ronswilliams-03171

There have been so many movies and TV shows based on the classic War of the worlds by HG Wells. Even Steven Spielberg had a crack at it. At least his was spectacular to watch with great special effects. But annoying performances by Tom Cruise and his screen children. But no performance as annoying as actor Tim Robinson's performance as the survivalist in the cellar. Even so that version along with some low budget made for TV efforts are all far superior to this piece of garbage. It is an insult to HG Wells.

The visual technique of everything seen through computer screens is dizzying, confusing, and dab right annoying. The performances were uniformly bad. Rather than going straight to cable it should have gone straight to the trash bin and never seen the light of day.

For the record, of all the versions I prefer the simplistic 1953 George Pal production. For 1953 the special effects were beautiful to see has was the technicolor photography. It's strictly 1950s sci-fi pulp and nothing much more. But I enjoyed it when I saw it recently on TV. I enjoyed it much more than any other version.

The delivery of an orgy of non-stop violence and extreme gore grows tired and redundant very fast. So is it the overabundance of violence which I find offensive? No, what makes Gangs of London so offensive isn't the physical terror; it's the fact that they keep trying to convince you that they're telling a coherent story. I've seen three episodes and I think that's all I can take. I'll call an end to my Excursion into The Gangs of London. I'm not a violence prude, loving every minute of Dexter, Game of Thrones, and Breaking Bad. But those shows told compelling stories through richly drawn characters. I acknowledge the skill and excellence of fight choreography in GOL. It's top drawer, but that's not enough to keep me wanting more. Three episodes and I've been there and seen that.