# War of the Worlds (1952)



## Dave (Mar 29, 2001)

War of the Worlds (1952) 85 Minutes.

http://uk.imdb.com/Title?0046534

Novel by H.G.Wells.

Directed by Bryon Haskin.

Terrifying aliens invade the Earth. Set in the American midwest in the 1950's, rather than Surrey, England in the 1890's. Also a completely different story, except the ending. But who cares? Another classic science fiction film. Great alien ships, incredible sound effects, and sharp, vivid colors. Spectacular battle scenes (for it's time), the same American gung-ho seen later in 'ID4'. Cardboard characters though.

With Gene Barry, Ann Robinson, Les Tremayne, Bob Cornwaite, Sandra Giglio.


----------



## Quietness (Jun 17, 2001)

This is a great movie!  It's a tradition of sorts that my aunt & I watch it every year... I adore the ending... the people are all resigned, but the aliens are defeated anyhow...   Happy Happy  

     I apologize... I'm getting all sentimental & starting to ramble...


----------



## Dave (Jul 2, 2001)

Not at all, it's good when films get you that way.

According to 'Dreamwatch' -- Plans are underway for a new 'War of the Worlds' film. Set to begin filming in September 2001 by Pendragon Pictures. Michael Caine is in negotiations to star. Budget $42 million. sceduled to premiere in 2003. European rights to 'The War of the Worlds' are still held by recording artist Jeff Wayne, so there is a question over whether it will be released in Europe.


----------



## Quietness (Jul 3, 2001)

Hmmm... I'm not sure whether to be glad about a remake or not... I'm not really in favor of remaking classics, unless it's done very well, and it seems like it never is...


*Crosses fingers & hopes that new version will be good*


----------



## imported_space monkey (Oct 11, 2001)

*Important Science Fiction Film*

Has no-one seen this film?  I know its old but it is very important in science fiction history.  It was a major film in sparking my interest in sci fi.  Anyone else feel this way or am I just nuts?  :alienooh: :evil: :dead:


----------



## Foxbat (Oct 31, 2005)

This month's choice is the aforementioned 1952 version of War Of The Worlds. Please post your comments/observations/rants here


----------



## Winters_Sorrow (Oct 31, 2005)

Well, I loved this film and it completes my 'classic' 50's sci-fi shortlist (with The Day the Earth Stood Still, The Day the Earth Caught Fire, When Worlds Collide and This Island Earth amongst others).

It's often viewed by 'serious' critics as a symptom of McCarthey-era communist witchhunts, but I purely view it as a rather grim science fiction morality tale: that if aliens invade, they'll likely be so advanced that we'll be completely powerless to stop them. 

There are two obvious variations from the original novel by HG Wells.
One in timing & setting - 50's California as opposed to Victorian England and the other in the literal design of the ships themselves, no longer Tripods but the more typical Flying Saucers as seen in other films of the time. 

Oh, and the sound of the Martian deathrays is still very cool!


----------



## Foxbat (Nov 1, 2005)

I was around twelve years old when I first read the book. It appealed to me – lumbering three-legged giants with death rays. I remember being a touch disappointed the first time I saw this film. It was not what I expected in the visual sense. It took me a while to grow up and then see this movie through a more mature set of eyes (although some would argue that has never happened). I began to realise that War Of The Worlds as I knew it had to be upgraded – it was a tale from a different time. Now we had the spectre of the A-Bomb to live with and the Martians – part of their menace lay in their near-indestructibility – had to be able to withstand such an onslought. Hence the force field. Also, the 50s were a period when the jet aircraft really came into its own – sleek, aerodynamic. I think this is where the Martian war machines gained their makeover from. The  three invisible support rays on which they hover were a nod to the original tripod design in Wells’ novel.

The story is more or less what it was but set in America (and with characters to suit such a change) with its awesome arsenal which is probably a good thing. It just wouldn’t have worked pitting the might of Mars against an ailing UK still recovering from  WWII.  The script itself used (as did many SF movies of the time) the Cold War paranoia to good effect. Nothing wrong with that at the time – although it may seem a little clichéd now..but  I’ve always argued that you have to view a movie within the context of its own time. To compare this against modern blockbusters and the new technologies open to them is (in my opinion) just plain wrong.

The movie won a special effects Oscar and thoroughly deserved it was too. For the time (and even today) this is a great watch with not only good visuals but excellent sound effects.

On the whole, this is still a movie I enjoy watching. 

I’ve still to see the new Speilberg version but I would guess that this little gem from yesteryear can still hold its own when pitted against big budget CGI. A good film is a good film….that doesn’t change with age – its our perceptions that change.


----------



## polymorphikos (Nov 1, 2005)

I remember reading somewhere that _The War of the Worlds_ was one of the reasons that Hollywood gave-up in large part on big-budget sf, due to its not taking very well at the box-office.


----------



## creslin_black (Jul 3, 2006)

War of the Worlds is kind of what many might say is the archetypal sci-fi movie of the time.  It involves the familiar progression of force used by the armed forces until they deploy every weapon available to no real effect, and a high degree of xenophobia and stereotypical designs on alien xenobiology.  But, something separates this movie from the crowd of b-movies which permeated this period's sci-fi cinema.  It might be the characters, which although they can be at times melodramatic, offer (mostly) believable emotions.  Or, it might be the special effects, which for the time were pretty spiffy.  I do notice that there's the recurring theme which occurs among all sci-fi movies, in which the apparently out-gunned and out-maneuvered people of earth manage to miraculously defeat a sworn enemy through some innate strength.  This is typical of all sci-fi movies because of a need for hope.  After all, how would it look at the end of the movie if the human race were exterminated utterly and the invading species got what they came for?  Not good reviews I promise you.


----------



## j d worthington (Jul 3, 2006)

Well, actually, we didn't do anything that defeated the Martians. As in Wells' novel, it was the microorganisms that saved our fannys. The difference in the film version (and where it reflected the tenor of the times more than in any other aspect) was the religious addition, of this being God's intervention -- and this was done at about the time when such things as "In God We Trust" was being put on our coinage, and the "under God" clause was inserted in the Pledge of Allegiance; this was all done to differentiate us from the "atheistic" communist regime of the time. It was also the reason for the addition of the bit about God in *The Incredible Shrinking Man*. It's not hit-you-over-the-head overt, so it isn't terribly offensive, but it is at odds with Wells' position on the topic, of course. I rather like the fact that, until the final moment, we really are helpless. My only problem is the fact that that final moment takes place in a church, and so the obvious connection is that, with even the atheists praying, God finally decided to intervene. Unspoken, but there. Nonetheless, cynical as I am, I still am touched by them finding each other in the church while everything collapses around them. Pure schmaltz, but I still like it.


----------



## Dirthouse (Nov 7, 2006)

This is one of those films that are just so more entertaining with the original. I remember watching it back at school a couple of years ago. Never was my cup of tea, but i'd have to agree with the rest of you. The ending was definately well done, although I have never read the book I may just look it up.


----------



## world in progress (Nov 13, 2006)

Wasn't aware of this thread, but by coincidence I just blogged about WotW:


Rewatching George Pal's _The War of the Worlds_ for the first time in decades reinforced how much movies like _Independence Day_ owed this example of classic 50s cinematic science fiction. The A-bomb sequence was perhaps the most blatant beat-by-beat repetition but there are many other parallels that would argue that _Independence Day_ is perhaps a more faithful remake than the recent Spielberg _War of the Worlds_ (without the "_The_").

  The seminal nature of the film was made even clearer by the sound effects of the alien war machines: straight out of a hundred video games released since.

  One of the interesting things about this _The War of the Worlds_ is the implicit faith the film places in science. Ann Robinson _blatantly_ checks out Gene Barry's scientist with the big scientist glasses, a science fangirl with a masters degree herself. Science provides explanations for the aliens and makes at least some progress in understanding their behaviour and weaknesses, unlike the military which is of no use at all. Perhaps tellingly, the scientist becomes less effective when he ditches the glasses and tweed coat puts on a leather jacket instead; and the mob's hysterical, mindless rejection of science provides the emotional gut-punch of the movie. However science is itself a red herring of sorts - ultimately no more effective than military might, as demonstrated when technology and weaponry are melded into the atomic bomb.

  Faith in science is misplaced, but faith in faith is not. While I've read that H. G. Wells may have baulked at the blatantly religious spin the movie gave to the Martians' defeat, I didn't mind it, and liked how the theme of religion was woven throughout the story, sometimes explicitly (Sylvia's pastor uncle, the final scenes in the churches), sometimes more subtly (a reference to "six days").

  Any movie over 50 years old will contain anachronistic elements. The voice over, especially the extended opening explaining why every other planet in the solar system (except Venus ... what happened to Venus?) is unsuitable for the Martians, is fey by today's standards. And the role of women somewhat cringeworthy. Ann Baxter, master's degree notwithstanding, quickly reverts to serving tea and scones and screaming in terror as she runs into Barry's masculine arms. Though we did see at least one female scientist, she was, perhaps not surprisingly, an older, unsexy woman.

  Some of the special effects are quite poor: strings obviously holding up the Martian ships (made clearer by a beautifully restored print on the DVD), a heavy reliance on stock footage, the plane crash sending Robinson and Barry to the house with the encounter with the Martian implied rather than shown. The tri-coloured Martian eyes (red/green/blue ... the components of television colour ... cinema's natural enemy in the 50s?) look silly.

  But other sequences hold up very well, the devastation and destruction of Los Angeles for instance. And there are other aspects that are praiseworthy: the international outlook of the film, the escalation of dread and scale, and skilful interweaving of the various plot threads - personal, scientific and military. And the design of the Martian ships, sleek and dangerous, is still a classic.


----------



## Serin (Jan 23, 2007)

What am impact this film had on the general public.  An absolutely brilliant film for its time.  I sometimes have trouble with remakes, but this new one I like very much.  I watched the stage version on dvd last night and thought that was excellent too.


----------



## Urien (Jan 23, 2007)

I loved te original War of the Worlds. There is a palpable sense of defeat and chaos. The intense violence of the Martians is even more stark than in the modern version, and the sounds (especially of the weapons) are terrifying.


----------



## Happy Joe (Feb 9, 2007)

Overall a good watchable film, the pacing suffers for some modern viewers (older films had slower pacing) making it seem to drag a bit in parts.
It was a milestone for the time and includes somewhat rare footage of the military's experimental flying wing.
This film has aged very well and (IMO) it is superior to the recent version (I hate people hysterically screaming at each other, it shows lack of writing talent) (although some parts of the recent movie are truer to Well's story).
Enjoy!


----------



## unclejack (Jul 11, 2007)

Great film. I just watched it like a week ago for the first tiime although I had already seen the remake. I have to say that I like them both but ultimately the first one is the best. It's much higher in dramatic quality and I find the expressed emotions of the characters to be much more believeable in the first one than the second one. Their reactions are genuine and the distress is much more real than in the remake. I'm not bashin the remake, I know that it emphasized the action side of the plot more than the drama surrounding the plot. I just find that the movies of the past seem to ephasize things like character development and drama more than they did things like special effects and exciting action sequences like in the movies of today.


----------



## tangaloomababe (Jul 11, 2007)

I still enjoy watching this film, despite the incesant screaming from the female lead.  If I recall Gene Barry was the male lead and he was pretty cool. 
I thought for their time the Martins flying machines were first rate, they are still pretty good now. And yes the death ray is still first rate.
I did try to convince my son to watch this, but despite the dramatic start and very loud music could not be convinced to give it a go Ahhhh the youth of today.
Its still a darn sight better than the Tom Cruise effort and I think I would rather put up with the female than Dakota Fanning's constant screaming.
However for me nothing beats Jeff Waynes Musical of War of the Worlds with Richard Burtons wonderfully articulate narration.


----------

