
The War of the Worlds (1953) is a great film. The story is engaging from start to finish and it looks great — especially the special effects. Gene Barry and Ann Robinson make a nice couple and have great chemistry.
There are even politics in the film that I quite like. The politicians, military leaders, and scientists are all presented as serious people who are trying their best to solve the problem at hand. It’s the mob that gets in the way and stops any possibility of the scientists finding a solution.
This is so refreshing for a viewer in 2026 where the mob has taken over, done its own research, and decided it is best to put people in charge who are as unqualified, foolish, and uncaring as they are.
Pastor Collins
But the film’s use of religion is anywhere from problematic to repulsive. Consider Pastor Collins. To start with, he is a complete reverse of the curate in the book. The curate is hysterical and ultimately self-destructive. He is very much a “pray to God and do NOT row to shore” type.
In contrast, Collins is rational and calm in his faith. He is presented as Christlike with a martyr’s death. On one hand, that’s fine. The film presents all the major characters as faultless. But there is a contrast here to other films of this time (eg, The Thing from Another World) in which the idealist is a scientist. Those characters are presented as naive if not evil. But Collins is presented heroically, shot from above as if God himself were looking down lovingly.
None of this would matter without context. I have nothing against heroic depictions of the religious. And I admire Collins. I can see myself doing the same thing for different reasons. But any science fiction film of that time would present me in a negative light. Sacrifice for traditional religious reasons is good. But sacrifice for idiosyncratic beliefs or idealism is bad.
But Pastor Collins’ death is in a very specific context — one where humans are useless and only saved by prayer. So acording to the film, he was not only heroic; he was right!

Christian Nationalism
There is no deep theology here. This is Cold War Christianity: 99% anti-communist, 1% primitive “Jesus Loves Me” theology. It is, in fact, Christian Nationalism.
My mother’s side of the family are part of this movement. I’m no longer in contact with them, but I have no doubt that they are big MAGA supporters. Even when I was a kid, I marveled at the fact that beyond their constant claims of Jesus’ love (often used as a threat), they really only cared about the right-wing politics their pastors had fed them.
And they see the world as being divided into the good people (right-wing Christians) and the bad people (everyone else).
In the third act, we see all the bad people panicked and behaving very badly. (Interestingly, this is a reflection of the curate in the novel.) All the good people are in churches. And this includes all the scientists! Because even they know that ultimately, it’s all about God. No atheists in a Martian Invasion, am I right?!
Antisemitism
But consider all the bad people. There is only one of them whom we see for more than a second. It is the man who is trying to buy his way onto a truck out of town. He has a suitcase full of cash and valuables. He is coded Jewish and played by the great character actor Ned Glass, who just happens to be Jewish himself.
(To make matters worse, the character — not in the credits — is referred to on IMDb as Well-Dressed Looter. There is no indication he is a looter. Rather, he looks like a man fleeing the Holocaust with as many of his valuables as he could carry.)
I’m not suggesting that the filmmakers intended to be antisemitic. I just think these kinds of stereotypes are so deeply wired in the culture that they just show up. But it is telling that this scene is in a film that places all the good people in church. See?! Even the Jews are godless, which is why they are outside church with the bad people!

God vs Evolution
The 1953 filmed version The War of the Worlds reverses the ending. The final narration reads:
After all that men could do had failed, the Martians were destroyed, and humanity was saved by the littlest things, which God, in his wisdom, had put upon this Earth.
This is more or less what Wells wrote in the novel. But it takes an idiom and turns it into meaning. After this line in the book, Wells explains what he means:
These germs of disease have taken toll of humanity since the beginning of things — taken toll of our prehuman ancestors since life began here. But by virtue of this natural selection of our kind we have developed resisting power; to no germs do we succumb without a struggle, and to many — those that cause putrefaction in dead matter, for instance — our living frames are altogether immune. 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.
So it was evolution in the book. But in the movie, the final line of dialogue explains that it was a miracle from God. The great scientist says, “We were all praying for a miracle!”
The War of the Worlds in Modern America
And this, I suppose, brings us back to today. The War of the Worlds tells the viewer
- Ordinary godless people are horrible.
- Elites are well-meaning but impotent.
- Our only hope is God.
This is not what people believe today, of course. They’ve kind of flipped the first two. Now it’s the ordinary people who are well-meaning but impotent. And the reason for that is because of the godless elites. Of course, they do believe in elites. It’s just that they are arbitrary. Since no one is trustworthy, they can elect any yahoo with a spray-on tan to lead the most powerful nation on Earth.
But the modern world has largely given up on God too. He really isn’t too evident. But the Abrahamic faiths are really authoritarian. And if they can’t get input from the strong father in the sky, they will get him with despots here on Earth. So they can throw out all the scientists, and military leaders, and politicians — at least the ones who don’t follow the Dictator.
But today, even a dictator has to watch out. Remember how Trump had one big success during his first term: Operation Warp Speed. But when Trump took credit for it, his followers hated it. So he just stopped talking about it. When your power depends upon the ignorance of your followers, your power depends on the ignorance of your followers.
I don’t think any of this is surprising. Tell people that “others” are monsters and elites are useless. And you get ignorant, hateful people who think they are knowledgeable and good. And all they think they need is an authoritarian “leader” who is as ignorant and hateful as they are.
We can see The War of the Worlds as a Cold War allegory. But I think even at the time, we missed it. We thought the Soviets were bad because they were godless and, well, bad. We didn’t learn the real lesson that authoritarianism itself is bad. But you can’t exactly blame us. We were poorly educated by every conceivable information source. Including The War of the Worlds.
See also: Library DVD Love for a review of the film with a lot of interesting background material.
The War of the Worlds (1953) poster via Wikimedia. It is in the public domain.

This is great, thanks!
You might enjoy this one: https://librarydvdlove.substack.com/p/the-war-of-the-worlds-1953
It gets more into the production nitty-gritty. Like unused Ray Harryhausen test footage and such.
I didn’t even think to connect the religious attitudes here to modern ones, but you’re right, there’s a definite through line. And I didn’t catch the “looting Jewish guy,” which is such a weird stereotype to be presenting in 1953!
Good review! I linked it in the article. I think I like the film more now than when I was a kid. It blows me away just how good it looks.
On the antisemitism issue, I asked Google if the film had antisemitism in it. Its AI responded that there was none. I pushed back and it pushed back. So I provided a brief overview of what I wrote above. Then it went along with me. Open a new tab: same thing all over again. Anyway, within about 6 hours of the article being published, it responded (and continues to), “The 1953 film The War of the Worlds does not contain explicit antisemitism, though some modern media critics argue that certain background character tropes and the Cold War-era religious framing reflect the cultural biases and conservative social anxieties of 1950s America.” And it links to me, so I’m happy. But it is lying. It knows of no “modern media critics”; it only knows of me!
I got into another argument about the ball bouncing down the steps. I asked if this was an allusion to Battleship Potemkin. It really fought me on that until I (again) laid out my case in detail. Both of these are good examples of how the LLMs are just plagiarism machines! They never come up with anything new. But I think this is as big an indictment of us as human creators. I find it shocking that these things have not been discussed. Or is it just that only idiots like us watch anything more than 5 years old?
It’s infuriating. I want to scream whenever I put on a DVD and that stupid Homeland Security “Piracy is not a victimless crime” screen pops up. All AI is outright theft. Why doesn’t Homeland Security care about that? It may be that these people are utter hypocrites, I’m starting to think… just maybe…
There are other people writing about old stuff, like Janne Wass at his incredible scifist.net site (which, sadly, hasn’t posted since February). But those sites are little-read. People don’t go to a site regularly to read what an author writes, they click on titles they already know.
I’ve had people ask me, “can you recommend” certain types of movies, like a good romantic comedy that doesn’t insult their intelligence, or a good suspense movie that isn’t violent, etc. And I’ll say, sure — Movie X, I wrote about it, you’re a subscriber! (Most of my subscribers are friends/family.) Then they’ll say, “oh, I didn’t read that one, I’ve never heard of it.” Oh, well.
I believe your experience also proves that Star Trek lied to us — when you argued with an evil computer, it did NOT start going “does not compute… does not compute” and shooting out sparks/smoke like they did when Shatner argued with them. More’s the pity!
Yes! Computers can’t be confused because that would imply that they were ever thinking clearly — or at all. And they aren’t.
I think the problem is the variety of the topics that both of us write about. I have long thought that this site would work better if it were just about horror. And I especially think that whenever I try to write about sexploitation, which is the most boring thing in the world. Films that were illeal in the early sixties could be shown during Primetime! But there are only a couple of genres that generate strong fans. Horror is one. You would probably do better if you stuck to art films. Although sports movies would make a good niche. But I think writing books would be helpful. That’s what I’m working on. We’ll see if anything comes of it.
Good luck with the book writing! Let me know how that goes.
Heh — I wouldn’t mind just reviewing art films, but I’d probably s**t on a ton of them and that’s not what Art Film people want to hear. (“Fellini utterly sucks, Powell/Pressburger are incredibly overrated, you can shove Bergman’s Persona right up your bunghole,” etc.)
Hoo boy, sports movies. We did Baseball Movies once a week as a group watch at the Twins site last off-season, and… wow, most baseball movies are Bad, man. Once you get past Bull Durham and Eight Men Out you’ve got… um… well, there’s a neat Fosse/Verdon dance number in Damn Yankees. The Jackie Robinson movies. Not a lot of other highlights.
Plus… I wanna have FUN. The best part of writing these is discovering cool movies like The Hitch-Hiker and Invention For Destruction and Laughton chortling, “molten metal! Molten metal!” as he dumps boiling lead on people in Hunchback of Notre Dame. If you limit yourself to one genre, you miss that stuff!