Good acting, effects -- insultingly bad plot [SPOILERS]

Rating: 1/10 (4 March 2003)

For a work of speculative or science fiction to be credible, it must limit the number of demands it makes upon viewers/readers to suspend disbelief. For example, a top-notch, space-based science fiction story may allow for faster-than-light travel, but it generally has to stick to plausible science after that. If a work is pure fantasy, then it is possible to demand more of viewers/readers, but even it must remain internally consistent to whatever set of rules it creates.
Spielberg & Co. attempt to tell a story in which we are asked to accept that law enforcement in the near future has the ability to foresee murders before they actually happen. Fair enough -- we accept this impossible premise in order for the story to unfold, but if the story is to be believable, we should expect no further impositions on our credibility.
Other reviewers have commented on various plot problems, which, though valid, are not fundamentally impossible. There is, however, a major plot element involving the `murder' that Anderton is supposed to commit that is impossible. SPOILER FOLLOWS:
We see the pre-cog vision of the shooting multiple times as we approach the actual confrontation. In this vision, the victim, Leo Crow, has been shot at a distance (one image), and Anderton is seen holding his pistol with arm outstretched, pointing at Crow who is falling away (second image). The second image would be perfectly consistent with someone firing a gun at someone standing a few feet away. However, in the actual event, Anderton doesn't deliberately shoot Crow  he starts to read him his rights (a very well done piece of acting by Cruise). Crow then begs Anderton to kill him, revealing the planned frame-up. In desperation, Crow rushes forward, grabs Anderton's gun hand, pulls Anderton and the gun to his chest, and is able to make the gun discharge. We then get a short (probably less than a second) repeat of the second pre-cog image, now supposedly real, of Crow falling away with Anderton in exactly the same position, body turned sideways, arm outstretch with the pistol aimed at Crow as though he had just shot him. Impossible!!! This would require that after Crow was shot, Anderton would straighten his arm, turn sideways, and point the pistol at Crow. Aside from there being no time to assume that position, no one having just inadvertently shot someone would behave in such a fashion.
It gets worse. A contact pistol wound is very distinct  so much so that even the average layperson would be able to distinguish it from a wound made from several feet away. We therefore must assume that no one would notice the obvious discrepancy between the pre-cog vision of the bullet hit from several feet away (image one) and the reality - seriously undermining the supposed perfection of future crime detection. This problem in elementary forensics is one that was going to exist once the writers decided on how events would plausibly unfold. Maybe one could overlook this problem by saying that police organizations didn't do forensics anymore, and no one involved ever looked closely at the body of Leo Crow. Like the absurdities with the eyes that miraculously didn't deteriorate to unusability after a few minutes (let alone hours), it would be one more block in the pyramid of improbabilities (noted by other reviewers) needed to keep the plot advancing.
Spielberg & Co. clearly wanted to explore the idea of determinism versus free will. They also wanted to examine whether a perfect crime detection system that saved hundreds of lives every year could be balanced against the exploitation of the 3 people who made it possible - a classic moral question of, do the needs of the many (to paraphrase Mr. Spock) outweigh the needs of the few? But there really is no moral question at all since the system is not perfect. Pre-cog image one is wrong and free will triumphs over determinism. Spielberg & Co. obviously decided that it wouldn't do to have all of the exposition required to explore the morality of utilitarianism go down the tubes when Leo Crow is shot, so viewers were tricked by false, impossible image two into concluding that this particular (very gifted) pre-cog's visions were perfect but incomplete. This is sloppy script writing and arrogant (or lazy) film direction. It is the final insult, for this viewer at least.
I'd sum up the movie this way: good acting, good sfx and cgi. Message movie ultimately subverted by very badly written plot.