War of the Worlds: The Attack (2023) User Reviews

Bait and switch

[slseed1969 · 3/10 · 23 April 2023]

Don't judge the movie based on watching the trailer. It was cleverly put together and I was fooled enough into thinking it would be an exciting new take on a classic sci-fi story. The actual movie is amateurish, slow with bad acting, writing and effects. It feels more like a network TV movie and not worth the rental price.

I wish I could say more about it, but I was bored out of my mind. I couldn't make it through all the way in my first watching. I came back to it later to see if it got better, but it just didn't. It's pure garbage and I would like my 6.99 rental back. I recommend you save your money.

Movie about saving a cat from a tree would be more interesting

[Almost_Soldout · 3/10 · 23 April 2023]

For this kind of movies the atmosphere plays the main role. Here the whole mood of the movie is more relevant to the movie about a cat stuck in the tree and saving her.

Even-though it's low-budget movie, they definitely had some budget invested to the movie, sometimes this kind of films struggle with it but they still can be great. So it's pitty to see how they wrongly accommodated it.

This is like puzzle that can't be completed. Nothing makes sense together and everything falls apart: Acting is weirdly mediocre, VFX looks so plain, no solid lines in this plot but again and the most important is lack of any atmosphere behind it.

Sorry but I couldn't finished it, ffwd to the end after watching a first hour of the movie. Poorly bad and disappointing.

I tried, I really did ...

[AllanWB · 3/10 · 17 May 2023]

... but I just couldn't stick it out.

The acting was so-so but the story was a no-go, as were the special effects. Some of the special effects were so 1980's - think "War Games" with Matthew Broderick.

The writing and direction were so sub-par that a school production could have done much better.

Early on in the movie there's a scene in one of the lead characters mum's kitchen. It was probably one of the worst acted scenes I've ever seen in a main stream movie. It should have been cut and left on the cutting room floor. Actually it was so "wooden" it could have been cut with an axe.

I've given it a very generous 3/10.

I've seen school productions better than this

[Swingatetrading · 1/10 · 23 April 2023]

We saw this on Amazon prime and I assume the trailer enticed my wife to purchase this. Terrible acting, terrible storyline, terrible dialogue and terrible fx. The acting is genuinely wooden and it is laughably bad at points. The explosions and fx look worse than 80s films; Whoever funded this should have accepted that £20 would not be a sufficient special effects budget for a sci-fi movie and saved all involved from this embarrassment. The worst thing is that it cost my wife £4.99. The real tragedy is that she made me watch it all and it starts poorly and gets worse.

Do not waste your money on this absolute garbage.

The effects are the best thing about this film.

[gojirafan-624-601361 · 1/10 · 6 May 2023]

Did the effects bother me? Nope probably the best thing about the film. What did bother me was the script and direction. Here's an example, remember when Tom cruise saw people turn to dust in war of the worlds 2005? And he came back shocked and scared. In this one our 3 characters witness people turning to dust. However their response was " let's make some tea" yep that's right. No scared or shockness to what they just witnessed. This sorta issue isn't even on the actors, more like the direction. Director is suppose to set the tone for each scene. However he seems to not direct them to have any motion to a Martian invasion trying to destroy your country that you live in. Honestly I've never seen so much calmness in an invasion. As I said before the effects didn't bother me, the budget has nothing to do with good direction or a good script.

H.G. Wells would be disgusted

[bobbird-84946 · 1/10 · 18 May 2023]

We've just watched this and can't believe how bad it is. It even makes the Tom Cruise version look fantastic. We were so excited to see a decent modern version but disappointment struck.

Bad acting, bad CGI, bad script, bad everything really. The lead characters do have their good moments, but still look like college production actors. The parson guy should never be allowed to act again for accepting the role.

There is no need to remake something that has been remade a few times (which will have high expectations) and then make a cheap, low budget version that is obviously going to get slated for being crap.

Goodness me , was this deliberately made to be a bad production?

[mmccurrach-55544 · 1/10 · 19 May 2023]

Picture this, a soldier and three civilian survivors are hiding in the woods, claiming to be the only people left outside London, and everyone has evacuated. All desolate, alone, abandoned and scared. As we watch in the far background in the distance, there appears to be a motorway with loads of traffic as life in the real world is normal. Could they not have edited this? Very low-budget movie with a boring storyline and amateur acting. I think this is some high school project. This had loads of potential. As indicated in the trailer. But alas, probably one of the worst films ever. I don't recommend it.

Would have rather watched an actual Martian Invasion

[MrScoresheet · 24 April 2023]

So to begin, the positives:

-the shooting, editing and sound are quite good - better than a no-budget film.

-The main 3-4 cast do a good job with what they're given.

The bad: the script is truly dreadful - written in a different language and translated maybe? Dialogue nobody would say, clunky exposition, and most importantly there is nothing new about this version. Zero. You have seen everything before. Its like if ChatGPT was asked "write a war of the worlds film without any originality or reason to exist".

Feels very much like a late 90s early evening kids drama series. Boring staging, predictable action, endless running around to give the impression something, ANYTHING, is happening.

There's no characterisation other than "dad died" "is a girl" "is black". In fact the girl is basically there to say "what do we do now?" every other scene.

The VFX are largely awful - most look unfinished, and the tripods move like they have no weight to them. Very cheap looking, like a PS2 in game cut scene. Every 20th VFX shot is semi convincing. You know a film is in trouble when even the trailer has bad shots.

Supporting cast are clearly amateurs, and some in particular (the army guy, the reporter) are very poor.

Overall a complete waste of time for all involved, especially the viewer.

If I was an alien I'd wipe Earth out too

[TotoReviews · 1/10 · 20 May 2023]

This is the worst adaptation of war of the world. The acting was atrocious. Wooden and so cringe. The actors literally reading the script like a rehearsal. Non of the characters were believable , from the police officer to the army guy. Very amateurish. I couldn't stand the accents. The 3 kids were suppose to be university students but were so immature they acted as if they were in primary school. Nobody was remotely likeable. My brain couldn't take anymore after 15 minutes. This was the most boring film I have watched in awhile. Whatever possessed the directors to make the film is beyond me. I do not recommend if you want to keep your sanity.

The Worst Adaptation Of War Of The Worlds, By Far.

[meddlecore · 2/10 · 19 May 2023]

Of all the incarnations of War Of The Worlds...this one is by far the worst.

The way the go from the Martian invaders wantonly killing everyone...to chilling in their house...or going on leisurely bicycle rides, generally unscathed...is patently ridiculous.

We find ourselves following three random kids, who-for some reason- are important enough to care about.

Even if that reason is not particularly clear.

Less it be that they are "the chosen ones", who need to be "saved" by an especially hypocritical, hardline, religious zealot (so he can repopulate the Earth with their female friend), or whatever.

The whole thing is about 90% childish drama, and 10% action...when it clearly needs to be the other way around.

Despite the fact that all the action is rendered with CGI (albeit, better than you might expect from a production of this caliber- think, akin to Monsters, or Nope, to get an idea).

The plot structure is absolutely horrible.

Because you get all this inane drama...followed by a ridiculous twist, that comes out of nowhere.

Used to abruptly wrap up story...without any explanation...or any attempt to connect it to the rest of the storyline.

Which doesn't make much sense.

Especially considering the aliens seem more mechanical than biological in nature.

Plus...for a film about the end of the world...there's never really any sense of urgency employed by any of the actors.

Who are really quite nonchalant about the whole ordeal.

So stuff happens.

Then it's suddenly over.

Without going into detail about any of the connecting factors...

It's just bad storytelling, overall.

And kind of stupid, to be honest.

So do yourself a favour, and just pass on this stinker.

Because it's simply not worth the time.

Unless you are looking to waste it.

2 out of 10.

A fully and wholly unnecessary movie...

[paul_haakonsen · 3/10 · 15 May 2023]

Well, imagine my surprising stumbling upon this 2023 movie titled "War of the Worlds: The Attack" and never having heard about it. And while I am not overly much of a sci-fi buff, of course I've seen the 1953 movie "The War of the Worlds" and also the 2005 remake with Tom Cruise. And the concept idea behind this H. G. Well story is interesting, and thus I opted to sit down and watch "War of the Worlds: The Attack" as well.

Writers Junaid Syed and Tom Jolliffe based their 2023 movie on the H. G. Wells story, of course, but they opted to do their own take on it. Was it good? No, not really. Why? Because, "War of the Worlds: The Attack" was not an entertaining movie, and it was essentially just a pointless and redudant remake that I suppose no one has been asking for or craving for.

Sure, I managed to sit through all 85 minutes of the ordeal, only to see if there was anything worthwhile watching in the narrative. There wasn't, I can tell you that. While there are elements of the original story in "War of the Worlds: The Attack", then this was mostly a drama following three teenagers during the brief time of the invasion of the Martians.

Visually then I will say that the special effects were adequate. I mean, I weren't impressed, nor were I laughing either. It wasn't top pier special effects and CGI, I will say that, but the effects functioned well enough as intended.

I doubt even the fans of the H. G. Wells story will find much to cheer about in director Junaid Syed's 2023 attempt to reinvent the classic sci-fi tale.

My rating of "War of the Worlds: The Attack" lands on a very generous three out of ten stars.

War of the Worlds for the Stranger Things generation.

[dalewho-49739 · 9/10 · 19 May 2023]

Firstly, let's not delude ourselves, this has nowhere near the production budget of the Tom Cruise version, or the recent BBC debacle.

This is an immensely enjoyable, if disjointed, modern take on the classic book, that stays surprisingly close to the source material. It's set around Horsell Common, the Martian Cylinders look great, and the tripod they produce are visually impressive, and have a rational, scientific explanation why they move slowly. There's the Artilleryman and the doolally Father, the red weed, and in a terribly British move (see also Doctor Who, etc) it's an alien attack starting in the Home Counties.

The young main cast are actually remarkably good in their roles, and the supporting cast do well as just that. One or two of them meet remarkably gruesome ends, but it's never explicitly or graphicly shown, which keeps it the right side of horrific.

The film's short, but punches well above its weight, and compared to the recent BBC remake is a masterclass is modernising storytelling for a new generation. I went into this not not expecting very much, but as the credits rolled, I'm delighted to say that as a huge fan of HG's work, this respectfully updates it, and covers all the major points, although a little more detail in some areas would have made it more memorable, and I thoroughly enjoyed this take on a story I've known and loved for around forty years. Nicely done!!

worth watching, it's not as terrible as everyone says

[daanarts-44594 · 7/10 · 30 June 2023]

So yeah the CGI etc. Is not the best, the acting is not at it's peak but I still think it's worth 1,5 hours of your time, it's engaging, it takes you on a trip and I have to say I watched it with joy. Just remind yourself you are not watching a movie with the Hollywood A-list, the actors might show some learning curves here but I think it's still better than the Tom Cruise version. Which by the way was absolutely horrendous, they took little sidetracks from the original book but stayed pretty close to it in the end. Even with the names and storyline, although I did miss thunderchild :), Don't believe me that it is actually not too bad, watch it yourself.

The remake that nobody asked for, war of the worlds, the teen version

[runner-15 · 3/10 · 22 August 2023]

No name actors, with a no name script. The only saving grace of this film is the fact that it keeps some of the elements of the original novel. The good, the beginning and ending of the movie is lifted almost directly from the original HG Wells novel, the Martians are depicted almost exactly like Wells describe them and the tripod walking machines are almost exactly as described in the 1898 novel.

The bad, most of the movie focuses on three youths and their typical teen angst. Most of the movie is simply the young characters simply traveling from place to place boringly, very boringly. There is nothing redeemable or captivating enough to make you connect with any of them in any way shape or form. You could have taken the first 15 minutes of the movie and the last 10 minutes of the movie and shoved them together in a 25 minute webisode and had a more enjoyable watching experience, for the hour in the center of a movie nothing happens except walking around and arguing.

Sticking close to the original novel was interesting, but the execution was sorely lacking, I've seen better high school productions.

My rating of three stars breaks down as follows, one star because you can't give any less, one star added for the look of the machines in the aliens matching the original novel, and one star added for keeping the beginning and ending of the novel intact, that's the best I can do.

How could they!!!!

[adepalady-10790 · 1/10 · 5 September 2023]

So willing to give this a go, age-old story almost impossible to do a bad job, even with a small budget.

However, they managed to fall at every opportunity.

The opening was OK, with a good standard of British TV affects, and using the original text in the voice over, but this quickly turned into a disaster (not in a good way)

1) the "kids" you get the feeling from the writing and the way they are acted, these are meant to be children who are maybe 12 to 15 years old, but they've cast actors who look and sound like adults in their 20s+.

2) the acting from everyone is so flat / bland / boring and clunky that you feel no jeopardy or sense of impending doooooom.

If anything the best acting in this is from the extras at the landing site.

3) military tells then not to use fueled vehicles as the aliens track onto the exhaust fumes, yet they are all going to get on a boat to escape, a boat with a fuel engine and exhaust?????

4) the professor has the most bazaar acent, one sentence is like a spin around the world.

5) special affects..... not the worst I've ever seen, infact the landing site at the start is OK, but scale of the delivery ships and the tripods is just off, so off it's very annoying.

It's just annoying that when you have other film versions of this story to get inspiration from, you just don't deliver a half decent paced story.

I know it had a small budget, but you really don't need a big budget to build suspense.

Also a little research into how emergency services and military operate would've helped.

The soldiers using their names on the radio, the police sergeant with diamond earrings, the soldiers radio loooking like it came from a 1980s toy shop just all felt cheap and not thought about.

Had hoped for so much more and got so much less.

Can't even enjoy this film ironically....

What a stinker

[jdwints · 1/10 · 24 June 2023]

Probably the worst movie I've watched in years and I've watched some corkers. I really don't know where to begin, war of the worlds franchise deserves so much more than this.

How could this ever get the funding??

I really tried to get past the cardboard acting and I don't have a clue how to write and direct a movie, however I know for sure that with my limited skills I could have done a far better job.

This is the first time I've ever left my feedback on IMDB and it's a shame to say it's a negative one whether it be on a budget at least give the actors some good dialogue and lines they can at least show their skills and work with.

Seriously in this day an age, please don't use false title for a film

[leermatthews · 2/10 · 20 May 2023]

I thought great a war of the world film couldn't wait to watch

5 minutes in I knew It would be utter trash and honestly fast forwarded a lot

A few boxes ticked because sheep are all over these days which is as always why most films are failing

My cat could have acted better - It clear acting schools these days are run by people who can't act creating more people who can't act but think they are good

Special effects are a joke especially in this day and age when I could create better CGI on using a free program on my computer

I felt insulted they use the famous name as a bait to get viewers.

WOW, so many things wrong

[ericgoble · 1/10 · 15 May 2023]

Pros: This was clearly a low budget movie, but can't say they tried their best.

Cons: The movie starts off with rockets headed towards Earth.

The rockets are headed directly towards North America.

Cut's to the next scene clearly somewhere in Britain?

Acting was bad (they tried their best i think) Screen play was bad Scenes didn't make sense, where they would be like: SHhhhhh be silent... and then yelll RUNNNNNN!!! LOL ???? What?

There's dialog in the movie that make's you laugh so hard because it's so dumb.

Example: There's a giant round metal ship, it has all types of indications that it is in fact an actual ship.

The line: "That's definitely not a meteorite" Other character: "how do you know?" this is AS the doors are opening!! Hahaha There's so many lines in this movie that makes you just want to quit life.

AWFUL HAHAHAAH JUST AWFUL.

I feel bad for Alhaji Fofana, they make his character so stupid and unlikable because his character has a 50 IQ.

The most boring version i ever saw.

[usfder-70853 · 4/10 · 26 May 2023]

I can basically sum up this movie as following: The 3 main characters are at location a, talk for 20 minutes - meet tripod - so they relocate to location b.

The talk for 20 minutes meet a tripod and thus go to location c.

Guess what they meet a tripod after talking for 20 minutes and go to the next location. Where again they talk for 20 minutes, go to sleep and awake to all the tripods being dead from bacteria.

It's very rough but seriously: Nothing really happens in this movie.

There are a few scenes with the military where you see tanks rolling but thanks to the bad CG you can't actually differentiate between the lasers from the martians and the gunfire from the tank so it looks like the tanks are just rolling towards the tripods doing nothing... There is also a bit inconsistency: At first a soldier tells them that non of their weapons had any effect on the tripod but when we meet a tripod the next time a few Helicopters take one down pretty easy... And at the end of the movie we even see a handgun going through the shield...

The martians also never really felt threatening they were just there sure, they were firing their lasers and London was devastated but you never really had the feeling that they were scary.

Though one thing i will give the movie is that it wasn't atrociously bad like the Fox Series from 2019, or the BBC series from 2019. That's why i give it 4 stars: Boring but at least it isn't a perversion of the material.

Truly terrible

[boedicia50 · 1/10 · 25 September 2023]

Absolutely awful in every way. A script that must have been written by a 12 year old and probably the worst acting I have ever seen.

To call it wooden would be an insult to trees. Trees could act better.

I lasted 20 minutes and I knew after 5 minutes there was no way I was going to be able to watch it all. Don't waste your time with this, your time would be better spent re-grouting the shower tiles or arranging your book collection by the colour of the covers. The trailer was masterful in disguising just how bad this would be, certainly made me think it might be worth watching. No, no nooooo.

War of the Worlds: The Arse

[109YearsOld · 1/10 · 22 May 2023]

This movie looks like a well produced TV show, the CGI is on par with video games some twenty years ago. And the actors are those you usually see in Oscar, yeah, those hired to clap hands.

Highly recommended to fast forward this movie while having a meal so as not to completely waste your precious time, I would consider to give one more star if the movie industry pays dividend to watch such movies. Be warned.

Highly recommended to fast forward this movie while having a meal so as not to completely waste your precious time, I would consider to give one more star if the movie industry pays dividend to watch such movies. Be warned.

Wish I'd read the reviews

[zajacktc · 15 October 2023]

I give it 2 stars only because some of the actors were okay. Terrible story, terrible effects. The direction was, apparently, nonexistent. There were so many ways this could have gone, unfortunately it went nowhere instead. The black friend was obnoxious, I'm not sure what the girl was there for. I am not even sure what the point of it all was. There was little action. The effects were cheap. It seems they wanted to appeal to a teen audience, but the teen characters were simply not appealing. I just... no. Omg. Don't watch it. Watch.the 3 episode miniseries instead. That one actually impressed me.

What do people want

[zorro2a · 8/10 · 19 October 2023]

What do people want, l stayed with it for a while, and l thought it was ok, what l did like is that it's set in England and not in the US like most alien films.

The special effects weren't too bad l was ok with the Aliens, and like the 3 leads, the thing is we have been so used to big movie alien film that something made in the UK is a bit unusual, so people are comparing with multi million dollar films which is wrong.

Just give it a chance, ok if you don't like it turn it off, it does seem strange though to see English Country side instead of American or any other country being invaded by aliens, l've given it 8.

A decent modern take on the original source material

[heftymartin · 6/10 · 16 May 2023]

I've been a fan of this story since I was a child, and though most attempts to bring it to the "big" screen have fallen short, this low budget incarnation actually seems to be the best modern take on the old Victorian era tale. Yes, it's better aligned to the original H. G. Welles script than anything ever attempted, and for that I feel it deserves some respect. Even the BBC version from a couple fo years back had to go off on some weird, post-apocalyptic tangent, and become an unresolved mess, despite coming so close to doing the story justice in terms of budget. And to this day, I can't understand why Spielberg made changes to the Martian arrival like he did.

The special effects could be better, but without seeing the budget, based on the movie as a whole, I can tell that it's well done for the money. The acting isn't top level from everyone, but decent enough to watch, and the lead cast does a very respectable job. It also didn't take long to spot the bad story pacing. Some critics say it's slow-paced and boring, but that's not really the issue, it's a failure to prioritise the most interesting parts in editing. The story actually follows the original chapters very faithfully, albeit some practical changes.

It's important to see this story from the perspective of humans that don't have inside knowledge (unlike the 1953 version). They're just caught in the middle of this event and have to survive in media blackout (Like Spielberg's version). It also makes the few action sequences far more riveting when we have to deal with character-driven motivations and struggles, instead of a block-by-block special effects and action movie.

Give it a chance, lower your expectations, but most importantly get to know he original story before you criticize this portrayal of what makes WotW such an amazing tale. This is basically not as interesting as the 1953 version, not as entertaining as Spielberg's, but for the budget... it's just a pretty darn good attempt, and the most true to the source material.

Lol so bad it makes me laugh

[claudiapaola · 1/10 · 2 June 2023]

Terrible movie, let me list the reasons why: bad quality, bad acting, annoying accents, cheap locations, the script is trash, the teenagers are annoying, cinematography is so bad, terrible quiet moments, it's bloody boring!

Terrible movie, let me list the reasons why: bad quality, bad acting, annoying accents, cheap locations, the script is trash, the teenagers are annoying, cinematography is so bad, terrible quiet moments, it's bloody boring!

Terrible movie, let me list the reasons why: bad quality, bad acting, annoying accents, cheap locations, the script is trash, the teenagers are annoying, cinematography is so bad, terrible quiet moments, it's bloody boring!