Stunningly disappointing

Rating: Null/10 (1 August 2002)

If we could see ourselves coming out from watching films like this, would we ever go to watch them in the first place? And what would happen to the film industry then?
There are interesting philosophical and moral paradoxes arising from using a prediction of the future to change that future, but given the average audience's intelligence and attention span, it was probably wise (if disappointing for some of us) of Spielberg to steer clear of them and instead present yet another rather tedious variation on the theme of "the system's not the problem, the people running it are". (Hollywood loves to do this comfort-food-for-the-soul stuff: if things aren't going your way, it's not tough, it's not because that's the way things are, it's because somebody out there doesn't like you and there *is* something you can do about it. (Well, usually; sometimes it tries its luck with "the system is the problem, try to smash the system, oh dear you can't, that's tough", as for example in "Falling Down" which worked so well you wonder why it doesn't try it more often.))
So once again we are led down the familiar twisty-turny route where the good guy is the bad guy only he's not really because he's trying to find the real bad guy and the bad guy isn't really bad he's just doing what the other bad guy told him to and the guy in the middle is just your average Joe with good and bad bits but then I suppose that's true too of the good guy and the bad guy... in the end your head spins at the casual unpredictability of just about anyone with any independence left in them. (Well, any *man*: the Madonna Syndrome is positively *flourishing* here. (No, not *that* Madonna!))
Fighting to keep on the path of Controlled Narrative Unravelment is that Everyman-wannabe Tom Cruise. Since we're in Philip K. Dick territory, the inevitable comparison with Harrison Ford in "Blade Runner" only serves to show how implausible Cruise is as the flawed cop fighting to solve the mystery of the apparently equally flawed system. He has neither the gravitas to carry the righteousness nor the rough edges to carry the imperfections (even with those slightly crooked teeth, which even as I write he's having straightened - more's the pity), whereas Ford had both in bucketloads. Cruise in ten years' time? That could be a different story.
So, an unoriginal plot (and one with more holes in than a pair of fishnet stockings) and a poorly chosen central cast member. Any redeeming features? The special effects are certainly impressive (and so they should be judging by the credits: screenful after screenful of hard-pressed behind-the-scenes mouse wranglers, with the not inconsiderable list of actors tacked on at the end): if you're fond of spiders, you'll love the sleek cuties here; if not, you may never feel safe in the bath again! As for messy organ transplants... yuk, 'nuff said. Meanwhile the prosthetics people had fun with a face mask that could have been a recycled reject from "The Elephant Man". Did they really mean to make Cruise turn briefly into a cross between Leonard Nimoy and Leonard Rossiter? I don't think so, but it gave me and my companion some light relief.
Neither as thought-provoking as "A.I." nor as much fun as "Mission: Impossible". I have seen the future, and it doesn't involve my watching this film again. 5/10.