can crawl along the ocean bottom, go ashore, and come back out to sea again), they don't get much of a chance to utilize their intelligence and improve it. Since the octopus can lie around, it can use its tentacles to manipulate and examine items around it, in the same way that human brains were helped by the fact that we have grasping hands. Heck, even an elephant can do a lot of interesting things with its trunk, and they're about the smartest herbivorous mammals around today.


It was being sardonic.

But seen as you persisted. How many octopi or elephents ever invented anything?

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/