Doesn't measure up to its potential

Rating: 7/10 (13 July 2002)

Spoilers here, mates.
There are three primary narrative elements in Minority Report. The first is the action element wherein John Anderton is placed in the ironic position of discovering why the system he has dedicated his life to has predicted that he will commit murder. The second is the philosophical element which boldly postulates that all human activity is predestined to occur unless a given person gains insight into the future wherein that person gains free will and gets to make a choice about their future. The final aspect of the narrative is John Anderton's motivation for being driven by his work and for his chemical addiction  the loss of his son.
If this film is to be justified as truly one of the greatest ever made then that assessment must be based solidly upon the presentation of the narrative material. Starting with the most basic aspects of the presentation  the sound and cinematography  Minority Report deserves rather high marks. The soft, bleak camerawork is quite effective in communicating a bland mood of emotional numbness and experiential detachment that seems to permeate our commercialized, regimented future. I thought the sound aspects  editing, effects, music  all supported this work and help to sustain the atmosphere upon which the three narrative elements could be offered and explored.
It is then up the film's screenplay, directing, and acting to make the offering and to undertake exploration of the narrative elements. Here is where we run into trouble with Minority Report. The innovative cinematography and cool effects end up being mostly an empty shell.
First of all, the screenplay presents the philosophical narrative, but never explores its consequences or establishes any sort of context by which to relate to it through the characters. Its just there. Interesting, but just there. Philip K. Dick does a better job of handling it in the short story upon which this 144-minute summer flick is based (as is also true of the story which gave use the equally mediocre Total Recall).
Likewise, Anderton's loss of his son is shown to us, but we have little reason to empathize with this extraordinary condition. Oh, we see him reminisce with the 3D video stuff and we see him  all too briefly  poolside with the boy, but what exactly was his relationship with his son? How did they play? And interact? We don't have a clue. Instead, we have the standard approach of parents lose kid, parents break-up that we've seen dozens of times  and better accomplished  in other films like Accidental Tourist. There is no depth to John's relationship with his son and we need depth to get beyond rationally caring and into a level of emotionally relating to John's experience and motivations. This, unfortunately, has consequences for Tom Cruise's performance as I will mention later.
The central narrative  the ironic situation if Anderton having to deal with the circumstances of his future murder  is, unfortunately, so devoted to being action driven and an excuse for the special effects that the aspect that could potentially make the narrative special  the irony itself  is in the backseat. It is not as bad as the Lucas-Syndrome of special effects BECOMING the story itself, but that doesn't make it any less shallow. Again, this is an instance where Dick's short story outshines the flick.
The unconventional  and potentially fantastic - underpinnings of the story and the film's technical elements end up being presented in a rather predictable. At best this is simply conservative storytelling. At worst it is predictable.
When unconventional subject matter is handled in a conventional narrative expose it is usually either because the material in the screenplay was not realized on film or because the screenplay never gave enough for the actors and directors to fully explore the potential depth. The latter is the case in Minority Report. Tom Cruise gives what either can be described as a subtle performance or a flat one. In Eyes Wide Shut he was criticized as coming off flat when, in fact, he unfolded subtly to match the slow pacing and revelation of that film's content. Here, however, the flatness is justified, not necessarily because of his effort but because he simply didn't have the material to work with and because Steven Spielberg couldn't push beyond the limitations of the shooting script.
In sharp contrast, Max von Sydow realizes more than is there in the script. Here he reminds me of John Huston in Chinatown and does a brilliant job conveying to us motivation, lust for power, manipulation, and  most importantly - inner turmoil as a contradicted character. His performance outshines everything else in the film and, sadly, gives us a benchmark by which to measure the rest of the material and how it is (or isn't) developed.
Spielberg never takes the risks with this film that the material demands. Compare his directorial efforts with those of Ridley Scott in Blade Runner. The latter is a groundbreaking film, an influential effort that helped shape the modern film making style. Scott took tremendous risks in the way he successfully entwined production with substance to create a unique look and feel with enough depth to care about the relationships depicted. In Minority Report, the subject matter is packed with potential, but no one can honestly say Spielberg gave us any relationships to care about outside of the generic sense (wife and husband reunited in the end with new baby on the wayOK, but what did these people to mean each other before? What, for example is Jill's motivation for getting so deeply involved with John's circumstances in the end?). A viewing of Blade Runner involves the viewer more than a viewing of Minority Report. Ultimately, this is not a profound or innovative film.