Add a Review

  • 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.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    spoilers This is not worthy to have been associated with that of H.G. Wells' piece of literature. I was not that big of a fan of this summer's Steven Spielberg version, but compared to this it just seems as good as any cinema classic.

    The characters feel very bland and vacant. The very little depth that is given is one of this greatest flaws. Also as the hero of the story continues to walk around his side companions during this world disaster just seem to disappear them selves. they introduce new characters very suddenly leaving you to guess what just happened to his other friend he was with. The special effects are not that bad, although it is somewhat recognizable that its green/blue screen, for a made for television film the effects are not bad quality. The writing just doesn't seem to allow the actors to show us their full acting abilities. The words are so shallow and two dimensional that you somewhat lose respect for whatever actors have participated within the film. The actors seemed to have had potential, all of them did, it was writers that gave them very common phrases that we've heard over and over in cinema, and we get weary of it.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    After seeing the incredible Spielberg version of War Of The Worlds I thought the straight to video version might be fun to watch. I had no high expectations (thank God) but still I thought it would be decent to watch...how wrong can one man be?? This utter tripe is one of the worst films I have ever seen.

    This particular rendition of War Of The Worlds is the story of family man George Herbert, a doctor of astronomy who sees a mysterious comet in the sky through his sons telescope moments before they leave for the family vacation to Washington DC. Duty calls and he must stay behind to investigate the comet while his family goes on without him. He agrees to meet them the next day. Unfortunately before he even makes it to work the comets come crashing to earth and they turn out to be invaders from another planet. The Alien forces began to exterminate everything in their path. They are destroying Earth. George determined to find his family in the devastation sets out on foot to make his way to D.C. Along the way he joins forces first with a soldier and later a priest who help him in his journey to find his family.

    The acting is bad...now bad acting doesn't mean bad movie but we are talking PORN FILM BAD. I kept waiting for the porn to start. C. Thomas Howell might have a fan base and he might not have been the worst but he was bad!! Not nearly as bad as the story line and the graphical special effects. I had to laugh when I saw on the DVD that there was a How did they do that? documentary and I immediately thought....I doubt it was too difficult. Even a bad TV film can come up with better special effects than what they had for this crap. But it wasn't the special effects that ruined it, it was the combination of HORRIBLE acting with HORRIBLE special effects and a crappy story. I don't know how they could ruin a story already fully written and well written but they did it. David Michael Latt should be banned from film making. Stay clear of this one and go see Spielbergs amazing film. 2/10
  • 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 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!
  • ...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!)
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is amazingly utterly terrible, on the back of the case it says "the most horrifying version of all", and i must agree, i was so horrified to believe that this movie could get any worse as i watched it. I'll sum the whole movie up in 1 sentence: Aliens arrive, main character gets attacked, falls asleep, wakes up, walks, talks, gets attacked, falls asleep, wakes up, walks, talks, etc. Just the same thing over and over, we never see the aliens, the so called "horrifying destroyers with legs" stand a whopping 30 feet tall, we see about 3 people get vaporized, WOW! TALK ABOUT ACTION! We see a truck in a house, and the capitol in ruins,, everything else looks like it was drawn in a half way decent computer program, but we don't see anything get destroyed except the house the main character is hiding in for half the movie (maybe not half but it seems like forever). This will never be shown on TV, no channel would sabotage there ratings this badly. Please don't waste your money on renting this.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Csst26 July 2006
    Warning: Spoilers
    To the point where it barely qualifies as a movie. 90 minutes of worthless, pointless, and plot less,(and god it doesn't even have any action)piece of crap. Random people appear out of thin air, plot doesn't make sense what so ever, oh wait, I don't think there was a plot...

    You have to force someone to watch this stuff.

    George cant find his family, goes around looking for them, random people pop up, adding more confusion to the already boring and confusing plot. George injects a disease into aliens, aliens die. George sees family, YAY. Thats the plot, if you could call it a plot.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie is so bad they should burn the master. You cant spoil the plot because this movie doesn't have one. The graphics are less than fake, they're horrendous. Then you've got the rambling through the countryside star gazer work-a-holic who bounces between his own lunacy & the mad rantings of the crazed preacher. & when he finally makes it to DC, they don't even have the decency to kill him; the monster (which you don't know at the time) is already dieing but how ... who knows & of course it has the ultimate sappy ending... everybody else on the planet is dead or dieing but his family & a handful of stragglers survive. Imagine that! This will be the movie that C Thomas Howell will go to his grave regretting he ever starred in. It probably gives him nightmares.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    Way better than Spielberg/Cruise crapfest. In some ways even better than the George Pal version. If this ever comes out on video I want it! The changes made were not as annoying (the lone exception, the "Tripods"; they were just wrong) but it fairly followed the book in every other way. C. Thomas Howell stamped all over Cruise as the man stuck in the midst of war. The pace was perfect, the survival over the war torn landscape gritty and real. The portion with the Curate was intense (Why did Spielberg have to alter this character from what he was let alone the fate he met?). There was realism aplenty in terms of what the aliens left in their wake shattered homes, poisoned lakes, no electricity working, tattered clothing, mean, mean heat rays and chill evoking scenes with the black smoke and at the end a busted up Washington and smudged-up people crawling out the rubble.

    Wow. Again, if there's a video of this movie out I want it.
  • 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
  • Warning: Spoilers
    LOTS OF SPOILERS! The film must be some st***d copy of the one everyone is waiting for.The acting is awful and the effects are so 80's!Sorry effects in the 80's looked a lot better.

    From the first minute of the film it looks kind of weird, but when the action starts you don't know where to put your eyes.The first fighting scene looks like some loop from a nightmare,and the acting is very b-graded,the soldiers look like they kids taken from the street and handed a gun.In one scene our hero talks to his brother that is cut in half and if you see closely you can see that where his other half is. Just forget about watching this, an hour can be spent a lot better than this crap.
  • Warning: Spoilers
    This movie looked like the out-takes of the deleted scenes from a high school film class experiment. It made no sense! It was well acted, but I only felt sorry for the characters because they had to appear in this slop. The alien machines were created with Pentium I technology and no creativity, they were crabs! The under-lit and barely seen aliens were Frisbees with legs. WHERE WERE THE TRIPODS? The editing, done by director/writer/producer/make-up artist/gripper Latt, jumps all over the place, with some scenes repeated numerous times. Most of it seemed to have been filmed in the wake of hurricane Katrina. The next time Latt wants to make a movie, someone needs to slap him. In 2005 alone he produced 11 movies! That doesn't include the writing, editing, directing or visual effects credits on other movies. If the rest are like this snot-load, then he's just making fun of us. This was a slapped together rip-off of Spielberg's movie, nothing more. I'm looking forward to Latt's "BackBroke Ridge', "X-Man IIV", "The Hillocks have Eyes."
  • 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!
  • Warning: Spoilers
    My paraphrase above of the slogan on the back of the DVD box sums it up: this film was far more horrible than horrifying.

    This is the worst film I have seen in as long as I can remember. My wife accidentally rented it thinking it was the Tom Cruise version. The laughably crude special effects on the menu screen should have tipped us off. The gratuitous nudity already in the opening scene made us more suspicious.

    But as the film wore on, we were benumbed by clumsy acting -- both over- and under-acting -- non-continuity in directing and editing, trite writing, and crude special effects. We gave up after a half-hour or less; after starting this badly, it couldn't possibly get better.

    Since I despise reviews that pan a product without giving specifics, here are some examples of the film's especially awkward moments, even if they amount to spoilers:

    • The lead says good-bye to his young old son as the latter is about to drive away with his mother, the latter prickly because it's their wedding anniversary but the lead is not coming along due to sudden business. The son asks, quietly worried, "will I ever see you again?" Perhaps it's supposed to come off as a premonition, but it instead comes off as incongruous behavior for a child that age in that situation.


    • A huge alien spacecraft has crashed to earth and sits in an enormous crater. A crowd of people stands nearby, peering at it uneasily but otherwise looking generally unaroused. One woman finally says "it's gi-normous!"


    • After this craft has laid waste a village and its inhabitants, the lead and a bystander, now alone near their homes and trying to load their cars for an escape, have an exchange something like this, in a quietly puzzled tone:


    "What was that thing, anyway?" "I dunno..."

    • A crowd attempting to evacuate over a bridge is blocked by the military, since part of the bridge is destroyed. When an alien ship shoots an explosive at it, the crowd starts to run away, seemingly only because a director told them to and not because they're frightened or in any kind of real danger, let alone unusual circumstances.


    And so forth... writing about the film falls short of the experience of actually seeing it. But please, PLEASE, save yourself the bother, even if your morbid curiosity is piqued! The film is so bad it can't even be enjoyed as unintentional humor (versus, say, King Vidor's "Solomon & Sheeba" starring Yul Brynner wearing a wig). Life is too short to waste watching such nonsense. There MUST be something more productive and enjoyable to do, like walking the dog or cleaning a birdcage.
  • dwmonty178 September 2005
    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.
  • Would have preferred the title, INVASION,You guys could have avoided some headaches. C. Thomas Howell steals the film, As he should being it's star. Jake Busey is awesome as a psycho military type. Rhett Giles gave a performance his fans have wanted since day one of his career. Didn't understand having Peter Greene show up at all,and was feeling very cheated by his whole single scene. Almost seems like a Sci-Fi channel buddy flick,Or a modern Greek tragedy with alien attack gore.All in all,I would say this Outsider kicked Alien Butt.I picked the order of these reviews by box art and the back of box description, Now I'm thrilled it's played out that way.
  • 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.
  • Andy444410 June 2006
    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.
  • jtlincoln19 October 2005
    Warning: Spoilers
    I wish I could have given this a Zero. Sure I'll admit that I also mistakenly picked this up thinking it was the Spielberg version. A clever marketing ploy releasing it at this time and being prominently displayed at the video store. However, I was willing to give it a go anyhow - I wish I wouldn't have.

    Where do I start? I have read some of the other reviews here and have to say I disagree with anyone who thinks any of the acting was good - sorry even C. Thomas Howell stunk. None of the performances were any good. Not a one.

    Even if the acting was decent the dialog is terrible! "Ginormus" and "dick skinners" just doesn't really cut it.

    Now as for the story well - it was terribly adapted and must have been edited by a 5 year old. The main character is constantly running into situations that are way convenient - or at least appear that way due to how the film was edited together. For example he is trying to get to a place called New Hope to find his brother. During a brief break someone just randomly hands him the directions to New Hope. What the hell is that? When he gets to New Hope he just happens to stumble onto his dying brother. Then there is the part where he has been traveling away from his destination for days and just happens to come across the car his wife and son were traveling in. He was going in a different direction then they were how did that car end up where he was? He has a black back pack that randomly appears and disappears throughout the film. There are parts of the film where the characters are just waking up in the morning and then two seconds later it is night - or worse yet dusk of the next day. I also can't forget the main character and the preacher falling through the floor of a house for no reason - we don't find out until later that an alien has landed on the house. Which reminds me of the moment when they are walking and suddenly find themselves standing under an alien they didn't notice. What the hell, the aliens are like two stories tall with huge bodies and multiple legs - how could they miss it? There is one point where an alien kills a random citizen, supposedly by spitting some kind of junk at him - but you never see the stuff fly it just appears on the guys face. The special effects in general are terrible. The entire movie is like a bad "train wreck". When we finally get to the end, after this guy trying to get to DC to find his family, they just appear. No searching no asking questions nothing. Just oh there you are I am so happy - the end.

    I am sorry if my review rambles a bit but this movie was so bad I had a hard organizing my contempt. Please save yourself the time and don't watch this sneakily displayed pile of cinematic stench. It is quite possibly the worst film I have ever witnessed. I would rather have been getting a root canal - It would have been less painful.
  • 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.
  • wildfire1603 July 2005
    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!
An error has occured. Please try again.