A "Minor" Success for Spielberg

Rating: 7/10 (8 August 2002)

Preventative maintenance can go a long way in getting a lot of extra miles out of that new car, and without question, applying the same principles to health care can add years to your life. That's what `prevention' is all about; averting disaster and tragedy by taking measures to stop it before it happens. It's certainly not a unique concept, by any means (at least when it comes to things like cars and health care), but what about in terms of crime? Murder, for example; can there possibly be a way to anticipate and prevent even that? It's a proposition that director Steven Spielberg addresses in `Minority Report,' a drama/thriller set in the near future, in which a kind of `HMO for Crime' has been established that does just that: A system that unerringly predicts and prevents murder. But just how accurate is it, really? Can such an operation be infallible beyond any doubt? That-- as they say-- is the question.
In Washington D.C., 2054, a `PreCrime' unit has been in operation for some six years now, under the leadership of Lamar Burgess (Max von Sydow). Using a system whereby murder can be detected before it happens-- and thus averted-- the unit has successfully eliminated that particular crime in the D.C. area. One of the driving forces behind it all is Detective John Anderton (Tom Cruise), who has something of a vested interest in making this system work: Just before the inception of this revolutionary unit, Anderton suffered a tragedy in his own life; the kind of tragedy he hopes that no one else will ever have to endure again because of their efforts here.
Anderton's unit has been something of a prototype, however, and with the success rate they have enjoyed, the U.S. government is interested in taking the project nationwide. But they want to look a little deeper into the operation first, and so agent Danny Witwer (Colin Farrell) is dispatched to investigate and root out any potential flaws that may have been overlooked on the local level. Burgess and Anderton maintain that the system is infallible, but then something happens-- Anderton himself is `seen' committing a murder in the near future. And it's going to happen in about thirty-six hours...
With films like `Schindler's List' and `Saving Private Ryan,' Steven Spielberg has long since established himself as one of the `Greats' among film directors. Much of his success comes from the fact that he likes to tell stories about `people,' and he always manages to find the human element within the story that make his films so engaging. Even the best filmmaker, however, is not going to produce a work of genius every time out; just as within every human being there is `good' cholesterol and `bad' cholesterol, so it must be with the films of an artist of Spielberg's magnitude-- it is natural that his resume will include both. And this film-- which, without question is a good film-- is just not as compelling as some of his previous efforts. One of the reasons, I think, is that it is an inherently dark tale, and Spielberg is by nature too positive to take it to the depths that would have really made it emotionally absorbing.
As good as Spielberg is at exploring the complexities of human nature, he tends to get distracted by the environment within he must work to tell certain stories (like this one). He seems to have an innate aversion to things too dark, at which times he seems to turn to the gadgets, toys and myriad F/X at his disposal for diversion, and quite frankly, his vision of the future in this film fails to evoke that necessary sense of disquiet or foreboding in the way that Ridley Scott did so successfully in `Blade Runner,' for example. The `look' of this film is more `amusement park ride' than the gritty realism of Scott's film. Compare and consider the differences between this film and `A.I' (another film with a dark, decidedly `non-Spielbergian' theme), and `E.T' and `Close Encounters of the Third Kind.' The latter, while falling within the Sci-fi genre, are basically upbeat, positive stories, with `E.T.,' especially, focusing on the characters rather than-- or at least equal to-- the events as they occur. And nobody does a film like that better than Steven Spielberg.

This film was written by Scott Frank and Jon Cohen, based on the short story by Philip K. Dick, and If only Spielberg (and the screenwriters) had been more willing to embrace the dark side of this story, he may have been able to create the kind of suspense that made `Jaws' so on-the-edge-of-your-seat riveting. But, again-- though this is a decent movie-- it simply is not the taut thriller it could have been, like Tony Scott's `Enemy of the State,' which in many ways is similar to this film. There again, the sense of paranoia and suspense Tony Scott achieved with his film was due to the fact that he embraced the darkness and immersed himself (and his film) in it.

As Anderton, Tom Cruise gives a convincing performance and (as evidenced in `Vanilla Sky') he is continuing to mature as an actor. His trademark smile is there, of course, but he is relying on it less and less, which is helping him to develop his characters with more depth and detail, as he does here with his portrayal of Anderton.
Max von Sydow, as usual, turns in a believable performance as Burgess, but the character is intrinsically stereotypical, and he simply isn't afforded the time to develop his portrayal much beyond that.
The standout performances come from Colin Farrell, who lends some real nuance to his character and manages to make him truly three-dimensional; and from Samantha Morton, who creates the most emotionally involving character of the film with her portrayal of Agatha; and it's part of what makes `Minority Report' (like any Spielberg film-- even the `lesser' ones) worth the price of admission. 7/10.