War Of The Worlds: Two Versions from 2005
War Of The Worlds: Two Versions from 2005
2005 saw two versions of HG Wells' classic science fiction story adapted to film, one is the well known Steven Spielberg adaptation starring Tom Cruise, and the other a lesser known release by Pendragon Pictures. One film saw a the classic reimagined in the modern day USA, while the other stayed quite faithful to the original novel, in setting and in the screenplay. Both films were interestingly enough released in June of 2005, though the Pendragon Pictures version never saw a theatrical release.
War Of The Worlds, was directed by Steven Spielberg, and was distributed by Paramount (domestic) and Dreamworks (internationally. The film was written by Josh Friedman and David Koepp, and based on HG Wells novel of the same name from 1898, though it also took inspiration from the famous Orson Welles' radio-show version of the story as well. Through Spielberg wanted to take elements of the original story, he also wanted to make it original as well, one of the main ways that he did that was by making it so that the tripods, were buried in the Earth millions of years in the past, and a lightning storm deposited the aliens in the machine during modern times, the idea being that the aliens waited until their were enough humans on the planet to make a sustainable food source, so we existed as their livestock, until there were enough of us to live off of, much like stocking a pond with fish, and not fishing the pond until their is a sustainable population of fish in the pond.
The film stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier who is a divorced father, who a strained relationship with his kids, who are left in his care while their mother, Mary Ann Ferrier (played by Miranda Otto) is visiting her parents in Boston. Her parents are played by Ann Robinson and Gene Barry (in his final film appearance) who were both the leading roles in the famous 1953 adaptation of the film. Ray's kids are Dakota Fanning as Rachel Ferrier who is his young daughter that struggles with some emotional issues, and Robbie Ferrier played by Justin Chatwin who is a rebellious teenager that resents his father for not being a better father, and their relationship creates much of the drama in the film, and young Rachel acts in many situations as the voice of reason of the family as the two males are constantly fighting each other. The film as stars Tim Robbins as Harlan Ogilvy who is an amalgamation of a few characters in the original novel, and with the name of another character. Morgan Freeman's voice appears as well as the narrator of the film. Just an interesting note to add, Channing Tatum played a boy in a church scene, but his scene was cut. Though I am not a fan of Tom Cruise, the film is well cast, and Tom Cruise pulls off the stereotype of the trashy blue-collar dockworker really well. His character though is not only a stereotype, but also an offensive classist stereotype at that, however he does play that stereotype quite well and convincingly. Justin Chatwin also plays the stereotype of the resentful head-strong teenage boy convincingly as well, his character is realistic though very much a stereotypical trope used in films that have divorced parents. I have seen reviews that criticize their characters of never actually having a resolution, or a conclusion to their story arch, and honestly I praise the film for that, the way that they fight, and the way that Robbie resents his father for not being a father is not going to end by some great disaster that brings them all together. There is no "...and they lived happily ever after" in this story, they are still divorced, and Ray still doesn't know how to be a father to his children, the story ends with "...and they lived". Life doesn't just magically get better, there is no fairytale ending for this family, because let's be honest that is a thing that only happens with Hollywood magic, and the fact that in the end they are still the people they were in the beginning, just a really shaken and a little worse for wear, Ray is still a shitty father, Robbie is still an asshole teenager. Now the real star of this film when it comes to acting and being a great and complicated character is Dakota Fanning as little Rachel. Her character is the reason we care about these people at all, we are empathetic for this kid, she loves her dad and her brother, she also loves her mother and her new husband as well, she is the pure heart of the film, she is why we root for this dysfunctional family, because deep down I think we all want her to be okay at the end of all of this.
The film had a budget of $132 million, and from the looks of the special effects in this film that money was well spent. This film looks beautiful, the effects are well done, even the unintentionally adorable aliens later in the film are well done. Fortunately that large budget also paid off in the box office as the film grossed $603.9 million, and went on to make even more in the home video market. Overall this film was a huge success. When it was released it received mostly positive praise from the critics, and for good reason. War Of The Worlds was well written, beautifully done, with amazing special effects that work and look good, and a great cast (my feelings about Tom Cruise aside) that played their characters really well. This is definitely a film worth seeing. For quite a while I kind of hated this film, and I'm not sure why really, when I think about it, because watching it this time around, I actually felt excitement and on the edge during some of the scenes, I think this film actually works really well as an action science-fiction film. If you haven't yet seen this film I really do recommend it.
War Of The Worlds, was directed by Steven Spielberg, and was distributed by Paramount (domestic) and Dreamworks (internationally. The film was written by Josh Friedman and David Koepp, and based on HG Wells novel of the same name from 1898, though it also took inspiration from the famous Orson Welles' radio-show version of the story as well. Through Spielberg wanted to take elements of the original story, he also wanted to make it original as well, one of the main ways that he did that was by making it so that the tripods, were buried in the Earth millions of years in the past, and a lightning storm deposited the aliens in the machine during modern times, the idea being that the aliens waited until their were enough humans on the planet to make a sustainable food source, so we existed as their livestock, until there were enough of us to live off of, much like stocking a pond with fish, and not fishing the pond until their is a sustainable population of fish in the pond.
The film stars Tom Cruise as Ray Ferrier who is a divorced father, who a strained relationship with his kids, who are left in his care while their mother, Mary Ann Ferrier (played by Miranda Otto) is visiting her parents in Boston. Her parents are played by Ann Robinson and Gene Barry (in his final film appearance) who were both the leading roles in the famous 1953 adaptation of the film. Ray's kids are Dakota Fanning as Rachel Ferrier who is his young daughter that struggles with some emotional issues, and Robbie Ferrier played by Justin Chatwin who is a rebellious teenager that resents his father for not being a better father, and their relationship creates much of the drama in the film, and young Rachel acts in many situations as the voice of reason of the family as the two males are constantly fighting each other. The film as stars Tim Robbins as Harlan Ogilvy who is an amalgamation of a few characters in the original novel, and with the name of another character. Morgan Freeman's voice appears as well as the narrator of the film. Just an interesting note to add, Channing Tatum played a boy in a church scene, but his scene was cut. Though I am not a fan of Tom Cruise, the film is well cast, and Tom Cruise pulls off the stereotype of the trashy blue-collar dockworker really well. His character though is not only a stereotype, but also an offensive classist stereotype at that, however he does play that stereotype quite well and convincingly. Justin Chatwin also plays the stereotype of the resentful head-strong teenage boy convincingly as well, his character is realistic though very much a stereotypical trope used in films that have divorced parents. I have seen reviews that criticize their characters of never actually having a resolution, or a conclusion to their story arch, and honestly I praise the film for that, the way that they fight, and the way that Robbie resents his father for not being a father is not going to end by some great disaster that brings them all together. There is no "...and they lived happily ever after" in this story, they are still divorced, and Ray still doesn't know how to be a father to his children, the story ends with "...and they lived". Life doesn't just magically get better, there is no fairytale ending for this family, because let's be honest that is a thing that only happens with Hollywood magic, and the fact that in the end they are still the people they were in the beginning, just a really shaken and a little worse for wear, Ray is still a shitty father, Robbie is still an asshole teenager. Now the real star of this film when it comes to acting and being a great and complicated character is Dakota Fanning as little Rachel. Her character is the reason we care about these people at all, we are empathetic for this kid, she loves her dad and her brother, she also loves her mother and her new husband as well, she is the pure heart of the film, she is why we root for this dysfunctional family, because deep down I think we all want her to be okay at the end of all of this.
The film had a budget of $132 million, and from the looks of the special effects in this film that money was well spent. This film looks beautiful, the effects are well done, even the unintentionally adorable aliens later in the film are well done. Fortunately that large budget also paid off in the box office as the film grossed $603.9 million, and went on to make even more in the home video market. Overall this film was a huge success. When it was released it received mostly positive praise from the critics, and for good reason. War Of The Worlds was well written, beautifully done, with amazing special effects that work and look good, and a great cast (my feelings about Tom Cruise aside) that played their characters really well. This is definitely a film worth seeing. For quite a while I kind of hated this film, and I'm not sure why really, when I think about it, because watching it this time around, I actually felt excitement and on the edge during some of the scenes, I think this film actually works really well as an action science-fiction film. If you haven't yet seen this film I really do recommend it.
HG Wells' War of the Worlds
(AKA The Pendragon War Of The Worlds)
(AKA The Pendragon War Of The Worlds)
So in June of 2005 there was also a lesser-known version of HG Wells' classic War of the Worlds, and this one was released by Pendragon Pictures, directed by Timothy Hines, and written by Timothy Hines and Susan Goforth. This version of the film started being planned in 2000, but it wasn't until 2005 that it was released. The film was originally planned to take place in modern times in Seattle Washington, but after the events of 9-11 Hines decided that he thought it would be distasteful to set a film like this in modern times, and feature the destruction of famous landmarks in modern times, so he decided to make a faithful film adaptation of the original novel, and in that he was successful, this is probably the most faithful adaptation of War Of The Worlds... however praise for this film really stops there.
The Pendragon War Of The Worlds was made on a budget of $25 million, meaning that it isn't exactly a low budget production, and that is an important fact to keep in mind as we progress, also the film never received a theatrical release so never had a box office gross to attempt to recoup that budget, and I have a strong feeling that the home video market also didn't recoup that budget. To be completely honest I am not exactly sure what Hines spent that $25 million on, because it obviously wasn't the film.
This film stars Anthony Piana as The Writer and The Brother (because obviously there was no budget to hire two actors, so lets just throw a mustache on Piana and no one will notice), Susan Goforth plays The Wife (The Writer's wife... I think), Barbara Bauman plays Mary (The Writer's servant)(also Goforth and Bauman are both producers for the film, because why pay people to act when you can just have the producers do the acting), Jack Clay plays Ogilvy, James Lathrop plays The Artilleryman, John Kaufmann plays The Curate. Now there is also this story arc about The Brother, Mrs Elphinstone (Darlene Sellers), and Miss Elphinstone (Jamie Lynn Sease) I don't know what purpose the have, or why we keep flashing to them throughout the film, when we should just be focused on The Writer. Also the poor actress Diana Shur gets to play multiple different dead women, because if you have one beautiful corpse why not just reuse her over and over again, right!? Seriously though the bad acting is not what ruins this film, I actually appreciate the bad acting, it gives the film the feel of a BBC melodrama, or even the feel of the film being a play. No the bad acting is charming in its own way, and that is not a thing I fault this film for.
I honestly thought this was a BBC miniseries, I didn't realize until today that this was meant to be a big budget theatrical release, with a sizable budget of over $20 million, much bigger films have been made for much less. The problem comes when I realize what this film isn't, and then it can no longer be judged as a low budget made-for-television film, and must be judged as a large budget studio film. I say this again, not because of the bad acting, but because this film looks... well it looks embarrassingly bad. The creators of the CGI special effects, should never work again, video games of the time period had better CG cutscenes than this film has. These are the worst special effects that I have ever seen in my life. The film was shot entirely during the day, and the night scenes were done with filters, hell everything in this film was shot with filters, some used to give it an older film look by yellowing the image, but the filters look absolutely terrible and way over saturated, it almost hurts to look at the colours of this film. This is the worst looking film that I have ever seen in my life, and that is tragic because the film is truly faithful to the book, in setting and story, and it should have been the best adaptation of the book, but it completely fails all because of the visual effects. Like I said the third-rate acting is forgivable, but the visuals absolutely are not.
If this was a radio play, I would love it, I want to like it because of the faithfulness to the source material, and if I ignore the effects and let my mind instead picture what is happening, this is a great adaptation, but since this is not a radio play and it is a movie (moving picture) it ends up being an absolutely terrible adaptation, and I can not believe that this film came out the same year that Spielberg made his version with the special effects that are a true feast for the eyes. The Pendragon War Of The Worlds however has developed a cult following of people who appreciate it for being absolutely terrible, in the way that they appreciate films like The Room for being so absolutely terrible. I don't recommend this film for most viewers, unless you are looking for a British Melodrama and maybe you are blind and can't see the absolute rubbish that is on the screen.
(note: I couldn't find a preview to subject you all to)
Oh wait! There's more, I have the 3 hour original version, they also made two other shorter versions cutting up to an hour out of the film and then they also took the cut footage to create "War Of The Worlds The True Story" film, because why not get as much as you can out of it after spending over $20 million to make a film that is visually painful to watch.
If I were to sum this up, 2005 was the year of War of the Worlds, and if you want to see a really great version of this film, then watch the version from 1953, or listen to Orson Welles radio show. One of my favourite books, that sadly has yet to have a great authentic film adaptation, they are either set in modern day, or they look absolutely terrible, can I just get a truly great faithful adaptation to one of my favourite books, please?
The Pendragon War Of The Worlds was made on a budget of $25 million, meaning that it isn't exactly a low budget production, and that is an important fact to keep in mind as we progress, also the film never received a theatrical release so never had a box office gross to attempt to recoup that budget, and I have a strong feeling that the home video market also didn't recoup that budget. To be completely honest I am not exactly sure what Hines spent that $25 million on, because it obviously wasn't the film.
This film stars Anthony Piana as The Writer and The Brother (because obviously there was no budget to hire two actors, so lets just throw a mustache on Piana and no one will notice), Susan Goforth plays The Wife (The Writer's wife... I think), Barbara Bauman plays Mary (The Writer's servant)(also Goforth and Bauman are both producers for the film, because why pay people to act when you can just have the producers do the acting), Jack Clay plays Ogilvy, James Lathrop plays The Artilleryman, John Kaufmann plays The Curate. Now there is also this story arc about The Brother, Mrs Elphinstone (Darlene Sellers), and Miss Elphinstone (Jamie Lynn Sease) I don't know what purpose the have, or why we keep flashing to them throughout the film, when we should just be focused on The Writer. Also the poor actress Diana Shur gets to play multiple different dead women, because if you have one beautiful corpse why not just reuse her over and over again, right!? Seriously though the bad acting is not what ruins this film, I actually appreciate the bad acting, it gives the film the feel of a BBC melodrama, or even the feel of the film being a play. No the bad acting is charming in its own way, and that is not a thing I fault this film for.
I honestly thought this was a BBC miniseries, I didn't realize until today that this was meant to be a big budget theatrical release, with a sizable budget of over $20 million, much bigger films have been made for much less. The problem comes when I realize what this film isn't, and then it can no longer be judged as a low budget made-for-television film, and must be judged as a large budget studio film. I say this again, not because of the bad acting, but because this film looks... well it looks embarrassingly bad. The creators of the CGI special effects, should never work again, video games of the time period had better CG cutscenes than this film has. These are the worst special effects that I have ever seen in my life. The film was shot entirely during the day, and the night scenes were done with filters, hell everything in this film was shot with filters, some used to give it an older film look by yellowing the image, but the filters look absolutely terrible and way over saturated, it almost hurts to look at the colours of this film. This is the worst looking film that I have ever seen in my life, and that is tragic because the film is truly faithful to the book, in setting and story, and it should have been the best adaptation of the book, but it completely fails all because of the visual effects. Like I said the third-rate acting is forgivable, but the visuals absolutely are not.
If this was a radio play, I would love it, I want to like it because of the faithfulness to the source material, and if I ignore the effects and let my mind instead picture what is happening, this is a great adaptation, but since this is not a radio play and it is a movie (moving picture) it ends up being an absolutely terrible adaptation, and I can not believe that this film came out the same year that Spielberg made his version with the special effects that are a true feast for the eyes. The Pendragon War Of The Worlds however has developed a cult following of people who appreciate it for being absolutely terrible, in the way that they appreciate films like The Room for being so absolutely terrible. I don't recommend this film for most viewers, unless you are looking for a British Melodrama and maybe you are blind and can't see the absolute rubbish that is on the screen.
(note: I couldn't find a preview to subject you all to)
Oh wait! There's more, I have the 3 hour original version, they also made two other shorter versions cutting up to an hour out of the film and then they also took the cut footage to create "War Of The Worlds The True Story" film, because why not get as much as you can out of it after spending over $20 million to make a film that is visually painful to watch.
If I were to sum this up, 2005 was the year of War of the Worlds, and if you want to see a really great version of this film, then watch the version from 1953, or listen to Orson Welles radio show. One of my favourite books, that sadly has yet to have a great authentic film adaptation, they are either set in modern day, or they look absolutely terrible, can I just get a truly great faithful adaptation to one of my favourite books, please?
Comments
Post a Comment