Opiniones de usuarios

I love scifi, and I can watch some pretty bad movies, but this movie is so bad it has a permanent spot in my "in case of emergency, throw away" list. That is to say, if I am ever out of space for DVDs in my cabinets, this is one of the movies I am willing to chuck out to make room.

This is the first movie I saw C. Tomas Howell in, and I couldn't stand him. Bad bad bad actor. Everything I've seen him in since has been the same bad acting experience.

Some people on IMDb actually like this guy. So, just to make sure I wasn't half asleep when I watched this movie, I watched it again....oh man, what torture. Bad acting (did I mention that?), low budget, BORING.

Stay away. You're not missing ANYTHING AT ALL.

C. Thomas Howell's manic acting style breathes some life (but not quite enough) into this low-budget version of the great H. G. Wells novel. Like most movie versions of this film, this film is more directly derived from Orson Wells' radio broadcast than the novel. Although set in the U.S., this film retains the overall feeling of the novel as well or better than the 1950s and Spielburg versions of the film. It is not, however, entirely successful for two reasons - (1) the film proceeds at a leisurely pace until it reaches an action scene and (2) when it reaches an action scene, it doesn't pay off very well because the special effects budget was lacking. While the fits and starts of the pace does give the film a sort of literary feeling, and lends it more authenticity as a version of Wells' original work, C. Thomas Howell and the cast are expected to carry the film through these lulls with rushed character development.

Howell plays a scientist obsessed with his work and distanced a bit from his young wife and daughter. When unstoppable extraterrestrials invade, he must desperately attempt to reach them both, not knowing whether they have survived. Meeting a host of odd characters on the way, he soon finds himself at the heart of a war between to two worlds.

For the most part, the acting works, but there are a couple of really startlingly poor exceptions. Howell is excellent and commands his role very nicely. Although some of the other performances are also very good (Giles and Richter), the script does not adequately flesh out any of the supporting characters. This is particularly obvious in Jake Busey's portrayal of a sociopath military man, but only less painful in Giles' portrayal of a stereotype itinerant holy man because of Giles' obvious talent.

The cinematography is mostly good, but the thankfully under-used mediocre special effects stick out like sore thumbs.

Ultimately, the film tries harder than Spielburg's contemporaneous special effects extravaganza, but doesn't quite challenge the Spielburg film. This version is less likely to annoy fans of Wells' original work, as it more successfully delivers the overall feeling of the book than Spielburg. However, the low budget special effects, the occasional lapses into pseudoscience, and the somewhat cardboard supporting roles are a little hard to put up with. I gave the film a middling rating mainly because I think it is worth seeing as a remediation for some of what Spielburg did wrong and because of Howell's performance, but it doesn't really stand on its own.

This movie, simply put, is just plain awful. The special effects are virtually non-existent; the sound track is deplorable; the script could have been written by a five year old. The characters spend most of the movie walking, sulking, praying, crying and then more walking more crying and...but, you get the point. The dialog makes little sense. The sub-plot is to keep alive the scientist who can hopefully develop a defense against the Martians. We don't know the ending other than the producers acknowledged that the help of the residents of Lawrence, Kansas made this movie possible. So hang in there Kansas and save the world... but you can't save this movie.

I felt like I was watching an example of how not to make a movie. I think the director filmed it in his back yard! There was no real plot.

Terrible script.

Terrible acting.

The worst production I have ever witnessed. A couple of bad CG effects and then the rest of the movies was spent walking around in what looked like a junk yard.

I don't normally write reviews to movies but was moved to warn everyone about this one.

Life is to short to waste your time with this movie!

I have two questions: 1. Why would one produce a really expensive, but fairly crappy, remake of a pretty darn good '50s SciFi flick? 2. Why would one produce a really cheap, and extremely crappy, remake of a pretty darn good '50s SciFi flick? Well, in the vein of the first question, my ex-wife thought spending was good, and spending a lot was even better.

As for the second, they keep doing this so I guess they plan to make it up in volume.

To the specific point of this venture, the acting was wooden, the dialogue inane, the animation amateurish. Since everyone knows the plot and outcome of this tale, some effort should have been put into making the intermediate activity interesting. It wasn't.

...with the above comment. It is WELL acted and more about the change that overcomes some of the characters because of the impending extermination. A little bit of it appears in the Tom Cruise/Tim Robbins scenes in Spielberg's version but this version is much more about the effective changes and bringing out of both human heroism and brutishness. The 1953 and the two 2005 version all have very positive things going for them and are all worthwhile films, it is fascinating viewing all three versions and making comparisons. Really touching to see Gene Barry (Clayton Forrester, the hero in the 1953 version) at the end of the Spielberg version.(Don't think that is a spoiler!)

War of the Worlds(2005) is far from the best version, coming from someone who has a lot of fondness for the 1953 film, but I don't think it was that bad. The Asylum are notorious for making atrocious movies, most of them without any redeeming qualities whatsoever. War of the Worlds is not one of the worst, in fact alongside I Am Omega, #1 Cheerleader Camp and When a Killer Calls it is one of their better movies. If War of the Worlds 2 is a sequel to this, that is a thousand times worse than this. It does have its major problems almost certainly, the dialogue has certainly been much worse before with Asylum's movies but apart from some very well-thought out moments it is often too talky and aimless here. Other problems are that the special effects are terrible, Jack Busey overacts dreadfully and the score is generic and forgettable. On the plus side, the photography is a far cry from the slipshod quality you come to expect from The Asylum and the scenery and settings are beautifully evoked, or so I think. The story has moments where it is slow but there are also some thrilling moments and the ending works much better than it does in Spielberg's film. The characters aren't the most interesting on the block but generally they do have some likability, Victor actually is a well-rounded character. And the acting is better than average, Busey excepted. Thomas C.Howell is a commanding lead, I have read reviews complaining about over-exaggerated gestures(ie.flailing arms) but actually I find that more true to his performances in The Da Vinci Treasure, The Day the Earth Stopped and War of the Worlds 2. Tinarie Van-Wyk Loots is underused but she is very sexy and brightens up the screen whenever she appears, her nude scene didn't seem all that out of place to me. Of the supporting roles, Rhett Giles stood out, this is a man who has been in a lot of rubbish but has obvious talent that shines through even in those films. His performance is a huge part why Victor was as likable as he was to me. In conclusion, I hate Asylum's movies with a burning passion but I was actually pleasantly surprised by this one(just making this point before I get accused of being a "shill of the company" or "friend of the director"). 6/10 Bethany Cox

H.G. Wells' classic tale gets a surprisingly thoughtful modern retelling in this straight to video version from The Asylum. Writer/Director Michael David Latt is certainly no Steven Spielberg but he manages to guide his everyman C. Thomas Howell through the alien onslaught. C. Thomas Howell actually makes you care about his character, which is indeed a rarity in a straight-to-video horror or sci-fi release. Don't get me wrong. This isn't art. It is an exploitation film, as evidenced by the fact that one of the first shots features a topless woman coming out of a shower. And it works as an exploitation film. The special effects are actually pretty good. Of course, one still has the wonder about the overall value of this film in light of the vastly superior Spielberg version. It's good to know they could pull this off, but shouldn't they have expended their efforts on something more original?

The Asylum is a company I admire in spirit if not reality. I like the idea of a company devoted to making a new horror film every month, I just wish they devoted themselves to making a good horror movie each month. Most of their films are dreck. (Still, their films tend to be better than the garbage Maverick's CreepFX division has been releasing.) I wish they would take the time and effort they put into this film into some of their other releases.

After watching the Steven Spielberg version of War Of The Worlds in theaters, I was hooked on the topic. I could think back to my favorite parts in the movie, people getting vaporized, people panicking, fire, explosions, it was all so great...

So a few weeks later I enter my video store, and I see David Michael Latt's version of War Of The Worlds on the shelf. "It couldn't have come onto DVD, that fast, could it?" I said to myself. I read the back of the case and saw C. Thomas Howell, instead. "Oh, I remember him from The Outsiders!" So I thought, it might have been a try.

I was wrong, dead wrong. As soon as I watched the opening credits, watched them take forever, I knew something was wrong. Something was going to disappoint me in this film and it did. The whole movie stunk like a cheese sauce that was left in the fridge for 10 years. From the acting, the special effects (stupid looking tripod things, when people get vaporized they turn into orange skeletons), and most of all, it didn't even come close to being as interesting as the Spielberg version, in fact, the plot was boring, and there were only 3 scenes of destruction! What the crap? I ended up being so bored, that I had to fast forward through the movie until I found something that looked even remotely interesting. And nothing was really.

My advice: Don't even touch this movie, stay 100 feet away from it. The Spielberg version is coming out near the end of this month, buy that one! But please, please, I beg of you! Stay away from this turd before it smothers us all!

There were three remakes of War of the Worlds in 2005 (and several more since then): Spielberg's; this one and the one by Pendragon which I have not seen I would rate the acting and special effects as average, but I will give this film credit for one thing: it followed the book--written 1n 1898--more closely than either the 1953 original (by George Pal) or Spielberg's. There was no "skeleton beam" weapon used by the Martians but there was the use of poison gas just like in the book, although the gas appeared to be chlorine. The protagonist was trapped in the ruined house with a preacher, not his girlfriend or a half crazed ambulance driver. There was no use of nuclear weapons against the Martians. This film was a legitimate remake, not a "mockbuster" something with a similar title but a different or derivative plot. All four (plus) versions of War of the world seem to have been inspired by the (in)famous 1938 radio broadcast by Orson Wells (no relation to HG. Wells) which created a panic on the East Coast of the U.S.

A waste of time and money. I just mistakenly rented this thinking it was the Tom Cruise version of this (clever marketing and timing of a horrible movie). There were few special effects and some poor acting with the exception of C Thomas Howell. Who knows why he would accept a role in such a low budget bad flick. The movie centers around C Thomas Howell WALKING to DC to find his wife and son among the ruined city after the aliens attack. Endless scenes of him walking amongst ruble and seeing an occasional alien (who never seem to notice him while killing others). The most boring movie I've seen in a long time. The story is so far fetched with him actually finding his families car while walking along and seeing reoccurring characters who he miraculously keeps running into. BORING!! Stay away from this stinker.

I'm a huge War of the Worlds fan. I've got two copies of the book, a copy of the radio show, and a copy of all four (that I know of) versions of the movie, the 1953 film, Spielberg, the "Victorian" one which actually follows the book closest, and unfortunately, this turkey.

I like CT Howell, but he's stuck doing trashy movies, and this is no exception. Script, plot, special effects, they all suck, here. They couldn't even honor the original three-legged machines, instead substituting some cheesy crab-legged thing that looked like a 1980's Atari video game graphic. (Even the 1950's film had machines floating on three "anti-gravity legs" clearly visible in the atom bomb scene...). This DVD was on sale at the video store for $3 when Spielberg's film was out, and like the sucker I am, I'm the proud owner of this turkey.

Warning: stay away from it. It might break your TV.

It was amazing to see C. Thomas Howell and some other recognizable faces in this gratingly bad movie. Try as I might, I can't come up with a single positive comment, other than the fact that I'd TIVO'd it so I was able to fast forward thru some of the worst.

It features poor special effects, though not quite as bad as some Sci-Fi channel 'efforts', a script full of false starts and shocks that are merely dreams of the main character, and acting I would be disappointed to see in a college production. I found it muddled and confusing right to the end with scenes that didn't fit with the story or the ideas behind the original book.

What's worse were the continual religious references and diatribes, for no apparent purpose. Granted, HG Wells expressed similar questions and maybe this was done as a counter-point to the somewhat hokey ending to the original and still classic version of the 50s but I found this mildly offensive as well as pointless. I've seen worse from Sci-Fi Channel but that's hardly an endorsement.

i finally snatched up the film. could have been better, but it was still a good ride.

Here's what i didn't like: too long in places, some over acting by the the toothy guy, OK martians and ships and things - but just OK. it wasn't spielbergs. music was blah, nothing epic sounding (that's my thing. i like hearing great music).

Here's what i liked about it: neat story. i felt as though i got a more genuine feel for the characters than the spielberg film, but didn't get the action (which i missed!). good writing, and very emotional. really liked the lead guy. really liked the girls in the film (his wife, the girl that slapped the priest). some very strong performances all the way around.

liked it, didn't love it, but i was glad to see it. it was worth the rental.

I've given this film a vote of 6/10 but i would have been quite happy to give it a much higher rating if the SFXs had been anywhere near as good as the acting and script,from almost the start of the film you can see they had problems with their budget not enough money for extras set design etc..and the cgi for alien "quadpods" was'nt that great though the actual design of them was very good... In the broadest sense the story is very similar to the Spielberg film but where his film was full of clunky plot holes and flaws in the script i found myself very surprised that this version made much more sense than Spielbergs and as for the acting well there were a few god awful actors in it but the lead C Thomas Howell out shone Tom Cruise by a mile i really was'Nat expecting much but enjoyed it more than i thought i would

I rented this movie based on the many "glowing reviews". I was conned! The movie was bad from start to finish, the acting, effects, flow, sets, music, and sound were bad, cheap, and poorly done. By the way, I could do better, and that's based on the fact that I couldn't do worse.

I am disappointed that the first reviews that I read about this movie were so good; I find it difficult to believe that these initial reviews were genuine. Having seen the movie, I find it difficult to reconcile what I saw on the screen with the reviews that encouraged me to rent it.

How did they get the money to make such a bad movie?

The biggest goof that I noticed was the mug that rented and then watched the movie - me!