War of the Worlds
Director: Rich Lee
2
Disclaimer: contains spoilers
Table of Contents
Oops! Prime did it again. They played with our hearts. They promised an adventure-filled adaptation of a classic only to deliver… a zoom call?
I’ll save you the trouble. Click here if you want to watch it!
You have seen it everywhere! Reviews keep coming in and they are BAD – getting only an 3.5 rating on IMDB. Variety said it is disastrous. Film stories says it is just a big Amazon ad (and I may agree to that). Comicbook names it outright weird.
I thought it would be appropriate to start writing a comparison review in between this modern-day cinema output and the actual Science Fiction classic, The War of the Worlds. A book which, when read out loud in the ’30s, managed to panic quite a few of the UK people – or at least those who tuned in to the BBC Radio a bit too late and missed the introductory disclaimers.
Today, we are either too used to consuming audio-visual media, or some of this cinema stuff is actually getting a lot worse! In this particular situation, there is no doubt the latter is true. Although described on Amazon Prime as “a thrilling out-of-this-world adventure that is filled with present-day themes”, we are met instead by present-day laziness mixed with weird choices in the hope of squeezing some more numbers out of paying Prime subscribers.
Overview
Book
H.G. Wells’s The War of the Worlds, first serialized in 1897 and published as a novel in 1898, stands as a foundational pillar of science fiction. This classic offers a first-person account of an unnamed narrator’s harrowing experience during a Martian invasion of Victorian England. Far more than just an alien invasion tale, Wells’s novel is a profound critique of British imperialism, turning the tables on humanity to illustrate the ruthlessness of conquest and the fragility of a complacent civilization.
Its narrative, rich with detailed observations and a philosophical bent, explores themes of evolution, survival, and the impact of misinformation, (SPOILER ALERT) culminating in the Martians’ unexpected defeat by Earth’s microorganisms, a testament to natural selection. Maybe not the most intriguing storyline for adventure lovers – but it certainly paved the way for the Science Fiction genre, in a way which “canonised” the book as a classic.
Adaptation
Now, jumping ahead to 2025, we’ve got the latest adaptation, Rich Lee’s War of the Worlds: Revival, making its debut on Prime Video with Ice Cube leading the charge. What a way to attract clicks!
This version takes a sharp turn from its predecessors, adopting a “screenlife” format. The entire alien invasion unfolds primarily through glitchy video clips and the surveillance screens of Ice Cube’s character, Will Radford, a cybersecurity analyst. It was creatively done and I ended up liking the format much more than I thought I would. I am not saying the entire execution of the film was good – that is far from the truth. It was, however, much more immersive than expected.
While the novel immerses you in the broader societal collapse through a more traditional, detailed narrative, the adaptation does not bother as much with anti-imperialist philosophy as much as it hones in on contemporary digital anxieties, exploring themes of data privacy, surveillance, and even Will’s journey as a “control freak” father.
Initial reactions haven’t been stellar, with critics calling it “disastrous” and “witless,” a stark contrast to the historical impact of the 1938 Orson Welles radio drama. Despite updating the Martians’ downfall with a new virus concept, the film’s main appeal might just be the sheer comedic gold of Ice Cube’s reactions to the unfolding apocalypse.
Differences
Alright, let’s condense why H.G. Wells’s The War of the Worlds remains the absolute gold standard for alien invasion stories, truly outshining its many adaptations. It’s not just a thrilling narrative; it’s a foundational text that kicked off a whole genre and cemented Wells as a science fiction pioneer.
So, what makes the original book such a classic?
Political Commentary
Book
A Critique of Imperialism: Wells cleverly flips the script, forcing readers to see humanity, particularly the British Empire, through the lens of the invaded. It was written during imperial times, and the author proved brave to hold a mirror to the aggressors. This is illustrated in the book through how the Martians see us:
“perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinize the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water“.
The narrator even reflects:
“And before we judge of them too harshly we must remember what ruthless and utter destruction our own species has wrought, not only upon animals… but upon its own inferior races“.
It’s a powerful reversal that the adaptation misses completely.
Adaptation
This nuance of the book is completely lost on the 2025 War of the Worlds adaptation. It is instead dealing with contemporary digital anxieties – loss of privacy, governmental over surveillance for corrupt purposes. The alien invasion therefore loses the central focus, becoming just a backdrop of the actual plot. Indeed, take the aliens out of it and replace it with civil unrest, you would still have the same story.
Yes, the film’s take is very different. It does not treat any of the original themes, but if I were to draw a connection in between the initial anti-imperialist views and the adaptation, the only thematic resemblance is found within the Radford’s family dynamics. He is patronizing, overcontrolling and violating all of his children’s privacy – which goes completely against the point of the film! Will Radford may have been written as such to point to the same social problems as the book, but at a more relatable, human scale. Maybe so, but it does not capture nearly as much as its source material.
Solving the Problem
Book
The Power of the Microbe: Forget the big guns; the real heroes are the tiniest organisms! Wells, deeply influenced by Darwinian theory, has the technologically superior Martians defeated not by human weaponry, but by earthly bacteria to which they have no immunity. As the narrator explains:
“These germs of disease have taken toll of humanity since the beginning of things… But by virtue of this natural selection of our kind we have developed resisting-power… But there are no bacteria in Mars, and directly these invaders arrived, directly they drank and fed, our microscopic allies began to work their overthrow“.
It’s a humbling, scientific, and deeply ironic end. It takes the credit away from humans.
Adaptation
The power of the human-created virus: If the book is humbling, the adaptation is self-aggrandising. It is the ingenuity of humans that saves the day, of course. Otherwise, it wouldn’t make for a very good action film! This means, however, loosing exactly what makes H.G. Wells’ The War of the Worlds so special. It is the war OF THE WORLDS! Meaning the environment plays a huge part in it.
In the adaptation, the invaders eat data. The mechanism behind it was never properly explained, but sure enough a solution was promptly found. Well, the first try didn’t work, but second time around, everything came out fine! Sorry for spoiling the “Hollywood formula” for you!
In the film, the way the humanity defeats the invaders is through wit, science and a huge deal of luck. Army cannot defeat them – although we didn’t really see them trying too much, and failing machinery (making the VFX look awful and rushed!). Army failing to help is maybe one of the very few things that actually stayed accurate to the source. Why do planes have to fall out of the sky when the internet goes down is beyond me, assuming there would be a pilot on board who could, just saying, manually pilot planes?
The virus defeating the invaders was created in a lab by no other than the daughter of the protagonist – a DNA damaging computer (?) virus that spread only to the invaders and didn’t, thanks God, end up being a biological weapon to destroy the whole of humanity. So it all worked out like a wonder!
Different takes on society
Book
Intimate, Personal Horror: Unlike many sprawling adaptations, the novel keeps it personal. We experience the invasion through the first-person account of an unnamed narrator. This journalistic narrative style immerses you in the psychological toll, showing societal collapse through one man’s eyes. He observes the initial “blank incongruity” between his “serenity and the swift death flying yonder”, making the terror incredibly real. It is deeply introspective, and immerses the reader not in the world that Wells created, but deep in the mind of his character.
Adaptation
People react quickly in short-notice crisis: This is exactly why this adaptation fails so completely. The humbling experience of reading of the uselessness of humans in times of slow-brewing crisis is lost.
This adaptation does not build towards the invasion – it blasts it on the screen! It is even acknowledged by the characters that they had no notice before the invasion. The effect? All that intrigue, the build-up tension and frustration you should have felt while watching humans failing to acknowledge the danger just around the corner is not even attempted. If this is what you are in for, a film that more resembles H.G. Well’s The War of the Worlds is Netflix’s Don’t Look Up. But this is not what we are discussing here.
The execution was underwhelming and very… basic. If you watched any Hollywood movie, you’ve seen them all. This one is no different.
Take on media
Book
Critique of Complacency and Media: Wells pulls no punches when it comes to human failings. He highlights the “infinite complacency” with which people initially react, often dismissing early warnings. Newspapers, the primary source of information, are shown to be initially slow and ineffective, sometimes even “sensationalist” to sell papers. The narrator’s brother finds Londoners initially unaffected, with some papers only publishing a “brief and vaguely worded telegram” about the invasion.
Adaptation
Critique of humans’ reliability on tech: Here, humans rely on telecommunications. No leaflet, no printed word. Just Zoom, WhatsApp, Teams and all that software that may instill anxiety in you when they start ringing. Hello, lockdown! This film was reminiscent of those days, as all the characters are each in isolation. Like in the humanity’s dark days when “work from home” was an obligation and not a desire, close social interactions were a rarity in this film. The absent yet overly controlling father was only enabled to be so through his highly technical job, which has isolated him from his family but put him in control of EVERY security camera and IT system of the WORLD.
When these systems go down, you are left with nothing. A powerful enough cyber attack can be the undoing of the entire society as we know it. Therefore, the critique is not only about the social pitfalls of technology and media, but also about the instability of it all.
Different times
Book
The Essential Victorian Setting: The original story is firmly set in late 19th-century Victorian England. This isn’t just a detail; it dramatically emphasizes the vast technological gap between the Martians and humanity, showcasing the juxtaposition of the high-tech Martian tripods with their enigmatic weaponry versus a society that was still only just at the brink of modernity.
Adaptation
Contemporary times: The War of The Worlds 2025 adaptation happens in 2025! There is not a huge technological gap shown in between the two. Yes, they had more powerful and exotic weapons, such as lasers, but they were not advanced enough to invent an anti-virus apparently! They do consume computational data, but it turns out, they have no innate immunity to any malicious software that may be coming through.
Not only did they already have the virus capable of destroying them, it was quite easy getting the invaders infested! No biggie, no sweat. They are not a match for humanity – and this resumes exactly why this adaptation fails the book.
Final thoughts
The core strength of Wells’s novel lies in its profound philosophical underpinnings. Written during the height of the British Empire, it cleverly flips the script, forcing readers to view humanity, particularly its colonial ambitions, through the eyes of an invading force. This anti-imperialist allegory is central to the book’s enduring legacy, showcasing the “infinite complacency” with which humans initially react to a superior power. Furthermore, the Martians’ unexpected defeat by Earth’s indigenous bacteria, rather than human military might, delivers a humbling and scientifically resonant conclusion. It underscores the fragility of even advanced civilizations when confronted with the unseen forces of nature.
In stark contrast, War of the Worlds adopts a “screenlife” format, presenting the invasion primarily through digital screens and surveillance footage. While this approach can offer a sense of modern immersion, it fundamentally shifts the narrative’s focus. The deep, societal critique of the novel is largely absent, replaced by a more contemporary exploration of digital anxieties like data privacy and pervasive surveillance. The Martians’ weakness is also altered, with humanity’s ingenuity leading to their downfall via a human-engineered virus, rather than a natural biological vulnerability. This change, while perhaps aiming for a more action-oriented narrative, sacrifices the profound irony and scientific humility that defined the original’s ending.
The Impact of Modernization
The adaptation’s decision to set the story in contemporary times also impacts the thematic weight. Wells’ Victorian setting vividly highlighted the vast technological disparity between the Martians and 19th-century England, making the invasion all the more terrifying and the human struggle more desperate. In 2025, with advanced technology at humanity’s fingertips, the inherent power imbalance feels less pronounced, even with the Martians’ superior weaponry. The film leans into the idea of a highly connected world, where the collapse of digital infrastructure becomes a central threat. However, in doing so, it loses the slow-burn tension and gradual realization of impending doom that Wells meticulously built, opting instead for a rapid-onset crisis.
Ultimately, War of the Worlds stands as a distinct interpretation, rather than a faithful or critically acclaimed adaptation of a literary classic. While it introduces modern elements and explores relevant digital themes, it does so by diverging significantly from the philosophical depth, critical commentary, and unique narrative structure that made H.G. Wells’s The War of the Worlds an enduring masterpiece.
I did not love the film, not as much as the book, so here it is: a 2 star from me.
Leave a Reply