My introduction to H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds is the George Pal movie, which I saw at a downtown theater that showed not-quite first run movies on Saturday morning for free with six Pepsi bottlecaps around 1958.
Since then, I have learned that modern big budget special effects don't make a better movie. I've heard the recording of the Orson Welles radio production. And I've seen a TV movie or two ABOUT the radio production. This was really different and refreshing in that it seems to follow the novel accurately.
One complaint. Science mis-stated in the screenplay. The lead/narrator is trying to point out Mars in the sky to his lady friend. He says see it twinkle more than the stars. Wrong. Backwards. Stars twinkle, planets don't, but rather are steady lights in the sky. Reason has to do with being closer to earth and being discs from our perspective as seen from earth, while stars, since they are SO FAR away, are points of light even in a telescope, and so are affected more by the atmosphere.
Otherwise, entertaining and great mix of archive and new footage, plus original text by H. G. Wells.
Since then, I have learned that modern big budget special effects don't make a better movie. I've heard the recording of the Orson Welles radio production. And I've seen a TV movie or two ABOUT the radio production. This was really different and refreshing in that it seems to follow the novel accurately.
One complaint. Science mis-stated in the screenplay. The lead/narrator is trying to point out Mars in the sky to his lady friend. He says see it twinkle more than the stars. Wrong. Backwards. Stars twinkle, planets don't, but rather are steady lights in the sky. Reason has to do with being closer to earth and being discs from our perspective as seen from earth, while stars, since they are SO FAR away, are points of light even in a telescope, and so are affected more by the atmosphere.
Otherwise, entertaining and great mix of archive and new footage, plus original text by H. G. Wells.