phubbs1's Profile - Rotten Tomatoes

Want-to-See Movies

This user has no Want to See movie selections yet.

Want-to-See TV

This user has no Want to See TV selections yet.

Rating History

Warcraft
Warcraft (2016)
12 hours ago via Flixster
½

The world of Warcraft is a massive franchise created by Blizzard Entertainment back in 1994. I say world, but maybe I should say universe because world simply seems too small for this sprawling product. Warcraft is mainly made up of five core videogames for PC's which revolve around; online multiplayer role-play, strategies and digital card collecting. But it doesn't end there, the franchise also includes novels, comics, manga, tabletop games, collectible cards etc...Now some may recognise a similarity to Games Worskshop's [i]Warhammer[/i] franchise, and I don't blame you. Legend has it Blizzard originally wanted to make Warcraft a game set in the Warhammer universe, but things just didn't work out. And as they say, the rest is history.

So onto the movie and trying to condense this ginormous Tolkien-esque universe into a reasonable length runtime. Basically what we have here is a story from two perspectives, one from the human side and one from the orc side. On the orc side of things, Draenor, the orc homeworld is being destroyed by a power called fel magic. So the all powerful (and nasty) orc warlock Gul'dan (Daniel Wu) opens a portal to the realm of Azeroth (where humans live). Obviously their aim is to conquer this new realm/world, and make it their own. On the flip side the humans that dwell within this realm are none too happy about this, so they take up arms against the orcs. On the orc side we follow Durotan (Toby Kebbell), chieftain of the Frostwolf clan and a generally level-headed orc. Durotan isn't too sure about Gul'dan's evil plans. And on the human side...well we follow many characters, Kings, knights, mages etc...

Dare I mention an amusingly unfortunate parallel? You know, masses of invaders swarming across a foreign land occupied by a predominantly white people (clearly of medieval European influence). Obviously this is a large coincidence, but the minute it dawned on me I had to laugh.

The huge worry with this movie (for me) was whether or not I would be able to become engaged in the story not knowing that much about the Warcraft franchise. I know of the franchise, the basics, but I've never played the games or read the books etc...I'm pretty sure this would be the general worry for all, how could they squeeze all this information into one opening movie without overwhelming people. What about people who are newbies to the franchise. Well in all honesty they don't really address this problem too well in my opinion as questins are raised almost immediately.

OK so fel magic is destroying the orc world, right...what's fel magic then? Unless I missed it (which is entirely possible) they don't actually explain what this mysterious force is. What happens to the orc world of Draenor? Does it end up being completely uninhabitable? How does Gul'dan know of Azeroth? I realise he's a powerful sorcerer but are these different realms/worlds common knowledge to orcs? Did Gul'dan know that humans lived there? Again I realise Gul'dan is a bad guy but maybe they could of entered Azeroth and used diplomacy? Or maybe he could of found a realm/world that didn't have lifeforms living in it? I know some of these points would negate the whole point of the movie but I'm just throwing them out there ya know.

There were also other small plot devices that just didn't seem too well explained to me. Fel magic seems to be the bane of the orcs, seeing as its destroying their homeworld, yet they also rely on it quite a lot. Gul'dan appears to use it all the time, in fact his powers seem to revolve around fel magic. He uses it to harvest souls from captives (the Draenei, another species on Draenor) in order to power the portal through to Azeroth. He also uses it to save Durotan's baby when it is stillborn. So it does appear that fel magic can be used for many things, good or bad depending how you look at it. But again later on in the movie, Medivh the guardian of Tirisfal (Ben Foster, a goodie), somehow becomes infected with fel magic and it consumes him, turning him into a powerful demon. But why a demon? How does this magic work exactly? Are there any limitations? Does the magic have a natural leaning towards good or evil, or does it depend on who uses it?

Leaving fel magic aside, what about the rest, the visuals? Well I have to say I really enjoyed what I saw, much to my amazement. The orcs do actually look really good in a comicbook kinda way. Let me explain, basically Warcraft has a lot in common with Games Workshop's Warhammer; and Warhammer fantasy has a very comicbook-esque/graphic novel-like vibe about it, I think. By that I mean its very lively, bold, stylised, highly detailed and outlandish. Its all very different to the darker and more serious tone in Tolkien's work. The orcs in this movie have that highly stylised, highly detailed look about them which is both over the top and genuinely fun to look at. I loved how each orc had his own unique armour, some adorned with trophies; weapons, haircuts, horns, facial features, skin colour, battle or clan standards etc...Orc chieftain Blackhand (Clancy Brown) was a good example with his matching trophies of some creatures skull and spinal column upon each shoulder.

The CGI was really solid for the orcs I felt, they really had a lot of weight to them and they genuinely looked intimidating. In turn this did make the battles against the humans kinda daft because I really couldn't help but feel the orcs would/should be squatting the humans like flies. Sure the orcs are slower but the human knights were encased in heavy armour so they would be slow too. Surely the orcs would just sweep through the human ranks no sweat, hell even a horse was no match for a regular orc. I must also give kudos for the design work on the knights of Stormwind, along with all the other characters magical or otherwise. I really liked the costume designs, colours, patterns, armour, weapons etc...It all looked really great, very colourful and again very comicbook-esque. I honesty loved how the knights looked, really brought back memories of [i]The Empire[/i] from Warhammer.

I think the only thing that did look completely off in the movie was the character of Garona Halforcen (Paula Patton), half-orc half-draenei (but spoke English?). This character was not CGI but the actress under heavy makeup, or so you would think. Unfortunately this makeup looked very hokey with the silly fangs sticking out of her mouth; it literally looked like they just sprayed her up with green body paint. Mind you the all CGI dwarfs looked a tad iffy too, as did the elves with their long thin ears and glowing eyes. But still despite the amount of CGI in this movie I can't believe I'm reporting that most of it was actually pretty fine. Much was obviously CGI but nothing terrible, your standard large CGI creatures/animals were all passable if obvious. I did quite like the large wolves the orcs rode, again harking back to my Warhammer days here.

I'm not gonna lie and say this movie was plain sailing, far from it. There are a shit load of peculiar names, magical terms, species/race names, location names etc...that will confuse and disorient you. Many of the characters will refer to places, events and characters that will mean nothing. Much of the time you will forget who's called what, or who or what they're talking about (unless you're a fanboy of course). There is a large cast here and their characters all have generally odd names. Some of the cast don't really work, some surprisingly do, but overall the choice to use mostly unknown or little known actors was a very good decision, voice work and live action.

Whether or not the hardcore fanbase was pleased with this I don't really know. Would a newbie to this world be engaged? I think so yes. I firmly believe this fantasy does tick all the boxes most fans of the genre would expect to see, on a satisfactory level. Durotan is a likeable...umm...greenish monster, a solid late in the day hero. Gul'dan is your typically evil pantomime-esque villain with a deep gravely voice (also covered in lots of bone trophies and horns). Garona does the divided loyalties bit with aplomb. Ben Foster's wizard Medivh spouts enough mystical mumbo jumbo to please any avid [i]Dungeons & Dragons[/i] fanboy. You've also got a stoic King and Queen, and of course the main handsome hero (and poor mans Aragorn) Anduin Lothar, played by Travis Fimmel.

The movie isn't as wide in scope as the Tolkien universe, it does feel a bit confined to a few locations, mainly some interiors and battlegrounds. You can see a lot in the visually pleasing backgrounds, but that's all you get, pretty backgrounds. You never really feel like this world is explored much. The action is brutal and fun, but not bloody or gory which was a bit disappointing with all the mega sized orc weapons. The heavy CGI is excellent in places but somewhat insubstantial in others (there is of course a tonne of flashing, glowing magical effects and greenscreen). And lastly the main problem is the array of human characters that are generally generic and lifeless, in short you don't really care about them.

Yet despite the numerous faults with this huge huge fantasy franchise undertaking, I liked what I saw. Yes as strange as it may seem, I did like and enjoy this movie...and I can't quite put my finger on why. Probably the combination of the visuals, various details and some lovely bits of stylistic flair from director Duncan Jones. Wrap all that in a nice warm blanket of nostalgia from my old table top Warhammer gaming days; and I actually find myself liking this bloated CGI stuffed Hollywood blockbuster.

Toy Soldiers
Toy Soldiers (1991)
13 hours ago via Flixster

Ah the ever popular brat pack type casting line up, a selection of young Hollywood faces either on the edge of becoming major stars or falling into obscurity. In this forgotten action thriller its Gomez Addams son Sean Astin and Wil Wheaton who are the main rising stars, the rest of the youngsters have fallen by the way side. But unlike some other young gun lineups this film also includes various adult stars to add that bit of quality to the film.

Dare I say it? the plot is basically Die Hard in a boarding school? sure it is. Group of terrorists take over a posh school for kids of rich families. Their purpose is solely to see the release of the terrorist leaders father who is some kind of drug kingpin. So its up to this small band of plucky smart ass teens to take back control of their school from the nasty bad guys with automatic weapons.

The similarities to that certain Bruce Willis franchise are clear to see. If you take the basic premise of Die Hard and mix it with 'The Goonies' and 'The A-Team' you see what I mean. The teens in the story use their skills, knowledge of the school and cheekiness to somewhat outwit the bad guys and slightly disable them for the special ops guys to mop up. There is a very fine line between a happy go lucky boys own adventure flick, and in your face bloody squibbed violence which is a bit odd actually.

Its difficult to know what the film is trying to be, an adult action film or a light-hearted teen flick. The young cast are clearly enjoying themselves in their roles which gives off a vibe which clashes badly against the older actors. The bad guys and their leader played menacingly by Divoff are really going for broke and being damn ruthless gunning innocents down and chucking them out of helicopters etc...Problem is these two sides just don't gel too well together, seeing Astin playing an older version of 'Mouth' from 'The Goonies' and Denholm Elliot playing an old lovable professor set against Divoff's cold blooded killer feels uncomfortable (Divoff really relishing his gritty evil Colombian drug lord role). Its like two different films.

Yet despite the moments of bloodshed the action is so predictable and almost childish as it unravels. The special ops guys at the end come across as inept, plus there is like a whole army of them and it takes them some time to take out just two bad guys. There are only twelve bad guys and it really feels like there needed to be more to make the ending more exciting. The action and soundtrack was reaching such a crescendo in the finale...but because there are so few bad guys in the end it feels totally deflating. Also the way the special ops storm the school, they could of just done that straight away! apparently it would of made no difference.

I love how all the Colombian bad guys are dressed up as sweaty, dirty, vest wearing guerrilla fighters with headbands and lots of stubble. Not too stereotypical then. The very end is also terribly corny and unoriginal, surely Divoff could of gone out in a slightly more exciting way? Oh yeah there's even a crawling in an air duct homage to 'Die Hard'.

This was one of those films that I enjoyed back in the day when I was much younger mainly because the young cast were appealing. I kinda looked up to them as I did with other similar brat pack flicks (wanted to be them) and I was around their age when I first saw it (or a bit younger). Looking back now the film isn't really too good, its actually really dumb, looks silly and has an even sillier title. It sounds predictable I know but it really does feel as if they wanted to make a 'Die Hard' for teens.

Resident Evil: Vendetta
3 days ago via Flixster

So apparently Capcom said this animated feature would be a reboot of the animated series, but then it turned out to be a sequel. It was in fact the tone of the film that would be rebooted, and that is clear to see. Both the films poster and introductory sequence are clearly harking back to the very first game with the large scary mansion in the woods angle. Indeed the films opening sequence involves a team of BSAA agents (with Chris Redfield) storming a dilapidated mansion in Mexico. Their targets are the films new villain, Glenn Arias and the hostages he has taken. This whole brief intro is basically the original Resident Evil game but with one problem, its completely unnecessary.

We get to see the new villain and his sidekicks, and we get a small idea of his dastardly plans. Other than that its all a waste of time and obviously in there to lure in the fanboys with promise of some classic Resident Evil action. After this its essentially back to business with the rest of the film, and by that I mean lots of hi-tech locations and explosive action. If you were looking for a more classic, slow creeping, suspenseful horror feature set in a big mansion, look elsewhere I'm afraid.

The story for this umpteenth incarnation in the franchise revolves around Glenn Arias, a shady arms dealer who was targeted by an unnamed government for termination. Unfortunately the bomb they dropped on his wedding (kinda ruthless) killed everyone but Arias, and now he wants revenge. His revenge comes in the form of wanting to turn everyone into zombies through a new virus that lies dormant within its host until triggered. Luckily Redfield is joined by Leon S. Kennedy and Rebecca Chambers to save the day (but no one else it seems).

The story is an unoriginal one but that is hardly much of a surprise. The real problems arise in the fact that this plot is supposedly set in between the events of Resident Evil 6 and 7. So if you don't play the games (which I don't) then you may have a problem knowing all the ins and outs. That was the first major issue, the next major issue was the connection to the previous animated movies ('Resident Evil: Damnation' and 'Regeneration'). Is there any connection? Is this an actual sequence or what? Well truth be told I don't know because its been so long since I saw those films I can't recall. All the films have Leon as the main protagonist so I'm gonna assume each one is simply a chapter in Leon's long running battle against zombies and whatnot. But no I do not believe this is a direct sequel to the previous animated movies. In all fairness this film does stand on its own well enough to get around those issues.

But alas there are more issues. The new A-virus lies dormant within the host until triggered, but what was the trigger?? It was also mentioned that the triggering can happen by accident, how? This new virus can also be transmitted by air and water so surely that would make it almost impossible to contain. Chambers manages to whip up a vaccine against the virus which works, so then Arias just formulates another virus to beat that vaccine, whilst creating his own vaccine. This all happens pretty quickly which just seemed stupid. But the one thing I didn't get was if the virus needs to be triggered, why do people just turn into zombies straight away when they come into contact with the virus? I think the newer virus Arias creates bypasses the trigger part but I'm not entirely sure.

But its not just the plot that is weak, the character are poor too. Arias doesn't really have much clout if you ask me. OK an unnamed government killed all his family and wife-to-be, but why not just kill that government body? Why kill everybody in New York? He also kidnaps Chambers at one point because she looks like his dead wife. But what was his plan with her? Did he fancy her? Did he wanna use her as bait? A guinea pig for his new virus? Its also just a bit too ridiculous that one of his sidekicks just happens to be an ultra sexy female, in a shiny black skintight catsuit. His other sidekick is a massive Bane-like character with a metal mask and metal gear bolted onto his body. Sure these two characters look really cool but come on...cliched much? We do actually find out these two were at Arias's wedding when it was hit, so I guess that's why they are now both ýber villains. Not sure why the female has decided to dress in a skintight catsuit though. Also not sure how the man managed to become a ginormous monster but hey its Resident Evil.

Both Leon and Redfield are invincible soldiers who simply cannot be beat. Both are martial arts and weapons masters who can run into a horde of undead zombies and beat them without breaking a sweat. Who needs backup? just send in these two and watch them defeat an army of zombies. Leon also spends much of the finale on a motorbike because...it looks cool? There is no other real reason for this, oh and neither of them ever change their clothes. Whilst on the other hand Chambers starts off as your stereotypical scientist, and ends up as your stereotypical damsel in distress with nothing much in between. We again see the return of the infamous zombie dogs as a pointless nod back to the classic original game. Were these zombie dogs always as powerful as they are here? Running as fast as a motorbike at top speed and crushing cars when they land on the roof??

In the end it all builds up to a climatic battle between Leon, Redfield and Arias/tyrant Arias (yes tyrant because...Resident Evil). This battle literally transported me back to 1992 with all its ludicrous slow motion bollocks and operatic gun gymnastics (my God the gun gymnastics!). Yeah there are slow motion snippets throughout, and they're all terrible, but this finale took the biscuit. Lets not discuss the large rifle type weapon that when used, can actually take down an entire line of skyscrapers. How many innocent folk died in that moment??

I guess the real problem here is, like previous Resident Evil games and films, its just not Resident Evil. I think now people are really craving a feature that recaptures the original game from back in 1996. I think people are tired of the insane gun-toting action. This film teases us with the classic approach but then U-turns and goes back to the usual shit. But the question is, have we all moved on from that original concept way back in 96? Is that concept now too dated, too cliche?

My final thought is also a cliched one. Although the CGI visuals in this feature are very impressive, very slick and shiny, you still have one age old problem. And that's the fact it all just feels like you're watching a very long in-game sequence from a videogame. You just can't get away from this mainly because in-game videogame sequences are basically mini-movies these days. Obviously there was a time when a CGI movie was very special because videogames couldn't match them. But now its all very different, thusly a film like this feels boring because you feel like you should be interacting with it. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a terrible flick, its just very average and way outta touch. I'm not sure if die hard fanboys will like this, they might be disappointed.

The Boss Baby
The Boss Baby (2017)
3 days ago via Flixster

Holy crap another movie adaptation of a children's book, picture book. This has to be one of the most bizarre premises I've come across for a children's book in some time, well at least until the end where all is somewhat explained.

So basically you've got this family of three, mum dad and their little boy Tim. Tim is as happy as can be with his life because he gets lots of love and attention from his parents. But things take a turn for the worst when his mum and dad have a baby. Much to Tim's amazement the baby arrives in a taxi, wears a suit, and he can talk. Almost straight away the baby throws Tim's life into disarray without his parents noticing.

It turns out that the baby (called 'the boss') is actually a baby but works for a mysterious company called Baby Corp. Here all babies have the minds of adults and work to keep infant love at a good level. Basically when people are born some are sent to their families but others that show a different state of mind are held back to work for Baby Corp, or something like that. These adult minded babies have to drink a special formula that keeps them as babies forever, if they stop they will grow old. Meanwhile, all other babies that go to their families, do retain memories of Baby Corp though their pacifier (dummy). But when that pacifier is eventually taken away (by the parents) they lose those memories. Utterly bizarre I know.

This premise raises many questions though. Does this mean that all the babies in Baby Corp are immortal? Surely it does because if they never stop drinking the formula they never grow older. Where is Baby Corp suppose to be exactly? When a baby is held back to work for Baby Corp, what happens with the family expecting that baby? Its also mentioned at one point by Tim that his parents told him where babies come from. But as Boss baby points out that is incorrect, so how come adults have never noticed the fact that no one gives birth? I guess you could say I'm reading into this too much, but these questions do kinda spring out at you.

Lets look at the villain. This guy used to be one of Baby Corps top babies, but apparently he was lactose intolerant so the special formula didn't work properly on him and he grew up. OK fair enough, but how come he can still remember Baby Corps? I thought babies lose that memory without their pacifier. Was it different for him because he used to be a CEO of Baby Corp or because he had been using the special formula or something??

I must admit the plot behind this movie was way more convoluted than I ever imagined. I just assumed it would be about a baby that acts like an adult behind its parents backs, kinda like an animated 'Look Who's Talking' type thing. I mean the casting of Alec Baldwin was a good move that's for sure. If there's anyone who has the perfect temperament for being a suit trapped in a babies body, its Alec Baldwin. Hell Baldwin is intimidating enough just by looking at his face, he constantly has that angry dad expression on his face, the scary boss with a short fuse. So spot on voice casting there.

Visually the movie is a treat but that's nothing new these days. But what I did find more interesting were the short imagination sequences that Tim has when he's playing. These sequences had a different, more simplified artistic style (kinda reminiscent of some old WB cartoons) with a much more vibrant, almost neon, colour palette. It was these sequences that I found to be way more intriguing and enjoyable than the rest of the actual movie. I especially liked the artistic style and colours used, really bold and striking. Other positive moments I can mention, a nice little 'Raiders of the Lost Ark' homage, and even more bizarrely a homage to the old classic kids board game [i]Mouse Trap[/i] (80's kids will know of this). Where on earth did that come from??

So yeah, its pretty to look at, the voice acting is solid and its amusing in places. I liked it when Tim was battling with the baby, from his parents point of view its seeing the duo merely playing, but its actually a battle. The sequence in the back garden with the pedal car is the perfect example of that. In general its a very average outing really (with a peculiar plot). A standard modern CGI kids flick with all the right boxes ticked.

The War of the Worlds
10 days ago via Flixster

H. G. Wells The War of the Worlds is probably one of the most famous and influential science fiction stories in literature. The story has spawned films, radio dramas, TV adaptations, comic adaptations, videogames and even a record album. One of the lesser known works highly influenced by Wells work would be 'The Tripods' by John Christopher. This itself was adapted into a BBC TV series in 1984 which has since developed a strong cult following.

Of course the most infamous adaptation was a live radio broadcast narrated by Orson Wells in 1938. The story was presented in a news broadcast fashion which in turn led to many many listeners actually thinking it was real. Can't blame them really, if you think about it back then the radio was all people had. No internet, very little television, and what was on TV would have been extremely limited. So if a serious sounding news bulletin comes on informing you about destruction from unidentified objects, chances are you'd believe it.

But its this 1953 movie that is probably the most well known adaptation of Wells story the world over. Not only was this a loose but solid adaptation of the book, it was also an excellent science fiction film in its own right. For the time this movie was groundbreaking with its special effects, effects that earned the team an Academy Award in 1954. What is incredible is looking back you'd think the effects would be pretty hokey these days (much like many sci-fi movies of the era), but surprisingly they still hold up relatively well.

Of course the film is adorably cheesy and quaint, can't avoid that. The feature begins with the typically standard 1950's sci-fi narration accompanied with black and white stock footage. This footage shows us military technology as it progresses through the years, mainly through both world wars. It then cuts to colour with the movies title and then to a series of matte paintings of every known planet in our solar system. The narrator (Sir Cedric Hardwicke) informs us about each planet and its hostile environment, basically why the martian invaders would want Earth (but how would the narrator know this? Is the movie a story being told to someone by the narrator? Is the whole ordeal a flashback?). Anyway my point being the film unfortunately still relies on stock footage but also includes some lovely matte paintings.

The meat of the effects comes with the alien invaders themselves, although there were issues. Obviously for starters we all know the classic look of the Martian machines, huge towering tripods. Well at the time the effects crew had problems trying to create the three-legged machines so it was decided to alter the design. I have never really been happy with this look though, I realise there were technical limitations at the time so I'm not angry or anything, but the Martian machines just looked awful in my opinion. They essentially looked like a hovering, crescent shaped platform with a long periscope sticking out on top. They never really looked intimidating to me, more flimsy and fragile, and the green colour scheme was just ugly.

To make matters worse (in my humble opinion) the effects team did actually include the tripod legs...only they were force field legs and invisible. If you strain hard enough you can actually see the imprints (with a small pyrotechnic touch) in the ground as the machines move. Alas these look more like small explosions from shells or whatever than imprints from tripod legs. You can also see the wires holding the machines up in some scenes, which was amusing.

Indeed the chaos and destruction seen on the movies posters are well imagined in the film. The model Martian machines slowly hover down city streets (some live action, some models), their wires quivering. At every opportunity they unleash their devastating heat-rays from their cobra shaped periscopic eyes. Brilliant flashes of white heat that reduce damn near everything to rubble. Oddly though, at first the heat-rays reduce military equipment, vehicles and men to either piles of white or black charred ash (or just nothing at all). Yet when they take to the city streets the same doesn't seem to happen to buildings, they just crumble and catch fire. Theoretically there should be nothing left standing other than mounds of charred ash. Everything you see is a frantic blur of various effects such as superimposing, models, stock footage, matte paintings etc...That along with the terrific sounds effects for the alien weaponry (think [i]Star Trek: TOS[/i] photon torpedoes) and you have some great sequences of action.

The actual aliens themselves were a real achievement also. The level of detail on the rubber puppet was incredible for the time. It had veins, skin texture, skin folds, and it was moist which gave it a more realistic 'living' look. Sure they look silly now but considering this was all done in 53 its extremely impressive for the time. I think the one main visual flaw for me was the ridiculous looking, large three-hued (red, green and blue) eye they had. The actual shape of the aliens body, their short stocky torsos with long thin arms and three thin suction cup fingers, was all perfect, quite scary for the time. The sequence where Dr. Forrester (Gene Barry) and Sylvia van Buren (Ann Robinson) are holed up in an abandoned house, only to be met by one of the little aliens during the night, was executed excellently. I'm very sure that had viewers screaming back in the day. But alas that big colourful bug eye looked like a kids toy from the 80's. It was neat to give the aliens this unique vision, but the three coloured lens sections looked a bit daft to me.

Of course this being 50's America you know it wouldn't take long before the Yanks would break out their Atomic weaponry. Although lets be fair here, the humans get their asses handed to them on a plate. But there is a really effective build in tension as the Americans blast the aliens with everything they have, including nukes. But still the Martian machines keep coming, protected by their amusing bell jar shaped force fields. Eventually the military leaders realise they cannot stop the invaders, the fate of the human race lies in Gods hands (not literally). Its actually quite a haunting solemn moment.

This again leads to another element of the film I don't really like. After getting separated the main duo (Forrester and Buren) meet up again in a church (now in LA). The Martian machines loom down on the church as they tear through the streets, nothing can stand in their way, not even the house of God. But low and behold just before they are about to destroy the church, the alien crafts falter and come crashing down. Of course I'm sure everyone knows why now, but the fact that its implied there may have been divine intervention from up above that saved the Earth (and that church) is somewhat off-putting. The idea that bacteria infected and killed the Martians was always a brilliant move, genius. Its also perfectly normal to accept that if something like this did happen in reality, there would of course be a lot of religious rhetoric flying around no doubt. But to end this exceptional sci-fi on the notion that mankind was kinda saved by God just sours the fun.

Whilst I recognise the brilliance of this film in everything it achieves, I can't quite bring myself to say its a perfect movie. Yes it is one of the greatest science fiction movies ever made and it does still hold up today, but the few issues I have with this adaptation I cannot ignore. I think the main peeve for me will always be the look of the Martian machines, I just can't stand the fact they don't have tripod legs. Any imagery you see of towering alien tripods is just so instantly recognisable and evocative, it pains me that they are absent in this film. Nevertheless there is a good balance between the action and exposition scenes. Its not bogged down and boring, its actually a really tense and eerie affair, and you do genuinely care about the main cast (all of which do sterling work I might add). End of the day despite its small flaws, this is an absolute must see for all ages.