War of the Worlds wasn't as terrible as I thought it would be. Tom Cruise annoys me to no end, but I gave in to Wayne's desire to see a crappy blockbuster summer film (Batman Begins lost out by a hair). It was mildly entertaining, even suspenseful for the two hours, but once I left the theater I started poking holes in the logic of the movie. Maybe it's a bad habit of mine, but I I always try to poke holes in "aliens invade the earth" type movies. Perhaps it's because I enjoy reading science fiction, and the endings of this type of movie are almost always a cop-out (obviously because humans have to somehow triumph in the end).
Look at Signs, that movie with Mel Gibson and Joaquin Phoenix. What was the director thinking when the entire ending depended on the main characters discovering that they could destroy the aliens by throwing wateron them? So you're telling me that I'm supposed to believe that a bunch of aliens would choose to take over a planet covered with more than 80% water and NOT KNOW that they would die if they got sprayed by water? That would be like saying I'd walk on the moon without a spacesuit and be perfectly OK.
Same with War of the Worlds. (spoiler here) I don't understand how you could create an alien race, infinitely more intelligent than humans, at least intelligent enough to have faster-than-light-speed travel, giant tripod thingys with vaporizers, the ability to physically travel through LIGHTNING, etc. etc. etc. and yet not realize that micro-organisms will kill them.
Maybe I'm just thinking too hard and it's just supposed to be a fun movie.
You shouldn't pull it apart too badly. As you might know, it's call entertainment. It just suppse to entertain you not to educate you. I like World of the War better than The Sign.
I guess that's why there are so many different types of movies out there for different audience. I guess it is also your right to critize the film since you pay an arm and a leg to see it.