Guerra dos Mundos 3 - Como tudo começou

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

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.

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.

H.G. Wells' classic tale gets a surprisingly thoughtful modern retelling in this straight to video version from The Asylum. Writer/Director Michael David Latt is certainly no Steven Spielberg but he manages to guide his everyman C. Thomas Howell through the alien onslaught. C. Thomas Howell actually makes you care about his character, which is indeed a rarity in a straight-to-video horror or sci-fi release. Don't get me wrong. This isn't art. It is an exploitation film, as evidenced by the fact that one of the first shots features a topless woman coming out of a shower. And it works as an exploitation film. The special effects are actually pretty good. Of course, one still has the wonder about the overall value of this film in light of the vastly superior Spielberg version. It's good to know they could pull this off, but shouldn't they have expended their efforts on something more original?

The Asylum is a company I admire in spirit if not reality. I like the idea of a company devoted to making a new horror film every month, I just wish they devoted themselves to making a good horror movie each month. Most of their films are dreck. (Still, their films tend to be better than the garbage Maverick's CreepFX division has been releasing.) I wish they would take the time and effort they put into this film into some of their other releases.

...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!)