Not only better than the 1953 film, also better than the book

Rating: 10/10 (26 July 2006)

In the book the story is being told, in retrospect, by a survivor, a writer of works of a philosophical nature, presumably Wells himself. In spite of the hardships and moments of what must have been extreme terror, he seems remarkably unemotional. The result is that you don't get any real sense of the horror of the situation, nor do you, at least I don't, particularly care about the protagonist's fate. The 1953 movie improved upon that, giving us the plight of Gene Barry and Ann Robinson to care about. But with the 2005 film, the focus is on a single family, in particular, Ray Ferrier and his estranged children and their experiences. Yes, Ray is lacking as a father and doesn't have his children's respect. Note that throughout the early part of their ordeal, Rachel looks to her brother for comfort and protection, not her father. However, great disasters can bring out the best as well as the worst in some people. In this film we see Ray grow as a father and with that his children's love and respect for him also grows. This gives you characters for whom you can really care and makes for a much better story. Ray's attempt to sing a *lullaby* for Rachel is at once humorous and touching.
The alien machines are much more menacing than those in the 1953 movie. They largely fit the description in the book, but in this film's depictions, they are truly terrifying. Not only their general appearance, but especially, their movements and *behavior*. Wells himself states how *natural* their movements were and that those writing from second hand experience could never fully appreciate that aspect. Also, the various *tentacles* that they are equipped with are also from the book. The scene where Ray and his children look back out over the river, from which they have just escaped, seeing the tripods *fishing* the river, while still other tripods stalk the shores, zapping everyone in sight, ranks as one of the most chilling moments in any science fiction movie.
Yes, I agree that the 1953 version of War of the Worlds is one of the best science fiction films of that decade. There is no way, however, that it is superior (IMDb 7.2) to the 2005 version (IMDb 6.7). Even more inexplicably, although it has as 6.7 rating overall, for some reason, IMDb seems to have a preference for listing mostly bad reviews up front. The first 50 reviews listed have an average rating of 3.5, with 20 of these having a rating of only 1 out of 10! For those who may wonder if there is something *wrong* with them because they like this movie, take heart. Three percent of the IMDb voters give Casablanca a score of 1 out of 10! There are times when the critics need critiquing.
First of all we have the usual crowd of Tom Cruise and/or Steven Spielberg *bashers*. Nothing much is going to please these people. Worse yet, there are even, apparently, Dakota Fanning *bashers* as well, may they burn in Hell.
There are, of course, *plot-holes* and scientific inaccuracies. I haven't see a science fiction movie or read a science fiction novel that didn't have a fair number of these and there are very few that I haven't seen or read.
Some objectionable objections: 1. The wrong side of the bread sticking to the window. Wrong, we are not seeing into the room from outside. We are seeing Ray's reflection in the window, looking out. You can tell that by the visual *echoes*.
2. Ray's *silly* choice of Boston, as if it would be any safer? Until he met the camera crew at the plane crash, he thought there was only the one tripod. Moreover, as Robbie pointed out to Ray, the only reason he went for Boston is that he thought he could *dump* the kids on their mom.
3. Boston is relatively untouched. Possibly. In the book, the entire invasion was limited to southeastern England. They *breathed a sigh of relief* in Paris and elsewhere that the Martians were stopped in England.
4. Dakota Fanning's *constant* screaming. Review the 1953 film. Use a stop watch if you want. You'll find that Ann Robinson screams just as often, perhaps more so as a percentage of total dialog, and she's older than 10! If this were reality of course, you'd find Gene Barry and Tom Cruise screaming just as often.
5. Stephen Spielberg's *silly* snake like probe. No! That was H. G. Wells' *silly* idea. Apparently *silly* enough to be included in both versions of the movie.
6. For no particular reason the aliens suddenly turned into vampires? Read the book. That's what they were in the book. In fact, it turned out that the aliens had no digestive system at all and took blood in direct intravenous transfusions. The *red weed* by the way is also in the book, although there it is not a *crop* but apparently only a *hitch-hiker*, i.e. a *true* weed.
7. The aliens were not *smart enough* to realize that there could be potentially deadly germs. That, again, is another element from the book as well as the 1953 film. In the book Wells had an explanation for that. Autopsies of the aliens revealed the presence of only common Earthly bacteria. Apparently there either never was any bacteria on Mars or the Martians had eliminated them so far back in time that they were no longer aware of the existence of such life forms.