Criticism of Critics - War of the Worlds

I saw War of the Worlds yesterday. I don't have the time or inclination to do full movie reviews here, but as I enjoy reading movie criticism even if I don't see the movie, I like to point out good and bad criticism I have found.

Reaction to this movie seems to be pretty divided between those who found it extremely tense and scary, and those who claim to have felt nothing. Science fiction is a bit problematic for some people who can just never imagine themselves in an alternative situation other than the present or historic world. Never understood that myself, but I can't be too harsh, because I happen to belong to a relatively small sub set of people who like science fiction but are left cold by most fantasy (including, dare I admit it, Tolkien in both book and cinema versions.)

Anyway, count me in the group who found the movie emotionally gruelling and a wonder to behold. But, I found it so tense and affecting that I find it a little hard to strongly recommend to a non science fiction fan as an enjoyable night out.

Now to stupid criticisms of it. Roger Ebert's just about takes the cake. I have rarely seen a stupider review, especially from someone who is well read, knows the source material, and is capable of liking science ficition. He attacks the lack of apparent (or explained) logic of the aliens. (Seems bleeding obvious to me that it is a terraforming project going on. But this is simply not the type of movie that needs an explanation spelt out too bluntly. Its angle - to show an other-worldly attack simply from the point of view of an ordinary man trying to escape it - has rightly been much praised for being more realistic than something like the woeful "Independence Day".) He likes nothing about the tripods. To quote:

"All of this is just a way of leading up to the gut reaction I had all through the film: I do not like the tripods. I do not like the way they look, the way they are employed, the way they attack, the way they are vulnerable or the reasons they are here. A planet that harbors intelligent and subtle ideas for science fiction movies is invaded in this film by an ungainly Erector set. "

This is not serious movie criticism, in my books. And basically, it is attacking a movie for being too faithful to the fundamentals of the original book.

I have just gone and checked what Ebert thought of Independence Day. He gave it 1/2 a star more, although also questions the logic of much of the film! Really, for me this has blown all of his credibility when it comes to science fiction reviews.

Now my other point is that I have read 2 Australia reviewers (will link later) who have mentioned a "logic" flaw that is given an explanation in the film.
(Slight spoiler warning for what follows)

This is to do with the fact that the car the Tom Cruise character gets in to drive away from the mayhem works, when all other cars are disabled due to electro magnetic pulse.

Do these critics pay no attention at all? The explanation (that the car had just been repaired, a fact Tom knew because he had earlier had a conversation with the mechanic) could only have been clearer if the script writer had come into the cinema, stopped the movie and gave them a personal recitation of the (already perfectly audible) lines again. (Now I admit, the nature of the repair explained in the film may not be perfect - it referred to a new solenoid being put it, whereas the other cars stopped on the road presumably had more wrong with their electronics than that -but at least it is a semi-plausible explanation towards having this car work when others had stopped.)

These critics seem to suggest there is simply no explanation given in the film. I just cannot believe they missed it.

Update: I have been trying to think of a good analogy to Ebert's dislike of the tripods. Maybe it's like complaining that the film of "The Old Man and the Sea" spends too much time in a boat.