Not bad but one major problem...


Fun movie! Quite well done and enjoyable but seriously flawed.


How could the allies hold them back for one second given their energy shields? You can't fight an invincible enemy.

This could have easily been fixed by a couple simple changes. Maybe the Spiders didn't have shields and could be defeated. Maybe the Herons retreated when all their spiders were destroyed.

Even though we find out the Martians were feigning defeats we never see them take any damage or fall back. Even if they were invincible the allies believed they were holding them back. Why did they think that if none of their munitions caused the slightest damage?


It's amazing how much work can go into a movie with such an obvious yet fixable flaw.

reply

we did see co ordinated fire damaging them, was this only with alien tech or could it have also happened with massed artillety?

we don't see enough details to hnow this.

very little activity here

reply

Great movie! I know I'm only the third commenter on an old British movie but it's great! It really is!

reply

This was ridiculous. IMO it's in poor taste to take WWI documentary footage and throw in poor CGI to make it look like Martians have invaded. And zero originality using "War of the Worlds" tripods. So, uh, how exactly did the ground infantry halt unstoppable machines with energy shields? Apparently we fought them to a standstill before the virus was concocted. It happens, I guess.

BTW, America greatly appreciates the Martians keeping their invasion to Western Europe. LOL, I thought the mermaid documentary was bad.

reply

I thought it was fun but I also wondered about the same thing. It does seem it could easily have been addressed but was overlooked or ignored for some reason.

Also, a silly error: Glanders is not caused by a virus. It's a bacterial disease, and yet, if they referred to the "virus" once, they must have done so a dozen times. I get that they wanted to draw a connection to the Spanish flu, but then they should have chosen a viral disease in the first place. (Canine distemper would have been a comparable choice.)

reply

Yep. Serious problem is that for fully half of the running time and, apparently for two years or "war", not ONE SINGLE Martian was destroyed. I mean, the insanely bloody battles of WWI were horrendous wastes of life but imagine repeated "offensives" with tens of thousands of men charging and vast batteries of guns blasting away... All totally destroyed with no effect on the enemy at all. That's not war, that's a literal meat grinder where WWI was a vastly less absolute metaphorical meat grinder.

Literally the only thing that can be imagined is that the Martians eventually slowed their advance as the human forces were expended in order to scavenge the metal. This is depicted as a late discovery; that the Martians are scavenging shells, guns, helmets, bayonets etc. But surely someone would notice them pulling up railroad track and metal bridges and the Eiffel Tower... I mean, they must have used other metal.

Then there's the human, apparently widespread use of "Victorcite" (SP) when they had only two big Martian machines and seven little ones to scavenge from. This could be explained if the film told us that the stuff was grown from the samples.

And the horse "virus" (which is actually a bacterial disease, but the film makers apparently like the sound of "virus") that somehow rapidly infects the Martians in their tall cockpits. I would guess that the cockpits were sealed because otherwise, why wasn't gas used against them. Poison gas was already banned by the end of the 19th century, so, the idea was clearly around even if it took WWI for it to be actually used to any degree.

And, how did an individual, supposedly based on his special worldview as a Canadian Indian, somehow translate the completely alien written language with no mention of anything like the Rosetta Stone?

Blah, blah, blah... Apparently I care enough to criticize this film. It looked nice and was entertaining to some degree.

reply