Rich On Minority Report

Rich On Reception goes to the movies

Do you pay attention to the name of the director before you watch a film? Does it bother you who directed it or do you watch films because of who the director is?

Most of us don't notice the difference from one director to the next. We do know Scorsese will have a scene involving Joe Pesci, a soon-to-be-dead man and a sharp or even blunt instrument.

We also expect M. Night Shyamalan (The Sixth Sense, Unbreakable) to end his films with a twist as much as we expect Ron Howard (Far and Away, The Paper, Ransom) to bore us to sleep.

Tough to peg

But no one director is as familiar as Steven Spielberg. For my generation, he made the big guns all other films were measured against. Possibly because all of his scripts seem tailored to his own requirements, his films are exactly what we expect them to be.

I think that's why Minority Report is a tough film to peg. Spielberg has changed direction again. Tom Cruise is 'pre-cop' John Anderton. In the year 2054, Washington DC's police department has a system whereby they can predict when a murder will occur, giving them the chance to arrest the perpetrator before the crime is even committed.

Anderton is one of the major-league cops assigned to the department, whose life is flipped upside down when the system fingers him as the next man foolish enough to plan a murder. Anderton is forced to run, and the action commences.

Blind

Now I went in with the thinking this was an adult film. Tom Cruise was playing a man accused of murder, so I honestly expected this to be Spielberg in adult entertainment mode. And in a way he was - just not quite as much as I'd hoped.

The opening gives us a barrage of information, which left some of the audience a little confused - so much so that it occurred to me I was at an advantage.

It seems people who were watching the film blind were a little relieved when the projector broke and the film had to be restarted. (It's not the first time its happened at this particular multiplex, although I'd best not shame it by referring to it by name. Suffice to say it's not Usually a Good Cinema.)

Ethan or Anderton?

But the second Anderton chooses to run, it all changes. Spielberg's set pieces are always well thought out and never lack a sense of humour. But this time it was ill-fitting.

When Anderton first runs and then fights, it was a chance for a very tense action sequence - yet Spielberg can't resist dropping in little jokes, such as the people going about their daily lives as men in hover-packs smash into their living rooms during a punch-up.

From here on it's a world of un-originality. Even Spielberg's more interesting ideas have come off looking distinctly like they've been seen elsewhere, right from the factory fight (Star Wars: Episode II/ Indiana Jones) through to the penetration of an impenetrable building (Mission: Impossible). To be honest, Mission: Impossible deserves more than one nod. Cruise looked and acted so much like his Ethan Hunt character that I expected a lot more of John Anderton in the action stakes.

Fan

But don't get me wrong - this is certainly not a film to bore. The story moves along at a good pace and has more depth than any other thriller you're likely to see this year. Spielberg action of any sort is always going to be entertaining, even under par action.

Of course, Tom Cruise's presence makes things a whole lot more interesting. I'm a big fan of the pint-sized superstar. Unfortunately this time Concorde-Head has been given the part of a flawed hero, with a rather tame drug addiction. I say unfortunately because people like The Cruiser can't do flawed heroes.

I would like to comment on the bad guys but I simply can't do it without giving away the plot. I will say that Max von Sydow is the man who played Ming the Merciless in Flash Gordon and the Devil in Needful Things. And he has a European accent. Colin Farrell had his character pegged from the start and plays him with the perfect combination of smugness and charm.

Film noir

I do feel I'm coming across as overly critical. There's a lot of good stuff here, with Spielberg's futuristic vision being so intriguing. And it looks fantastic, with effects used when necessary, not excessively.

I heard it was a modern-day film noir, a detective story in the vein of Blade Runner (which actually had no detecting in it) but it didn't have a complex enough story to warrant comparisons to The Maltese Falcon and the like.

And the running time is exactly 30 minutes too long, with the final few scenes feeling as though they were tacked on - especially given that Colin Farrell had explained the whole thing 30 minutes earlier.

A film by Spielberg and Cruise should deliver more than DHL but it comes across more as first-class post. That isn't such a bad thing, it'd just be nice if your letter arrived the very next day once in a while. If you can't quite put your finger on why you didn't like it THAT much, then don't worry, you'll be in the majority.