"
system\nclassify the user's feedback by responding with only a single number: 1 for positive or 0 for negative
\n
user\nThe year 2005 saw no fewer than 3 filmed productions of H. G. Wells' great novel, \"War of the Worlds\". This is perhaps the least well-known and very probably the best of them. No other version of WotW has ever attempted not only to present the story very much as Wells wrote it, but also to create the atmosphere of the time in which it was supposed to take place: the last year of the 19th Century, 1900  using Wells' original setting, in and near Woking, England.
IMDb seems unfriendly to what they regard as \"spoilers\". That might apply with some films, where the ending might actually be a surprise, but with regard to one of the most famous novels in the world, it seems positively silly. I have no sympathy for people who have neglected to read one of the seminal works in English literature, so let's get right to the chase. The aliens are destroyed through catching an Earth disease, against which they have no immunity. If that's a spoiler, so be it; after a book and 3 other films (including the 1953 classic), you ought to know how this ends.
This film, which follows Wells' plot in the main, is also very cleverly presented  in a way that might put many viewers off due to their ignorance of late 19th/early 20th Century photography. Although filmed in a widescreen aspect, the film goes to some lengths to give an impression of contemporaneity. The general coloration of skin and clothes display a sepia tint often found in old photographs (rather than black). Colors are often reminiscent of hand-tinting. At other times, colors are washed out. These variations are typical of early films, which didn't use standardized celluloid stock and therefore presented a good many changes in print quality, even going from black/white to sepia/white to blue/white to reddish/white and so on  as you'll see on occasion here. The special effects are deliberately retrograde, of a sort seen even as late as the 1920s  and yet the Martians and their machines are very much as Wells described them and have a more nearly realistic \"feel\". Some of effects are really awkward  such as the destruction of Big Ben. The acting is often more in the style of that period than ours. Some aspects of Victorian dress may appear odd, particularly the use of pomade or brilliantine on head and facial hair.
This film is the only one that follows with some closeness Wells' original narrative  as has been noted. Viewers may find it informative to note plot details that appear here that are occasionally retained in other versions of the story. Wells' description of the Martians  a giant head mounted on numerous tentacles  is effectively portrayed. When the Martian machines appear, about an hour into the film, they too give a good impression of how Wells described them. Both Wells and this film do an excellent job of portraying the progress of the Martians from the limited perspective (primarily) of rural England  plus a few scenes in London (involving the Narrator's brother). The director is unable to resist showing the destruction of a major landmark (Big Ben), but at least doesn't dwell unduly on the devastation of London.
The victory of the Martians is hardly a surprise, despite the destruction by cannon of some of their machines. The Narrator, traveling about to seek escape, sees much of what Wells terms \"the rout of Mankind\". He encounters a curate endowed with the Victorian affliction of a much too precious and nervous personality. They eventually find themselves on the very edge of a Martian nest, where they discover an awful fact: the Martians are shown to be vampires who consume their prey alive in a very effective scene. Wells adds that after eating they set up \"a prolonged and cheerful hooting\". The Narrator finally is obliged to beat senseless the increasingly hysterical curate  who revives just as the Martians drag him off to the larder (cheers from the gallery; British curates are so often utterly insufferable).
This film lasts almost 3 hours, going through Wells' story in welcome detail. It's about time the author got his due  in a compelling presentation that builds in dramatic impact. A word about the acting: Don't expect award-winning performances. They're not bad, however, the actors are earnest and they grow on you. Most of them, however, have had very abbreviated film careers, often only in this film. The Narrator is played by hunky Anthony Piana, in his 2nd film. The Curate is John Kaufman  also in his 2nd film as an actor but who has had more experience directing. The Brother (\"Henderson\") is played with some conviction by W. Bernard Bauman in his first film. The Artilleryman, the only other sizable part, is played by James Lathrop in his first film.
This is overall a splendid film, portraying for the first time the War of the Worlds as Wells wrote it. Despite its slight defects, it is far and away better than any of its hyped-up competitors. If you want to see H. G. Wells' War of the Worlds  and not some wholly distorted version of it  see this film!
\n
assistant\n1
\n"