Interesting movie, but stick to Dick (MAJOR Spoilers!)

Rating: 4/10 (22 June 2006)

Philip K. Dick has written loads of short stories that have evolved into screen-plays. Some have worked (Blade Runner, Total Recall) by basically developing a life of their own and becoming something independent of their source, while still staying true to the story their based on. However, this movie is not one of them.
The problem is not the craftsmanship. The digital effects are incredible, probably best viewed on the big screen. The acting is good, maybe sometimes a bit over the top by Agatha, the pre-cog. And Tom Cruise is, of course, his own flashy self. And a few moments of slapstick-humor to spice things up a bit. And yet, this movie seem like a waste of time. Why? Let's take a look at the story:
John Anderton works for "Precrime", an institution that predicts murders days before they are about to happen. They do this by using "pre-cogs", humans kept in a state of drug-induced helplessness, who get visions of the future and pass them on. Knowing what is going to happen, Precrime can act accordingly and stop any crime before it is committed. One day, Anderton sees his own name as a "future murderer"; however, the victim is no one he's ever heard of. He now has to prove his innocence against a system that seems to know his future before he does.
Great and imaginative story. And yet, the movie wasn't satisfying.
It might be because Steven Spielberg and Philip K. Dick are completely incompatible in regards to their world-view, and come to opposite conclusions. And that poses a gigantic problem for the script:

Dick sees the future as something that cannot be changed, not by our own individual choices at any rate. However, because of free will, there our several "alternate" futures, which is also the reason for there being THREE pre-cogs. They "vote" for a future that is the most likely to happen, but knowledge of that vote naturally changes the course of events. But the fact that you'd change your mind if you knew about your future can also be foreseen by the pre-cogs, so their vision changes accordingly. Therefore, the pre-cogs are always right, no matter what you do. This idea is reminiscent of the Oracle of Delphi in ancient Greece.

Stiil with me? I knew you were.

With Spielberg, it's an entirely different matter. He views free will as an entity in itself. For him, there are not millions of preplanned events, that we slide through by taking this path or that; there is only ONE way, one that we determine by the choices we make. Therefore the pre-cog system doesn't work, as by these choices we can negate any "vision" of the future that is brought up. This is a very individualistic ideal, and, in a sense, the ideal that Hollywood and, specifically, Stephen Spielberg have always represented.

Now imagine a Greek tragedy, done in a "Hollywood" way. See the problem?
My advice: Read the short story, hate it or enjoy it depending on your world-view, but skip this movie. It just doesn't know which direction to take...