The most accurate depiction of panic

Rating: 8/10 (17 August 2017)

The first time I've seen this film I was around 11, and remembered only that it was very dark, but also not that good. Th usual internet opinion also influenced me on my position as for this film. Nonetheless, this film is often displayed as proof that Spielberg is a not-so- great director, as nit all of his films are masterpieces. By rewatching it, I realised actually how good is this film, and how Spielberg is a great filmmaker afterall.
Let's start with the technical side, which was the first to blow me off. CGI aside, which, well, qualified for a 2005 standard, I didn't notice how well was the photography handled. There's tons of wonderful single takes (3 minutes of 360 rotations around the van, while seeing three characters talk and interact in the van while it is running! And it's not Emmanuel Lubetzki!) astounding camera angles and shots. The sound effect was appealing as well. I completely enjoyed listening to the sound of the tripods! Aside from the obvious need for CGI as for depicting the tripods and other vehicles, tons of practical sets were built. Towards the end, an entire field with houses and damaged cars covered with the red plants.
What also got me was how accurately panic was depicted in this film. Take any Roland Emmerich disaster movie. You often see the mass of terrified people running here and there, but you could not convey the feel of anxiety these people had. In this film, Mostly in the middle part, there is one particular scene that shows how a crowd of desperate people act. I didn't ever see that in any disaster film the way you can see it here. Spielberg also lives up to his fame as "master of suspense". The third act mainly focuses on a couple of pretty intense scenes full of suspense.
Most of what is criticised in War of the worlds is story aspects. There are some minor plot holes (first they show you now tech works, moments later people have cameras working), like in every movie, but I think the haters for this movies simply started to point out every single one of them. As if Apocalypse Now had no flaws (I recall that a site collecting every kind of errors made in movies has something like 532 errors listed for Apocalypse Now, despite its quality as a film). Even Inception has a small plot hole. Let me get this straight: this isn't Spieblerg's masterpiece, or isn't one of his masterpieces, but isn't a terrible film either.
The story follows quite closely the original War of the World novel by H.G. Wells. The ending is the same, in every aspect, even the most criticised deus ex machina or the outcome for the main characters. There are subtle differences, as for example in the Novel it is a single character to travel, and not a divorced father with his daughter and his son, or the setting being the US, and not London, as the original setting was, or Tim Robbins' character having some slight differences. The red plants appear also in the novel. There are some plot differences, as H.G. Wells' novel was set in the 1900s.
The problem is, that Close Encounters of the Third Kind showed us friendly aliens. When I was around 8. it was due to all those "alien invasion" sci fi stories that I started being constantly afraid of aliens, and my parents made me watch E.T. for that reason. Spielberg's precious works made us pretty much delete our image of aliens being hostile and believable at the same time. I think this is the main reason for War of the Worlds' negative reception. I suggest watching this film, especially if you enjoyed Minority Report. J.J. Abrams' visual style comes mainly from this film and from Minority Report, on the other hand.