Sci-why?

Rating: 4/10 (15 July 2014)

When science fiction meets romantic drama in a Hollywood film, one of them almost always suffers. Writers either lack the skill to pull off the combination in a way that's mutually reinforcing and consistent, or they lack faith in movie audiences to comprehend what they're watching without lots of pace-killing exposition. In the case of "Adjustment Bureau" we have the added Hollywood trope of political intrigue. The result is only occasionally enjoyable. The rest is just a mess.
What's enjoyable are the performances of fine actors making the best of some sketchy material. Damon seemed a natural for the Norris character, even though he's done better work in the "Bourne" films. The interplay between him and Blunt is completely authentic on screen. Mackie, Slattery and Kelly are very good also, and Terence Stamp is always good for that suave, menacing role.
Unfortunately, the script seems more focused on humanizing the "adjusters" than in filling out the other characters. Oh, there's tons of back story on Norris and his family, mostly from Mackie, but the relationship between long-ago events and present-day reality seems either forced or tenuous. Blunt's Elise character has no back story at all, and her front story is strikingly one-dimensional.
The main problem, though, is simple logic. We're told that the Bureau has "the story" and is simply "adjusting" its characters to keep to the plot. But the plot keeps changing, apparently, and it never makes sense to me. Both Slattery and Stamp seem to have telekinetic powers (if only to make people fall down) as well as a sort of omniscience. Why, then, are they so powerless to prevent a simple kiss, or to predict that one of their agents will secretly aid Norris? Why does Stamp, after telling the Damon character why the powers-that-be can't trust lowly humans to manage their affairs through free will, minutes later send him on his way to prove his point? Why is Norris' political career so important to them? And the hat thing: why not just get an extra hat for Elise? I could go on, but suffice it to say that there are inconsistencies, plot holes and loose threads galore.
One personal peeve of mine is the obligatory celebrity cameo, specifically media figures who seem to appear in every single movie with a political angle -- even when, as here, politics plays a minor part in the story. It no longer adds verisimilitude to a film, if it ever did; it's just a cliché. And a self-defeating one, because many filmgoers these days don't watch CNN and have no idea who James Carville is. In coming years nobody will even remember these people, let alone recognize them.
I don't discount the problems inherent in making a story like this accessible to easily distracted audiences. I don't even want every question raised by the story answered. I just want the story to be internally consistent, to make sense on some level. It can be done, it has been done before. But not this time.