Invasion

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.

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

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.

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

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.