War of the Worlds (2005) (V)

User Rating:

3.4/10   

Director:

David Michael Latt

Writers:

H.G. Wells (novel)
David Michael Latt (written by) ...

Release Date:

28 June 2005 (USA)

Genre:

Sci-Fi

Tagline:

The Invasion Has Already Begun.

Plot:

In this modern retelling of H.G. Wells' sci-fi classic, civilization is laid to ruin when a race of super aliens invades Earth.

Plot Keywords:

Alien | Comet | Search For Family | Alien Invasion | Loss Of Faith

Cast

C. Thomas Howell	...	George Herbert
Rhett Giles	...	Pastor Victor
Andrew Lauer	...	Sgt. Kerry Williams (as Andy Lauer)
Tinarie Van Wyk-Loots	...	Felicity Herbert
Jake Busey	...	Lt. Samuelson (as William Busey)
Dashiell Howell	...	Alex Herbert (as Dash Howell)
Peter Greene	...	Matt Herbert
Kim Little	...	Rebecca
Edward DeRuiter	...	Max (as Ed Deruiter)
Meredith Laine	...	Audrey
Matthew Jaeger	...	Jared
Cayman Mitchell	...	Jake
Luis de Amechazurra	...	Bill
Gary Robbins	...	Jules
Bernadette Perez	...	Elaine

Also Known As:

H.G. Wells' War of the Worlds (USA) (complete title)
Invasion (UK) (cable TV title)

Runtime:

93 min

Country:

USA

Language:

English

Color:

Color

Aspect Ratio:

1.78 : 1

Sound Mix:

Dolby Digital

Certification:

USA:R

Filming Locations:

Agua Dulce, California, USA

Goofs:

Factual errors: George Herbert uses a rabies serum to knock out the aliens. He says something to the effect that life defeats life. However rabies vaccinations use dead virus cells to generate immunity. Serum labeled "live" contains genetically modified components but does not actually contain intact live virus.

Movie Connections:

Featured in War of the Worlds 2: The Next Wave (2008) (V)

A well made small budget film, sadly confused with another...

As a filmmaker myself, I was very interested to see the David Latt version of War of the Worlds. With the over hyped over Americanized Spielberg/Cruise version of this British tail, and the much mauled Victorian offering of Hines, I was keen to see something that was watchable and story driven, and not over the top with CGI. Whilst the Latt film has its faults, I would say this is perhaps one of (if not THE) best independently produced sci-fi films I have seen for a long time. The film clearly has budget constraints, however, they have made an effort to give us a decent offering. Its shot on film, an expensive undertaking in a market that today widely believes that consumers don't know the difference and won't care. It has some recognisable name actors, all of whom do a great job. In particular, mention should be make of C Thomas Howell, who's experience and skill is evident from the very first line. But most importantly, those making the film (including the actors) obviously cared enough to do a good job, no matter how limited the budget. I like to think that it's not the size of your budget, but what you do with it that counts.

The script won't win any awards, but it is a perfectly functional piece of work capable of supporting a film. It gives the old story War of the Worlds story a slightly different spin. The cinematography ranges from "weekly TV series" quality in some scenes (functional, but nothing exciting), to very good in others. Cinematography can make or break a film, just as acting can. Fortunately for this film, the camera department was clearly competent.

On the boards of IMDb, the film has constantly been confused with the Timothy Hines version http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0425638/combined which has received many negative comments. A shame, because this invariably will have lead to votes being miscast against the Latt version. To make it plain: the Hines version is shot on video and is set in Victorian England. The Latt version (this version) is shot on film, and is set in modern times in the US.

This film doesn't have the CGI whiz bang effects of the Spielberg version. However, effects do not play a major role in the script. I for one applaud anyone who tries to return to good old fashion story telling, without relying on CGI to "wow em senseless". But, if you like to see shots of the aliens and their machines all the time, and aren't particularly interested in story and character development, then perhaps this film is not for you. But if you're more interested to see what happens when story and acting are what keeps your film going, then this one might be worth a look.

In giving the film a score of 7 out of 10, I took into consideration the obvious low budget of the film, verses the result. It has its flaws, and isn't as tight as it could be, but none the less for the market, it's a very good effort.