Biograph: Another Bob Dylan Collection That Mixes The Studio And Unreleased Experiences: My Next Artist Of The Month!

The Good: Some great lyrics, Some interesting performances, Valuable for history, Some decent music
The Bad: Some lousy songs, Some disappointing omissions, Some moments of voice and music.
The Basics: When Bob Dylan repackages some of his classic songs alongside newly unearthed classic tracks, he fails to find the right market that will get real value from Biograph.


As I have been working my way through my father's Bob Dylan c.d. collection, I've been interested to discover he has so many collections of Bob Dylan's works as opposed to actual albums. As I understand it, albums like Blonde On Blonde are considered classics; the only songs I've heard from the album are from the soundtrack to No Direction Home and Biograph, a massive three disc boxed set collection that has quite a bit of writing to accompany it. Unlike No Direction Home, which proved its worth ultimately by having two discs of entirely unique recordings, Biograph is a mix of studio album tracks and unreleased, live or hard-to-find (i.e. b-sides on singles) tracks.

With fifty-three tracks spread over the three discs, clocking in at well over three hours, this is an essential collection for the real Bob Dylan aficionado. But it's not at all indispensable for those who do not consider themselves diehard fans. Here's why; this set is a catalogue of obscure and unknown works or interpretations of well-known works, but it neglects a great number of well-known Bob Dylan classics that someone simply looking for a "Best Of" from Dylan's folk rock collection is likely to miss. Moreover, some of the rarities are not incredible works that will completely light the world on fire. Instead, this is a set geared toward the fans, the completists, the people who simply cannot get enough of Bob Dylan.

This is how I finally discovered I'm not one of them.

People like me, casual listeners, lovers of music, people who might just like the works of Bob Dylan we've heard before and one or two songs that didn't make the charts, are likely to do better with a straightforward "Best Of" or "Greatest Hits" album. Given that there is so much more in this set . . . it's overkill and it's a selection that is not quite what I'm looking for when I want to hear Dylan. Yes, I spent all three discs waiting to hear "Don't Think Twice, It's All Right," but it's not on here!

But more than that, some of the interpretations of songs are just terrible. Rod Stewart did a better version of "Forever Young" (and I LOATHE that one now because it is SO overplayed!); Dylan's version in this collection lacks and passion, any sense of development that illustrates any sense of youth. This unreleased version - which caps off the final disc - is an uninspired interpretation that puts Dylan, his guitar and his lyrics to shame. In short, what one expects from the song is absent and while sometimes different versions can be wonderful, this is not one of them.

That said, let's look at what this pretty massive collection does right! First, it's Bob Dylan and even the most jaded people will often admit that he's a tremendous poet. Dylan is an artist who has a remarkable range of themes, but is most often able to easily sing about relationships (usually their disintegration) and politics. Whichever he is singing about, he manages to usually express his themes with a wonderful sense of imagery and a sense of diction that it well above the average singer/songwriter. As a result, though, one tends to expect a lot from Bob Dylan and his lines (if not his music or voice).

And for the most part, that is well illustrated. Take, for example, "Every Grain Of Sand," on the second disc of Biograph. (This is the release from the album "Shot Of Love.") On this song, Dylan sings about the aging and the unity of the world with lines that are beautifully poetic and packed with meaning and imagery, like "I had gone from rags to riches / In the sorrow of the night / In the violence of a summer's dream / In the chill of a wintry night . . . In the broken mirror of innocence / On each forgotten face . . ." ("Every Grain Of Sand"). If those writing the lyrics sung by Britney Spears had even a fraction of that level of creativity and thematic brilliance, she'd be huge . . . still. Her works would endure.

And this collection has a wonderful number of classic Dylan tracks (mostly the original studio versions) that illustrate his great writing. Virtually anyone who likes folk rock will enjoy "Blowin' In The Wind," "Mr. Tambourine Man," "It Ain't Me, Babe," "Tangled Up In Blue," "Like A Rollin' Stone," and "The Times They Are A-Changin'." And those of us not too familiar with the music of the '60s and '70s will be amazed to learn that the classic Jimi Hendrix song "All Along The Watchtower" was actually one of Dylan's songs! A good number of Dylan's best songs are in this collection . . . just not all of them. The ones that are represented tend to be in recognizable forms that most people will enjoy.

That said, there are some of Dylan's more mediocre songs are represented as well. "Visions Of Johanna" did not wow me and the version of "Quinn The Eskimo" did not as well. Indeed, I doubt there is a version of this song, with its lines "Everybody building the big ships and boats / . . . Everybody's in despair / Every girl and boy / But when Quinn the Eskimo gets here / Everybody'll jump for joy" ("Quinn The Eskimo") that I'm likely to truly be impressed by. These are not Dylan's best lines and it's odd that they appear in this massive collection. In short, there are a number of songs that were previously unreleased and with some of them, there seems to be a good reason for that choice!

Musically, this collection is an intriguing combination of methodically produced studio tracks and underproduced live takes and alternate versions of songs that have minimal production elements to them. For the most part, Dylan's music is Bob Dylan singing, his guitar, and/or his harmonica. On some very well known tracks like "Like A Rolling Stone" and "Mr. Tambourine Man," he adds more instruments - notably percussion and/or pianos. What this collection does better than some (and better than some of his studio albums!) is mix together the sounds of Dylan's music.

On the vocal front, this is something of a mixed bag. Biograph illustrates what Bob Dylan fans are constantly saying; Bob Dylan can sing. He has the ability, he articulates his poems extraordinarily well to his music and he can sing with a clear, crisp voice that can impress listeners who have only heard the stereotypes of Bob Dylan. Songs like "Tangled Up In Blue" illustrate in a very convincing way that Dylan can sing and he has a strong, articulate voice.

But that voice does not come through on tracks like "You Angel You." There his vocals are drown out by the background organs and percussion and obscured by his mumbling. On that track, Dylan's voice is the mumbling stereotype that is like the parodies of Dylan seen on every major sketch comedy series since Dylan started performing with the drawl and whine. And for all my love of "It Ain't Me, Babe," the song helps make the argument that Dylan does perform in that fashion. The problem on Biograph is there's a long stretch of songs with the drawly Dylan; "Million Dollar Bash," for example, follows "You Angel You" and it's even more like the parodies!

There are innumerable examples on both sides of the vocal divide on Biograph with the presentations being split about evenly between the clear and articulate singing voice of Bob Dylan and the mumbling performer. This dichotomy is not (apparently) related to the time period the tracks are from, which makes one believe it is a stylistic decision. This, of course, makes one wonder what those advising Dylan were thinking. Perhaps he was just surrounded by yesmen. My point in all of this is that Dylan CAN sing and on Biograph, there is ample evidence to support that. The problem is, Dylan doesn't always live up to his vocal potential and Biograph illustrates that well as well.

The liner notes are extensive to this album; each track has a detailed explanation of its origins and the thoughts behind it. The liner notes are written by Cameron Crowe, who wrote Almost Famous (reviewed here!). His style in the extensive booklet chronicling Dylan's rise and concepts is straightforward, informative and easy to read. Indeed, it was the quality of the writing that almost made this a "recommend" for me. As it was, it came down to a toss of a coin.

The thing about Biograph is this; there's too much obscure stuff for a casual fan and there are too many tracks for a devoted fan that would repeat what they already have in their collection. The value for the avid collector is compromised by the fact that thirty-one tracks in this set are from the studio albums in the identical forms. The fans who will get the most out of the obscure tracks will be saddled with a majority of familiar works they already have. That pretty much negates the value of Cameron Crowe's writing.

The Bootleg series is a better value for fans, the straight out "Greatest Hits" albums are a better value for the casual listeners. Indeed, this collection may only be ideal for the Dylan fan who doesn't own any of his albums. That's my best guess. It's an entertaining collection (much the way The Beatles Anthology's - volume 1 reviewed here were years ago) but not worth the buy.

"Abandoned Love" stands out as a previously unreleased track that is superlatively good, the fifty-one second "Jet Pilot" is emblematic of the tracks that we'd never miss if it hadn't seen the light of day.

For other Artist Of The Month reviews, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Any Day Now - Joan Baez
God And The F.B.I. - Janis Ian
American Favorite Ballads (Boxed Set) - Pete Seeger

5/10

For other music reviews, check out my Music Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.

| | |

Almost Famous Is Almost Decent . . . Almost, But Not Quite

The Good: Moments of humor, Moments of decent directing, One or two characters
The Bad: Overall pacing, General mood, Pointless characters, Most of the movie
The Basics: When William Miller is offered the opportunity of a lifetime to write for Rolling Stone, he takes it and embarks on a pointless cross-country trip with the group Stillwater.


Every now and then, there is a film that has a pretty tremendous cast, but the movie fails to utilize the actors in such a way as to produce a great movie. In such circumstances, I usually blame the director and/or the writer. In the case of Almost Famous, which stars such usually impressive talents as Jason Lee, Frances McDormand, Anna Paquin, Faruza Balk, and Phillip Seymour Hoffman, the blame for the "eh" feeling I left the movie with would have to go to writer/director Cameron Crowe.

Almost Famous follows 15 year-old William Miller, boy genius, on the road with the band Stillwater, as the youth attempts to get an interview with the band for Rolling Stone. Alas, William's many attempts to complete the assignment are foiled by the guitarist of Stillwater, Russell Hammond, who - despite being the most sympathetic and trusting of William - fails to grant the boy an actual interview. What follows, then, is William witlessly accompanying the band around the country as it slowly gains in popularity and William becomes more and more drawn to Russell's groupie in all but name, Penny Lane.

First, what goes right? You know how when The Blair Witch Project (reviewed here!) came out, there were loads of people who believed (snicker, snicker) that the movie was an actual documentary? You know, the people who believed the story in the movie actually was a found video showing three people getting lost and disappearing in the woods? Well, Almost Famous does something very right and that is creating the mystique of Stillwater. Heck, even the name sounds like a real '70s band! But the two most visible members of the band, Jason Lee (as Jeff Bebe) and Billy Crudup (as Russell) act like rock stars in the movie with such fluidity that when the band name Stillwater is dropped alongside such recognizable names as Black Sabbath, David Bowie and Led Zeppelin, it's easy for the viewer to eat it up.

But no, there is no band Stillwater. Or there was not a band named Stillwater in the '70s that was opening for Black Sabbath. And, for the record, we seriously doubt there is a Blair Witch.

So, the performances of Jason Lee and Billy Crudup are notable not because they seem to be acting like Generic Rock Stars on their way up, but rather they have the impression of being very real, very specific individuals which is a credit both to their performances and to the writing of their characters. I'm crediting their performances slightly higher because outside of the two of them, the only character that truly pops is Elaine Miller, William's mother. She is portrayed as humorless, intelligent, and protective by Frances McDormand, who rises easily and effectively to the challenge.

So, that's three performances on the plus side. Then there's the rest. Patrick Fugit might be a wonderful actor, he certainly has the subtle facial expressions that could make him one. Perhaps why I am unable to judge is because Fugit is playing a subtle, low-key character. William Miller is a pretty unassuming, unthreatening and actually unmemorable kind of guy. How does one play that and make the character interesting? It's hard. I'm not sure Fugit is successful here. In the film's lone moment of William bursting out of anonymous obscurity to win his way backstage with Stillwater, Fugit sells the audience on William's brilliance at adapting, if not his sudden extroversion. His final outburst in the movie, near the end of the film, fails to sell at all. And in between, we are left wondering why such a shy, dedicated young man with such potential attracts Penny Lane and can't manage to get a statement from Russell.

Similarly, we never see a real strong motivation for Penny Lane, who is perhaps the iconic image associated with Almost Famous. Lane follows Stillwater around and is mistress to Russell, though she abhors the term "groupie" and has organized her fellow "band aides" into a workforce that will not put out, only perform oral sex. She, however, breaks this code. Lane is a somewhat nonsensical character that is very much a "type" without being much of an individual. Ironically, Lane is loosely based on someone in reality according to the closing credits of the film.

In fact, none of the characters truly pop. Lane is a giant question mark for purpose, William is brilliant and motivated but only so far, Russell and Jeff resist acting on one of the biggest potential opportunities for their band by not cooperating with William, and the other "band aides" are equally unexplained as Penny. Lester Bangs, who has some of the film's most memorable lines and a decent position in the film is not explored enough to even be considered having depth.

What kills Almost Famous for me is the pace. It's one thing to have murky characters one does not quite understand. It's one thing to have actors put in parts that underuse their talents (poor Anna Paquin, in this case!). It's an entirely different thing to have wonderful actors playing characters of uncertain motivation doing almost nothing. That's what happens in Almost Famous. Almost nothing happens. The protagonist is dragged around the country for almost an hour and a half (the first half hour of the movie is quite engaging) and it feels like forever. Seriously. I found myself looking at the DVD clock counting off the seconds more frequently in this film than in any I have seen in recent memory. That's a sure sign of poor pacing.

This movie might be nostalgic for people who were into the early-70s Rock and Roll scene, but for me it was a slow, pointless march of people who made little sense. Save the William's mother, who makes sense, but ultimately is a punchline.

For other works with Billy Crudup, be sure to check out my reviews of:
Watchmen
Mission: Impossible III
Big Fish
Princess Mononoke

4.5/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2006 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

Cameron Crowe Can't Cut A Break From My Critiques With Elizabethtown

The Good: One or two random lines, Overall concept
The Bad: PACING, Execution of concept, acting, Characters
The Basics: Despite some moments of interesting concept, Elizabethtown is a wreck that oscillates between painfully obvious and dreadfully drawn out.


You know how when you hear a new word, you start to hear it everywhere? There's no word in English for that outside "coincidence" and that does not adequately describe the phenomenon. It's one of those quirks of random existence. Recently, I reviewed one of Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers' more obscure albums (Let Me Up (I've Had Enough)) and I found the superlative track to be a song I had not heard before called "It'll All Work Out." Wouldn't you know that when I sat down to watch the movie Elizabethtown the running theme throughout it was that song! It was the sole pleasant surprise of the movie.

Drew Baylor, having failed spectacularly with costing a gigantic shoe company almost a billion dollars with a product that was recalled, is about to kill himself when he receives a call from his sister. His father has died in Kentucky and Drew is charged with going to Elizabethtown, Kentucky to deal with the family there and get the body put in a blue suit and cremated. What follows is a chance meeting with a lonely airline attendant and Drew being dragged through his extended family which is pretty much a nightmarish stereotype of family reunions.

Much of the movie follows the quasi-relationship between Drew and Claire, the airline attendant. Claire is outgoing enough to get Drew's attention and while he is in Elizabethtown, the two begin a relationship over their cell phones. And the movie continues to dance around whether they are in a relationship or not and what the nature of that relationship is.

Elizabethtown is a painful movie to watch in that it is essentially decent at doing one thing; creating a realistic circumstance. The idea behind Elizabethtown, returning to a father's home town to bury him and thus learn about him and yourself, is not a bad one. The idea of a romance in such a circumstance is not a bad idea, either. The problem here is that Elizabethtown is too real on the former, too formulaic on the latter. When Elizabethtown drops Drew into the South two things happen. The first is there are long stretches where nothing happens. This is neither funny nor entertaining. This is the reason there aren't movies wherein a character balances their checkbook in real-time, a concept no one has broken to writer/director Cameron Crowe. So there are long stretches of Elizabethtown that plod along like watching mold grow on cheese.

The second problem is exacerbated by the first. Crowe wisely tries to pack a lot of information into the formation of the relationship between Drew and Claire. Their telephone conversation that is encapsulated over the course of a minute or two representing one very long night has a variety of topics and the exchanges "read" as very real. Unfortunately, it requires an insane amount of suspension of disbelief for the viewer to then believe - especially as Drew is drinking a lot over that night - that the tragic circumstance of his losing the shoe manufacturer a billion dollars does not come up before the almost end of the movie. Equally important is that the emphasis placed on trying to define their relationship pretty much telegraphs the direction the movie will go in.

Outside the poor execution of a generally decent idea, the movie is a terrible use of the lead actors. Orlando Bloom plays Drew and from the first moments he appeared on screen through the end of the movie, my thought was not that Orlando Bloom was Drew or even Orlando Bloom was playing Drew, but rather Orlando Bloom was playing Neil Patrick Harris as Drew. Bloom's mannerisms are easily identifiable as Neil Patrick Harris's and it's disturbing to watch, much the way Jim Carrey's portrayal of The Riddler in Batman Forever (reviewed here!) harkened to the style of Matthew Frewer. Bloom brings nothing to the role and instead, his performance falls flat.

Bloom might have chemistry with the Claire lead, Kirsten Dunst, but I didn't see it. Dunst is playing a character that is just too annoying to watch. And she plays Claire with a sickly sweet smile on her face throughout, which just makes the part even more difficult to stomach. I continued watching Elizabethtown and wondering, "What is her alleged talent?" I haven't seen it yet, to my memory.

To be fair, Claire is not the strongest character. Quirky for the sake of quirky doesn't work for me any more than funny mustaches for the purpose of funny mustaches. But even more problematic than Claire is Drew. The audience is meant to believe Drew is so distraught over his professional situation that he is willing to kill himself. If one buys that, which is hard given how lightly he seems to be taking it, it is almost impossible to believe that the sudden death of his father on that same day would not throw him over the edge, as opposed to pull him back from it. Because the movie so early mortgages the real jeopardy of the protagonist, the audience feels immediately cheated.

My final comment on Elizabethtown centers on the use of Susan Sarandon, who plays Drew's mother in a role I would classify more as a cameo than a supporting role. Sarandon is used to deliver some of the most obvious, ridiculous and insultingly stupid lines of the movie and my heart goes out to her for this. I'm assuming she took the role because Cameron Crowe had some sort of dirt on her. Or had one of her children locked in a basement. Otherwise, I can't fathom why she would subject herself or her career to this movie.

And I can think of no truly decent reason for you to subject yourself to it, either.

For other works with Judy Greer, be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Descendants
Love And Other Drugs
Peep World
Marmaduke
The Big Bang Theory - Season 3
Love Happens
American Dreamz
Arrested Development
Adaptation.
The Wedding Planner
What Women Want
Three Kings
Jawbreaker

3/10

For other film reviews, be sure to check out my Movie Review Index Page for an organized listing!

© 2012, 2007 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

The Pointless Visual Stylings Of Cameron Crowe: Vanilla Sky

The Good: Imagery, Moments of mystery, Jason Lee
The Bad: Lack of quality acting, Poorly established plot elements, Lack of empathetic characters
The Basics: When David Aames survives a car accident with a stalker-type, his life is thrown into chaos he - and the audience - cannot explain in Vanilla Sky.


I am told that Cameron Crowe is one of the cinematic genius' of our time, at least as far as the cinema is concerned. My only outing in his realm, so far, is Vanilla Sky and based on that I think his reputation is overblown. Terry Gilliam, P.T. Anderson and Kevin Smith effortlessly come to mind as better directors creating more meaningful and lasting films. If Vanilla Sky is Crowe's triumph, then his reputation is overblown; I shall suspend judgment on that until I experience at least one other film of his.

Vanilla Sky is the somewhat gnarled story of publishing executive David Aames. Aames appears to be on the top of the world, possessing what any man could want; he is a successful businessman with a blonde in his bed and money to throw around. Yet, it appears he was disfigured and as he awaits trial, he is interrogated by a psychologist. Dr. McCabe attempts to get to the root of the problem and through a series of narrated flashbacks, Aames reveals his story. Apparently, the blonde (Julie) that Aames appears emotionally involved with at the beginning is actually a stalker and Aames uses a chance meeting with Sofia to try to escape her. What follows is a confused accounting of how Sofia and Julie overlap in Aames' mind following an accident that Aames is in, disfiguring his face. The story becomes more confused by the questionable existence of Sofia, the uncertain memories of the status of Aames' face and the inexplicably erratic behavior of Aames' best friend, Brian. As Aames tumbles toward his trial, all of the elements come together and the truth is set before him.

The problem is that Vanilla Sky is presented poorly, where details are handed out as a matter of convenience. Imagine a murder mystery where it takes half the movie to reveal who was murdered, then another half hour to bother to reveal how it happened and then in the last five minutes, the murderer is simply identified. Vanilla Sky feels like that; it is a movie that does not allow the viewer to piece together all of the important imagery, instead withholding the essential elements until they are fully explained.

Without revealing the important "secret" of Vanilla Sky's ending, I will give an example. The character that ultimately gives Aames all of the answers he seeks, Edmund Ventura, is not introduced until the last half hour. He is seen once before then, but his significance is unknown at the time. Moreover, without having planted the advertisement that Aames ultimately uses to make the connections near the end, the audience is cheated of putting together the significance of Ventura's presence before his purpose is simply presented.

Vanilla Sky sets in front of the viewer various nightmare images without any sense of reason to them. The reason is simply given at the end, but the revelation comes with no sense of satisfaction because the viewer has stopped caring long before the end comes. Instead of the explanation being a catharsis where the viewer says, "Of course" or "Okay. Now it's all better," there is a sense of "eh. I suppose I could have seen it coming" or "So." The point being, any sense of being engaged with the protagonist is lost because the viewer simply experiences his delusions instead of having the ability to solve it with him. That is to say that we are trapped in Aames' limited sight instead of being able to be like Dr. McCabe and put it all together.

The lack of catharsis and caring is only suspended by a series of beautiful images. The vanilla sky in the film - an allusion to a Monet painting - radiates like nothing else, making the landscape the characters are in easily watchable. And Jason Lee does an excellent job, despite the fact that his character is poorly and erratically written. Lee handles it professionally, expressing the varied emotions he is forced to put out there.

Outside Lee, the acting is lacking in anything of value. Penelope Cruz continues to baffle me. Her celebrity is not supported by her performances in Woman On Top, Blow or this. Instead, she seems bland and generic, a form that fills the Hollywood ideal without having genuine substance or talent. Cameron Diaz, similarly, does little in Vanilla Sky besides bug out her eyes and attempt to be freaky. She lacks, however, the gravity to pull of a truly terrifying stalker-type and that is what the role of Julie seems to need. In short, she is just not intense enough to seem at all realistic.

Tom Cruise could be replaced by pretty much anyone as David Aames. I'm unsure what it was he was supposed to bring to this role. Aames is supposed to embody success and without knowing who Cruise is, the audience would miss out on that important aspect of the character. That is to say if one went into Vanilla Sky without knowing what a huge star Tom Cruise already was, the role of David Aames would be lacking any sense of the celebrity Aames is supposed to embody. Noah Taylor, who plays Ventura, has equal potential for the same connotations without the off-screen knowledge.

Whenever one has to step outside the actual work to put together all of the implications of the character, it becomes problematic. That's one of many problems with Vanilla Sky. In the end, the movie makes sense, but without the cheap exposition of the end, there is no way for the viewer to make the movie comprehensible on their own. Ultimately, Crowe fails to create an engaging movie and instead makes one that is, at best, beautiful. In this case, it is not enough.

For other films that bend reality, please be sure to visit my reviews of:
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Inception
Sucker Punch

5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |

A Wishy-Washy Future Is Nothing To Report Home About: Minority Report

The Good: Interesting concept, Interesting characters
The Bad: Direction, some acting, Thematically repetitive
The Basics: Steven Spielberg directs Tom Cruise in a middling film about a future where crimes are prevented by foreseeing them and stopping them before they happen.


Somewhere along the line, I began to associate Philip K. Dick with L. Ron Hubbard. Both science fiction writers seem to lend their work to big movies with lots of people running around in a world that looks nothing like what anyone would currently guess the future would look like now. As a simple example, in Minority Report (which was based on one of Dick's short stories), there is a sweeping, huge highway system throughout Washington, D.C. that would never have the funding to be built by today's Highway Departments.

Minority Report is set in the near future where crime in Washington, D.C. has been eliminated through the use of psychics and an advanced system wherein police arrest criminals before they commit murder. The head of the Precrime Division is John Anderton, a deeply scarred, drug addicted police officer who is very good at his job. He has effectively eliminated murder in Washington, D.C. and his system seems to be flawless. However, as Precrime prepares to go national, Anderton finds the office under investigation by a Justice Department investigator named Witwer. When the Precognitives (the psychics in charge of sensing the future murders) foresee Anderton committing a murder, Anderton starts to run, believing Witwer has set him up.

This little opus by Steven Spielberg is an unfortunate example of where special effects films go wrong today. In the pursuit of being bigger, faster and more, the directors somehow manage to forget "better." As a result, Minority Report is a chase film filled with quick shot images, fast camera moves and other jerky visual elements that keep the viewer off their toes and missing much of the rather large world being created to tell the story in. Thus, the first viewing of the film may inspire a headache or at the least bafflement as so much happens on the screen so fast it's near impossible to catch it all the first time. This is especially disappointing considering what an accomplished director Spielberg is; one might think he would like people to see the canvas he is painting on, but instead this piece substitutes creative endeavor with flash.

While the characters are interesting, some of the problem with the film comes down to the actors. Colin Farrell plays Witwer, the Justice Department investigator who is hunting Anderton. While Anderton tries to exonerate himself, Witwer gains access to all the same data. Farrell fails to portray Witwer in a menacing enough manner that the viewer actually believes he is the villain setting everything up. As a result, it's hard to buy any of Farrell's scenes, save his final one.

Similarly, Tom Cruise, who plays Anderton does nothing to differentiate this role from his Mission: Impossible persona. All he does is run, jump and defend himself. Cruise brings nothing to this role that is not in the script, not in the short story. He's become, in this context, something of a generic action hero and in Minority Report, the viewer wants something more.

In contrast, Anderton is an interesting character. He is fleshed out well with his backstory; he joined the Precrime program in its infancy when his son was kidnaped. He has some complicated relationships, with his estranged wife and the head of the Precrime Division, Burgess. The character's desperate attempts to prove himself make the film watchable.

Ultimately, the problem with Minority Report is that it wants to be a temporal thriller while being an engaging chase film. When certain fundamental principles are put into place, the film loses its edge. For example, the Precognitives predict that Anderton will commit a PREMEDITATED murder of a man he doesn't know. Given that fact and the supposed infallibility of the Precognitives, it is no surprise when the could-be climactic scene arrives. As well, the theme of predestination versus free will becomes rapidly and excessively beaten into the viewer.

In the end, that was what pushed me over into the "not recommend" camp; Minority Report is an average film that tries to be new, different and cutting edge and instead ends up beating the viewer over the head with some rather elementary concepts, making it visually difficult to watch and auditorily failing to stimulate enough to keep the viewer engaged. If you want fair science fiction where everything is handed to you, this is a fine film. I, however, know you can do better.

For other movies featuring Colin Farrell, check out my reviews of:
Horrible Bosses
The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus
Daredevil

4.5/10

For other movie reviews, please visit my index page by clicking here!

© 2011, 2003 W.L. Swarts. May not be reprinted without permission.
| | |