*** Official "MINORITY REPORT" Discussion Thread (1 Viewer)

[Nick Sievers]

Seth,
I didn't realise Scott Frank had wrote the screenplay until I sat through the credits. Out of Sight was one of my favorite films of the 90's. It was a definitely a surpise when I saw his name. I'm glad I knew nothing when I went to see it as well.

 

[David Glenn]

I was looking for Ron's review. Where is it?

 

[DanC]

Here ya go

 

[David Glenn]

Thanks for the link. I'm actually surprised at Ron's review. Most of the reviews I've seen so far have been very positive.

 

[Jarod M]

:star: :star: :star: :star:
Ron's review, well, let's just say that I disagree. I had absolutely no problem with the look of the film, which I believe helped the story in the mood and tone department. I'm one of those who was completely enthralled by the story. The action sequence was my only significant problem with the film. It was overlong and boring, not to mention unbelievable. Thankfully it takes up little time compared to the length of the film. The film contains surprises, and most importantly it made me care about the characters...at times it was even moving. This is Spielberg's best film since Raiders. Though that comes from a person who hasn't been too impressed with Spielberg's output over the last 20 years. I don't see this film doing $300 million, but it should do a lot of business after opening weekend thanks to good word of mouth.

 

[Sam E. Torres]

did anyone see ebert when he reviewed Minority Report on his nice little television show? i happened to be watching, and he showed clips from it that gave me intense goose bumps!! he kept showing the combination of classic film techniques and new aged technology and how they are intertwined to make a masterpiece. i am so psyched about seeing it tonight!!!!

does anyone know if there is possibly streaming video of this somewhere?

 

[Alex Spindler]

http://www.cinemanow.com/about/in_the_news.asp
I think this has their show streamed, but I can't view it at work so I have no idea if it has their current show.
BTW, this one is looking very good on RT. Very high %s, and the reviews seem to be gushing.

 

[Patrick Sun]

I had problems with this film, and thus don't rate it as high as many of the critics.

I know I shouldn't, but I will spoilerize my misgivings because I don't want to inadvertently spoil the film for others who somehow find their way here before seeing the film.

This drove me nuts:

Once Tom Cruise's character, John Anderton, sees the precrime of him shooting Leo, why doesn't he find a way to incapacitate himself for the next 36 hours so he can't possibly kill anyone? Would that not prove that he can't be the murderer? He went to the trouble to get new eyes, he was scott free for the most part after that. He just had to lay low for 36 hours. Anyone with half a brain would have realized how to beat the pre-cogs premonitions with inside knowledge. I kept thinking of the the pre-cogs as the geese laying the red eggs. To me it was comical to see the elaborate little plastic spiral-like tunnels for the red balls to roll out.


This is what pissed me off about this film, and what makes the rest of the film seem too predictable and dull.

The futuristic touches of the film are pretty cool, though, and the scene with Hinemen in her greenhouse was sort of entertaining.

One more thing: I'm getting tired of the washed out "cinematic" look of Spielberg films. I don't think it worked as well in MR as it did in A.I.

Okay, one last thing: Did anyone else get 8 or 10 trailers in front of this film when you saw it? I think there was almost 20-25 minutes in trailers alone.

 

[teapot2001]

Was it just me or did Tom Cruise have hair in the pre-cogs' vision near the end?

~T

 

[Alex Spindler]

Yep, there was a huge amount of trailer time in this one.

I would have had the same problem with that, but he never had a minority report. There was no indication that he ever had the free will to change fate. They made his curiosity be the driving force for fate, but it could have been anything. The odd part was that Agatha knew it was his future, but was still trying to convince him otherwise.

 

[teapot2001]

Patrick, after a 10-minute delay, my theater showed trailers for Solaris, K-19, Roady to Perdition, a movie with the girl from Traffic, XXX, a Fandango commercial, and an LA Times commercial. Then when I thought the movie would finally start, they show a surprise trailer for Daredevil.

~T

 

[Walter Kittel]

I don't feel up to anything resembling a review, but I'll go on record as enjoying this film tremendously. Being a fan of noir and crime films, I was right at home with this story of a man attempting to clear his name.
Regarding the look of the film, the almost monochromatic color pallette of the film was well suited to the story being told and was very effective in establishing the noirish aspects of the film. ( I tend to agree with those who've stated that Spielberg would have shot this in B&W if it had been commercially feasible. )
In regards to Patrick's spoiler -
The film establishes that Anderton's need to understand the circumstances of the pre-cog's vision in order to clear himself overrides the common sense approach of merely laying low. Anderton believed in the pre-cogs and it was that factor that led him to initially believe that the data stream had been tampered with.
When he discovered the existence of the minority report and the possible fallibility of the pre-cogs it was no longer set in stone that he would actually shoot Crow. It was only at the room that Agatha revealed to Anderton that there was no minority report, in this case. By that time Anderton was already on the scene.
The film does a fine job of balancing suspense, action, and the philosophical implications of destiny vs. free will. Highly, highly recommended. :star: :star: :star: :star:
- Walter.

 

[teapot2001]

Here is Spielberg's reason for going with that look: "Rather than going for a black-and-white look, which I did in ['Saving Private] Ryan,' I used a 'bleach bypass' process, which takes all the color out of the face, because people with rosy cheeks and good complexions tend to undermine the tone of the scene they're in, forcing filmmakers to use blue and green light, which we hate to do. So the process gave me that sort of forsaken and barren look, which I really wanted for this story and had never done in a movie."
http://www.calendarlive.com/top/1,14...Times-Search-X!ArticleDetail-63261,00.html
~T

 

[Chuck C]

Here are some of the reasons (mostly Spielbergian moments) why Minority Report will go down in my history book as one of my favorite sci-fi films:

**no need for spoliers since this is a discussion thread, but be warned**



-The video John had of his wife telling him to "turn off the camera or he wouldn't get any action

-The eyeball on the organ!

-Danny Boy getting shot by burgess...great camera work

-The yoga class when John crashes thru the window

-"Am I in trouble?"....not yet"

-Agatha grabbing John way in the beginning. That gave everyone a good shock!

-"he knows, don't go home"--to the Asian woman at the mall

-The guy at the entertainment place feeling good about himself b/c all these holograms of people are patting him on the back

What else stood out in this film for you guys?

Now here's something I don't understand....why were there two red balls at the end when John didn't end up killing anyone?

 

[Peter Cho]

What a great movie that could have been better! I admit my expectation level was super high, but - like A.I.- Spielberg's preachy moody endings just become such a turn off. I was 90% satisfied along the way until the end. It's not the story that bothers me - the story is awesome - it's the way he says it... Still very exciting visually, psychologically, and intellectually.

p.s. what do you think? Too much product placement or portraying reality?

 

[Tim RH]

1. As soon as Burgess was introduced as Anderton's father-figure/mentor, I turned to my girlfriend as said, "He's the villian." This is the oldest device in the book.
2. Burgess brilliantly covers up his murder of Agatha's mother, and then brilliantly sets up Anderton as the fall guy. He then blows it all by "inadvertantly" referring to the drowning before Anderton's wife does? Please.

You have to realize that this movie is an homage to all those great film noir movies of the '40s, and so if they use some plot devices from "the book", it may be because they are not really trying to be 'original'. That may sound stupid, but that's what I think.

 

[nate n]

Great flick, but I think it should have ended after john gets arrested. Maybe a few cut scenes to hint who set him up and why. Everything that took place after the arrest really takes away from the film. It's like we're children and have to be told exactly what happens and why. I think if SS left some imagination to the ending it would have been a perfect film.

 

[Greg Br]

Rotten Tomatos has 105 reviews with 5 negative, is that a record?

 

[Dan Paolozza]

I was able to stomach the step-by-step unfolding of the mystery, but not the final, tacked-on "And everyone involved lived happily ever after," ending.
I felt the film really delved into flawed humanity on several, interchanging levels - like politics, fame, power and corruptio; while examining small, personal faults like pain, [lack of] responsibility, regret, denial; and of course, morality intertwining everything. John is set up beautifully to become a tragic hero or martyr: and then suddenly everything works out for the better.
I don't need a dark or tragic or depressing ending - but if the ending is going to be "And then everything got fixed," I like it to feel validated.
Can someone tell me why John's eyeballs were not removed from the HQ's security database - or at least why top-level access was not denied as soon as he was red-balled (the first time)? To me, this seemed like a most obvious believability issue. It's possible I missed something.
Overall, the movie was quite good and worth the price of admission. It kept my attention, provoked thought, and treated its subject matter seriously. I liked little touches of "realism," such as everyone not using identical technology - ie telephones were sometimes little earpieces, sometimes little hand-sets, etc. One of the things in SF movies that sometimes irks me is when they have a cool device that is shoved in your face, and the whole world seems to identical units in uniform.
The film grain didn't do anything for me, but it didn't do anything against me either; if Speilberg had an effect he was trying to produce with it, it was lost on me. However, it wasn't distracting.
Pretty good flick, but it was no "A.I."

 

[Matt Stone]

Rotten Tomatoes has 105 reviews with 5 negative, is that a record?

There have been a few films that received 100%. The only one I remember is L.A. Confidential.