Minority Report Review
by Tim Wick

I believe these people to be wrong. I think that among modern filmmakers he reigns supreme as a master of visual storytelling who never forgets the human element of his story. True, he is a might sentimental, but such a quality is one to be admired rather than reviled. There are enough cynics in the world - isn't it nice to have someone who believes that there is the theoretical possibility of a happy ending?

But how happy are his endings? Did Quint get to celebrate the death of Jaws? Does Indiana have the Ark? Did E.T. and Elliot ever see each other again? Did the us government ever admit they had made contact with an alien race? How many Jews Didn't Schindler save? How many men died so private Ryan could live? Spielberg's endings always seem to involve some sort of sacrifice. The prospect always exists for happiness but there is always a price. Happiness is not free.

For those who dislike Spielberg and his films, they will find little to praise in Minority Report. For those who love films in general, I think it is impossible to view this film as anything but the greatest cinematic achievement of this young year. Spielberg has seamlessly blended his youthful ability to create thrilling action and stunning visuals with his mature ability to create complex characters and situations. His films runs over with visuals and ideas that can't adequately be understood with a single viewing.

If there is a single most impressive feat, it is the fact that the movie works as a pure thrill ride first. Most film goers will never see a film beyond this first level and they will love it. Brimming underneath is a story of a society that is alternately perfect and in the midst of nearly irreversible decay. While individual characters and situations may have resolutions that are satisfactory, Spielberg does not spare then a faustian bargain. To gain something, you must give up something else. To gain freedom, you must give up security. To gain security, you must give up freedom. What is frightening is the fact you are not even aware you are making that choice.

The central structure of this extrordinary film is basically a Hitchockian innocent man on the run story peppered with noirish characters and dialogue. The film is shot in color but much of the movie has the color bled from it's frames to the point I wondered what it would have looked like had it been completely shot in Black and White. Perhaps modern film audiences would not have been able to accept a science fiction film that was shot in Black & White but I would have loved it.

The future is alternately beautiful and frightening. Most of the world looks much the same. Even futuristic interiors don't look too far afield from some of today's more groundbreaking architecture. Computers have advanced but not to a level unthinkable in the next 50 years. Spielberg clearly wanted to create a believable future that was still clearly the future.

But this beautiful future has ugliness to it. The slums are still ugly, falling down and unattractive. The concept that the well off live good lives but the poor continue to live in the same squalor they always have is one that meshes, I think, with what we see now. Spielberg's point is that we always see what we want to see. Most of us see that world of the affluent because it is the world we at least are more closely aligned with (if you are reading this review, you have a computer and internet access and a home).

As one would expect from Spielberg, his action sequences are top notch. He knows how to make them just long enough to grab your attention and just short enough to make you wish they weren't over yet. He injects this serious story with just enough humor but he doesn't make the humor feel forced.

What truly impressed me (and was, in all fairness, one of Harry Knowles' biggest complaints about the film) was the history of the secondary characters. While the film is uncompromisingly about John Anderton (Tom Cruise), most characters in the film have some relationship to him that is clear based on the way they relate to him and talk about him. Should they have their own existence outside that relationship? Yes and no. They do have such an existence and I could see by their behavior. But this is NOT their story. What is important is that we understand how they relate to the person about whom the story IS about. I felt I had a pretty solid understanding of the interrelationships of every character in the film to John Anderton. That was what was important.

But more than that, I understood that they had an existence outside those relationships even if I didn't know what those lives were. Harry Knowles complained at length that the only fully developed character was Anderton. That is partially true. He is the most important character and therfore the most fully developed. But that did not mean the others were simply walking cut outs. They had lives - the film just didn't have time to show us everything about them because they story wasn't ABOUT them.

The central issue of the film is the question of weather it is proper to prosecute someone for a crime they are GOING to commit. If it is a guarantee that they will commit the act, then there is no ethical dillemma. But let's assume that they were aware of their own future. Would they make the same choice. Assume, for a moment, the murder we see at the beginning of the film is stopped because someone tells the guy that he shouldn't do it? Are crimes of thought still crimes? Any reselmblance to 1984 is purely intentional.

So too is the concept that privacy is a thing of the past. Eyball scans can make an advertisment instantly personal. They can make a visit to a store more invasive as the helpful holoclerk lets you know what items they have that go with the last things you purchased. The question becomes at what point is your living room no longer private? How about your bedroom?

That is what lies beneath the basic running man plot. I fear that those few who have criticized this film have either failed to recognize that the movie is about so much more than a simple whodunnit yarn.

But so what if it was? This film still represents one of the most compelling mysteries I've seen in recent years. They mystery, by the way, is less a question of who is responsible than it is a question of how they did it. I knew who did it fairly early (a fact that I believe was telegraphed because it increased the tension in later scenes) but I didn't have the slightest inkling how.

This year represents something of a clash of geek titans. First to the mat was Sam Rami with Spider-Man and he crushed the next entrant when George Lucas released the latest in his Star Wars saga. Still to come are M. Night Shymalan's creepy looking Signs, Chris Columbus' second installment in the Harry Potter series and Peter Jackson's next installment in his already brilliant Lord of the Rings.

While it is clear that Spielberg cannot win the box office battle with Minority Report, he has done something far better than either Lucas or Rami. He created a masterpiece. If I was Shymalan, Columbus and even Jackson, I'd be a little scared right now.

I want to see this movie again. Right now.