It aired on History Channel, so check your On Demand Menu, or if they have streaming, check their siteSo here I am, sitting in America, asking "How can I SEE this?"
You might not have liked the film, but it is closer to the original book than the 1953 version. And the 2005 film doesn't mention Martians, and that's a good thing because what we know of Mars doesn't support the idea of an alien race originating from there.Wait, what? The 2005 movie was about martians? All I remember was the screaming girl portrayed by Dakota Fanning
True, many of the scenes are mirrored from the novel, but I find it was terribly executed to the point that the movie is hardly recognizable as the same story. The similar scenes seem tacked on to the point of serving as a reminder of what they were remaking.
That's a good point. The 50s version did make it more of a Scientist Hero movie, of the type that was popular at the time.The two films are different perspectives of an alien invasion. The 2005 film does make some changes to update the story, but its heart is the original novel. The main character of the book is a civilian shmuck just trying to stay alive and the 2005 film does the same thing only updating the character to someone more recognizably contemporary.
What some writers have done to get around that is to say that the aliens used Mars as a staging area for the invasion.You might not have liked the film, but it is closer to the original book than the 1953 version. And the 2005 film doesn't mention Martians, and that's a good thing because what we know of Mars doesn't support the idea of an alien race originating from there.
They did finally air it here? Crap. I should have paid closer attention.It aired on History Channel, so check your On Demand Menu, or if they have streaming, check their site
All I know is as I read the book the 1953 film certainly didn't come to mind, but the 2005 version certainly did. As a comparison I'd cite the Bourne films which certainly depart from the original source material, but have a sensibility to them that feels similar to the originals.Accurate doesn't always mean best. The 1953 version is often considered the best one even though it's not a copy of the book, because as a movie, it's simply executed better. If you want accurate, check out the Pendagron Pictures version, already mentioned in this thread, which follows the novel literally word for word and scene for scene, although, as was already mentioned, it's not at a great movie as it's in dire need of editing. Still, I enjoyed it better than the Tom Cruise movie.
Pendragon Pictures Version? is that the C. Thomas Howell one? I've been meaning to check it out. It's got a Sequel, too, I believe.Accurate doesn't always mean best. The 1953 version is often considered the best one even though it's not a copy of the book, because as a movie, it's simply executed better. If you want accurate, check out the Pendagron Pictures version, already mentioned in this thread, which follows the novel literally word for word and scene for scene, although, as was already mentioned, it's not at a great movie as it's in dire need of editing. Still, I enjoyed it better than the Tom Cruise movie.
Pendragon Pictures Version? is that the C. Thomas Howell one? I've been meaning to check it out. It's got a Sequel, too, I believe.
All I know is as I read the book the 1953 film certainly didn't come to mind, but the 2005 version certainly did. As a comparison I'd cite the Bourne films which certainly depart from the original source material, but have a sensibility to them that feels similar to the originals.
I don't share the general criticism of the 2005 film. I don't think it's better or worse than the 1953 version, but just different.
Fantastic. Thanks for the heads up.The Great Martian War is finally coming to US television on August 2 on BBCAmerica! I can't wait to finally see this!
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.