War of the Worlds currently has a 79% "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, and whilst that's a slip from the 90% it enjoyed some time last night, it's still an awfully positive average for a summer blockbuster. But not all of the reviews are positive: David Germain of the Associated Press, for one, argues that WoW is little more than "An assemblage of enormous talent on a frantic dash to meet a deadline... it plays like 32 short films about alien invasions." In fact, Germain's review points to an interesting trend: based on the reviews that are in, War of the Worlds is a real love it/hate it proposition. Critics are either buying it, or they're not, and so far there doesn't seem to be in between. As they often do lately, my favorite zinger comes from Roger Ebert (who I've taken to calling "Rog", as if we were tennis pals down at the country club), who is just incredibly perturbed by the way Spielberg has actualized H.G. Wells' tripod aliens:

"If evolution has taught us anything, it is that limbs of living things, from men to dinosaurs to spiders to centipedes, tend to come in numbers divisible by four ... 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."