Weathered and Unimpressive

Rating: 4/10 (18 July 2005)

The movie came with two big names: Spielberg and Cruise, which usually means the much deserved title of BLOCKBUSTER. Not in this case. The movie was nothing short of a waste of money.
While there were certain limitations with the creative aspect to the storyline - due to its predecessors, there were areas that could have been drastically improved upon. The technology used in the film is akin to that of the 70's. Nothing spectacular, yet unsurprisingly similar to many past SCI-FI movies, like Close Encounters of the Third Kind. It leaves the movie-goer with the cheated feeling of having seen it all before. Additionally, the manner in which the movie ended was rushed and cramped. There were many elements left unexplained that were shoved down the movie-goer's throat within the last 5 minutes of the movie.
In regards to the acting, Tom Cruise was once able to provide stellar performances, but seems to have lost his touch. His performance was abysmal, and thus he takes on the role of Supporting Actor - at best. His acting job is flawed and flat, leaving MUCH to be desired. Dakota Fanning, on the other hand is the only redeeming quality of the movie. She presents a riveting performance that gives the movie some credit... if only temporary, as it is not enough to carry the heavy weight of this movie.
Had Spielberg and Cruise improved their performances, the movie may have moved closer to a BLOCKBUSTER instead of the dregs of filmography. The only reason why the movie made so much money, is due to the preceding popularity of Spielberg and Cruise. It just proves that anyone with a popular name can produce poor quality movies and still make millions.