2 of 6

Through it all, you can feel Spielberg's three personalities wrestling: Spielberg the Entertainer supplies the adrenaline rush. Spielberg the Artist wants to raise challenging questions and trust the audience to think for itself. But Spielberg the Communicator wins in the end, overexplaining the complicated plot and the mystery's solution for the slowest member of the audience. I love Spielberg's achievement here, but once again I feel somewhat insulted as the end credits pass by. Half of the fun of a good detective yarn is sitting there figuring out "whodunit" and why. Spielberg never seems to trust us to do that, so he fills in as many gaps as he can before it's over. This lessens our reasons for seeing it again. It also slows the film's locomotive momentum. This unfortunate anticlimax leaves us preoccupied with whether the resolution makes logical sense, instead of inspiring us to think about the larger ethical questions. And yet there's so much to enjoy throughout the film, these few false notes should be easy to forgive.

Differences of opinion are already popping up online. Roger Ebert (Chicago Sun-Times) could hardly contain himself: "My mind was churning with amazement and curiosity. [The movie] blindsides you with its brilliance." Richard Corliss (Time) calls it "Spielberg's sharpest, brawniest, most bustling entertainment since Raiders … and the finest of the season's action epics." Kirk Honeycutt (Hollywood Reporter) calls it "one of [Spielberg's] most compelling and entertaining films ever. He continues to push into new fictional terrain that is grittier, creepier, and edgier than the warm-and-fuzzy science fiction of his early career. Cruise … delivers one of his most controlled and suggestive performances."

"The film's success is in line with what American films historically have done best, which is to excitingly tell a strong story with high style and just enough substance," says Todd McCarthy (Variety). However, Minority Report may in the long run lack the resonance of Blade Runner and certainly 2001, because it is more prosaic than poetic, more concerned with narrative progress, precise predictions, and legalistic issues than larger notions of good and evil, fate and the grand scheme of things." And Scott Mantz (Moviemantz) says, "Minority Report is cold, convoluted and confusing. The story feels like it's being over-explained with too much information, and while everything does come together in the end, the effect of the payoff will depend upon how much moviegoers are able to retain along the way."

More next week.

Last week, Film Forum offered an early look at The Bourne Identity. Over the weekend, other critics chimed in with their reviews of this slick new thriller from director Doug Liman. They disagree over whether Matt Damon has what it takes to play Jason Bourne, the amnesiac assassin who discovers that his employer is seeking to kill him. But everyone seems pleased with the dynamite supporting cast, especially Franka Potente (Run Lola Run).

Dan Buck (Relevant) looks at the film's impressive strengths. "Some films do great things that are remembered for years to come. The Bourne Identity, however, has its strengths in what it does not do. The natural tendency might be to try and outdo the other films with bigger stunts or outlandish characters. … Liman opts for more subtle methods of standing out. The film successfully incorporates the 'less is more' principle to its dialogue. Awkward, terrifying and even romantic moments are punctuated by absolute silence. No chatty characters, no jokes, often not even a musical score. It's a risky move. Few directors are comfortable with silence, but Liman uses it like an artist uses negative space."

next page... |  2 of 6

share this page

June (Web-only) 2002, Vol. 46