La guerra de los mundos. La verdadera historia

Ever since I read the book I wanted to see HG Wells version and now I have , this docudrama is about 95% of the book so it's the closest we will get , it's not perfect as there's some ropy acting but it stays faithful to the book so I can forgive that

If you loved the book I recommend this version as a must see , you can watch it on prime video and also buy it if you wish it's not expensive

Forget Tim's 2005 fiasco. This was a complete vindication. The story is told from the POV of the last living survivor, Bertie Wells, in a 1965 interview. Once you accept that premise, settle in for a fast moving pastiche of stock footage images blended with re-creations, ala the History Channel, with images of the Martian machines woven, fairly believably, into the ancient film. The SFX are very well done; not standing out like a sore thumb especially as the Martian machines make their march burning everything in their path. The dialog of "Bertie" are the exact words written by Wells in his novel and the actor brings a sense of authority and gravitas to his role. Yes, there are some niggling little things that history buffs and film nerds will be quick to latch onto (I saw Shirley Temple in one scene). But, that can be a source of fun when the Blue-Ray comes out. If you love the source material as much as I do, WotW:TTS is an excellent tribute to H.G. Wells' novel and I recommend that it be seen when it gets to your town. - Jim Corvill, Portland Science Fiction Society

Seeing this title in my Amazon Prime suggestions I jumped right away at giving it a shot. The idea of a mockumentary telling of the War between the Planets as a real event struck me as utter genius and gold. I was wondering if it would be something like World War Z (the book), as an "oral history" in the form of interviews with survivors after the fact in a world irrevocably changed by the events, or perhaps some manner of Alternate 1960s in which Earth has assimilated Martian technology and greatly advanced over the century far more than in reality, or perhaps even some manner of post-apocalyptic telling in a world dominated or partly destroyed by Martians using one of the last remaining video cameras.

I appear to have gotten far ahead of myself in that regard, as what I got instead was a very safe re-telling of the actual novel War of the Worlds, almost completely by the book in the form of an uncovered 1965 interview with the last remaining survivor of the "war" itself.

Given that it follows the book very strictly, there is little room to indulge in historical what-ifs, given that the "war" only lasts a few days/weeks before the Martians succumb to Earthborn illness and bacteria. This rather disappointed me, as I felt that so much more could have been done with the story. About the only thing new with this version is the framing device of a documentary, and nothing more.

Not only is this an immense letdown, but it betrays what you begin to suspect during much of the prologue exposition and the interview itself, and which is painfully revealed in a postlude claiming that Bertie Wells, after surviving the War of the Worlds, went to America and became a war correspondent and served...

... in World War I.

So despite the literally species-changing event of an interplanetary invasion, one which has resulted in tens or hundreds of thousands of deaths, the destruction of multiple English towns and cities, and the remains of Martian technology left behind which could conceivably change all of human civilization unlike anything that had preceded it, far beyond that of even internal combustion, electricity, or the radio...

... despite all that, Human history continues along basically the exact same path, with a World War I around the same time as real history, and the mere phrasing of it as World War "I" implying a World War II as well.

This was perhaps the biggest disappointment of the film.

Despite that, it was an interesting ride for what it was, and while a lot of the footage relied on documentary-standard re-enactments, most of the "actual footage" is sufficiently realistic looking, while used sparingly enough so as not to oversaturate the piece.

I am surprised most people consider this to be fiction. My great-grandfather tells me of the huge machines marching across the landscape, their heat rays blasting great swaths across the...

Okay, maybe not. I enjoyed this film quite a bit, for several reasons. One: it didn't take itself too seriously. This is comprised of a great deal of "found footage" scenes... none of which is so blatant as a young Shirley Temple stepping out on a balcony to view the destruction. Similar "popular actor" scenes can be found if one is watching closely. I found that enjoyable, a sort of built-in easter egg they added for the fun of it.

Two: the dialog/script was excellent. People today are largely unaware that the language we speak in the U.S. today is vastly different from that of the 1800s and early 1900s. The film stuck true to the language of the day, giving it a greater feel of authenticity.

I also enjoyed the "Steampunk" element to it, visible nowhere so much as in the design of the Martian Tripods.

There were three major flaws in the film, which is why I give it 8 rather than 10 stars.

1) The distance / time correlation was faulty in several areas of the film. People walking on foot could not possibly have traveled as far as indicated in the film within the short time given. Similarly, at the beginning of the film, they would have had to have newspaper printing presses faster than the Internet to publish the number of editions rolling out within a very short period of time. These were continuity errors that are forgivable within the otherwise interesting presentation of the film in general.

2) Blatantly missing (and contradictory to logic) is the concept that scientists of the day would have been hard at work disassembling the Martian machinery and reverse-engineering it to create their own massive war machines in preparation for a future invasion. The idea that this invasion was very closely followed by World War I really made little sense-- and the total lack of Martian weaponry during that war difficult to believe. At the very least they could have mentioned, "Great effort was made to reproduce the Martian death weapons, but they were simply too far advanced beyond the science of the day." That would have at least explained such a glaring omission.

3) The utter inability of mankind to fight back. They showed one scene where an artillery shell by sheer coincidence made direct contact and blew a Martian Tripod apart. Why then, weren't the battleships at sea able to do the same? (I believe in the original work a couple of Tripods were indeed taken out in such a manner.) Most of the cannons shown were mass-destruction "lob" types. Where though, were the far-more-accurate sight-aimed artillery weapons? Those could have done some significant damage.

So those items knocked the film down a couple of stars. Beyond that the acting (especially of the elderly "Wells") was superb, the directing well-done, and the story, though pretty much by-the-book and nothing-new-here... was enjoyable (a story well told, even if known, is still a good story). Also two thumbs up for the ancient-but-effective special effects. The results of the Martian death rays were as well-done as the Tom Cruise remake... which was one of the original-concept high points of that movie.

I enjoyed the fake-documentary style of this, the occasional obviously-fake-footage while making the whole film relatively believable, and the effort in general of simply telling a good tale. In that, I believe they succeeded.

...that at the 4th attempt, this film does nothing to raise Mr Hines from the level of a modern day Ed Wood. This is not a character assassination (although the actors do a good job themselves) of Mr Hines, this is my opinion after having purchased and watched all four versions of this film: the original three hour debacle, the director's cut, the 'classic' version and this, the 'True Story'.

Plus marks do need to be given for the idea of making an eye witness documentary, for it was a good idea. Unfortunately, as with the previous efforts, the execution of said idea is very poor indeed.

Despite claims previously made to the contrary, there is a large amount of footage form the previous films used. Not a massive problem but when (as previously stated) this was supposed to be a new, fresh, properly done version coupled with the fact that a lot of the old scenes seem to have been given the sort of filter effects that one could perform with basic video editing software, one such as I who has loyally bought all versions is left feeling rather robbed.

Even the documentary/interview sections seem to have been processed with some dreadful and unnecessary effects in post.

There is new CGI, a lot of which barely improves on the previous attempts, but the reason I have raised this from a 2 out of 10 to a 3 is that some time and effort has clearly been made on a new 'tripod' design. It does look very good, in a 'steam punk' kind of way.

Perhaps if I was not a previously loyal (if demonstrably misguided) customer I would have marked this higher. Perhaps if I was a newbie and bought this film with no real expectations of greatness that had been promised I wouldn't feel so disappointed. Alas, I do, and I will not be spending any of my hard earned money on any future endeavours by Tim Hines.

Still, it was nice to see that he included a bit of footage from his long forgotten film-that-was-never-made 'Chrome' as a video ident at the beginning.

Actually, the music was pretty good, but alas whoever was in charge of final production appears to have the aural and mixing dexterity of a deaf baboon.

So, what next for the half Ed Wood, half Walter Mitty? Frankly, I am not in the least bit interested anymore.

Actually, I am raising this to a 4 out of 10, because after all it is better than the woeful Tom Cruise version and especially the dreadful version by Asylum.