Why I would and wouldn't go see this movie.

Rating: 5/10 (5 July 2005)

Hmmmm Tom Cruise, negative! I am surprised by this choice. This alone almost caused me not to see the movie. Then I heard Tim Robbins was in it, OMG! Let me put it this way, any other director and I wouldn't have wasted my time.
The story is an old one. Nothing new, at least to me. I think this was the weakest part of the movie for me.
Now with that said, I will say it was a very scary movie. I put myself in the situation of being a dad with small children and what would I do in that situation.
Steven Spielberg did not disappoint me with the special effects or how the story was told. It was very well done, and I was able to buy into it. I don't think I've seen a movie this scary since "The Exorcist".
Bottom line? Tom Cruise - he did a good job, but I didn't like him in the role. Tim Robbins - Better than I expected, but I would have rather seen anyone else in the role. Movie - Stunning visual effects, good story telling, and scary.
Just as we have all come to expect, Steven has done a very good job. One has to wonder why Tom Cruise was chosen though. I think a normal middle age guy would have been a better choice.
Just in case you a movie mogul and you are trying to figure out why people are not going to the movies? PRICE you idiots! My wife and I went to see this movie for $15. I didn't take my children (3 of them) to see it because it would have cost TOO DAMN MUCH! I haven't seen 3 movies that I would like to have seen this summer because of the price of the ticket. I think I'm going to get a job as a critic just so I can see the movies for free. GEEZ!!!