O2D I never read the book but this is vastly different than the original movie. I didn't notice that it was made for TV until now but that explains the extremely low budget. Even with a low budget, the special effects were better than in the original. The story itself though is equally bad. At one point a guy dreams that he is in a silent movie and it's very bizarre. It's clearly just an excuse to shoehorn Reece Shearsmith and Steve Pemberton into the movie. The end doesn't even make any sense. Mark Gatiss does have an interesting take on the story though. This is definitely worth watching if you have seen the original movie, just to see that time couldn't make it any better.

fedor8 I have never understood the point in putting 3 kilos of dough on an actor's face, just to make him look 50 years older. Why not simply cast an older actor? It's not as if the dough-covered main character is even vaguely recognizable underneath all that stuff, anyway. Sillier yet, they changed his voice so much that he ends up being utterly unrecognizable. So what's the bloody point? The excessive make-up kind of defeats the purpose. The ancient geezer just ends up looking grotesque, like a puppet from "Spitting Image", with a voice more suitable to Satan than an aging astronaut. Then again, perhaps 3 kilos of dough is still cheaper than hiring an additional actor.TFMITM has an entertaining first half but suffers a noticeable quality drop in the second – the same as in the 1964 version. This can't be a mere coincidence, and must be attributable to Jules Verne's book. The whole insect-like aliens vs. humans shtick was utterly original at the time when he wrote it, I don't doubt that, but as the decades went by this became a huge sci-fi pulp cliché, watering down considerably the effect the alien encounter is supposed to have on the reader/viewer. This is why it's difficult to show interest in most of the goings-on in that segment of the movie.The other problem with the second half is the depression-inducing, overly dark sets. Surely, the makers of TFMITM must have known that they were not making a dark Kafkaesque version of the "first" moon-walk, but something for audiences of all ages. The insect caves should have been more colorful and brighter, rather than resembling the gloomy depths of Hell. Aside from that flaw, the film is very solid visually. Certainly, well above average for a British sci-fi film.

SinisterCreep After so many bad Hg Wells film and TV adaptations it's nice to see one that's quite faithful to the original story and well made. the acting's great, so is the script and it should make you smile. It's well worth a watch if you like Wells stories and sci fi in general. The pacing was well done unlike for instance the new series of Dr Who has been since it came back in 2005.The special effects aren't too bad either. the selenites themselves are well done and there's also a nod to the old George Melies silent film which was a really nice touch.the only real downside i thought was we didn't see much of the Selenites world underneath the moon. I'd like to have seen some more spectacular scenery like giant caves and the impression there's a city of selenites under the moon.Still I liked it and will be watching it again.

june17-875-666095 It's only been on for 15 minutes and I love it! Thankyou Mark Gatiss for finding this brilliant novel, and presumably the previous film version, and remaking it for today. Clever and funny and hopefully immensely sad ( haven't got to that bit yet.....)it tells of before we knew more than that the stars twinkled and other worlds existed, and chances were that aliens lived in darkest Africa. If you've ever loved Edwardian schoolboy stories, or looked for adventure in everyday happenings - or imagined yourself living in a time when there was no cynicism, Science was King, and literally ANYTHING was possible - then enjoy this. The acting is good too - it's like tome travel....