Something I noticed when watching Minority report that I found interesting: This is the fourth movie in a row that predominantly features Tom Cruise wearing a mask.

I am taking a little artistic license here, but let me explain. In Minority Report, Tom Cruise’s character receives some sort of device that massively changes his appearance to the effect that nobody can recognize him. He also gets his retinas replaced so he can’t be recognized by eye-scanners. This is, in essence, a mask.

In Vanilla Sky, Tom Cruise’s character is in an automobile accident that drastically changes his facial appearance. His doctor gives him a latex mask to wear in public which hides his disfigurement.

Mission: Impossible II features Tom Cruise’s character impersonating others by wearing the incredibly lifelike masks that are iconic of the franchise. It also features other characters wearing Tom Cruise masks to impersonate Tom Cruise. I suppose I should note that I understand that these scenes do not actually feature actors wearing masks – but the fictional masks are central to the story and the espionage themes of the movie.

And in Eyes Wide Shut, Tom Cruise’s character famously wears a mask to a sex party full of masked high-society types.

I wonder if there was something going on in Tom Cruise’s life during the 1999-2002 time period that drew him to roles in which he disguised his appearance. Was he troubled by a fear that his handsomeness was more central to his success than his acting ability? Did he have any personal difficulties with living in the public eye during this era, the height of his fame? Is there something about his marriage being on the rocks (He and Nicole Kidman divorced in 2001) that influenced this?

I have no idea, but it seems like a trend. Anyway, about the movie…

I’m not particularly intrigued by the idea that “pre-crime” or the ability to arrest someone for something that they are going to do is a “science fiction” concept since we arrest and imprison people in today’s society for intending to distribute drugs. So the so-called fantastical elements (the science is never fully explained outside of the fact that the movie’s “precogs” are people who developed their abilities because of “genetic testing”) doesn’t really ring true to me. However, that’s the whole point of Phillip K. Dick and other science fiction that is meant to provoke thought about how the ideas are relevant in today’s world. Should we legislate against how someone thinks, or should we try and influence change? The movie’s opinion on this is pretty clear.

Stephen Spielberg’s strengths and weaknesses are on display in Minority Report as well. One of the reasons the movie feels so lively and action packed is that the camera is constantly moving, showing us different angles of situations. The set piece that a majority of the plot hinges upon is in its entirety based on the development of different perspectives as we learn more about the scene. This scene, and the entire plot of the film, would not work without Spielberg’s vision.

For some reason though I’ve always found Spielberg fairly tone deaf – the inconsistency in pacing and mood in the Indiana Jones movies is a weakness in that series, for example. In Minority Report Spielberg mixes intense situations where characters confront serious personal challenges and struggle to repair and understand relationships with slapstick comedy. This completely kills the suspense of a few scenes that should be exhilarating.

Cruise doesn’t have to do much acting here. Colin Farrell is also in the movie and he does his best to give his character some depth, but he isn’t particularly well utilized here. The movie also has a villain and a romantic interest who might as well be statues with signs hung around their necks labeled “villain” and “romantic interest.”

Really, Minority Report’s appeal is entirely based upon the story, which is good enough that even though I remembered most of the plot’s twists and turns, I still found entertaining and compelling. Sci-Fi movies almost never hold up well because advances in technology as well as our understandings of the “future” portrayed by the stories develop so fast that its hard to re-watch them with the curiosity and wonder that captivates attention when they are released. I don’t suppose I would call it a “good” movie. I remember Richard Roeper (Gene Siskel’s temporary replacement on his and Roger Ebert’s “At the Movies” TV show after Siskel passed away) named it the best film of 2002. I think that’s a joke.

But it works for me, and it’s a good example of a clever, semi-original action/sci-fi movie (it’s based on a Phillip K. Dick story, but I don’t think it’s a very well-known one) in the era of big-budget special-effects driven blockbusters that are almost never well made and almost never original.

Next: The Last Samurai