Did Steven Spielberg create a masterpiece or are critics completely wrong in their opinion? War of the Worlds was released in cinemas 18 years ago. In the sci-fi horror, Tom Cruise protects his family from an alien invasion and the panicking US population.
The critics love Spielberg’s remake of the 1953 classic. It fares much worse with audiences: “Can someone explain this?”
The low Rotten Tomatoes score for War of the Worlds confuses fans
The desperate call comes from X user Matthieu Côté. He found on the rating platform Rotten Tomatoes that the averages between the reviews and the audience (audience score) differed widely – by a full 34 percent. It was as if the groups had seen two different films.
Here you will find external content from Twitter, which complements the article. You can display it and hide it again with one click.
A side note: The method Rotten Tomatoes uses to calculate its rating averages is controversial. Roughly speaking, the scores are not made up of the average of the ratings actually submitted. Instead, they represent a total reflection of basic “approval”. The percentages show how many people liked a film – or not. Gradations of enthusiasm (or rejection) are lost.
There are always discrepancies between critics and audiences – even in the other direction. However, a difference like that in War of the Worlds is rare. By the way, it also passes on Moviepilot: The community gave it a good, but not outstanding, 6 out of 10. Meanwhile, we, the editorial team, voted Steven Spielberg’s film 19th out of the 50 best science fiction films since the beginning of the millennium.
What has happened there?
War of the Worlds unpopular with fans: 4 really good explanations
1. The depressing atmosphere is to blame
After the X call, film journalist Brendan Hodges offered the following explanation, which seems plausible in retrospect:
“War of the Worlds puts the trauma, fear and anxiety of the often (intentionally) unlikeable family at the center of the narrative and camerawork, with Spielberg evoking 9/11 iconography, burning trains and mass violence. It’s a disturbing film and not what audiences wanted in 2005.”
2. Tom Cruise is to blame
Bilge Ebiri from Vulture sees the problem not with the film itself, but with its environment:
“Tom Cruise ruined his public image during the chaotic press tour of War of the Worlds. I’m sure a large part of the low viewership is due to this fact. (The film was actually a huge box office success.)”
3. “Perfection is hard to endure”
Here you will find external content from Twitter, which complements the article. You can display it and hide it again with one click.
Not entirely serious. But the tweet sums up the lack of understanding that prevails in many parts of the discussion.
4. The ending may have disappointed fans
Steven Spielberg wasn’t happy with the ending either.
War of the Worlds concludes its plot rather abruptly. There is no big battle, as viewers of invasion films like Independence Day were used to: the aliens perish in the Earth’s atmosphere. The big payoff comes on a very personal level when Tom Cruise’s character fights to the death with the hermit (Tim Robbins). This can lead to quite understandable disappointment – which ultimately prevails and spoils the overall impression.
Ultimately, these factors probably all contributed equally to War of the Worlds’ rather weak standing among sci-fi fans. If you want to re-examine the film with these perspectives, you can rent it from Amazon or stream it at a flat rate from Paramount+.
*. If you purchase through these links or take out a subscription, we receive a commission. .