Contentar Best movie of this year hands down!

TaryBiggBall It was OK. I don't see why everyone loves it so much. It wasn't very smart or deep or well-directed.

Salubfoto It's an amazing and heartbreaking story.

Robert Joyner The plot isn't so bad, but the pace of storytelling is too slow which makes people bored. Certain moments are so obvious and unnecessary for the main plot. I would've fast-forwarded those moments if it was an online streaming. The ending looks like implying a sequel, not sure if this movie will get one

daniele-iannarelli What a travesty!!!I looked forward to watching this, only to find that my valuable relaxation time was wasted!It was a nice idea, badly - soooo badly - executed!A mismatch, hotchpotch, in fact *mess* of old stock footage cuts, old movies depicting the turn of the century (I actually saw Olivia De Havilland at one point!), and awful editing with terrible filters... all clumsily and amateurishly put together.Except for one actress (Darlene Sellers) the acting was terrible, with the *MOST PHONEY British accents I've EVER heard on film*!The lead 'actor' (the old guy with *dubious* Bell's Palsy) really irritated me no end! He was obviously American, trying to put on a British accent... *and* failing miserably with his underlying twang!Overall, an absolute exercise in bad production, bad direction, bad editing and even worse acting!I'd realistically award this somewhere between a 2-2.5. However, the phoney accents and the old guy with the phoney Bell's Palsy... reduced this, for me, to a 1/10.

Andariel Halo 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.

killb-94 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.

Davian Dent ...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.