Badly written and full of plot holes

Rating: 3/10 (30 June 2002)

I can accept the idea that, in the future Minority Report presents, there is a Division of Pre-Crime that prevents murder through the use of "pre-cogs" who can see the future. Such is the film's conceit and the basis for its internal reality. However, I cannot accept the fact that the movie's characters behave without intelligence, and neither can I accept its plot holes.
When Tom Cruise's future detective shows up as a perpetrator in the pre-cogs' visions, he escapes. Cruise's former co-workers are allegedly out to stop him from committing the predicted murder, but while they tiredlessly search for him, it never occurs to any of them to seek the victim and keep him away from the scene of the crime. Obviously, if the victim is not at the proper location, Cruise won't be able to kill him, and the narrow timetable in which the cops have to catch him would be eliminated. This is simple common sense, and though there are images of Cruise all over the film's billboards and newspapers, there's never the slightest warning to the victim. Why not? The only explanation is that the cops are stupid. Similarly, Cruise is at one point able to gain access to an area that shoul d be restricted to him given the fact that he's wanted for a future murder. However, the cops are once again too stupid to have revoked his access. Of course, the cops are idiots because it serves the film's plot.
Unfortunately, the plot is in-of-itself illogical. Watching Minority Report, I excepted there to be a reasonable explanation for Cruise's identification as a killer. After all, he clearly doesn't plan on killing anyone. However, once the film gives us its "explanation" (which I won't reveal here to avoid spoilers), it seemed to me that Cruise never could have been in this situation had he never seen the vision to begin with. Some might be inclined to call this a paradox. I call it bad writing.
Additionally, the dialogue is too often expositionary in nature, and the tone of the film is uncertain (this is often due to the inclusion of bizarre supporting characters played by Tim Blake Nelson and Peter Stormare). I do give the film high marks in the visual department; the cinematography is excellent and the CGI work fits the context. The performances are also quite good for those actors that don't have ridiculous roles like Nelson and Stormare do (Samantha Morton, as a precog, is particularly good). Still, style without true substance is neve enough (the film's arguments about free will vs. predestination come up vague) - especially when watching stupid people navigate a ridiculous scenario. 3/10