even though the 53 version of WOTW is considered the classic of 50's sci-fi, i think this is a much better film, its has a more engaging story, none of the religiosity that drags down WOTW, cooler SFX (well at least you can't see the wires in this film), and heroine who does more than just scream and make cups of coffee.
shareYes, I love the original War Of The Worlds over the Spielberg crapathon, but I love Earth Vs The Flying Saucers best of all. It is a great film and takes it's subject matter seriously, while still being an exciting sci-fi flick. The effects will always be cool no matter what. There is just something about Harryhausen's worj that fascinates.
share[deleted]
War of the Worlds '53 is superior to this film; the story is more linear without as many digressions, the romantic subplot is better integrated, and I have always felt that the religiousness of the ending was appropriate and earned (and I am not a religious person).
share"War of the Worlds '53 is superior to this film; the story is more linear without as many digressions, the romantic subplot is better integrated, and I have always felt that the religiousness of the ending was appropriate and earned (and I am not a religious person)" ... Yes, that is very true. I guess all that I am really trying to say is that Eart vs The Flying Saucers was the more fun of the two films, while WOTW is far more serious (nothing wrong with that). Both are great works in my book, for differing reasons!
shareI really can't pick between them. WOTW's ending is to me a little disappointing but the color and effects are superb! E vs FS is saved from it's MANY glaring mistakes by Harryhausen's excellent models and a solid story. I can watch both of these time and time agian and they make a great double feature!
share[deleted]
"WOTW '53 digresses too much from the source material, and as with the Spielberg attempt, they make the Aliens invulnerable to our weapons which they're not in the book. this forces the aliens to use the poison gas weapon which is one of the most haunting sequences in Well's creation" ... Both versions wander away from the source material far more than they should, but the 1953 film is still far superior to Spielberg's and is a classic in the world of science fiction films.
"Earth Versus The Flying Saucers is a B-Movie that knows it's a B-Movie. WOTW goes for the serious angle but fails to echo what made the book so great" ... I suppose that is what I was trying to say in my other post about Eath Vs. The Flying Saucers being more fun in nature. I am STILL waiting for Wells' novel to be truly brought to the screen. Heck, I am surprised it hasn't been made into some form of animated film.
[deleted]
That is very interesting about Jeff Wayne owning the rights to the novel itself. I wasn't aware that legalities were preventing the making of a more accurate film version of the book. Isn't Jeff Wayne involved in a musical version or something along those lines??? I may be wrong, but the name rung a bell. Anyhow, if the studios do not have the rights to do a retelling of the book, I see no reason why they couldn't have pursued adapting the Orson Wells' radio play. No, it isn't the novel, but it is the best re-imagining of the source material to date, as far as I am concerned. I think it would have made a great film, even today, while retaining many more novel elements.
I really did not care for the 2005 version at all, especially the brand new take on how the invaders arrived. I admit that part of my problem stems from the missed opportunity to tell the story as it should have been, but I also think the ideas of buried war machines and aliens arriving via lightning bolts were just plain silly. It's too bad, really, for had the new version at least utilized something that was slightly more akin to the book, I could have enjoyed it better. They also should have utilized a few more ideas from the novel, such as the fantastic Thunderchild conflict. I absolutely agree with you in regards to making the invaders too indestructible. It's very cliche in the world of science fiction these days, and robbed the new film of some great conflicts. The overall problem was the simple fact that Spielberg rushed this into development, not very concerned with fleshing out the material and making the most of it. It showed, and is very much why the 1953 film (which sports somne of the same deviations) is far superior. It was handled with care by those involved, and rightly became a classic.
I totally agree with everything you say about the latest WOTW. The whole premise was downright silly and the characters were annoying at best. Spielberg at his worst. I also think the original WOTW is better than EVFS, but the latter is a more fun movie.
shareThere is a very cheap version made by the British(I believe for the BBC) that takes it plot directly from the book. The CGI effects are something you could do on your computer. It is simply awful. Wayne's version is a rock opera (never filmed)that features Justin Hayward(The Moody Blues) and Richard Burton. It is excellent story telling and the music is very good as well. It was done on stage in England(with a 50 ft Martian tower!!) recently to rave reviews and there may be a world tour. Its on DVD but not availabe in th U.S. yet. CHeck IMDB listing for Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds
sharei don't understand how the person who reviewed the movie (on the home page) said it wasn't exiting. Did they miss the flying saucer part of the movie?
shareWayne's version is a rock opera (never filmed)
it's way better and less pompous than Spielberg's WOTW.
shareI agree, this movie is better than WOTW. I thought WOTW was so stupid when they had a simple cross ward off the invaders as if good ol' Satan sent them down to begin with, uh huh. EVFS has better action and more realistic effects. I am watching it right now on MonstersHD and I plan to record it next time it's on.
EVFS is definitely THE classic 50's sci fi movie.
-L31
"EVFS is definitely THE classic 50's sci fi movie"
That you would never have had if not for WOTW. Give credit where credit is due. The cross simply reflected a person's faith, not some reaction like a vampire to a cross. I guess you missed the point.
Yes, this film is maybe the best "B" horror film of them all. Just caught it again tonight on TCM.
Reading through the responses in this thread....have you noticed that there are some who will come here to be contrarian, regardless of the opinion? People....if you are just posting to disagree, regardless of the topic, pass and get on with life.
Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?
Well this one gave me nightmares. I had a lamp on the clg of my bedroom that looked just like the brain sucking machine. It bothered me for years. If ya looked hard, in the dark, ya saw scary faces to.
I love all 50's sci/fi & to watch WOTW wins. Nothing scared me like EVTFS except maybe it, the terror...
The ending of WOTW & When Worlds Collide, when the plled out scripture rubbed me the wrong way even when i was 6 years old. I knew about continental drift & dinosaurs & ice ages & mass extinction. I read a lot & what i thought was a fairy tale stuff, instead of real science bothered me, even as a kid.
Now, I know what & how to ignore stuff I don't care for & consider both movies way better than 99% of the junk that comes out every summer.
While this film was pretty good, it was still not the best of the era, and WotW was a better film imo.
share[deleted]
This movie's story is more engaging (didn't mind the religious "subtext" in WOTW myself), but overall, War of the Worlds is a bigger picture that has... just a bit more to offer for me.
Hey there, Johnny Boy, I hope you fry!