Good atmosphere, many logical errors: Average

Rating: 5/10 (1 July 2005)

If you...
...want to see a movie with superior Special Effects, wonderfully oppressing atmosphere and pulse-driving action... SEE IT!
...expect a logical, good-scripted and conclusive movie with distinctive characters, profundity, character integrity and development, a movie that touches you for more than shocking with too loud special effects, DO YOURSELF A FAVOR, Don't SEE IT!
Most common NEGATIVE Arguments * The script isn't very professional as for many logical errors, most have already been mentioned. Simply explaining the errors with "the original was like that, so Spielberg had no choice", well, if sticking to the original that close, why even make a remake? I think Spielberg was too much under time pressure to work out the details enough. Please, the argument "it's just a movie, not everything has to be explained, i just want to get entertained", thats okay with me, but please accept that there are people who like to think about details in movies, as I do, and then, such script errors are annoying. And War of the Worlds really has many such errors.
* The image of the actual aliens did not support the fact (given from the narrator's prologue) that the aliens were greatly intelligent. I found them rather giving the picture of dull, uncautious and reckless idiots, playing with the old bicycle. Knowing that intelligence and wisdom are two independent things (a Nobel-prized doctor can still be clumsy) makes it possible to unite their picture with their told intellect (with much good will and complicated explaining), but on the whole, it's rather unsuiting. Just like most (all?!) other things we see and learn about the aliens in the movie. Just my opinion, don't kill me.
* The character consistency/development is unsteady and irritating in my opinion. Sometimes character traits are formed for the audience but they have no effect to the plot or the later behavior of the same character. nearly all character builds in that movie suffer that problem. E.g. the son, first he seems rather reasonable, soothing his sister in the car and agreeing that "driving to Boston to mom" is the right thing to do, then when the army band drives by, he neither wants to see his mom, nor save his sister anymore, he wants to join the soldiers (i wonder if a boy his age, he isn't even 16 as he has no license, would really be that stupidly brave in such an extreme situation, no matter what his character is like) and "fight the tripods". then he sees how useless it is, he takes his sister in his arms and promises her to take care of her. nice, but later he wants to stay with the Abrams tanks (!) that obviously don't touch the tripods and try fight?! lol no comment. that in the end he's still there made me laugh sourly in the cinema. all that leaves me with the feeling like having eating a gallon of cotton candy when i was really hungry and needed a steak.
* While being an entertaining movie, the end is somewhat hilarious i think. it's a superficial stereotype Hollywood on-schedule blockbuster happy ending. still i accept that some people like it, happy endings are sooo nice, aren't they? tear. myself, i hate non-happy-endings in the first place, but in the long term they usually are more valuable for a movie experience, don't you all think? uhm probably not, i get that.
Most common POSITIVE Arguments * Spielberg succeeds in creating a mind-blowingly oppressive atmosphere all over the film, except for the ending perhaps. Especially the first 20 minutes are extremely well done. I was caught by the movie just as I was caught by the atmospheres that "official masterpiece" movies like 2001, Alien or Se7en create, and that gives the movie 90% of all credit i give it. That is not to be underestimated because many people who do not care about every detail in a movie, who do not even want to analyze it, are simply caught by the movie like they haven't often before, I see that, and that's probably the reason why it is by many considered "the best movie ever". Makes sense to me, although its not my opinion.
* The special effects are very impressing and I really don't think they are either exaggerated nor inappropriate. Combined with the nice done camera setup, they massively add to the atmosphere. Often, special effects are evaluated as story/dialog/complexity/integrity substitute, for a reason. But its wrong to make generalizations here. Probably you will all agree that the weaknesses of this movie have at least nothing to do with the good CGI, yes? * Personally i found the general acting not that bad. It wasn't extremely good either, but its not a great point of criticism. Simply given the script and the plain dialogs, the actors make a good job out of it and add to the atmosphere. Although I found Rachel, the role of Fanning, rather annoying, she did a good job out of what she was told.
Result: After all an entertaining summer blockbuster with great special effects and atmosphere but lacking consistency and many logical errors.