A Self Indulgent Film Largely Inaccessible to the Movie Goer

Rating: Null/10 (4 July 2002)

First, I'm a filmmaker, but I'm not Steven Spielberg. I recognize he holds a revered position in the Industry. As Steven knows, not every film is going to be an ET or CE3K or Jaws. Those films were driven by great stories punctuated with superb (for their time) special visual effects. Don't believe me, read the writings of William Goldman, argueably one of the best screenwriters of our era. Without a story, you don't have a movie. Phil Dick is one fine writer, but his stories don't always translate into screenplays. The same is true of Isaac Asimov. Only one of his 458 novels was ever a hit movie (The Fantastic Voyage). So Steven makes up for a twisted, swiss cheese of a plot with lots of eye candy, even virtual sets. Now, to Tom Cruise. His recent remarks about America aside, he is probably the weakest bankable actor on the "A" list. The only film, in his filmography, that has ever stretched him as an actor was "Born on the Fourth of July". I believe he was stretched by the material and director Oliver Stone. He is simply not on a par with Mel Gibson, Russell Crowe, or even the mature John Travolta. His performances are rather unidimensional, and he fails to give his characters much in the way of nuance.
I'm as big a fan of Steven Spielberg as any, but I'm not a naif who says he loves everything he ever did. Steven had his stinkeroo(s); we all do. Does anybody remember "Howard the Duck" (George Lucas).
This film gets 4/10 for its visuals and audio design. Story - no, direction (take away the Louma Crane, Wescam and Steady Cam) and it falls flat. Moreover, I think this was Steven's most self indulgent exercise in filmmaking. Come on Steven, you can do better and you don't need Mr. Cruise. Kudos to Gerald Mollen for keeping this runaway train on track.