Not as good as the 50's version!!!

Rating: 6/10 (28 June 2005)

I have to say I went into this movie with huge expectations after reading heaps of stuff about it but came out somewhat disappointed after all.
What I wasn't disappointed in was the incredible talent of Dakota Fanning, that young girl never fails to thrill me with her acting range and I think that as she matures she is going to be amazing.
One thing that did surprise me was that I came out of the movie having found, in Tom Cruise, a new level of maturity i think. To see him play a father figure, one hell bent on looking after his kids, gave me a new insight into his acting abilities. I was very very surprised as I usually find that Tom Cruise plays Tom Cruise, but not in this movie. I really believed he was a dad trying to protect his kids at all costs.
As for the movie in general, well i heard Steven Spielberg say it wasn't a remake, but, i have seen the 50's version and apart from moving this movie to another place, another time frame, well, to me it is a remake. Plain and simple... nothing different in the basic plot... a remake!
The 50's version was awesome for the 50's, this was standard for this time so it wasn't anything fancy in my book. It would have rated a lot lower had it not been for the amazing acting of Tom and Dakota... as for the kid who played his son, well, i guess we can't get all the good actors can we???