June 21, 2002, 9:42 a.m. CST
June 21, 2002, 9:42 a.m. CST
WOOOOOOO GERMANY'S ON TO THE SEMI-FINALS! Wow, when I look back at this in 6 hours, I sure will be embarassed. Oh, well. DEUTSCHLAND ROCKT!
June 21, 2002, 9:42 a.m. CST
I was sure Minority Report was a lock as one of Harry's all time faves.....but then again, Scooby-Doo made that unprecedented 50+ mil at the box office...like Chris Rock said on Movie House, it's the end of the world, greatest rapper is white, greatest golfer is black......Harry didn't like MR, and SD made a decent profit.....LOL.
June 21, 2002, 9:45 a.m. CST
Harry, I'll give you the benifit of the doubt here, because I like you site and I won't see Minority Report until tonight...but I'm really feeling...well...you loved the completely pointless and vacuous Star Wars movies and AI, then you call Minority Report vacuous. I'm curious: Is it really bad, are you judging it on a different scale, or did you just overhype yourself? I'll post again once I watch the movie, who knows, I just may agree with you!
June 21, 2002, 9:47 a.m. CST
Ebert & Roeper loved it, calling it one of the best Spielberg films ever, papers all over the country loving it, those that give it less then stellar reviews really have no reasons. Also on a side note I just read a newspaper review for LILO & STITCH that praised the film, literally calling it an excellent proof 2-D animation is not dead, as much for adults as for kids... Then gave it 3 stars. I noticed lots of reviews like this giving a movie 2.5 or 3 stars out of 4 (or rarely 5) star scale after praising it and literally saying it has no problems... Reviewers are getting bad. Not as bad as Harry but bad.
June 21, 2002, 9:48 a.m. CST
by Atticus Finch
How many times does Harry contradict his own statements in this review? I don't want to go back and count, but it is a lot.
June 21, 2002, 9:49 a.m. CST
or is Harry losing it? He can't take Minority Report, but he delivers a gooey glowing review of Spirit? It's not "what film Ebert and all of them were watching", it's what film was Harry watching?
June 21, 2002, 9:52 a.m. CST
Wow, shallow, under developed characters in an action SF movie? I bet that reallly ruined it. If only the characters had been as deep as in Blade 2, Harry would have given it an equally glowing review.
June 21, 2002, 9:52 a.m. CST
That was a damn good game. I must admit that I thought the U.S. played harder and that this match really paralleld the Ireland v Spain game. But I'm not bitter. After this match I think Germany will go on to win it it all. FUCK BRAZIL, GO GERMANY. Oh and I hope Minority Report doesn't suck ass.
June 21, 2002, 9:58 a.m. CST
That's all I've got to say.
June 21, 2002, 10 a.m. CST
by Ernst Blofeld
I'm kinda taken aback. I had such high hopes for this film. Of course Harry said that those he saw it with enjoyed it - so I guess I'll have to make my own decision - damn, I hate doing that. If only I could be more like general custer. BTW - well played USA, but you don't deserve to go any further until you give the beautiful game a little more respect.
June 21, 2002, 10:02 a.m. CST
June 21, 2002, 10:04 a.m. CST
I don't know Harry, I want to see this for myself. You bring up some great points, but Spielberg, well, ya know, he is a master. Right? Is he still?? I hope. LOTR:FOTR will end up making more then AOTC, BWWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, star wars losers, it's so funny to see you kid movis fall by the wayside of the tarmac.
June 21, 2002, 10:10 a.m. CST
June 21, 2002, 10:12 a.m. CST
June 21, 2002, 10:14 a.m. CST
Yes, Blade 2 had poorly drawn characters, as did Attack of the Clones, but Clones is Star Wars so it doesnt have to have good dialogue, and Blade 2 was a New Line film so...
June 21, 2002, 10:15 a.m. CST
Harry, you run the risk here of being totally discredited. Minority Report so obviously the superior film of the summer it makes me wonder if you saw the same film as the rest of us.
June 21, 2002, 10:15 a.m. CST
Is this lingering sour grapes after AOTC didn't get the rave reception that Harry was certain it would? (didn't his review call AOTC "the most entertaining science fiction film of all time" or something idiotic like that?) If you want to talk about a vapid film, look no further than AOTC. Based on the rave reviews by reviewers who can actually write, I'm guessing that MR is quite good. I'm definitely looking forward to seeing it.
June 21, 2002, 10:16 a.m. CST
Wow! Harry finally hates something besides mediocre movies. The last two years have been Harry totally loving good and bad movies while hating mediocre ones. Every review was predictable... until now.
June 21, 2002, 10:20 a.m. CST
Blade 2, a fun but almost completely unmemorable popcorn flick, gets a graphically disturbing, masturbatory ode to its greatness. Minority Report, the most entertaining, thought provoking mainstream sci-fi film I've seen in a loooong time, gets this? I've come to the conclusion that Harry's tastes and my own must be quite different. The fact that Undercover Brother (a funny, but not THAT funny movie) recieved so much more in the way of praise only confirms that I should not listen to Harry or his reviews. When he gets around to writing them.
June 21, 2002, 10:22 a.m. CST
I always stick up for Harry for reviewing things positively a lot of the time.. his 'decent' review of Jason X in particular. However, I saw this movie last night in a midnight showing and I can't tell you how wrong you are on this one Harry. Really disheartening to me, I sure hope the payoff rumors arent true :(
June 21, 2002, 10:24 a.m. CST
Haven't seen the movie but I know one thing - Tom Cruise is the most boring actor to ever grace the screen.
June 21, 2002, 10:25 a.m. CST
Granted it is still about 10 hours until I will get to see the film for myself. Usually I never take the time to talkback, but I have to say that a man who named his website off of a quote from Broken Arrow, and was moved to tears by Armageddon complaining about "cartoon characterizations" in a film is like the editors of The Source complaining about the violence at The Source awards. If Harry didn't stand for and glorify nearly every complaint he has about Minority Report, his critique might actually have merit. My favorite quote though is, "I went in hearing that this could be Spielberg
June 21, 2002, 10:25 a.m. CST
I hardly ever agree with Harry's reviews. In fact, I think he's out of his element when he tries to be too intellectual or sophisticated. He comes off as sophmoric and smug to me. But I don't think other critics are any better. What the hell is Roger Ebert smoking these days? He loves crap like The Cell, is the only critic to praise The Phantom Menace, then he gives Lord of the Rings a leukwarm review, and then trashes AotC for being all gloss. WTF? And Phantom Menace and the Cell weren't? Even accounting for different tastes, I wonder if watching movie for a living causes Psychosis. Moriarty might confirm that too. But anyway, Harry, sorry you didn't enjoy it. I hope my record of not agreeing with you holds up. And yeah, I realize this particular post was a whole lot of nothing. But that's what Talkback is anyway!
June 21, 2002, 10:26 a.m. CST
But I just re-read the review, trying to understand Harry's POV. And I ran across this: "Now, I
June 21, 2002, 10:28 a.m. CST
by No. 41
Talk about uninvolving...Ford's character is a cipher...it took the director blabbing some twenty years later for us to know for sure *WHAT* he is, much less *WHO*. I just don't get the exalted position "Blade Runner" is constantly placed in...look, I own the Director's Cut DVD, and it's pretty to look at, full of great, groundbreaking visuals...but the damn thing is plodding, uninvolving, dull. It's a very prettily wrapped box with little or nothing inside, in my book. I haven't seen "Minority Report" yet, but I will, and I just wanted to say that I'm just on the outside of this whole "let's worship 'Blade Runner'" thing. Let the flames begin...
June 21, 2002, 10:36 a.m. CST
by Smilin'Jack Ruby
...I can completely see Harry's points here, actually. Great review, Knowles.
June 21, 2002, 10:37 a.m. CST
Opinions are like assholes - everybody has one - but not everybody has a popular website on which to display it. I'm not slamming Harry - opinions are neither right or wrong - but it does make me wonder if watching three new and highly touted thrillers in a row is a good thing? Would his opinion be different if MR had been his 10:00 AM movie instead, or if Lilo & Stitch and an obscure South Korean film had been his other two choices? Harry and I agree on some movies and disagree on others. Maybe we'll agree here - I won't know until I see it - but normally a) I respect Spielberg's choices, b) Cruise earns his paycheck and c) little robot spiders always make me as giddy as a schoolgirl. I just think it's sad when people let someone else make up their mind for them about something as subjective as art. Me personally, I won't form an opinion until I read Alexandra duPont's review with my own eyes (basically a joke although I find myself agreeing with her much more often).
June 21, 2002, 10:37 a.m. CST
by Wee Willie
Anyone who does or does not see a film because of the reviews is an idiot anyway. Critics can't do anything but give their opinion. Just because it's written down somewhere doesn't mean it's true. In Harry's case it's nice to see that he's not jumping on any bandwagons. Having said that, I'd like to add that Harry's ATOC review was way off.
June 21, 2002, 10:40 a.m. CST
by The Hillbrothers
I question the validity of the review of this film just because it was the third film he saw that day. He may be right, and Harry has proven he can be a marathon movie watcher, but it's a different thing viewing a succession of films you already know and love, like most of the movies shown at the butt-numb-athon, than it is to see a succession of never-before-seen flms. I know if I tried this that I would be exhausted from paying attention to 2 movies already, and that by the time I got to the third, I don't think it could possibly have the impact it would have if it were the only movie I saw in a day. It's not a smart way to review a film, and it's not fair to the movie, either.
June 21, 2002, 10:47 a.m. CST
If you read Star Wars insider. Lucas says that basically he does not care about pro reviews, due to the fact that they dont know good films. I agree completly with him. I am just waiting for Harry to tell us that he is looking forward to the best movie of all time "Freddie VS. Jason".....JK
June 21, 2002, 10:47 a.m. CST
Makes you think....
June 21, 2002, 10:51 a.m. CST
by Thorn MS
At nearly 40 years of age, I never go into a film with high expectations. As a matter of fact, I set them as low as possible. However, I have to consider the source here, and while I often like films that Ebert thumbed-down, I have never disliked a film that Ebert liked. Ebert thought Minority Report was plain brilliant. In contrast, Harry has liked some pretty lame and banal crap, and gets absolutely giddy about some pretty lame and banal crap. Thanks for the site and the scoops, but when it comes to reviews, Harry isn't even on my radar of credible sources.
Now I'm wondering if we're gonna get an apologetic essay from Moriarty about why he thinks Harry didn't like it.
June 21, 2002, 10:54 a.m. CST
Harry Harry Harry. Dude, I have been reading this site since way back with the ID4 Background and the fucked up all centered-way too big text. I used to be in complete agreement with you on your reviews, but the last four years have been shit, bud. It started with Godzilla (I let that slide because even I might have liked the flick if I saw it in the Garden with 20,000 people), then came Armageddon (you're a pussy if you cried during that overblown music video crapfest), then you practically blew Lucas on AOTC (trying to get Moriarty back on the ranch?) which was shit, as was Spiderman (did anyone else out there feel like the movie was five hours too long?). Now you are presented with a movie that has brains (unlike the other pieces of shit you rave about lately) and you balk. Dude, how can I not think that someone somewhere is buying your reviews (or that you are using your negative reviews to get even with members in the biz that have pissed you off or tried to step on you)? I find I'm in agreement with Moriarty more than you, and mostly I wish that Joe Hallenbeck would come back to abuse you like you deserve. Harry, I'm not stooping to the level of personal attack (I'm there with you on all of your personal issues, I know you, I understand, and I'd help in any way I could). I think it's time for you to re-evaluate your purpose with this site, and with your life. Maybe it's time to go renegade, take it back to the grassroots level (you didn't used to fly to Cannes and SXSW before to eat the free food and get into the junkets), and re-consider your direction in films. Everyone's opinion evolves, but more and more yours is evolving into the kind of movie opinions that are only found in a trailer park somewhere in west Texas. Come back to the real world guy, before it's too late and you start jerking off over the next Britney Spears film ("Trailer Park Wars" directed by Michael bay)... *sigh*
"...all a bunch of window dressing for a rather shallow film filled with vacuous cartoons claiming to be human beings." Harry, did you change your mind about Attack of the Clones? I was waiting for this.
June 21, 2002, 10:58 a.m. CST
Just wanted to debate with you a little bit :) How Crow's murder is pre-meditated: FIRST, the obvious reason, although the one you might not accept as easily: Anderton had wanted to kill the abductor of his son for years, so in it's was it's pre-meditated. BUT, if you don't like that reason... Crow was set up to be murdered by another individual. He was a suicide by murder. The Pre-Cogs may not have seen the "crime of passion" so much as Crow's insitence on being murdered, set up by Burgess. So Burgess, in a way, pre-meditated his murder, although he was not the one pulling the trigger.
June 21, 2002, 11:10 a.m. CST
Usually i completely agree with any of your comments or reviews(LoTR, Spider-Man, AoTC, etc.), but what are you talking about here? How can "Minority Report" be shallow if all the reviews from the likes of who you mentioned in your review are stellar and very deep? Even old shotting script reviews said it was deep with a great story and very well-developed characters. According to all these reviews, even tiny supporting players are amazingly well-conceived. I'm teenager who is an avid fan of your great site, but sometimes it does seem like you might be payed off or something on some of your praising comments or reviews about movies that really aren't that great. Also, making suspicously bad reviews for some good movies. It seems to be happening more and more lately. Oh yeah, even though there is a really good chance that a movie will suck, please don't relentlessly bash it until after you've seen it. This is definitely no reason for me to stop hitting this wonderful site every day, just a request and comments about something bothering me somewhat. You rock Mr. Knowles(and Moriarty and everyone else that keeps this site up)!!!
June 21, 2002, 11:12 a.m. CST
People don't want to blindly follow the American Film Critics and their opinion. But they have no problem with blindly following the marketing campaigns set up by the studios. Proffesional movie critics are supplying you with their recomendation, based on their opinion. Sadly though we choose to follow the studios big flashing lights and quick images instead. By the way Harry, I'm sorry that you didn't like the movie. But that is your opinion, and as odd as it my sound I respect that. But the thing that made me angry was the LEXUS-MINORITY REPORT COMMERICAL. It said, Look for the Lexus in this Summers Minority Report. THEY'RE ADVERTISING THEIR PRODUCT PLACEMENT?!?!? WHAAAAA?!?!
June 21, 2002, 11:14 a.m. CST
This review totally floored me. I was shocked and moved in a way I had never expected. What a surprise. It took guts to write this and I think it shows Harry has grown as a film critic. He is moving beyond geekdom and I think that will spark a lot of unhappy reactions. So be it. Over the years I have come to accept what I call the "Harry Code": if he pans a movie as the worst thing you ever saw, he is probably right. If he praises a movie so high you might expect to pee your pants when the credits roll up, he is probably wrong. In that regard he has been very consistent. But this review showed courage and conviction. I agree he probably should go see it again in a week or two. Maybe his reaction will be different (it could hardly be worse). But for now: bravo. Right or wrong, great job.
June 21, 2002, 11:21 a.m. CST
The problem with these types of sites (and I guess the advantage), is that any idiot (like Harry) has a greater voice than he should. I know that we're just talking about movies here, not world politics (usually), but that doesn't take away from the fact that some people don't know shit about movies. Harry is like that. My wife is like that. My coworker is like that. Anyone has a right to look at a Picasso and say it's shit, but how valuable is that "insight"? I think this type of review says less about the movie than it does about Harry. Namely he's a dumbass with the cinematic knowledge no greater than the mole on his neck. Maybe if Spielberg, dressed up in a black trenchcoat knocked on his door in the middle of the night and slipped him a copy of the movie 2 months before everone else... Maybe then Harry would have liked it. He's just a buffoon and a caricature. Enjoy your fame harry, because you're now in the 14th minute of your 15 minutes. BleH!
June 21, 2002, 11:22 a.m. CST
Look--I don't agree with HALF of what Harry writes in his reviews. However, I feel the same way about Ebert. What I love about both of these guys is that they explain themselves, and they are passionate about film. Sure, Harry might get a little wound up someitmes (Blade, AOTC, Godzilla), but that just shows how much he loves movies. He isn't one of these assholes who tries to bash everything that comes out--instead, he goes by his gut reaction and provides honest accounts of his filmgoing experience. Some talkbackers seem to think that Harry should have ignored the hype surrounding MR. But that would not jive with Harry's style. He is ONE OF US. He hears the hype, gets all excited, buys a ticket, and expects the world. If he is let down, should he lie to us?! Of course not! I personally hope and expect to LOVE Minority Report. And if I do, will I lose respect for Harry?--No FUCKIN' WAY.
June 21, 2002, 11:23 a.m. CST
You know what, I never realized this before but the name of Roy Scheider's character in Jaws, Martin Brody, is eerily similair to the name of Denholm Elliot's character in Indiana Jones, Marcus Brody. Interesting, no?
June 21, 2002, 11:24 a.m. CST
Sorry Mr. Knowles, I really didn't agree too much with your AoTC review. I think it is what you describe "Minority Report" to be, which was that it was "all a bunch of window dressing for a rather shallow film filled with vacuous cartoons claiming to be human beings." Good point, dale_cooper. Other than these two reviews, I pretty much always agree with you guys. Oh, "shotting" is supposed to be shooting.
June 21, 2002, 11:29 a.m. CST
Harry seems to love these movies like "Spirit" and "Blade 2" and all these other films that seem to strive for one of two extremes - classic romance - with the good guys triumphing and the bad guys getting what they deserve, where the guy gets the dream girl you know,- or flicks that strive for the unremarkable apex of "cool". Nuance and internal conflict don't seem to interest him unless there applied to either one of these two formulas. Harry is proof that too much movie watching can actually lead to a less than intelligent reviewing of a film. 'Course I say this because Minority Report was a good film, maybe great and the lack of compassion and anima exhibitted by the characters speaks to a deeper level of storyline than it appears Harry enjoys. The faults he observes are the aspects that made the movie more than just a showy exhibition to me. Oh, and Harry - ATOC was at best mediocre (my first ATOC mention - I tried to hold out, i really did)
June 21, 2002, 11:30 a.m. CST
Go and watch a movie on your own steam. You don't need someone to hold your hand do you? Harry's reviews are always to be taken with a pinch of salt.
June 21, 2002, 11:33 a.m. CST
He had been suckered by the hype that this movie was actually going to be better than Raiders. What a ridiculous notion that was.
June 21, 2002, 11:34 a.m. CST
this is for whoever said "cruise earns his paycheck." well, he may put asses in the seats, but i find it difficult to say he "earns" those zillions of dollars when he plays pretend. maybe he "deserves" it and certainly he "commands" quite a rate. but saying he earns it is like saying major leaguers "earn" their millions when they go out and smack a ball with a stick and play catch together.
June 21, 2002, 11:35 a.m. CST
I have avoided reading any of the spoilers or details of the movie on this site, just to save everything for when I see it. But I am shocked you didn't like it. So far it's getting a ton of positive reviews.
June 21, 2002, 11:41 a.m. CST
Nice. great review Harry! Please write a review for the Bourne Identity (and Moriarty). Thanks.
June 21, 2002, 11:44 a.m. CST
When every major film critic around North America seems to be praising this film as the best of the summer, Harry Knowles gives the old thumbs down. Questions...Is this a blatant attempt to regain some credibility? Is this an honest to God opinion? Is this the result of seeing 3 movies in one day? Were Harry's expectations too high? More and more people on this site don't trust Harry's reviews anymore, and I have a hard time believing anyone who liked Armageddon. And his Clones review? Fanboy gushing. While I didn't hate clones, it was certainly not the most entertaining Star Wars movie. Not even close. Harry you are an odd fella. I just dont' get you sometimes. Oh well. Dig your site all the same.
June 21, 2002, 11:47 a.m. CST
Harry's writing just gets worse and worse. Definitely the worst wrtiter on this site. Moriarty can at least string a coherent sentence together.
June 21, 2002, 11:49 a.m. CST
i dont know why the hell these people are in the review business. they dont like anything. lisa and own over there latch on to some little independant film each year and bash everything else. anyway hers is a perfect example of a non review, i cant even tell what she thought of the flick what with all that fancy voabulary. harry must have had a stick up his ass when he saw this cuz normally he would be cumming all over himself withj this kinda flick. but it does look like he got out his best thesaurus for this review. i am still gonna see it.
June 21, 2002, 11:53 a.m. CST
by Admiral Moron
Hello everyone! I'm best friends with a two-bit director who can make really good fourth rate versions of much better films, but there's this new film out that I don't really get, so I thought I'd better bad-mouth it a bit. After all it's not SPY KIDS II: Island of Lost Credibility. Have a nice day y'all.
June 21, 2002, 12:02 p.m. CST
I love this site - it basically stays open on my computer all day. But I rarely read the reviews, they're just too inconsistent. I don't mind the background you give leading up to sitting down in the theater, in fact I kind of like it. I just rarely agree with it. This movie looks fascinating. I didn't hate AOTC as many did, but I think I liked TPM more. And Spirit? Are you fucking kidding me? I guess I'll just stick to the news here, and ignore the reviews. Appreciate the effort though.
June 21, 2002, 12:03 p.m. CST
by Ghost of Versace
I don't care what every reviewer in the country (or the IMDB) says, the guy's name is clearly Danny in the film and not Ed, like in the short story. Anyway, as far as the film is concerned, I saw the thing a few weeks back at a pre-screening in Maple Grove, MN, and reviewed it for my college newspaper (The Minnesota Daily...only gave me 150 words, the bastards). Damn fine visuals, imaginative actions sequences, but a masterpiece? No way. Spielberg's best action film since RAIDERS? Nope, I believe LAST CRUSADE is better. Cruise's performance bordering on brilliance? Nah, way too forced and macho...he played the character like he had zero vulnerabilty, plus it was all surface--contradicting the incredible praise Corliss, Elvis Mitchell, hell, even SALON(!) gave the guy. Yet, it is a good film none the less...just highly overrated.
June 21, 2002, 12:07 p.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
In all honesty, I thought Harry's review was his most coherent to date. Usually he goes on and on about some innane bs for three paragraphs, talks about what childhood experience made him want to see the movie, describes his trip to the theater, how hot the ticket counter clerk was, how many times Father Geek bitch-slapped him along the way, etc. Nope, not this review. Harry actually talked about the friggin' movie! That alone is worth something.
June 21, 2002, 12:08 p.m. CST
since AOTC is a big topic here given HArry's effusive (bizarrely enough) review of it. After seeing it and being pretty disappointed, I called a friend. His take on it was "I really liked it - it was really cool. Except for the hour and forty-five minutes where NOTHING HAPPENED." I'd say that sums it up, wouldn't you?
June 21, 2002, 12:11 p.m. CST
Not saying it's great because I have yet to see it, but it's getting some of the best reviews i've ever seen for a film.
June 21, 2002, 12:11 p.m. CST
by wrestling studd
I've been reading this site for almost 5 years. I have only posted about 6 messages during that time. Mainly because these talkbacks turn into off topic food fights. Who really cares whether or not Mr. Knowles liked MR, ATOC, or Spirit? The only opinion of a film that matters is your own, right? Many of you talkbackers complain about about Harry liking movies like Spirit, Undercover Brother, and Jason X. Based on the box office numbers for those flicks most of you didn't see them so, how do you know if Harry's review is valid or not? Is it a crime to give an unfavorable review to a movie that fanboys have put on such a high perch? As of Noon on 6/21 most of you haven't seen Minority Report, yet you still say Harry's review is full of crap. Maybe it would be wise to actually see the movie before blasting someone else's opinion of it.
June 21, 2002, 12:15 p.m. CST
someone who has never seen a hockey game.
June 21, 2002, 12:18 p.m. CST
by The Grin
The majority of talkbackers only like it when Harry agrees with them. SOME of us like it when he's honest. - - - - - This is an honest reaction. It's what he thought and how he felt. I'm glad he has the balls to share that with us. - - - - I too wonder how Harry could like Episode Two, which has the same problems with characterization and logic only WORSE. But I do agree that the story for "Minority Report" does have massive holes, and I thought the ending got so busy explaining itself that it felt sorely anticlimactic. Still, forgiveable, and well worth seeing multiple times. The Grin
June 21, 2002, 12:18 p.m. CST
You tend to like movies everyone hates, and hate movies everyone likes. It's nice to have a unique movie viewpoint, but you aren't exactly the most reliable reviewer. If you can get listed on Rotten Tomatoes, maybe you're worth our attention, but right now, pffft.
June 21, 2002, 12:22 p.m. CST
2001: A Space Oddessy
June 21, 2002, 12:25 p.m. CST
Scooby-Doo had an "unprecedented" 50 million dollar weekend? I can tell you are easily impressed and not very learned when it comes to box office statistics. Spider-Man had a 114 million dollar weekend, just sos you know. Harry Potter had a 90 million dollar weekend. So I wouldn't exactly call a 50 million dollar weekend "unprecedented". But, it is still impressive, and it's a damn shame too, because I can think of a million different movies that are actually good that deserve that kind of box office reception. But instead, it's wasted on a pathetic kiddie flick. Pity.
June 21, 2002, 12:26 p.m. CST
c`mon folks and geeks!!! is it important that harry has got the same taste in EVERY movie as you have????? is that important for you??? well...he didn`t like MR. but that doesn`t have to mean that you don`t have to like it!! remember his words in the comments on mori`s ai review: AT NO POINT HE TELLS YOU NOT TO SEE THE MOVIE!!!!!!! and so does harry! just accept that harry doesn`t like mr that much. for me that`s interesting to know but no reason for me to dislike it! (and again i have to say that i`ve got to wait till october!!!:) may the force be with you fellow geeks!!
June 21, 2002, 12:27 p.m. CST
this review further proves harry's status as a permanent outsider who will NEVER truly be respected. i admit, i saw minority report and it was no ARMAGEDDON. hand over this site to Drew and get off it, tubby.
June 21, 2002, 12:30 p.m. CST
Whenever Knowles reviews a film, sure, "take it with a pitch of salt", fine. But the conspiracy theory- atmosphere of the TalkBacks are ridiculous. One of the first ones talked about Knowles giving Goldmember a good review, as the ad always appears on AICN. First off, no one on the site has any control over what appears in that box - that's the advertiser's discresion, not his. Second off, I honestly think Harry gives his honest opinion on the movies in the way he saw them. I mean, he gave Monkeybone a bad review, even though had a cameo in it. ... Frankly, the most ridiculous thing I've heard yet is the notion that Harry puts out a bad review to "save his credibility". There is simply no evidence for this conspiracy. Do you write and moan to Roger Ebert whenever he gives a good review to a film most people hate and a bad review to something most people like? Did you start taking everything Ebert said "with a grain of salt" whenver he puts out a review you don't completely agree with?Too many of you take these reviews way too seriously.
June 21, 2002, 12:32 p.m. CST
hehehe!! wohooooooo! but when you train a lil bit more after a few years maybe you can be in a semi final too!!! heahahhahooooo...:D :D :D :D *sigh* ;)
June 21, 2002, 12:32 p.m. CST
Minority Report may not be Spielberg's best work. It's much more complex and challenging material than Raiders, Jaws, E.T.... It's Spielberg's best "grown-up" film, maybe. It may be Cruise's best, too. I agree with 1.85:1 that this film is about society's acceptance of giving up a "measure of freedom for a measure of security." You end up losing both. Harry's right about Cruise's character. He is dead inside, and that's part of the point. But he believes in pre-crime, so his running is not just self-preservation, it's about his values. The film's vision of the future is compelling and its themes resound. Plus there are some fantastic scenes--the Stormare stuff was hilarious and creepy (Harry is dead wrong about it), and that spider scene was fantastic. There were a TON of plot holes in the film. Anderton is accused of committing one crime when he could easily prove he was nowhere near the crime scene at the time. The "echo" thing is understandable, but why didn't a second set of those little balls come down the shoot when the "re-enacted" murder occurred? Anyway, these and other plot elements nagged at me, but the film was entertaining and thought-provoking and great-looking enough that I was able to forgive these gaffes. Harry's biggest problem as a critic is not that he doesn't like the same movies I do, it's that he can't write. He doesn't express himself well. His review of Blade 2 was one of the worst things I've ever read, and I've read Rex Reed's reviews.
June 21, 2002, 12:35 p.m. CST
jesus fucking presley, Harry. you run a fantastic site but i think it's time to retire your critic hat.
June 21, 2002, 12:35 p.m. CST
When Blade Runner came out, critics panned it throughout, and it bombed. Now, its a "cult" classic, meaning, only the "smart ones" who "get it" love it. Apparently thats supposed to make you smart. I'm sorry, but I frankly thought Blade Runner was nothing more than a decent movie. Not a classic...quite boring in some parts. I'd even say the same for a lot of Stanley Kubrick movies (2001 was slow, slow...really slow and quite boring). In my opinion, Stargate was a much more enjoyable sci-fiction movie. Is that opinion one that ruffles some feathers? Yeah, maybe, but its nothing worse than what Harry here does with his constantly inconsistent reviews, his fake "everyone has their own opinion and i respect it" attitude, when actually he says "don't dare compare this movie to blade runner, because i love it and i am the best reviewer in the world." I think when you watch Insomnia, Minority Report and Bourne Identity on the same day, ur views aren't too credible by the end of the day. Harry seems more influenced by his mood swings than the movie he watches...which is sad, cause his site and its reports are excellent, if only it had a decent reviewer. Moriarty on the other hand, i respect...but not harry.
June 21, 2002, 12:35 p.m. CST
That crap about Anderton being a soulless drone is the same crap everybody complained about re: Harrison Ford in Blade Runner, at least in the original release. He's like that for a reason.
June 21, 2002, 12:45 p.m. CST
But I think and wait to reserve my judgement until I've had a chance to check it out myself. You raved on and on about Jason X and Undercover Brother. I thought the first was actually pretty bad (same as I thought Bride of Chucky was pretty bad) and the second I thought was okay, just okay. I'll tell you what I think next week when I check this bad boy out for myself. I'm looking forward to it, but I've noticed a lot of bad reviews cropping up over the last few days. And they all say the same thing about dull, underdeveloped characters, and how Colin Farrell pretty much is the only notible exception. Well, I hope we have a different take on it. This is pretty much the summer movie I was looking forward to the most. I was hoping to ride the coattails of this until Two Towers came out.
June 21, 2002, 12:46 p.m. CST
You could argue that the murder was premeditated because Cruise wanted to kill the guy responsible for his son's death even before he met him. But you would be wrong. The murder was premeditated, but NOT BY THE MURDERER. It was set up by Max Von Sydow (I hope you read the word SPOILER in my subject heading), which is why they got a little brown ball instead of a little red one. Think about it, the murder was pre-witnessed RIGHT AFTER Anderton first asked about the Lively murder, which Burgess would have been informed of right after it happened. Then Burgess put together his plan, and the pre-cog's witnessed the premeditated murder. And it all worked perfectly, BECAUSE everyone was operating on the assumption that Anderton was the one who premeditated the murder. Very clever, I thought, and it's just one of the reasons I love the movie so much. Sorry you didn't see the same movie I did Harry, but it's not the first time, nor will it be the last (still can't figure out how we disagree so much on AMERICAN PSYCHO, but that's just the way it is).
June 21, 2002, 1:01 p.m. CST
by Andel Crodo
...and I'm not talking about what's at the top of Harry's head. Cruise's character has a disregard of life in the here-and-now, as evinced by his desire to keep himself locked in memories of the past. With that in mind, why wouldn't he want to wear a halo? Does the character undergo some reveleation (that Harry may have missed in the film) effectively renewing his will to live? If not, the the Big Man's right, and the protagonist's arc isn't complete.
June 21, 2002, 1:02 p.m. CST
So I guess he's in good company. Her opening paragraph alone makes her worth reading. She starts off by calling Spielberg over rated and then longing for a day when he returns to his earlier fun movies ( as examples she sites Schindler's List and Amastad, two films I had an absolute blast at myself)Harry, whatever it takes, you simply MUST lure this woman over to your site. Her stuff has AICN written all over it.
June 21, 2002, 1:03 p.m. CST
by Leonard Shelby
uhh, harry you moron, you're forgetting about a little movie he did called Schindler's List. but i can see how you'd overlook that one since it wasn't made for popcorn geeks
June 21, 2002, 1:06 p.m. CST
This is a very strange review. And i'm usually in agreement with Harry on most movies. The bad rap about the characters compared to past Spielberg movies doesn't really bother me. Jurassic Park had some flimsy characters (apart from Ian Malcolm) and i still love it to pieces.
June 21, 2002, 1:13 p.m. CST
Coincidentally, there are no Minority Report banners and pop-up ads floating all over this site....
June 21, 2002, 1:17 p.m. CST
heheh..."uhh, harry you moron, you're forgetting about a little movie he did called Schindler's List. but i can see how you'd overlook that one since it wasn't made for popcorn geeks." I suppose its wrong of me to point out how much personal invective there is out there, but this statement just struck me as moronic. The hatred (and self-hatred) out there is strong...as for Shindler's List itself, is was a strongly manipulative film. Harry doesn't need to think it was better than Raiders, as it wasn't. Him not mentioning that middle-brow Oscar movie around here is fine with me.
June 21, 2002, 1:20 p.m. CST
It makes me laugh when you act like even 1/100th of 1% of anyone in the US gives a tiny squirt of piss about soccer or the world cup.
June 21, 2002, 1:22 p.m. CST
"I can't stand it. Imean I just can't stand all the blind hero worship of Steven Spielberg. The man hasn't made a decent FUN movie in YEARS. The last Spielberg film that I actually loved was Schindler's List and Amistad." (Those were FUN?)
June 21, 2002, 1:24 p.m. CST
As opposed to the warm-hearted, not-overacted-at-all ramblings of one Hayden Christensucks. Haven't seen MR yet but ANYTHING has to be better-written and have more non-cartoon characters than 98% of the characters in AOTC
June 21, 2002, 1:31 p.m. CST
June 21, 2002, 1:33 p.m. CST
But recently it seems his actual story telling is flat. AI suffered from the same thing. Beautiful visual movie however the actual content is a bit ham fisted. Spielberg tends to scream at you "LOOK, LOOK NOW, I JUST THROUGH IN SOME SYMBOLISM. DID YOU MISS IT?!?!?! HERE, HERE LOOK NOW! I HAVE SOME MORE FOR YOU!!!"
June 21, 2002, 1:35 p.m. CST
Normally, I'd be the first one to say Knowles sucks. His enthusiasm for soulless mainstream tripe is a little scary, and I think he's a little too easily influenced by special treatment. However, when he says a movie sucks, it usually sucks. For those who say "If Harry doesn't like it, then it'll be good" (Alferdog, Veidt, drsteuss4, etc.), remember that the last movie he didn't like was The Time Machine. Before that there was Return to Neverland, Ali, and Along Came a Spider. Anybody see a pattern here? I'll be honest, I thought Harry was going to love this one. The only reason I even read the review was that I was so surprised that he didn't like it. Usually, Harry's so eager to present his ass to the corporate dick that he's incapable of any thought beyond "yippee." Still, Harry might be guilty of liking every damn cereal, but if somebody takes a crap in his cereal bowl and calls it cocoa puffs, he knows what's what.
June 21, 2002, 1:37 p.m. CST
nuff said. the guy loved Attack of the Clones, and calls THIS flimsy. Oh perhaps if he was the first to see it on a "SECRET" videotape, he'd be beside himself with praise.
June 21, 2002, 1:37 p.m. CST
anything harry say in a review is almost always totally ass-backwards (blade2, blairwitch 2, etc). so when he says this movie sucks, i get really excited. but can it beat bourne identity? a movie that puts the last 10 bond movies to shame? i just don't know.
June 21, 2002, 1:40 p.m. CST
Sigh, what makes you think that 1/100th of 1% of me cares if anyone else in the US cares about soccer (the ORIGINAL football mind you). But last time I checked, Wisconsin is still a supportive member of the Union (please don't bring up examples of crazed Wisconsinites, for every Dahmer and McCarthy there's also a Charles Lindbergh, Chris Farley, Tony Shalhoub [hey, he's pretty funny], Orson Welles, and a Spencer Tracy). If you don't like the sport, that's fine; it's just that I'd take a crazed game of soccer over an overtly padded hockey game any day. DEUTSCHLAND ROCKT!
June 21, 2002, 1:42 p.m. CST
I'm not saying it sucks, but putting the last ten Bond movies to shame isn't a terribly difficult feat. Heck, Austin Powers 2 put the last ten Bond movies to shame, and it sucked. Any movie that doesn't suck can put all of the Bond movies to shame. It's a horrible series.
June 21, 2002, 1:45 p.m. CST
I admit I usually read this sight now for the bickering instead of for news or reviews of movies. It's often quite amusing. I actually wasn't all that enthused about seeing this movie, but since Harry was lukewarm about it, I'll give it a shot. I've only seen two movies this summer, Clones and Spiderman. Clones I enjoyed on some level, even though most of the script, directing, and acting was beyond abysmal. In retrospect I have no desire to see it again. It's just a bad movie on any level except special effects. Spiderman was a pleasant surprise for me, considering (or perhaps because) I've never been a comic book person. Nothing incredible but entertaining and well done for the kind of movie it was. If Spielberg can avoid the jerkwad overblown tearjerker endings he's been so fond of recently, maybe I'll start liking his films again, so I'll give Minority Report a shot. Harry has the worst taste in movies this side of that Jonas Schwartz guy who used to review for boxofficemojo. A mixed review for him is pretty much a ringing endorsement in my eyes. Let's hope its decent. I'm a little ashamed to admit, I'm actually kind of looking forward to MIB2. Nobody's got perfect taste i guess.
Maybe if Harry got a "secret" preview of the movie, he might of like it. Harry seems to be bias but its his opinion which means if you odnt like it go to another site like Corona or Darkhorizons. I find Darkhorizons a little more credible. Every little piece of junk is not published.
June 21, 2002, 1:51 p.m. CST
They don't run into eachother in soccer? When's the last time you've seen a match not played by the local elementary schoolers? In a semi-pro or pro match there's collisions nearly every minute. They can be pretty bone crunching too. When you have guys who train that hard and run an average of 7-10 miles per game, that's a bit of compacted bulk rushing towards you. I once saw a guy clip into a forward and his achilles tendon just snapped. The damn thing went off like a gunshot and tore his leg apart. That's a few hundred pounds of tension snapping and shooting up the leg. If it weren't so barbaric and inhuman, I'd say we should draft people to have soccer matches instead of wars. It's a good thing our world's somewhat civilized.
June 21, 2002, 1:55 p.m. CST
In any case, the only review I've strongly agreed with Harry on that I can remember would be Unbreakable. That's all I can think of. It really doesn't matter if he liked it or not. Most critics liked it, and I'm pretty sure I'll like it. I don't think it'll be the best film ever, but it should be a damn good one.
June 21, 2002, 2:06 p.m. CST
I can't take his reviews seriously, he dislikes great films (yes, I have seen Minority Report, and it's a beautiful experience), and also crys at the emotional impact of films like Armageddon. Giddy fanboy reviews of films like the forgettable EP2 confirms that he will never be an Ebert or even a James Berardinelli(in my opinion, the top internet critic).
June 21, 2002, 2:07 p.m. CST
Speaking of Spielberg's recent efforts, I'll agree with the earlier poster that A.I. was actually pretty decent overall until the final 10 minutes. But that's a pretty damn godawful final 10 minutes. Kind of like picking up a chic who's pretty hot until she finally pulls down the panties and out pops her wang. Spoils the whole thing you know.
June 21, 2002, 2:09 p.m. CST
Guys...Minority Report sucked. Hard. And before you assume I'm a) a plant, b) I get some weird pleasure from going against the geek forces, yer wrong. The first half hour is fantastic, the middle (where Spielberg introduces...SLAPSTICK??!?!) sucks unbelievably hard, and the remaining third is mediocre at best. I wanted to like this with all my heart, and for the first bit, I did. I sent in a lengthy review which better elucidates why I feel this way, but I must say that some of the scenes in here are some of the most hysterical misfires I've EVER seen in a movie (there's one VERY long scene with a woman in a greenhouse that rival's AOTC's "I Don't Like Sand" speech.) How did I go from adoring what I saw to wishing I had a rake to attack the screen with? Why, I'm WRONG, of course!.....people, quit giving Harry (or anyone else, for that matter) shit for daring to (*gasp!*) have a different opinion than yours. The world don't need more Rush Limbaughs.
June 21, 2002, 2:16 p.m. CST
by TS Thomas
Harry can praise the likes of Phantom menance & mummy returns, but rubbishs (kinda) something like this or anything that involves freddie prinze junior, meanwhile it the words "star wars" are in it similarly gardbage acting & poor script is a non-issue. This is why I never bother listening to anything he has to say anymore, other than hope for some useful info. in what he posts.
June 21, 2002, 2:17 p.m. CST
Well, I find Harry is not only out of step with his fellow reviewers here, but plenty of critics nationally. USA Today had this pegged as the greatest thing since sliced bread. Not that I'm one to throw in with the mainstream folks all the time, but I'm curious as to whether Harry was just expecting too much or we were expecting too little, as the in-thing with this site is to bash both Cruise and Spielberg. You tell me, folks.
June 21, 2002, 2:18 p.m. CST
I'm just yankin' yer chains. I know soccer's exploding here in the USA. Although still not cherished to the same extent as the rest of the world, I know there are die-hard soccer fans here in the states. So, hey, you guys enjoy the World Cup as much as you want!!
June 21, 2002, 2:20 p.m. CST
I do wish everybody would stop bringing up Armageddon and Harry's subsequent review. I mean, it was over 4 years ago. His sentence must be up by now. I have to admit, I cried at Armageddon as well. The line where Billy Bob wants to, "shake the hand of the daughter of the bravest man in the world" or something, I don't deny it, tears were streaming down my face. Tears of laughter, that was the funniest shit I'd seen in ages. Of course overall it was topped by the quite hilarious Battlefield Earth, one of the 5 funniest movies of the last decade in my opinion.
June 21, 2002, 2:41 p.m. CST
Just because the ending of a movie is unpredictable and not what the audience expected, that doesn't necessarily make it good. Sure I paid attention at the end of A.I. I watched in fascinated horror at the sheer audacity of the atrocious ending. That doesn't make it good. I never said the rest was great either, just that it was decent in some parts at least up until the end. As an example, let's say we have a Julia Roberts Romantic comedy, where they go through the usual routines in movies of this type, but at the end, where the cute couple is supposed to get together, they stick in a twist. Instead of kissing and snuggling each other as the credits roll, let's say the erstwhile male suitor unexpectedly bashes Julia's skull with a blunt object, rendering her semi-conscious. He then proceeds to violate her anally, right on the streetcorner, amidst her delirious moans of anguish. Not satisfied with this, he also invites nearby homeless persons to join in for a turn. Of course a stray dog happens by, and then, quite unexpectedly, a horse (it's set in NYC by central park, one of those buggy horses I guess). So after all have had their fill of the lovely heroine, the suitor ritually disembowels her and feeds her instestines and eyeballs to pigeons. Now, this would be a most unexpected ending to a movie of this type, but would that necessarily mean the ending was GOOD!?! Would such a twisted and sadistic ending to a lighthearted romantic comedy involving the divine Ms. Roberts equate a WORTHY resolution to the film? Would you all PAY to see such trash.........ok, nevermind, bad example....
June 21, 2002, 2:43 p.m. CST
I remember that article well. Regular Woodword and Bernstein, that article. They bring it up once in awhile, as if it has anything to do with the conversation.I'm always amused at the levels of hatred inflicted toward Harry and AICN, who are admittedly always on the border between being "Hollywood" and being "outsiders". I'm not saying we should all love Harry unconditionally; that would be just as foolish. I'm most of this talkback has consisted of whining about Harry. Either that, or we're divining about whether or not this is a "planted" review or not. .... As for my comments about Schlinder's List, just because it was based on a true story, doesn't mean the movie is automatically good. I hate being forced to enjoy a film because it has something about "being a true story" in front of it. That IS manipulation, of the worst kind, especially when the true story is so horrific. Also, the other fellow is being a little disengenuous if he thinks I want a more compassionate portrayal of Nazism.
June 21, 2002, 2:44 p.m. CST
I mean, Harry is a Michael Moore fan...by definition, he is a self-styled iconoclast, trying to make himself look intelligent by braying like a jackass in the opposite direction of reality.
June 21, 2002, 2:55 p.m. CST
1) Try actually seeing the film in question before you start lambasting Harry's take on it; 2) Even if you see the film and love it, realize that some people have legitimate opinions that differ from yours and even (gasp!) the majority's; 3) You geniuses who complain about Harry being a bad writer wouldn't know good writing if it fucked you up the ass--Harry is a sloppy writer, but he's also a very talented, sometimes even fantastic, writer. I wonder why you don't have *your* own very successful website (this reminds me of fuckheads who think the likes of Streep, DeNiro and Hoffmann are overrated); 4) You people who complain about Harry liking some bad films in the past are hypocritical motherfuckers. Yeah, like you've never enjoyed awful movies--at least Harry is honest about the dreck he sometimes likes; 5) Chill the holy fucking shit out (and fuck off while you're at it). It's only a movie, and anyone that is so agonizingly outraged about Harry's negative review of a sci-fi flick is a Dorkus Aurelius. Yeah, buddy--I mean you.
June 21, 2002, 3:01 p.m. CST
I thought AI looked very slick. It built on Ridley Scotts's vision of the future not being all "clean white spaceships" and beautiful interiors. Minority Report should be good.
June 21, 2002, 3:04 p.m. CST
Raiders was a great supernatural action serial film but for a flick with a $20 mill budget the characters and themes of the movie were hopelessly old fashioned. Indiana Jones is as one dimensional as they come(lets not touch HF's acting--suffice it is to say that Ken Russell called him "an extra in a hat."). A big budget serial is really all it is. ET: Hailed as a classic in 82, it seems to have lost alot of its shine, and its portrayal of government types is naive(ditto for the US gov in Raiders, CE3K, British army in temple of Doom etc). Color Purple/Empire of the Sun/Always/Hook pass pass pass Schindler's List: There is nothing new here. It is a standard good vs bad, with alot of forced sentimentality. Shooting the film in B and W was a trick--so he could have that red coat scene. No challenge for Spielberg or the audience. JP 1 and 2: Good ideas, poor characters, hacked together storyline. The only thing truly special about these films was the ground breaking fx work. That's all. Saving Private Ryan: come on! Nothing new here. AI: hahahaha Duel and Jaws. This will be the legacy of Spielberg.
June 21, 2002, 3:07 p.m. CST
Please stop bitching about the ending to AI. IT WAS PERFECT, PERFECT. All the emotion, all the lowliness that was strung throughout the movie was brought full circle. Little boy wants to be loved by mom, but she can't because he is a robot. At the end he gets what he wants, and yet it is one of the most lonely sad moments of the film. Leave the ending alone. What should we have ended with the robot in the dark, unfound, and unfinished? Kubrick wouldn't have, and I'm the man decide not too as well. Grow up.
June 21, 2002, 3:09 p.m. CST
This talkback seems to be full of people, full of themselves, who have never really enjoyed the master at work. Go watch wrestling.
June 21, 2002, 3:11 p.m. CST
Shit, and I was hoping--REALLY HOPING--that, after A.I., you'd redeem yourself with Minority Report. Can't you fucking see plot flaws anymore? Thanks, Harry, for that review. I stand forewarned, even if it isn't 72 hours worth. ******** Oh my God, I just thought: if Spielberg keeps directing fucked up scripts without giving a damn to fixing them before they end up printing them for release--what the unholy hell is the fourth Indiana Jones movie going to be like? And now I've read a rumor that Ford asked Lucas & Spielberg to write in a part for Calista Flockhart! I have a very bad feeling about this.
June 21, 2002, 3:20 p.m. CST
Look, we know Harry's anybody dog who'll call him. Obviously, he was hallucinating by the third tub of popcorn (does Southwest make you buy two seats Harry?) and spent most of the movie in the bathroom excreting Mt. Dew. I saw the film and liked it. Full disclosure, I thought "AOTC" blew btw, and so did "AI", imho. This is the first SciFi film that Speilberg didn't try to film with "OH-MY-GOD-I-HAVE-CHILDLIKE-AWE-AT-THE-PRETTY-BLUE/RED/GREEN-LIGHTS". The vision of DC in fifty years seemed spot on and wasn't creepy stupid. It looked like a place our kids will raise their kids. Cruise's apt was kind of nifty and futuristic, but they still had Georgetown townhouses albeit with some cool gadgetry. Check the movie out. Definitely best since "Raiders".
June 21, 2002, 3:22 p.m. CST
I'm not going to waste bandwidth giving Harry a hard time about his review. That's his opinion..so be it. Hell, my wife likes "Saved by the Bell" but I still love her! But one paragraph really confuses me and I was hoping Harry might clarify on this: "What separates this film from the best Spielberg is the lack of humanity. This film is completely lacking in the humanist nature of characters like Henry Jones Jr, Martin Brody, Roy Neary and Elliott. John Anderton is cut from the same cloth as Peter Banning and Henry Swinton." Now, Webster's defines humanist as "a doctrine, attitude, or way of life centered on human interests or values." A running theme in much of Spielberg's work, as well as much of sci-fi, is man's loss of humanity. Some are hopeful...some are bleak. I'm puzzled, however, by the inclusion of Henry Jones Jr and Roy Neary as humanist and Peter Banning as not. Henry jones Jr. through much of "Raiders" and "Temple of Doom" is far from a humanist. He is much more interested in the discovery of things. While in Raiders, one could say he regains some humanity, its not much. Remember...he doesn't want to take Marion along...she basically forces his hand. He would have been happy to leave her behind for a second time. Even after he thinks she's been killed, he gets drunk and then goes back to work. His work is his life. Not the people...just the artifacts. Though the end implies he is regaining some of his humanity, his fous still reains on the items. Roy Neary is an overbearing father who first puts down his children for not sharing his tastes and then even goes further to neglect his whole faily over his obsession. Would a humanist neglect his family? Leave a compatriot stranded on the side of the mountain? Alternate to your position, I would go as far as to say that Neary is the least "human" character that Spielberg has ever created. Not a badly written character, just not very humanist. Now, Peter Banning is not far from Neary. Except for one thing. His ultimate choice is to save his children. Ultimately, family is the thing that enables him to refind the human side of himself. It is happiness of remembering the birth of his child that allows him to refind his true inner self. It is his rediscovery of his humanity that gives him any strength. Now, I'm not saying "Hook" is the superior film. Its just more humanist. So let's see...you've got one guy who puts people to the side for his work and another who puts people aside for his obsessions, and they are humanist. And then you've got a guy who learns the importance of people and family and he's not. What am I missing here??? -Mumford, the All-Purpose Nothing
June 21, 2002, 3:22 p.m. CST
In fact a WHOLE LOT of planning went in to it. So therefore they COULD see it that far in advance. Wake up. That's almost a god like decree: HARRY DOES NOT LIKE MINORITY REPORT. Send the word forth. Harry needs to get off his high horse. Minority Report was one of the best movies of the year so far.
June 21, 2002, 3:30 p.m. CST
I must agree with you NerdBerd, that it was a rather impressive review (and I believe for the first time) that Harry Knowles provided for the film "Minority Report." I have never been impressed with Mr. Knowles film reviews, or the subversive cultural criticism that he tends to interject in those reviews. But this was different. Although a bit rough around the edges, (it was not necessary to know that "Minority Report" was an element in his "Cat and Mouse" movie day or even about what his expectations where)it was unapologetic in presenting both the good and the bad in the film and then letting those standards determine it's quality. Which is far better than making excuses (that are extrapolated from Mr. Knowles' own desire to why he wants to like a film)in order to reconcile why it was either good or bad. It was also rather refreshing to have much of the extraneous information that is often included in his reviews removed (e.g. what he had for breakfast, what the drive to the movie theatre was like, who he went with, ... ,etc.) I have not seen "Minority Report" yet. But wether I find it to be good or bad, or if I agree or disagree with Mr. Knowles' review, I know that I will probably still respect his criticisms about this movie. Maturation of a film geek indeed.
June 21, 2002, 3:40 p.m. CST
I, like most filmgoers out there, love the bulk of Spielbergs work. But let's be honest. Duel was a TV movie. A bad TV movie. A very good movie for a first-time director. But a bad, baaaaaaadddd, boooooorrrrriiinngg movie.
June 21, 2002, 3:47 p.m. CST
To hell with pride and honesty. Get off your high horse and wallow in the mainstream Hollywood shit with the rest of these assholes.
June 21, 2002, 3:54 p.m. CST
I am usually a big fan of Harry's reviews, but some of the points he raved about against this movie are so lame - like the title of this rant. It adds up to a bunch of nit-picking. Maybe I am one of the few, but I miss Harrys intro to reviews.... what was his state of mind before seing this film i wonder? Outlook is... dim...
June 21, 2002, 4:09 p.m. CST
by Angry Johnny
Did we really dislike the film, or are we just venting b/c SOMEONE wasn't invited to the premiere? Or maybe Spielberg, Cruise or both haven't returned someone's phonecalls! It wasn't what you expected...BIG, RED-HEADED DEAL! I am so sick of you militant fan boys slamming movies because the film didn't live up to the expectation. Don't blame the filmmaker for your disappointment, blame the marketing execs and the post-prod. goons who slap together the trailer in the first place! Meanwhile, the rest of us normal, healthy, well-balanced folks are going to the mega-plex this weekend for some popcorn and sci-fi escapism. Take this rant however you want. Bottomline: You guys take this stuff WAAAAY too seriously.
June 21, 2002, 4:26 p.m. CST
Man I hope Speilberg keeps "dropping the ball". If he can keep "dropping the ball" and give us movies like Schindlers List, JP, AI and Private Ryan, well I hope he never stops. I'd love to drop the ball like that someday.
June 21, 2002, 4:39 p.m. CST
Congrats Harry, you final spoke the truth about a summer geekfest and they hate you for it. MR is a bland, sentimental who-dun-it with a little philosophy and a lot of "teching out". What i mean by "teching out" is that technology (the mundane and the magnificent) are used much in the same way Lucas uses aliens and the force in the prequels. On one hand, eye candy, and on the other hand, as a plot device so solve the hero's problems. There is not one second of inspiration in this whole movie (or the SW prequels for that matter --- when qui gon tried to cut through the door to get at the trade fed. types that was the high point of emotion and brilliance of the new trilogy --- come on admit it, everything else is just a dog and pony show. And that's what minority report is --- a trotting out of stale ideas with shiny new covers. Come on --- the investigating wife? huh? where did that come from? "A Slip of the Tongue" brings the villan down --- again?!?
June 21, 2002, 4:50 p.m. CST
Wow you could not be more wrong. I usually read the reviews, but I think I will ignore them. Its sad when this 22 year old agrees 75% of the time with ebert more than you. This review is redicilous.
June 21, 2002, 5:04 p.m. CST
I too really enjoyed the Bourne Identity, it was just a lot of fun. It exceeded my expectations, that's for sure. And I'd almost agree with you with the "better than the last 10 Bond movies" but then I looked through the last 10, and well - you should too =D. I wouldn't go as to far to say Bourne Identity was as good as The Spy Who Loved Me. Ok, you will? That's fine - I can see that. But Bourne Identity better than For Your Eyes Only? No-no. For Your Eyes Only would have to be one of my very favorite Bond movies - so maybe I'm a little bit skeptical but I don't think there's a real comparison. Of course this is just my own opinion. But then again, you were probubly just being sarcastic by saying that and you're saying "The fuck is this guy giving me shit about this?" when we both could really give a shit less than to bullshit about spy thrillers in a Minority Report talkback.
June 21, 2002, 5:08 p.m. CST
by War Eagles
The murder wasn
June 21, 2002, 5:20 p.m. CST
I hate to have to jump on the bandwagon that finds this review harsh and, to be blunt, a lil full of shit. Can I go as to far to say that it is Spielberg's greatest film? No, but I do think it is one of his most wonderfully made films, and his new attitude of "I'm gonna start making movies that I want to see" really shows here - because if this is what Spielberg wants to see he can go ahead and keep making them. I can only look back on a certain scene that I didn't like in this film (Tom jumping over a brick wall to be attacked bt plants was just a bit ridiculous and unnecessary) while the rest of the film pretty much blew me away. Yeah, there are a few flaws in the film but nobody said it's perfect. Just ask yourself this, woud you rather want the film the way it is here or would you really want every little thing explained to you and slow down the pace? It's your opinion I guess, but there's no point to making a movie no longer than it really needs to be (Soderberg and others have said this and I'd have to agree). If you want to nitpick, again it's your opinion - but I do think the majority of the reviews speak for themselves, and all that means to me is that those that like the film really shouldn't have to explain why they liked it as much as opposed to the ones that didn't.
June 21, 2002, 5:20 p.m. CST
by Kirk's Toupee
I remember when this website first started. It was a gathering place for people who not only loved film and art, but who also enjoyed insider info on the next big project. If you didn't know what you were talking about God help you if you entered talk back. The discussions were pointed, but always revolved around good movie talk. Now what do we have? A bunch of fuckers who's only goal in life is to come on this site and yell "sell out" or "Harry's an asshole because he doesn't like the movie I like." How many of you jerk offs have even seen Minority Report? To those of you who have been here since the beggining (and there are few) look around you. Most of the original talk backers are gone. Why are they gone? Because the discussions are no longer about film and art, they are about "The Fat Bloated Sellout." If you want to be a fucker and just blurt out bullshit like that, go to CHUD or some other website. Spread your frustration that you live in your parent's basement on some other board. Lets try and bring back the spirit of the original idea of Ain't It Cool News. And if nobody wants to listen, I say dump the website, start over, and to hell with all of you!
June 21, 2002, 5:29 p.m. CST
does kill himself. Because, although Crow WANTS to suicide, plotting another person's death, EVEN IF THE OTHER PERSON WANTS TO DIE, is PRE-MEDITATED. It's still murder. It is the wish of one person to kill another person. The motivations of the murdered have nothing to do with it.
June 21, 2002, 5:29 p.m. CST
They detect murders occuring in the future. And they deteced Tom shooting the man. When they looked into the future and saw the shooting, Tom was standing about five feet away from the guy and shot him. That's why she was freaking out as he was about to shoot him, but as it was pointed out on his watch - he didn't kill him at the time predicted and the guy explained the whole setup and how he was supposed to be killed. The whole film is suggesting that this system is flawless and all it really did at this point was suggest if you saw your own future and knew you were supposed to kill this man, would you really do it? Maybe I'm just not really sure what you are suggesting as the flaw at this point in the story so don't think I'm calling you a moron here. But from what I read I'm not really sure why you would suggest this point of the film as a flaw.
June 21, 2002, 5:36 p.m. CST
Well what the f**k was Attack of the Clones? Truth be told, I enjoyed ATC more than I expected to, but look no further for a prime example of cartoons aping humanity. Yet Harry pees his pants for that one. He also gets high off his own vapors. Gimme a break!
June 21, 2002, 5:44 p.m. CST
by wrestling studd
Are you folks 5 years old? Do you know how stupid it sounds to hear many of you talkbackers say, ''I'm not going to read Harry's reviews or visit his site anymore because he doesn't share my opinion on certain movies.'' GROW UP!So Harry Knowles didn't like Minority Report BIG DEAL! The world won't come to an end anytime soon. While I'm writing this rant, who gives a rats rear end what ''Rotten Tomatoes'' says about movies?.....Yes, it is ridiculous ''C-Promt''. It's ridiculous that you can't spell ''rediculous''. If you're going to bash someone at least spell the words right.
June 21, 2002, 5:48 p.m. CST
So is it ok to pounce on Harry if you're not a pretentious little shit but a serious lover of art, movies and the like who happens to think that Harry can be a "fairweather fan" when it comes to reviewing certain films? I haven't seen Minority Report yet but the one thing that glared in Harry's review was the line about "vacuous cartoons claiming to be human beings." That's ATC through and through but he LOVED that shit. Who knows, I may see Minority Report and ultimately agree with Harry. But he should've waited until his review of ATC had been forgotten by the masses on this site before he capped on one of its contemoraries for being just as vacant.
June 21, 2002, 5:49 p.m. CST
I'm not saying it's bad, per se. I'm saying I pretty much hated it, and here's why. 1) ROBOCOP did it better on virtually all grounds: action, mystery, sci-fi, and emotional. 2) Given that it's a Tom Cruise movie, the excellent supporting cast is essentially wasted (it's all gotta be about TC, don't-u-know). They're certainly not developed beyond his need for them. 3) Spielberg, once the master of the "identifiably human reaction" not only ignores it this time, but allows completely unnatural reactions to remain (even using two as a patently false "comedy beat" (similar to birds doing double takes in bad 007 flicks [i.e. MOONRAKER]). 4) The murder mystery is EXACTLY like something my best friend and I cooked up when we were 12 (wouldn't it be neat if...?). There are many twists and some are decent, but the major twists will only come as a surprise to anyone who hasn't seen another TV or movie mystery in the last 10 years. 5) I hate stupid heroes, and we have not one, but two totally dumb protagonists here. Not only should Cruise know exactly why he would kill someone instantaneously, but when the second major bonehead move from the second hero comes, it is so staggeringly stupid and cliched that even if I didn't have reservations about the rest of the film, this would have torn it. 5 1/2) To hold the film together they resort to a silly "eye" device that, given that these eyes came from a person accused of murder for at least six hours, never should have worked. But that's nothing compared to... 6) As the central core of X FILES is Mulder's sister being abducted by aliens, and the central core of THE GENERAL'S DAUGHTER is the title characters gang rape, the central core here is our hero's son being kidnapped. But, as in the previous two examples, it is used ONLY AS A PLOT DEVICE, leaving anyone who cares high and dry. 6 1/4) Well, it was 30 minutes too long, the music was heavy-handed, and the cinematic technique was self-aware. Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln...! Enjoy.
June 21, 2002, 6:05 p.m. CST
Yeah so the movie wasn't all that and a bag of chips. But it was solid entertainment. Spielberg's Best? Hell No. But another good notch on the ol' belt.
June 21, 2002, 6:16 p.m. CST
Oh no, I was hoping it would be good. Oh well, guess I'll have to see it for myself to be sure.
June 21, 2002, 6:19 p.m. CST
by Wicked Willow
and it was excellant-I have no problem with Harry not liking something I like but there are some flaws in his argument:1)expecting MR to be the greatest Spielberg film since Raiders of The Lost Ark is not a fair or even comparison-this movie is more along the lines of A.I.(which I liked)2) This story is in a film noir style ala,The Maltese Falcon,Double Indemnity etc,which is not big on building up character development for minor players-it basically focues on the lead actor/actress and folks essential to the plot and yes,that is just like Blade Runner. 3)(SPOILER ALERT!) the main contention that the murder was too quickly foreseen does not hold-as many other posters have mentioned,it was planned but not by the prepetrator. Also,it was explained that the precogs' main focus was on murder because that crime causes a major rift in the time stream and mostly likely,Anderton's son was murdered by his kidnapper so it could've been predicted by the precogs if they were in place then. All in all,it was a very well done film-Tom Cruise more than made up for the madness that was Vanilla Sky(I rented that movie last week and still have a bad taste in my mouth from it)and I really hope Samantha Morton gets the recogniztion she deserves for this movie.
June 21, 2002, 6:34 p.m. CST
Harry: All of your problems seem to be problems with the world of Minority Report. This is a movie in Philip K Dick's universe. OF course itll have a dystopic view .... that leads to all of your problems with the characters... AGH there's no point in arguing with you. Others have tried.
June 21, 2002, 6:40 p.m. CST
Just got from a matinee, and it was definitely not a great movie. It's good, and that's about it. Some interesting ideas. THE BOURNE IDENTITY was a bit better.
June 21, 2002, 6:44 p.m. CST
by wrestling studd
All of you bashing Harry for putting Raiders of the Lost Ark and Minority Report in the same sentence must not have read the other MR reviews on this board. It was other reviewers that claimed MR was the best SS film since ROTA not Harry. Mr. Knowles was disagreeing with them.....Why can't most of you have a civil discussion of movies without getting into name calling or calling someone a sell-out if they disagree with you?
June 21, 2002, 6:49 p.m. CST
So Harry doesn't like what is turning out to be a very popular film? People start trotting out (and then whipping around the track again and again) references to four-year-old revues and two-year-old essays on potential graft? Good God! Since when it is required that Harry (or Ebert, or Roeper, or the wingnut critic who writes for my local alternative newsletter) have to be so predictable that you know in advance that he'll adore all Spielberg movies, or hate all New Line movies, or masturbate during all Hong Kong action flicks? People have weird eccentricities--if you base your movie likes and dislikes on what any one reviewer says, I don't think that that says a lot for you. I'm not particularly defending Harry here. I generally cringe at his reviews and don't care for the movies that he likes. For once, he's written a long review, not free of spelling or grammatical errors (but to my knowledge, he's not handing these in for credit in a college course), that hasn't strayed to how his wee-wee got in a twist or how he found a popcorn tub that still had its free refill tab attached. He sticks to the subject! There might be hope for the redheaded stepchild yet. And in other news: good going, US Soccer! Tom Cruise has little piggy eyes and no talent.
June 21, 2002, 6:55 p.m. CST
A MAJOR disappointment at best. Very uncomfortable to watch for a number of reasons, many addressed above. The techy brilliance of the bleach bypassed visuals does not fully cover-up the serious plot flaws (far too many implausibilities, the actually overly simplistic plot, the vacuuous characters, and the nasty tricks the director plays on the audience to make them squirm and wriggle, trying to avoid interaction with the images on the screen. Although it is difficult to realize this is the same filmster that gave us Jaws, Indiana Jones, ET, and the like.....it is. Spielberg and Lucas seem to suffer from the same affliction as they age: incresaing distance from the rest of humanity.
June 21, 2002, 7:23 p.m. CST
I rarely post in the talkbacks here because of all the vitriol, but I just had to defend Harry here. I mean, c'mon, he didn't like a fucking movie. So what? If you people love MR, great! Glad to hear it, I hope you see it over and over again. But everyone has a right to their own opinion. I haven't seen MR, and I love Spielberg, and it has a John Williams score, so I am looking forward to it. But if I love it, I won't come here and verbally abuse Harry because I disagree with him. Grow up, people!
June 21, 2002, 7:28 p.m. CST
by Darth Porculo
You know, Harry cried of pure emotion about three or four times watching AOTC, and that film turned to be a shit. So, if he doesnt like Minority, thats a sure winner!!
June 21, 2002, 7:38 p.m. CST
I'm not about to mouth off about MR because I haven't seen it. I suspect I will like it. It is cool if Harry has not liked it, because I can cope with the fact that his taste and mine can diverge and not interpret this as a vicious and premeditated personal betrayal. What I will mouth off about though is "Blade Runner". I believe this still keeps me kind of on-topic as it is another Dick adaptation, though the movie inverts the message of Dick's novel to great effect in my opinion. I am one of those people that loves BR and would have sex with it if it were a person. It's a philosophical treatise on what it means to be human, why you're alive, and the inevitability of death dressed up as a sci-fi action movie. I'm not saying that to be pretentious. You can "get it" but not necessarily like it, but I fucking love it. The replicants attempt to deal with their mortality - fight against it, work out what to do with it (kill your creator, fall in love, reassess your priorities) and are finally forced to accept loss and death - incidentally inspiring the emotionally dead Deckard and Rachel to do the same. While all of this fight for life is going on, all the surroundings are falling apart and decaying, surrounding the characters with a sense of entropy that makes their struggle for life more poignant. I think this is one of the few movies that actually benefited greatly from a director's cut as the new, stark ending works way better and the voiceover was always shit (not so keen on the shoe-horned in unicorns though, look like they've been clipped from "Legend"). Its look has been pinched by films as diverse as AOTC and The Matrix, and on a purely viceral level, Rutger Hauer was completely fucking cool in it. And I just wanted to take a few minutes to give love and pay homage to this completely awesome movie - though of course you may feel differently. I don't see how anyone could say it was boring. Now, "The Ninth Gate", that was a boring movie.
June 21, 2002, 7:46 p.m. CST
Why? Because Harry liked AOTC and I thought it was okay but overall it was pretty damn boring. It seems like all Harry does on this site lately is name drop and praise the work of directors he's friends with. Also, I must agree with everyone here who criticized the poor structure of the review.
June 21, 2002, 7:47 p.m. CST
Why? Because Harry liked AOTC and I thought it was okay but overall it was pretty damn boring. It seems like all Harry does on this site lately is name drop and praise the work of directors he's friends with. Also, I must agree with everyone here who criticized the poor structure of the review.
June 21, 2002, 7:57 p.m. CST
by Forest the Gimp
You can read that in the book he wrote. he describes it as an inferior re-make of Total Recall. He's pissed off because he wanted Spielberg and Cruise to collaborate on a different movie. So Harry was biased against this movie for about a year in advance. And don't forget that Harry gave TPM and AOTC great reviews. His judgement has gone to hell
June 21, 2002, 8:06 p.m. CST
by FD Resurrected
I also thought A.I. is Spielberg's best film since Close Encounters of the Third Kind. While the comparision may not be appropriate, what I mean is that movies have the magical ability to evoke the sense of astonishment and wonder while intellectually stimulating. I haven't had an astonishing and moving experience watching A.I. as a movie viewer in a year since Dancer in the Dark (also despised by the ignorant film-should-be-mindless-fun-not-as-thought-provoking-art public that love Michael Bay/Jerry Bruckheimer/Hollywood moron films). I personally cannot wait to see the theatrical re-release of The Seven Samurai on the silver screen this autumn. That movie deserves to be seen on the large screen rather than on TV. If anybody over 21 and with the I.Q. of 110 or so say the film is slow and boring, fuck 'em. I might see Minority Report, but I try to ignore spoilers as much as possible in order to watch the film with less expectation that could maximize enjoyment of the movie. Thank goodness I only saw A.I. teaser trailers before seeing the movie. A.I. reaffirms the belief that Steven Spielberg is a great director (after a string of disappointments from terrible stinker The Lost World to unimpressive, cliched and vastly overrated SPR - only my opinion) and Stanley Kubrick is a genius (in spirit anyway). If only Hollywood could make spoiler-less teaser trailers that rely on intrigue and mystery. Thought I admire Robert Zemeckis, I hate him for defending spoiler trailers like Cast Away. Hollywood is ruining the virginal experience of going to the movies by giving away crucial spoilers in the trailers and promotion overkill with stars shilling in magazines and on TV. Death to spoiler trailers and TV spots.
June 21, 2002, 8:07 p.m. CST
by Almost Sexy
The reason the cops didn't intercept Tom Cruise's character at the hotel was because they didn't know where the hotel was. It was one of hundreds of identical looking apartment complexes in the city, and they were having difficulty narrowing its location down. ((MAJOR SPOILERS AHEAD, SO BE CAREFUL MATEYS, ARRRGGGGHHH)). You also asked, why the bad guy didn't just have the victim killed in the first place, but the problem was that with the pre-cogs active, that couldn't possibly happen. HUGE GIANT SPOILER IN THE NEXT SENTENCE YO-HO!!! By re-enacting the murder attempt (successfully this time, seconds after the suspect had been taken away), he could make the pre-cogs vision look like an echo of the previous vision. I thought this was quite clever. There's still a huge whole with this idea, but since no one has brought it up, I don't see why I should. Furthermore, I couldn't disagree more strenuously with Harry's review of the film. I think it was one of Cruise's best performances (although I'm not a big fan and haven't seen many of his movies). His comments towards Samantha Morton were, I felt, unfortunate. I can't imagine another actress doing more with that part. However, I really respect the fact that Harry was willing to step up and knock the film as hard as he did, which I thought was pretty gutsy. Oh but Shade, you were right about the jet-pack...tell your sister, you were right... ugggggghhhhh....
June 21, 2002, 8:11 p.m. CST
F**king stay away from this awful life draining, time and money sucking shitfest! I gave it a chance for the first 30 minutes, I really did. I couldn't stand it and got disgruntled and I want MY eyes removed but that still won't get it out of my head. This film should be taken to Australian outback and buried, the people who wrote the script, put the money up, directed, basically anyone who had something to do with this film should be shot and killed in the name of humanity.
June 21, 2002, 8:19 p.m. CST
Oh man and I thought A.I was a bad movie. Minority Report makes that look like Citizen fucking Kane. And guess what? Both movies were directed by Steven Spielberg, who now owes me 6 hours of time for both movies. He used to have good movies, maybe I should watch them again to see if maybe I was sleeping or something. I think he has forgotten how to end a movie. The movie had a semi-interesting plot, if it could have been pulled off well. But it turns out it was just one cliche after another with a few new special affects and beauty boy Tom. **Spoiler ahead if you care** It had everything from the revelation of the evil mastermind because of the "But I didn't tell you that she drowned!" situation to the ever so popular lately make one person look bad the entire time who actually turns out to be good. Come on Spielberg! Pull yourself out of the shitpile and start making some good movies again. This was just another one of the latest fads in films, which is to try and pull off some movie with some type of deep philosophical meaning that will make people think! Just like A.I. and Vanilla Sky, don't even THINK about going to this movie. "Hottest june movie!".... Maybe if all the moviegoers are rioting and burning all the reels.
June 21, 2002, 8:19 p.m. CST
by The Cars
What a dumb statement. Is a film nothing more than plot to people? Give me a break.
June 21, 2002, 8:20 p.m. CST
by Spell Checker
For the first fucking time in years, I TOTALLY AGREE with HARRY KNOWLES!!! THANK YOU HARRY, MY FAITH IS RESTORED. I haven't been so bored in a movie since... well... I can't remember when. What is all this crap about it being a brilliant masterpiece? Quick rants: 1) What's so original about the plot? I've read this in pulp sci-fi novels a thousand times!! The technological 'innovations' were NOTHING I hadn't read about before! Don't you people READ? I don't mind seeing the same thing over again AS LONG AS I CARE ABOUT THE CHARACTERS(see rant # 4)!!! 2) The mise-en-scene and camera moves were quite wonderful, but the shots themselves lacked any real dynamics - the photography was so bleached out it lacked any real 'bite'! 3) Was that the lamest-ass jet-pack sequence you've ever seen? Where was all the kick-ass energy? For that matter, where was ANY of the energy in ANY of the action sequences? 4) Cruise's character is so sketchy that when he struggles with offing his son's killer - we DON'T CARE!!! It's the emotional lynchpin of the film and it lacks any real resonance! It's an excuse for a plot twist! 5) The only people doing any acting in the film are the supporting cast - Colin Ferrel, Samatha Morton, and Max Von Sydow. Why don't we get to know Cruise's pre-cog police team? Why doesn't Cruise get anything to do beside be angry, really angry, or cry? 6) Note to cinematographer: bleaching out your film looks really pretty but doesn't do much to bring any weight to your images. I know it's all supposed to look a little dreamy, a little 'pre-cogged', but how are we supposed to feel for these characters if we can barely see them? 7) Note to Spielberg - I appreciate that you're trying to tell a complicate tale - but try to have a complicated story behind it. You could have shortened this thing by at least 15-25 minutes and keept it under 2 hours. 8) Did John Williams write a score? Because I can't remember it at all. ******* Okay, that's all I have to say right now - except what a waste. I really liked the highways, though.
June 21, 2002, 8:27 p.m. CST
Spieberg can do two things very well, make entertaining films for the masses, and make deeply emotional films that bring the audience to tears. There is nothing wrong with either kind of movie, but I consider the best films to either be a) thought provoking or b) original. Minority Report is an original - thought provoking - wildly entertaining - intelligent film that has classic Spielberg sentiment without running it into the ground (as good as Private Ryan, Amistad, A.I. and Schindler's List were when I saw them, I cannot bring myself to sit through any of them again.) This is the first film to bridge the gaps between the two Spielberg styles, and I loved every minute of it.
June 21, 2002, 8:35 p.m. CST
Although I disagree with your final analysis of the movie, I respect your opinion. Sure, the movie isn't without its flaws, but it was one of the best movies I've seen this year. Only time will tell how well this one stands up against some of the classics. It's too soon to tell. One thing you did point out that I didn't catch when I watched the movie was the rule the film broke when Anderton's crime of passion was seen by the Pre-Cogs so early. It still doesn't change my opinion of the movie. It is still a great movie to me.
June 21, 2002, 8:37 p.m. CST
by Almost Sexy
I found your post about Phillip K. Dick up above (way up above, that is), to be very illuminating. So much so that I plan to go out and buy one of his books. Thanks much. Speaking of intelligent posting: Dear Mr. Kirk's Toupee, your posts above make it hard for me to believe that civil discourse of film ever existed at this site, but I haven't been around here that long. When people were having meaningful movie talk here in days of yore, were they as vitriolic and prone to profanity as you??? The part about how everyone here can all go to H--- (bad word here), was hilarious though. In summation, I would just like to say that I loved the film, it really hooked me on an emotional level, and I'm hoping to go back and see it again later tonight. My only real problem with the story was that there was a story thread (ARRRGGHHH ME BUCKOS, HUGE SPOILER TA PORT!!) that echoed L.A. Confidential so strongly that it was very predictable (if you've seen both movies, I think you'll be able to gauge the cut of my jib, arrgggh!)
June 21, 2002, 8:48 p.m. CST
BTW, where's Joe Hallenbeck?! I am still waiting for him to review Star Wars!! In any case, my newspaper gave this film 3.5/4 stars! No way! 2.5 out of 4 would be more accurate. It's been a while, but I agree with Harry 100 percent in this review of his. Here's something I want to know: Does Spielberg remember how to 1.) actually use color in his films? 2.) make something fun, entertaining, and a great escape from reality? When I saw the trailers to this movie, I was underwhelmed, but I like Cruise and I figured this was real Spielberg and not a Kubrick film. I detested A.I., so I must say, this is a better film than that. Spielberg keeps making these super heavy laden, depressing, preachy, grim films. Even though I was underwhelmed by the trailers, I started to get more pumped from the hype and feedback I was hearing. I wanted a move that would have me on the edge of my seat and guessing what the hell was going on. I wanted characters that would seem alive to me. These characters felt almost like A.I.'s dead and wooden characters. This movie felt and looked a lot like A.I., which I hope this is the last we see of it. I want to see Spielberg start making fun (broadest meaning possible) and entertaining movies again. I think he can do it. As of now...I have really lost a lot of faith in him. What happened to both Lucas and him? There was a time when these two were paragons above reproach! No longer...
June 21, 2002, 8:53 p.m. CST
Harry has no credibility.
June 21, 2002, 9 p.m. CST
Let me state something further. I probably need to see MR again,too. It's a good film, certainly, but...damn it really could have and should have been so much more. Lots of good stuff there...
June 21, 2002, 9:01 p.m. CST
by Almost Sexy
You brought up a lot of good points in your last post; thank you for answering. However, I think Cruise's character found the apartment building more by luck than skill (or perhaps some obscure concatenation of events brought about by having a pre-cog with him). He just happened to walk out of the shopping mall, and saw the floating billboard guy in front of a building that looked like hundreds of other buildings. I also remember Miss Hat Garden Scientist lady saying that the female pre-cog was the brains behind the operation, the special one, and the pre-cog tech (I think this is right, I'll have to see the movie again) said that the female drives the powers of the males, and that they don't work without her. Further, your question of why the other cops don't use pre-cogs to track Cruise: I doubt it would occur to them. Remember when Witwer comes in at the beginning and asks about the whole process, and they're looking at the pre-cogs? Witwer makes some comment, and Cruise replies something to the effect of (paraphrasing loosely) "Yeah, it's best to try not to think of them as humans." That's just the thing. When the female pre-cog reaches out to Cruise and talks to him, this is very anomalous. The pre-cogs have never talked to anyone before, they are even kept in a semi-conscious state. No one would think to ask them for help, or to get them to assist in any deliberate manner. As for your question as to why the bad guy didn't come up with a better way of eliminating the human maguffin, I feel like you're really asking, "Why didn't the screenwriters come up with a better way to have the bad guy eliminate the female maguffin?" This is something I don't have a real answer to. I still agree with you about the jet-pack though. That would have burned his frigging legs off. Anyway, it's been fun talking about the movie. It helped me answer some questions of my own. What interests me the most is, how was the bad guy going to set up Cruise to know about the guy in the apartment. There's some interesting free-will/determinism stuff in the film. Because time gets interrupted. Cruise doesn't know there is a guy in the apartment until he sees himself killing the guy. But how was the bad guy planning on leaking that information to him, or did he just pay the guy's hotel bill and hope that the pre-cogs would take care of the rest. The pre-cog as well has a vested interest in what's going on, and maybe that effected how things played out as well. Thoughts??
June 21, 2002, 9:02 p.m. CST
only thing that struck me as odd, as society and the justice system seems to hold people less and less responsible for their actions that this could be a plausible step. There is no checking if they are "insane" at the moment of the crime or not, just the fact they did it or not. Doesnt seem like a future of this society. But who knows, maybe they rounded up all the lawyers and shot em. Most of em need it anyway. Far fetched but oddly believable, the movie did seem like a dream state but not in a bad way. Its a known fact people are becoming less and less concious of the world and in this aspect it is a possible future. The story deffinitly unravels well to an outcome, although predictable, is satisfying.
June 21, 2002, 9:03 p.m. CST
Blade Runner is overrated as hell, BTW AOTC and TPM suck. Period.
June 21, 2002, 9:19 p.m. CST
by Billy Talent
Sorry to tell you this Harry, but when it comes to the fine art of eating pussy, your pals Rodriguez, Jackson, DelToro and Raimi are hopeless amateurs. They sort of just bury their faces in my cunt and drool and slobber all over the place. They jam their fat little fingers inside of me, licking at my snatch with the grace and finesse of a drunken bar brawl. They know that I have a clitoris somewhere, but damned if they can find it. They look up at me and smile like stupid hungry dogs begging for table scraps and they ask me if I'm getting off. And because my mother taught me manners, I tell them yes, I'm having a splendid time thank you. But with Steven it's different. His tongue is a laser, a surgeon
June 21, 2002, 9:25 p.m. CST
by BEARison Ford
first half was pretty great, i was eagerly awaiting where the story was going to take me and i thought samantha morton, and colin farrell were especially good. all that aside, how the fuck did spielberg and co. let this film fall into such cliched territory during the last half? i mean come on. colin farrell's "i'm going to explain the whole scheme to the villain.. then ponder who the villain is.. uh oh watch out!" was straight out of L.A. Confidential, i'd say how many movies have the "but... i didn't say _______" scene that went on between Kathryn Morris and Von Sydow but literally, that one must be in the hundreds, and guess what, it's still not effective. exposing the villain in front of hundreds of his peers etc rang from The Fugitive among others... i dunno overall it looked like they had a great idea and looked VERY hard for a plot to surround it, then just gave up.
June 21, 2002, 9:27 p.m. CST
by The Yattering
I very seldom talkback anymore - though I did also contribute to the Don Murphy-a-thon talkback earlier this week. Anyway, that's meaningless but I did want to say that I saw this film with two friends today and we all loathed it. So far, Kenneth Turan of the L.A. Times has been the only major critic to get anywhere near this opinion, but even he didn't go far enough. Harry's got it right - and he's not the only one who thinks so. Those of us who agree may not be popular in terms of what the critics are saying today, or what the box office will say on Monday morning. But we'll be right in the end. The real movie of the summer is coming in three weeks: "Road to Perdition" delivers in spades and will almost certainly sweep the Oscars next March, including Best Picture. Yes, I'm well aware how early it is and also very aware of the movies to come throughout the rest of the year. Mark my words: "Road to Perdition" is Best Picture in 2003. Time to go see "Stitch"...
June 21, 2002, 9:43 p.m. CST
by Shabba McDoo
What in the sweet name of Christ is with all the Tom Cruise bashing? Are you guys jealous of the pretty bastard because of his looks? That has to be it, because there's NO fucking reason to bash the guy's acting skills. Go rent Rain Man. Born on the Fourth of July. Far and Away. A Few Good Men. Interview with the Vampire. Jerry Maguire. Magnolia. The guy's as talented as they come. Any of you that're shitting on his abilities as a performer need to at least back your opinion up with some logic. And one last thing: Harry...Jesus H. Tap-Dancing Christ, man...if you're at ALL concerned with the interests of the fans of this website, TAKE OUR GODDAMN ADVICE AND RE-THINK SOME OF YOUR REVIEWS BEFORE YOU POST THEM! Come on, man. Do you SEE the feedback for this review? Hell, some of the shit people have said about you hurts MY feelings.
June 21, 2002, 9:45 p.m. CST
by Merkin Muffley
Others should pass this over AS IT COULD BE CONSTRUED AS SPOILERIFIC... in the eye transplant scene, the surgeon keeps making threatening references to Tom that he's going to get payback for arresting him some time ago. Yet in the end, he does a good job for a discount AND leaves him a nice sandwich. What the hell was all that "creepy" build up for?
June 21, 2002, 9:53 p.m. CST
by Almost Sexy
This film could almost work as a time travel movie. The first possible time line is as follows. The bad guy arranges for Cruise to discover that the guy in the hotel is or has to do with X, which is the reason Cruise's character would kill. However, the pre-cogs see this and show it to Cruise, so that he now has a foreknowledge of the future that he wouldn't have had otherwise. This sets up a second, subtly different time-line than the first. It's actually a pretty confusing idea. By en-acting his perfidious plan, the villain affected the future in an un-anticipated way. Cool, huh? What do y'all think?
June 21, 2002, 10 p.m. CST
by Shabba McDoo
Whether or not all of Harry's recent reviews have been orgasmic fits of love and masturbation is inconsequential. What you NEED to do, Harry, (and yea, I'm talking to you because I know you're reading each and every one of these talkbacks by now) is just post a few negative reviews to even things out. Minority Report's a bad start, but that's not what matters. What matters right now is your credibility as a writer, as a film critic...hell, even as a human being judging by some of the responses this review's gotten so far. Lately, all we get from you are reviews about movies that either have a special sort of meaning in your life or touch you in places we don't even wanna' know about. Don't just give us all the sugary goodness, man. Throw in a few salty bones here and there to balance out your cred. Otherwise, by the time the next LotR flick hits theaters and your review's done and posted, the whole fucking world is going to have you labeled as a sell-out. No offense intended. I'm just a stranger in a strange land, trying to give a little advice to a fellow stranger in need.
June 21, 2002, 10:03 p.m. CST
OK, like many here on this board, im pretty shocked Harry didnt go ape shit for this movie like it seems everyone else is, myself admittedly included....but my god, peoples, do you get that like everyone else with access to a keyboard, the man's entitled to his opinion???? Granted, it's fun to be right, and have thousands of others on your side about a subject, but throwing a bitch fit when someone else doesnt agree is just plain childish, right down there with bashing a movie because its fashionable, but then again, it shouldnt be a surprise at this point....mention AOTC in a crowded TB to see the Legion of Talkback Doom raise their puberty cracking voices in trendy vitriolic unison. To those with more brain power than this, forgive me, my venom is spewed not at you, but if you haven't adopted Kevin Smith as your patron saint of Talkback Integrity, do so now, i beg of you. Fuck the TalkBrats, fuck them up their stupid asses.....now, hatred vented, onto Harry's review.....im still pretty shocked....coming out, the film seemed like it was right up Harry's alley, really....but, at the same time, the way he talks about the responses of those around him...EVERYONE else he knows loved the film...the movie having a 98 percent freshness rating over at Rotten Tomatoes...what i think this is more a case of is hype claiming yet another moviegoer in its neon clutches...the letdown many of you felt with Phantom Menace, i believe thats what happened to Harry, though there wasnt the added itch of 20 years of waiting behind this movie....beware hype children...hype kills....it's the incredible building orgasm that never delivers...beware....shame, though...i wont get into a full review yet....ive been watching movies all day and my eyes are starting to bug me(the last 45 minutes of Akira on DVD around 5 am, Ghostbusters on cable around 7 am, A.I. on DVD at around 9[my warm up movie, of sorts], Lilo and Stitch around 1[because i missed the first showing of MR], and Minority Report at 3:45)...but to keep it short and tasteless, while the film being Spielberg's best is debatable,ive personally come to believe that it makes a damn strong argument in its favor. I dunno what allowing the ghost of Kubrick to possess Spielberg did to him after A.I., but whatever it did, i like it. Here's hoping Dark Spielberg sticks around a while...that guy's got balls of solid rock. As for Cruise, keep taking the risks, man....roles like this just never cease to raise your stock in my book. I suppose a bigger review will be forthcoming if enough Talkback assholes piss me far enough off to lay down some law. For now, though, a quick answer to Harry's little question...think about the idea of precognition itself when you ask that, Harry. These three people can see murders before they happen...however, you dont think that that idea would apply much stronger when a precog was PERSONALLY involved? Agatha was right there in the room when it happened...i would think that i had that power, and i was going to be personally involved with the coming crime, the vision would come a lot faster and stronger....remember the lady with the plants said...every creature, no matter how feeble, is embued with the will to survive....which is also why i think Agatha saw the precrime squad arriving at the cottage, even when no murder happened...she was in danger, so a sort of precog spider sense kicked in....a sense that of course filtered into Dash and Arthur. And as for the crime of passion/premeditated crime issue?****the spoilers start here**** Obviously you didnt notice the gap in between Anderton finding out Leo kidnapped his kid, and Leo walking through the door. The second it clicked for Anderton was the second he made the decision to kill the son of a bitch. ****the spoilers endeth here. read in peace**** OK, sure, its only 5 minutes or so of premeditation, but keep in mind, the first case in the film, the guy had only 2 minutes advance thought to figure out when and how to kill his wife. OK, eyes REALLY hurt now, and this TB post is now War and Peace. I go sleep now. Bye bye. Revolution is my name. He knows everything. Don't go home.
June 21, 2002, 10:06 p.m. CST
by Bobby Bowfinger
Just saw this movie tonight and found it most entertaining. The one major plot hole I couldn't help but notice was this. Tom Cruise uses his old eye to get into the Pre-Crime HQ. Surely, his clearance would have been revoked with him on the run for murder. Perhaps, they figured he'd never come back there, but it should have at least set off an alarm.
June 21, 2002, 10:07 p.m. CST
This movie had the same problem AI did- they just didnt know when to stop filming. If it had ended when John was put away, leaving us to think the other guy got away with it that would have been cool. Just as good would have been ending on the porch with the final shooting. The extended ending only beats an already dead horse. Its sad that the studio can't leave anything to the imagination of the viewer anymore. One of the great things that made American Beauty a winner was that the director decided to leave the loose ends to the audience to ponder, instead of dulling the script with hashing out an obvious ending. Too bad Speilberg couldnt take the hint..
June 21, 2002, 10:07 p.m. CST
Too bad the movie was actually good.
June 21, 2002, 10:20 p.m. CST
Lost his damn fool mind! Just saw MR, it was a good summer film... warts and all! Not Speilbergs best but not his worst either. Great popcorn movie!
June 21, 2002, 10:22 p.m. CST
While i refuse to follow ewem's post as far as TPM and AOTC go(dont get me started again, please), i do follow him on one thing....i've seen Blade Runner about 8 times, voluntarily, now....the film is vastly overrated. Sorry to have to say it, but nothing's changed my opinion yet. I still, regardless, respect the film for the influence its had, though. But, as a side note, i still think A.I.'s a beautiful work of art...let that information influence how my ranting is interpreted however you wish....ok, i go bye again
June 21, 2002, 10:53 p.m. CST
by War Eagles
The simple analogy used in the movie to illustrate the infallibility of the system is a falling ball. To expand on the analogy, the Pre-cogs detect the ball falling and anticipate it striking the ground (i.e., the murder). The police know that if they don
June 21, 2002, 10:54 p.m. CST
First of all Harry, Scott Frank did not conceive of the future in Minority Report - that's by his own admission and Spielberg's as well. Frank says he wrote a straight whodunnit with no descriptions of hardware. Second of all, what are you, high? Regardless, I could feel the audience squirming during this movie because this is the darkest thing Spielberg's ever done - and thank fuck for that. Who knew he had an imagination this dark? There's some creepy, creepy alienating stuff in this film that would give Cronenberg or Gilliam nightmares (the product placement being chief amongst those details). Let's get something else straight here: Spielberg's current films are not the products of studio tinkering. He refuses to test screen his films with an audience, develops whatever projects he feels like, and gets final cut. The irony is that through his extraordinary success he's able to make wacked out movies like Minority Report that take risks on every level. I dug it but boy the audience I was seemed to be squirming in disgust and uneasiness. Terrific I say.
June 21, 2002, 11:11 p.m. CST
The murder that was envisioned was one of both premeditation *and* passion. Obviously, it was passionate because he was avenging his son's death, yes. But it was premeditated for two reasons. First, the villain had *set the whole thing up*. But secondly (and of much more narrative power), Anderton -- by knowing of the murder's existence -- in effect made it premeditated. He was compelled to go to the scene and discover for himself why he could commit a murder he could not imagine committing. That entire impulse was premeditated! It's classical paradoxical sci-fi, and it's ubercool. Surprised you missed that, Harry. Why don't you give the movie another chance? I've come to the conclusion that almost any movie deserves at least 2 viewings to completely evaluate it, often to examine different aspects of the filmmaking but more often just because I'm not in the right mood the first time I see it. Oh, and I don't think the fact that Harry watched 3 movies in one day had much of an effect on his impression. I expect he averages at least 3 movies per day on any day. What I did find strange about this review is that usually I skip the first 12 paragraphs or so of Harry's reviews; this one actually began at the beginning! As for me, I thought the movie was mighty cool. I especially liked Samantha Morton's performance; the scene in the mall was great. The spider scene was great, too. I'm looking forward to more from Colin Farrell. Really, just good storytelling overall. Admittedly, I correctly predicted every major development in the last hour or so, but that's probably because the story had me so stimulated that my mind was buzzing overtime on it. One question: why wasn't Anderton blind in his left eye after the spider lifted the bandage, particularly after Stormare's character's insistence that he not remove the blindfold early? I was waiting for that payoff, but it never came (unless he was blind in that eye throughout the whole second half of the movie and I didn't pick up on it). Or was Stormare simply wrong (possible, but not as satisfying)? One thing I didn't dig so much: some of those schmaltzy Spielbergian touches -- the cooking burgers, the disrupted dinner table, the yoga women, etc. Those sorts of things might bring a smile on occasion, but more often they simply compromise the suspense for me. I don't know; in an Indiana Jones movie they seem appropriate, but in a film like this I would have liked it played a little straighter. In fact, that whole first escape action sequence didn't do much for me (until the end payoff with his escape in the assembled car -- though that might have been due to Farrell's expression in response). Did anyone else think it funny that the title of the movie actually refers to something that in actuality plays no role in the movie (other than its use as a red herring that is completely dealt with by the time 2/3 of the film is complete)? Interestingly, in the short story, there *was* a minority report (all 3 pre-cogs issued a different prediction, thus all 3 were minority reports). Not that I believe they should have stuck with that format. In fact, I found this story more logically satisfying than Dick's original version. That's all for me. Hope others enjoyed it as much as I. Thanks, Steve, Tom, Janusz, Max, etc.
June 21, 2002, 11:21 p.m. CST
I figure it's so late in the postings that nobody will read this, but I have to come out and agree with Harry on this one. My friend and I both walked out of this movie trying to think of how to describe it. It wasn't good, it wasn't bad, it was just there. Decent story, but slow mostly. Anyway, I'd just like to tell Harry that he's not the only sane person out there, and hope he's not taking it too bad that people can be blinded so easily anymore.
June 21, 2002, 11:23 p.m. CST
Spoilers, of course: So Max Von Sydow's plan is to kill the mother of the pre-cog by hiring a drifter to do it, knowing he'll be caught, and then re-enacting the pre-cog's vision of the crime. Fine, but in the movie they make clear that they prevent the drifter from carrying out the murder! The cops even check to see that she's ok. Then, obviously she turns up dead. I guess its supposed to be the drifter who's in halo storage. Has everyone forgotten that they successfully prevented the crime, and that there's a discrepancy here?
June 21, 2002, 11:24 p.m. CST
You hate shallow characters? Harry, go back and read your pornographic review of 'Blade II.'
June 21, 2002, 11:32 p.m. CST
I could have sworn this happened but I thought I saw a ball roll out of the machine immediately after Anderton finds out that he is going to commit murder and decides to go on the run. The ball with Anderton's victim rolls out of the machine and immediately afterwards the one with Anderton on it rolls out. I don't think he ever saw it because he was running to the elevator when I think this occured. Did this really happen or was I just seeing things?
June 21, 2002, 11:33 p.m. CST
I haven't seen this movie yet, and I really have nothing invested in its critical success, but I think it's kind of odd how inconsistent you are when going about your critiques. You might be right, though. I'm checking it out this weekend.
June 21, 2002, 11:36 p.m. CST
by user id indeed!
Long time, no talkie-talkie, eh? I'll try to drop a line tomorrow night. Also, this review makes me want to piss nails. Harry, I usually try to back you up and defend you, but... I don't know if I can after this. How can you not see the brilliance here? People, please don't take Harry's word for it- GO SEE THIS. WE NEED MORE MOVIES LIKE THIS. SUPPORT IT! FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT IS GOOD AND HOLY! The psychic mall chase, the jet packs, the assembly line, the highway, the opening, Gideon, the Doctor, Henimen, the precog tennant, the hotel confrontation, those wicked sound-blasting guns, the fantasy hall, and dear Lord, that fucking spider sequence! This movie is simply incredible. And not a "This is such a drag!" to be heard. Say it with me now: Ahhhhhhhhhh. This has been a Sick Stick Moment with User ID Indeed! PS- the Doctor's "She only has eyes for you" does not count, because based on the illegal eye-swapping, the quacking, and the whole "setting his patients ablaze" thing, I have this sneaking suspicion that he is apeshit.
June 21, 2002, 11:52 p.m. CST
I just saw MR. It is definitely one of the best movies I've ever seen (i'm 27). It reduces Spiderman and AOTC to absolute garbage. I can't believe Harry would diss it like he did, but it sounded like it was his honest emotional reaction. My honest reaction is that entertainment doesn't get any better. It was funny, exciting, fresh, original, the action was clean and always apart of the story, and it clearly deserves Oscars for Directing, Picture, and Screenplay. There are so many memorable moments- Tom Cruise, bandaged eyes, in the bathtub of ice, Samantha Morton saying "WAIT WAIT WAIT" and then those BALLOONS! YAY! Great movie making.
June 21, 2002, 11:54 p.m. CST
Harry says he doesn't buy Anderton's entire motivation behind being involved with Pre-Crime -- that is his son was kidnapped, not murdered. Yes, he wondered what it would be like to meet his son and if his son would recognize him. But I think that at some point the grieving father came to accept the more-than-likely probability that his son was dead. (And had the kidnapper actually murdered his son within the geographical range of the pre-cogs' knowledge, then he would have been able to prevent it.) So, the spirit of preventing his son's death was still there. Not only that, leaving it as an open case where Anderton never knew exactly what happened lends a little more narrative and emotional resonance to Agatha's vision of his son's diverted future. This also ties into Anderton's wondering aloud in the hotel room about his son's fate. Again, I thought it was tied together rather neatly. Now, the plot hole (though it could just be attributed to human error) that I didn't like was already mentioned above. Why didn't the alarms go off once Anderton returned to Pre-Crime with his old retina? On the other hand, Witwer and his gang discovered his presence relatively quickly enough that it wouldn't make much narrative difference. Still, you'd think they would have the resources to be more aware of that retina's comings and goings -- particularly at their own headquarters. And I didn't really get why Witwer didn't want to immediately chase Anderton and Agatha where his buddy knew they came out of the sewer. There was less than an hour until the murder, and they'd rather try to find an indistinguishable hotel room than follow a hot trail? (Though again, they picked up the trail relatively quickly regardless thanks to Witwer's detective work.) O.k., so the plot hole I don't really agree was too much of a hole: War Eagle's comments on the physical intervention being the important element in preventing a murder. I know it's not completely solid, but what time travel story (or tale of this sort) isn't a little paradoxical? The ability of Anderton and von Sydow to change their minds was due to their foreknowledge of the event's definitely happening. Any other murderer -- regardless of the degree of premeditation -- never truly knows how events will play out in the physical world. But von Sydow and Anderton are distinguished in the fact that they actually have access to the Pre-Cogs' visions. No other murderer had that sort of knowledge. Now, this raises the question, shouldn't Pre-Crime's physical intervention of telling a future murderer that his crime is ordained to happen be sufficient in preventing the crime? I suppose you could get a headache thinking about all this, but regardless doesn't the film's conclusion demonstrate the failure of Pre-Crime? All the inhabitants of the Containment Unit are, in fact, set free. One last question I'd like to lay out there for anyone to answer, because the film leaves it ambiguous. Anderton does commit murder, though the logistics of the scene indicated to me that it was self-defense. Nevertheless, he is the first Pre-Crime suspect in a long time to kill the man the Pre-Cogs said he would. Are we to believe he was tried and let off the hook after all the events of the film were sorted out?
June 21, 2002, 11:57 p.m. CST
Ummmmmmmmm, okay. I think this is one of those reviews that Harry writes to try and give himself some cred when people are claiming he gives everything a great review. This movie was great, but you wanted to hate it, while you wanted to love Undercover Brother, so you did. Ugh.
June 21, 2002, 11:59 p.m. CST
by Osmosis Jones
This is the best film of the year thus far (and the Pre-Cog vision of Anderton's "Crime Of Passion" murder was meticulously set up). Ooh, this film is boring, but Armageddon! Now THAT'S a movie!
June 22, 2002, 12:19 a.m. CST
Harry is the biggest piece of shit after this review. Congratulations, you're the new Ebert (Although he liked MR). P.S. MR is a masterpiece!!!
June 22, 2002, 12:30 a.m. CST
If I hadn't have read this review I'd have thought I was losing my mind. I saw MR today and I was horribly disappointed, but everywhere I looked people were praising it as a masterpiece and comparing it to RAIDERS. I feel like the planet's been taken over by some kind of alien parasites that prevent you from seeing HUGE GAPING PLOT HOLES and shoddy, amateurish story structure (especially in the third act). Here's a few of the bigger ones. Oh, yeah.... *** MAJOR SPOILER ALERT *** (1) The Precogs are only operating in Washington for now, so they can't see all the murders in the rest of the country. So instead of using that ridiculous overly complex plot, why does the bad guy just drive his victim into the next state and kill her there? Precogs don't pick up on abductions. Just murders. And only murders in the DC area. Or can they detect if a resident of Washington is murdered somewhere else in the country. (2) This is sort of related, but if these three precogs are so unique (and they are, otherwise why would the bad guy resort to murder to keep from losing one), then how is the system going to be adopted by the whole country? Is there some way to jack up their range so they can see murders from coast to coast? If so they could've mentioned something along these lines. (3) Driving away from the Lexus plant. Yeah, fucking right. Guess they couldn't call in an APB on the car. Maybe all their cell phone batteries ran out or something. I'm sorry, but in the security concious Big Brother universe they created I don't buy a car being able to just drive away like that. If people are constantly tracked everywhere they go, you'd think they'd build cars with GPS trackers in them. This is just lazy screenwriting. And you know what, I could probably go on like this all night, but what's the point. Nobody seems to see that the Emporer has no clothes. And yeah, I'm a struggling screenwriter so maybe this is just sour grapes on my part, but I just can't shake the feeling that some dark ominous force ($) is slowly but inexorably destroying the heart and soul of the film industry. And it's so frustrating because there's nothing I can do about it. And it just tears my heart out to see so many of my former champions fall to the dark side. And then when someone like Harry goes against the grain to shed some light on this situation, he's attacked on all sides as a sellout, traitor , idiot, etc. What's going on? Does anybody else sense this growing darkness, or is it just me?
June 22, 2002, 12:51 a.m. CST
I went to see Minority Report without reading any reviews. I came out of the movie satisfied. In the past few minutes I've looked at some reviews over at www.rottentomatoes.com and now I see why some people may be disappointed in this film. Some of the critics said it was better than Raiders of the Lost Ark and Jaws. That's completely nuts. Minority Report is a really good movie but it isn't that good. Man, some critics really know how to exagerate sometimes. My suggestion is to not read any of these reviews and expect a fun movie that has some interesting ideas but don't excpet Spielberg's greatest work of all time like some of these critics suggest that it is.
June 22, 2002, 12:56 a.m. CST
That's how I would describe Minority Report. Just got back from seeing it. Amazing! ONe of the great things about SS is that he realizes that an audience can pick up on the little details without having to explain everything word for word. HOw many people would have cool gadgets like the Sick Stick or the Spider-bots without milking the idea? Moderation that's the moral.
June 22, 2002, 12:56 a.m. CST
I think Harry's review is pretty close, although I thought it was a little bit better. I give the movie a thumbs up, a "B", whatever. What I don't understand is why they cut every special effects scene down to 5 seconds - the cerial box, Tom getting out of the Lexus, the USA Today video images, the whole maglev freeway with video billboards? This is all groundbreaking stuff, why have Max Von Sydow on the screen for 45 minutes and all of this stuff on for 5? These are great special effects maybe it's too expensive to do long shots, but I just kept thinking "why did they cut that scene short?"
June 22, 2002, 12:59 a.m. CST
...but I actually agree with Harry on this one. The film has it's moments and the futuristic concepts work well IMO; but it lacks an edge. BTW - I still cannot understand how Harry can critique MR for the exact same flaws AOTC was much more guilty of. Ebert is losing more of my respect every week. That being said, most of the sold-out audience seemed to like it quite a bit so please see it for yourself!
June 22, 2002, 1:03 a.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
(1) Gigilo Joe's line about how "someday all that's left will be us" (mecha). (2) They were shiney/crystal/metallic. (3) They had circuits under their skin. (4) The could play video images on their faces. (5) They spoke English, thousands of years after humans had become extinct, implying that they were indigeneous to Earth. (6) They spoke of the humans with reverence that they wanted to know more about (their creators), and not like they were just another extict species they'd come across on their voyage through the stars. (7) It was a movie about robots, not about aliens, so it makes more sense that they'd be robots. (8) At no time did they say anything about being from anywhere but earth. Individually, none of these points proves that they were robots, but with all eight together it becomes pretty clear that they were robots.
June 22, 2002, 1:07 a.m. CST
ok, heres my two cents, even though i only get a penny for my thoughts whenever i read a review here, and harry seems to be able to sit still about the movie, i find that whatever i had been feeling about the film after seeing it is portrayed nicely through the review. if i didn't really like a movie, then harry usually puts into words why not. if i read a review that he is gushing over, i just let it pass and don't worry too much about it. i didn't like MR that much...and sure enough, the words i was tryng to find as to why were in harry's review. although i thought this review did lack a balanced opinion (come on harry, you must have liked the scene with the girl being scared of the spider, it was so creepy and believable) i also laugh anytime i read someone on here say "its official harry's opinion doesn't matter" yet they continually read his reviews. give the man some slack, just be glad he gives you the opportunity to share your two cents with the world.
June 22, 2002, 1:13 a.m. CST
******SPOILER******** Anderton mentions that daily he thinks about what he would do to the person who did this to his son - his crime WAS pre-meditated, albeit not specific.... ******END SPOILER********
June 22, 2002, 1:15 a.m. CST
by Clockwork Taxi
Let's see, this is coming from the same guy who LOVED the CARTOONISH BORE Spider-Man. You are so wrong about this film.... Minority Report is the best science fiction film in years....blows the shit out of Blade Runner.
June 22, 2002, 1:22 a.m. CST
...but I really think that's debatable. Who's to say that the premeditation behind the murder has to be the murder itself? Perhaps all the Pre-Cogs detect is a murder, its logical chain of events leading up to that murder (if it's not the passion version), and whether or not the murderer is the driving force or decision-maker behind enacting that chain of events. As we saw, there was certainly enough detective work that came after each foretelling that would indicate that the Pre-Crime officers were never privy to all the inner workings of the Pre-Cogs. This case with Anderton is a unique one. Never before had someone who had access to the Pre-Cogs' knowledge been in the role of predicted murderer. I think you give Congressional committees too much credit in foreseeing all possible problems. That's a little joke. Seriously, as for Anderton's shortsightedness, perhaps you are correct. But I'll give you two possible responses to that. One is simply suspension of disbelief. The other is that the story as is presents a nice thematic dichotomy: Cruise's character is driven by passion. His motivation for working on Pre-Crime is not to ponder all the time-travel paradoxes presented in his favorite sci-fi novel. In fact, his passion could blind him to those sorts of thoughts. Does that make him a sub-par employee? Perhaps. In fact, that's supported by Witwer's alluding to human error from the very beginning of the film. The other half of that dichotomy is von Sydow's character. He is driven by his intellect, even if it does ultimately fail him. He probably did read all those neat time travel stories, and that's why he can come up with a plot to circumvent the system in the first place. I don't know; you can either buy all that or not. I did. Incidentally, did you read Dick's short story? The exception of an employee of Pre-Crime having access to the knowledge is exactly what drives that story as well. Hey, I know it's not his best work (Valis is my favorite work of his that I have read thus far), but it's a neat little read. As for someone else mentioning the plot hole of simply killing someone outside the geographic range of the Pre-Cogs, again, people don't fully understand the extent of their powers. In fact, as illustrated in the film, many people deify them. Once Agatha gets outside the bounds of the "temple," it's evident that she can do much more than simply anticipate murders. Even if I were von Sydow's character, I don't know if I'd have complete faith in the Pre-Cogs' inability to detect murders elsewhere, particularly if the murderer and victim are two individuals who regularly reside in the D.C. area -- and especially if the victim has such a close personal tie (maternal) to the most powerful Pre-Cog. Yeah, I'm probably overrationalizing. But I'm having fun doing it, and I'm at least managing to convince myself. Thanks for the response. :-)
June 22, 2002, 1:24 a.m. CST
You sellout. Go rave about Jar Jar again in Episode 1, and then take it back, and then praise ep 2, a VERY FLAWED MOVIE WITH VERY FEW CHARACTERS YOU CARE ABOUT SELL OUT How pathetic have you become? Go feed us more pop up ads with your plate of BS, you pig.
June 22, 2002, 1:29 a.m. CST
Again, I've yet to see this movie, so maybe it delivers what it promises and then again, maybe not. This might be another case of a film destroyed by its own hype. Quotes and expectations were high enough before glowing reviews by Ebert and The Daily Variety saw print earlier this week. On a more defensive point, Harry does seem to be speaking from the heart. It's one thing to disagree with him, but I think accusations of fraudulent reviews designed to maintain "indy" credibility at this point are unnecessary. Plus, his review can't, in my opinion, be more off-base than Owen Gleiberman's summation of 'Lilo & Stitch.' If you haven't read it, go check it out at ew.com. Yes, I do know that I snapped earlier on this talkback, but I'm just trying to be fair-minded.
June 22, 2002, 1:58 a.m. CST
I mean thats something many reviewers RARELY do. I mean he could have easily jumped on the Minority Report Loving Bandwagon and praised this film to death. He didnt though. Give him some credit for that. He is probably wrong but I seriously doubt this movie is as good as so many have claimed. The real question is will Harry have the balls to maintain his position on this film if all the positive feelings toward it continue to grow. We'll see. Well don't feel to bad Harry. I hate all Tom Cruise flicks nowadays. Mostly because I hate the man himself so much. Don't let these AICN talkbackers get ya down big guy! Just keep your chins up and stand tall (unless its too much of a strain on your back!).
June 22, 2002, 2 a.m. CST
i'm not going to rant, i'm just going to make a suggestion. when you watch this film, you don't seriously believe THREE "Pre-Cogs," capable of SEEING THE FUTURE, DEEPLY BOTHERED BY MURDER, REFERRED TO AS "DEITIES," and living in a place called THE TEMPLE is all a coincidence, do you? perhaps this movie has a few things to say about Religion as well as Big Brother? just maybe? perhaps something about man and his ongoing attempts to control fate, understand God, and manipulate Christ? something about refusing to believe one's pre-determined fate? one's continuing search for mistakes and 'minority reports,' even in a system of absolute knowledge? i don't know...i can see how some might find all that to be a bit of stretch...especially since the whole 'criticism of technology / Orwellian future' thing is so, well, obvious...oh, and remember something Spielberg said: "I've spent my whole life making movies for other people. Now I'm making movies for myself." Sounds like the words of someone with a bit more of a plan than a lot of people give him credit for...
June 22, 2002, 2:03 a.m. CST
i really think harry saw a different movie. or something. i know everyone's a critic. i know we all have opinions. but damn! i mean, the characters are cartoons? excuse me? i'm really at a loss because while i respect opinions, i respect them when they're based on some concrete evidence. harry's sorely lacking in that department here. just wow. great movie by the way, just a whole lot of fun and suspense.
June 22, 2002, 2:12 a.m. CST
on a grading scale MR deserves about a C-, as a summer blockbuster, it's good, as a film, it blows. I am tending to agree w/ harry more often and i think he made the right call on this one.
June 22, 2002, 2:20 a.m. CST
by Billy Talent
I write the only clever post on this god damned thread, and no one reponds to it. Isn't that just so typical?
June 22, 2002, 2:27 a.m. CST
The best part about the film is the future science involved. It's also really beautiful to look at, just like A.I. was. There's some really clever camera work, and some great action set-pieces, particularly one sequence in an auto manufacturing plant that gets you pumped up, but it loses steam and never gets it back. The CGI complements the visuals without overpowering them, but Spielberg has never gone overboard with CGI. The main problem is the story is full of logic holes, the "mystery" is predictable (I knew who did it in the first half of the film because Spielberg telegraphed it with a single shot of Max Von Sydow), and there is cute humor that doesn't fit with the tone of the film as well as a very juvenile "gross-out" moment where Anderton eats and drinks rotten food from a fridge because he can't see. After the "twist" is revealed, the movie becomes a by-the-numbers whodunnit. I also had a problem with Tom Cruise in this role. He seems SO confident that you don't really get a chance to feel he's in any real danger. He takes these incredible physical risks, leaping around like a superhero, but there's no hesitation there - no sense of fear or vulnerability...or even desperation (unlike Matt Damon in The Bourne Identity. Another imperfect film, but more suspenseful than Minority Report). That probably has more to do with the direction and the screenplay than Cruise, but reflecting on it, it reminded me a of a comic book. Not a comic book movie - a comic book. I expected more out of Spielberg, especially with all of the gushing reviews comparing it to Blade Runner (FUNNY!). I didn't care for A.I., either, but at least A.I. tried to explore the themes presented in that film. At least you had something to talk about that left the theater with you. As Harry said, Minority Report brings up a lot of interesting moral dilemmas that are facing our society, but they are used as mere conversation, and never reflected upon in the film. They're just thrown away. And like A.I., I was dissapointed because I felt the film could've been so much more. I think A.I. is superior to Minority Report, even with its flaws. The major plot hole that just drove me absolutely nuts, and I'm hoping SOMEBODY will agree with me on this: If Anderton was known to be a future killer by the Precog Police, then why did he still have access to the police facilities by use of his eyeball with the optical scanners? Why, after he had been put into Halo, did his WIFE still have access to police facilities by using his eyeball? There are other holes that have been mentioned, but I think the one I listed pretty much starts the unravelling of logic in the script. A decent movie, but forgettable.*******And I'm really not trying to be negative, but that Daredevil teaser! It was boring. For some reason, I think the movie's going to be pretty good, but the way that thing was edited and the music (or lack thereof, can't remember anything memorable)? Isn't a teaser supposed to get you excited? They could've flashed Daredevil on the roof, then flashed Elektra, then shown the shot where DD has the sai thrown at his head with the sound of a heartbeat. And then have DD say in voiceover, "I can hear you." That's it. Done. The way they did it, you don't learn shit about Daredevil.
June 22, 2002, 2:39 a.m. CST
no one will read this way down here but I couldn't agree more with Harry. went into this thinking it would be "the best movie of the summer" hogwash visually stunning as was AI was flat vis a vis charaters. thought provoking but not nearly as much as dinner with good friends. luke warm recommendation.
June 22, 2002, 2:43 a.m. CST
This movie is seriously overhyped. I mean, it's a good flick...it's great in some parts, technically impressive, has a lot of interesting ideas that are executed with panache...but nothing really glues this sucker together. The ending was just a little too convoluted and busy...and, well, badly scripted. The ending for this movie should have been simple and should have illuminated everything that came before it in a new and profound light...give the movie lasting resonance. I know, maybe I ask for too much. This movie was very entertaining, had a few nice dramatic moments, nice vision, so I would say that Harry is definitely being a bit too harsh. Especially considering how much he gushed over Undercover Brother. I mean, his standards are crazy. If he was a very critical person, I'd fully understand his review of Minority Report, but it's hard for me to get how he can treat this movie as he does in light of some of the other movies he's praised. Oh well, it's always fun to read Harry's reviews and disagree with them. Technically, I'm getting kind of irked by these grainy, washed-out images that Kaminski is falling more and more in love with, and Kahn needs to slow his editing down a bit or the next director he'll be working with is Michael Bay. Quick cuts are all well and good, but only when used appropriately. As for the reviewers saying that this is Spielberg's best movie since Raiders, one of his best period, one of their favorite science fiction movies ever...well, I'm happy for you. I don't understand how any film buff could think that this movie rivals Schindler's List or Raiders or Blade Runner or 2001...it doesn't have the elegance of any of those films. But whatever.
June 22, 2002, 2:55 a.m. CST
I've read so many mini-reviews on this site that tear Scott Frank's masterful plot to pieces without thinking a little bit first. --Many people don't understand that the crime Anderton ultimately commits is not a crime of passion. It is premeditated, but herein lies the great paradox, in part by the victim. Anderton finally decides NOT to kill the man, but instead to arrest him. It is only when the proposed victim jumps at Anderton and causes Anderton to shoot the man (the man kills himself to help his family) that the murder occurs. The killing that the precogs see (where Cruise shoots the same man from far away and which would have been a crime of passion) is obviously different from the actual killing that occurs as the two characters are face-to-face and which is obviously not a crime of passion on either part. What all of that means is that the reviewers that are saying that the film doesn't work because Anderton's crime was a crime of passion and the precogs would'nt know about a crime of passion that far ahead of time, are wrong. Once again, the crime was predetermined in part by the victim. --- I do agree with some of the very minor plot holes, though, possibly because THEY DON'T MATTER. I loved the assembly line part where Cruise just drives off in the car that was assembled around him, and the huge doors open to allow this. I hate critics who think that a serious film must be based entirely on logic. A movie is only required to work cinematically and that part does so perfectly. -- Don't get me wrong, Harry shouldnt be allowed to critique movies, but I don't mind this insane review so much because at least he doesn't hate it based on too many plot problems. I mean, I'm sure no one will ever believe in Harry too much again, so at least this review serves a purpose. ----- I hope no one will read this who has seen the movie because I would hate to add to the hype, but this is one of the greatest mysteries ever put to film, and I still sit in amazement that ANY filmmaker could create a masterpiece this layered and technically challenging. And I have only seen it once!!!
June 22, 2002, 2:58 a.m. CST
Undercover Brother was more entertaining to me than Minority Report. They're two completely different genres. Minority Report is being reviewed as the second coming of Spielberg, and it's just not. Undercover Brother is a comedy that exceeded my expectations. That's probably due to the fact that Undercover Brother wasn't directed by Steven Spielberg. I usually don't agree with Harry. Armageddon and Episode One were both crap. But I can't argue any of his critiscm of Minority Report, because I wholeheartedly agree with it.
June 22, 2002, 3:13 a.m. CST
by heywood jablomie
How Spielberg followed up the masterly A.I. with this turkey, his dumbest since 1991's HOOK, is beyond me. The whole thing feels like a dumb Jan de Bont movie where Spielberg filled in at the last moment and gave it some visual panache. But even the gray-and-silver desaturated Janusz Kaminski stuff doesn't remotely work. And these must be the all-time worst performances in a Spielberg movie (as Harry pointed out). Go back to the A.I. dvd and see what true Spielbergian genius is all about. P.S. Wasn't Meryl Streep supposed to have a cameo in this?
June 22, 2002, 3:21 a.m. CST
Don't let the suckas get you down Harry. Your opinion is just as valid as anyone's. Personally, I must express some agreement with you. Especially in regards to the ending. Speilberg's endings have consistently gotten worse. AI and this are the two most extreme. Remember the nonsense he tried to do to CEOTTK? What happened to the subtle endings of Jaws? or Raiders? Imagine if at the end of Jaws we saw Brody and the Doc reach the beach. Brody goes to his son and says, "It's safe to go into the water again son." THe mayor and he hug, his wife is pregnant, and there's a voiceover to tell us that the waters were never again infested with sharks and that the kitner boy was found alive. I am so dissapointed in SPeilberg's endings lately. I believe that if he had ended the film with Cruise in prison it would have been a stronger film, and I wouldn't have looked back over the film with such a suspicious eye, finding the same sort of plot holes that Harry found.
June 22, 2002, 3:21 a.m. CST
I understand why it's not everyone's cup of tea. But the atmosphere in that film alone trumps almost every Hollywood picture today, including Ridley Scott's recent efforts. Blade Runner was a real world, despite having Harrison Ford as the lead. He was playing against type. Tom Cruise was pretty much Tom Cruise throughout Minority Report for me. But Ridley Scott will always beat out Spielberg in terms of atmosphere. Blade Runner also had a message that was consistent throughout the movie: life is precious and the mistakes that can be made when man plays God. The world the characters existed in was dying (because of humanity's inherent ability to be self-destructive), dystopic and filled with artificial replacements for the nature they destroyed. To this day, there are few moments more harrowing in film than Roy Batty's (Rutger Hauer) dying moment. "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shore of Orion...All those moments will be lost in time. Like...tears in the rain. Time to die." One of the great cinematic moments of all time.
June 22, 2002, 3:29 a.m. CST
by George Peppard
What a fussy, pissy review. I'm embarassed for all of us.
June 22, 2002, 3:29 a.m. CST
Why is Anderton still able to access the Precog Police Dept. when he's a wanted fugitive by using his eyeball? Why, after he's in Halo as a convicted criminal, his wife is still able to use his eyeball to access the Precog unit? I would think when someone becomes a fugitive, logic would dictate that you cut off their access. It just doesn't make sense at all. I guess the ENTIRE Precog unit getting ready to go national, forgot to overlook logic, let alone basic procedure. It's just an incredibly dumb plot hole.
June 22, 2002, 3:33 a.m. CST
I don't know if your Jan De Bont comment was just a throwaway joke. But he's a PRODUCER on Minority Report. Saw it in the credits.
June 22, 2002, 3:34 a.m. CST
Just saw the movie a couple hours ago and I can say it truly sucked. Actually as the closing credits started someone shouted this movie sucked and everyone clapped in aggreement. POTHOLES, oh you bet, big enough to ruin the wheel alignment in the futuristic Lexus that was marketed in this outlandish summer blockbuster movie. I truly don't believe Spielberg directed this movie, more like Paul Verhoeven(Robocop). SPOILER: Superninja beat me to it regarding how in the hell can he use his newly severed eyeball to gain access into (what should have been one of the most heavily guarded areas)the Precog's temple....huh? And to make it worst his wife does the same exact thing with the same decomposing eyeball...what?? No special guard force guarding would be criminal murderers just one idiot. This is supposed to be this awesome SUMMER BLOCKBUSTER NO FREAKIN' WAY! Funny, I began to feel I was becoming a Precog myself predicting each scene of the movie before it happened. I knew from the moment when Agatha begged him not to go into the room that this was somehow related to his son. Also, what the hell truly happened to his son was he kidnapped or did he drown. Harry's cartoon statement was right on, the Precog police force after Cruise where a bunch of cartoon characters. There was no villian or any threat towards Det. Anderton. Minority Report had nothing to do with a minority report since it was basically forgotten about and Det. Anderton never had one. My only wish was that one of those Precogs was writing reviews then they would've predicted this movie sucked.
June 22, 2002, 3:39 a.m. CST
by Fat Lot Of Good
to be seen by the precogs.
June 22, 2002, 3:40 a.m. CST
by Fat Lot Of Good
June 22, 2002, 3:42 a.m. CST
Blade Runner is closer to Phillip K. Dick than Minority Report. And I've read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Personally, I prefer Blade Runner to Dick's original work. But what fits in with Dick's idea of the future in Blade Runner that doesn't ring true in Minority Report is that Minority Report makes it seem the government is going to take care of us. Blade Runner, on the other hand, shows the decline of the human civilzation, and that government isn't going to take care of us, the corporations will. Which one seems more likely?
June 22, 2002, 3:53 a.m. CST
The more that I think about this movie, the better A.I. gets. Jesus, how could they let something so obvious as the retina scan slip through? I could see it being done if he had gone back mintues after he had discovered he had committed a future crime. Or, at the very least, him finding someone who could duplicate someone's retina scan with contact lenses and using another officer's scan to get into the Precog facility (then at least we would'be been spared the stupid fridge scene after he gets his eyes replaced). But not cutting off a fugitive from access to a government experimental project? When he is the key player on the project and knows intimately about how they operate? D-U-M-B.
June 22, 2002, 3:58 a.m. CST
It would seems as though everyone who stepped into a darkened theater as a child recounts a tapestry of light and color that somehow changed their perspective on the world. More often than not, they credit Steven Spielberg for the experience. They feel a kinship with man and I
June 22, 2002, 4 a.m. CST
1) God I couldn't believe the eye thing and it happened twice. The man was on the lam for what? 24-36 hours? I can't even remember anymore and they didn't get rid of his clearence... That's some great police work... Oh and after he breaks in the first time they still don't remove his clearence so that his wife could then break in and do the same. 2) One thing I was wondering though was that if they have all this surveilance and they know where everyone is with targeted ads and such, not to mention that little traffic jam that occured when Cruise tried to drive away... Why the hell couldn't the cops find out where Cruise's victim was checked into? Would it be that hard? His records were on file in the lobby... 3) Oh how bout why the hell didn't he continue to listen to the pre-cog when she said don't go in... I mean hrmmm, she told him to drop change he did... she told him to wait for the balloon guy, so he did... she told him to buy an umbrella he did... she tells him not to go into a room and guess what he ignores the person that can see the future... 4) Oh how bout how the pre-cog decided to conveniently go on and on about a story about the love that was once in the house rather then warn Cruise in advance to run the fuck away... I mean she seemed rather on the ball for most of that chase scene but ah well... 5) What ever happened to Cruise going blind for opening his eyes 6 hours early? Or did they conveniently forget about it? I actually thought there was going to be a pay-off since earlier the drug dealer mentioned the quote about "In the land where everyones blind, the man with one eye is king" (or something along those lines...). 6) Maybe someone can explain to me how Cruise suddenly is sitting in a car that appeared to be built on top of him... maybe I just missed it but that's what it looked like to me. I do think Harry is right about one thing, the movie brings up interesting ideas about pre-cognition but he seems to gloss over them... Spielberg seems more interested in showing off weak-ass slapstick comedy... I mean my goodness, the whole reaching in and out of the fridge for something to eat and conveniently getting the rotten thing? Or how bout chasing his eyes rolling down the ramp? I like almost everyone else on the planet liked Raiders but didn't all of that seem a bit out of place? My biggest dissapointment came from all the hype I heard about this pessimistic new world Spielberg created, when in actuallity he left no questions to be asked everything was tied up all nice and neat and all the horrible things just never came to be... even all the bad guys were done away with... This movie (much like AI) begged to have a few loose ends and Spielberg simply refused and went with cliche after cliche in the final 30+ minutes.
June 22, 2002, 4:11 a.m. CST
Although Minority Report was much better than Harry may have thought, it does not deserve the enormous praise being heaped upon it. Spielberg's best adventure film since Raiders? No way, Mr. Corliss. Now, I admit that there is moments that harken back to our early, beloved Spielberg. Look at some of the action scenes and you have glimpses of the Spielberg of Raiders. Excitment with a touch of humor. But the rest of the movie seems to be done in a rather...dare I say it, Kubrickian syle? I think Spielberg is still worshipping at the alter of Kubrick. But at the end of the day, Spielberg is all about a warm heart, not a cool intellect. There is a chasm that cannot be crossed. As much as he may wish it, Spieblerg will never be Kubrick, and shouldn't even try. But he does, and so we get another film that, like A.I. before it, is rather bipolar in mood, shifting from hard-boiled and gruesome to heart-warming and tender. Most alarming is the horrid nature of the script. This screenplay is a composite of the best detective films and stories of the last fifty years. There is a scene in here lifted straight out of L.A. Confidential (Kevin Spacey's Death Scene). Then there is the ridiculous notion that a villain would give a slip of the tounge to confirm to the audience that he was the villain. And the final scene is right out of Agatha Christie and a dozen other detective yarns. Let the hero confront the villain in public with damming evidence. Booooring. Couldn't Spielberg or the writers or somebody find a more original way of ending this film? Was anybody actually suprised at who wound up being the villain? All that aside, however, it is still the best movie you can see in the theater today. For all of its serious flaws, this is still a solid offering from Spielberg, with genuine excitement and eye-candy. But Steve, please, please, when you shoot Indy 4, no edgy cinematography or Kubrickian coolness, okay?
June 22, 2002, 4:14 a.m. CST
As I watched the movie I kept thinking of Robocop the way they made those stupid ads regarding futuristic changes in society, much the same way Minority Report did. I'm still curious as to what happened to his son and was he really seriously going to hold his breath underwater for twenty minutes while his son sat waited. Hey to be so picky but for big shots like Speilberg and Cruise and the cost we pay to see these over-priced movies not even a speedbump is allowed in this SUMMER SPECTACULAR SMASH BLOCKBUSTER EVENT!!!!!
June 22, 2002, 4:21 a.m. CST
Neal McDonough just screams Captain America to me (he was the second in command in the Precog Unit in Minority Report). Check out this pic and tell me he doesn't say, "Hi, I'm Steve Rogers" to you: http://www.angelfire.com/al4/mcdonough/images/harrypre.jpg
June 22, 2002, 4:37 a.m. CST
I agree for the most part with Harry's review. (Finally Harry skips the bullshit & gives us clarity.) I wanted so much to love this movie. Artificial Intelligence was (is,)in my opinion, one of the greatest films ever made. I look forward to Spielberg's films the way George Lucas' fans do his films, Woody Allen's fans, and so forth. This time, however, I must point out that the Emperor has no clothes. Sadly and undeniably, Minority Report comes apart at the seams, anti-climaxing with a pathetic, groaner, "Scooby-Doo" ending. As the third act unfolded, I sat there incredulously wondering, "are they really going to do this?" In defense of "Report" the first act and much of the second are exciting and provacative, coloring the screen with unseen-before images and futuristic gizmos. These are worth the price of admission. The ending, however, left me disappointed.
June 22, 2002, 4:44 a.m. CST
I agree with you. Spielberg just can't do a dark film from beginning to end. The "happy" ending of Schindler's List, the bookends on Saving Private Ryan, the ending to A.I... He just can't give himself over to making a film where there's not a heroic ending. Somehow, someone always wins. I just don't think that concept works with Phillip K. Dick's works, or Stanley Kubrick's style. I appreciate that he wants to take on more mature themes, but his sensibilities are so popcorn that he always falls short. At this point, I don't want to see an Indy IV.
June 22, 2002, 4:51 a.m. CST
June 22, 2002, 4:53 a.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
... 1) by the third film of your own little private triple feature, even 'The Naked Gun' is a drawn out humerlous piece of shite... 2) If raiders of the lost ark were a brand spankin new filum and you saw it today, you'd never EVER consider it to be the classic it has become 3) I haven't seen this film yet, but I can garantee myself now that it'll be a damn site better than that piece of crap Bladerunner. Fuck that film bores the shit out of me!! ... Harry, Why do you do this to yourself. You know you're going to cop so much crap.
June 22, 2002, 4:58 a.m. CST
And call Harry a fucking moron for daring to have an opinion that didn't jibe with the majority of critics out there, but reading all the vitoral made come to my senses. As far as I'm concerned Harry is wrong about "Minority Report" and right about "AOTC." Nobody can be right 100% of the time and this time Harry's wrong. But that's just my opinon and we all know what they say about opinions. P.S. Sorry about the double post I inadvertently hit enter after signing in.
June 22, 2002, 5 a.m. CST
I loved the first half or so of this film, so inventive, technically brilliant. I forgot completely about Spielberg and Cruise, usually they make their presence known in their work but here they got out of the way and I could actually enjoy the work itself. Yes, the characters were completely bland and hollow, but I was so overwhelmed by the world I overlooked it... until around the time of the "destiny" in the hotel room... and then, ,it just started to suck. That actor in the hotel room sucked. He just sucked. His delivery made a bad plot point even worse. And from there it just became the most expensive episode of MURDER SHE WROTE ever produced. And by the end, I was so disappointed. What a way to ruin a good film. None of the film's deeper issues were ever explored - unlike BLADE RUNNNER in which they were the whole point. And the sappy ending with the pre-cogs in the log cabin - hell, if there was ever an ending that screamed for a BLUE VELVET touch, this was it. I didn't believe that for one second! BUMMER.
June 22, 2002, 5:03 a.m. CST
....Especially in the last five minutes. Even lovers of the film acknowledged these major lapses in logic, and the best explanation anyone seemed to give was the old chestnut of "it could all have been just a dream (of Leonard's), and anything can happen in a dream!" However, no one crucified the entire movie for it, nor should they have. Why don't you guys cut Minority Report a little slack as well, especially considering the embarrassment of riches it otherwise contains.
June 22, 2002, 5:08 a.m. CST
Okay.. your review had a few flaws... first, it's danny witwer...second, cruises wasn't a crime of passion, if you recall, the part when he finds out it's him who has committed the crime, in that scene he says "it's a premed? there are still people stupid enough to do something like that within 200 miles of here?" or something to that effect.... so, it was a green ball, not a red ball. Secondly, you watched insomnia and this on the same day... i can see how you maybe were a little peeved going into this movie and maybe you took it out on this... YOU WATCHED INSOMNIA, ONE OF THE WORST MOVIES I'VE EVER SEEN! I mean.. i love memento and all, but christ insomnia is a shitpile... first you have al pacino who can't decide if he wants to use a southern accent, then at the end when they decide they've figured the case out and then all the cops are best friends even though everyone hates al pacino's character in the police station except hilary swank and the cheif... I digress, back to minority report, your review fucking sucked, i don't think i've ever read such a one-sided, badly written review.... well except that one dutch guy who reviewed lotr... The fact is, tom cruises anderton was a haunted man, he wanted to bring killers to justice.. his son was dead, he knew he was dead, besides the fact that if the person who had the kid and was torturing them and was planning on killing them THE PRECOGS WOULD PICK UP ON IT, you see, because the person was GOING TO KILL THEM, crime of passion or not, he could have saved tons of kids... so your assumption that it was stupid for him to get into the precrime thing to stop that from happening is quite flawed because he quite literally could have stopped it from happening to someone else, and probably did in his tenure at precrime. This movie is steven spielberg's best film since a.i. and a.i. was his best (minus the last 20 minutes or whatever)film since... i guess raiders, or at the very least last crusade.. *sigh* sometimes i wonder why i bother reading harry's reviews of major releases, his foreign film reviews are usually much more accurate... I think i'll stick with moriartys reviews really at least he understands and pays attention to what the fuck he's watching
June 22, 2002, 5:19 a.m. CST
by TheGinger Twit
everyone hates it, everyone loves it. Shit!
June 22, 2002, 5:28 a.m. CST
If you're like me, I imagine you're scrolling through this talkback in the hopes that you MIGHT be able to find a coherent opinion; negative, positve... whatever... Well, hopefully we can have a little discussion then. I don't care about Harry's older reviews, (why is that the major topic in here?) so I'm not going to mention any of them during my analysis. If you haven't seen the film, GO SEE IT...There are PLENTY of things to ENJOY within this film, so don't spoil yourself by reading any further. If you've seen the film, and like me, you were kind of letdown by the "third act," maybe we can figure out, why. I WILL WARN YOU THAT THIS IS A LONG POST, but I assure you, it's better than skimming past 20 short, weak posts! I think that 80 percent of this film is fantastic. I distinctly recall thinking to myself, after the brilliant spider scene, "Fuck, I'm really enjoying this film! Please... somehow maintain this all the way to the end!" The film had established a cadence that, like the intro to raiders, should be a prerequiste for film pacing...and then it FELL APART! Ahhhhhh..... the pain of letdown.... I don't know how many times I've watched a film and thought to myself, "This is a GREAT piece of filmaking. If they can somehow close this whole thing up in a way that pleases me... I'll be one happy, vocal reviewer, but ONCE AGAIN... another (spielberg) film fails to deliver (to me) in the clutch. @#$%^&*@#$%^&*@#$%^&*@#$%^&*@#$%^&*@#$%^&* What can I say about the (I wish it was the climax) scene where Cruise sees the pictures of those young children!?!? I litterally said aloud.."Holy shit!" I was SOOOOOO emotionally connected to Cruise's character during that scene, that I was shaking! I just KNEW it was going to get nasty in a few moments...BAM! The door opens... and it's just some forgetable little pervert of a man! PERFECT!!! This film is showing some restraint... This pathetic little child molestor is going to say the wrong thing and Cruise won't be able to control himself... Suddenly the ADVERTISING SIGN COMES INTO VIEW. The timer BEEPS and........... JOHN DIDN'T PULL THE TRIGGER.... YEAH! I'm beaming now... What's next? HE'S READING HIM HIS RIGHTS!!!!" What a BRILLIANT moment, and the emotion within the scene reminded me of DAVID FINCHER'S "SEVEN." Brad Pitt's character has a choice to make, and he ultimately fulfills the prophecy. Will Cruise? WHEN I HEARD CRUISE EMOTIONALLY MUTTER THE CRIMINAL'S RIGHTS, I wanted to scream aloud, "HE NAILED IT!" Then I remembered... the OBVIOUS setup of more plot... From that glorious moment, there were about A DOZEN other glorious moments that could have (should have) happened, but instead we find out that, yes... It's all an elaborate setup created by a mastermind who's connected to John somehow...NOOOOOOOOOO...... Steven... how could you resort to this? It only got worse... Apparently from that moment on, Steven thinks that we haven't been following the film at all( Actually, some of us were probably still in shock from that glorious crescendo that should have SOMEHOW wrapped the story up nicely...) Instead we have to sit through 20 minutes of cliche, so predictable... my mind kept thinking... "what if?" I guess spielberg anticipated my wandering mind, because WHY ELSE WOULD HE INCLUDE ONE OF THE ABSOLUTE WORST EXPOSITIONAL FILM MONOLOGUES IN RECENT MEMORY!?!? Phone rings... "It's time to summarize the entire film, just so joe-sixpack and peter punchclock can keep up!" Why hit us over the head with some lame SUMMARY about how he commited the crime... I was half expecting Cruise to say, "AND THAT'S WHEN YOU ORDERED THE CODE-RED!" The showdown between the two men provided a chance, albeit small, to redeem the previous 15 minutes, but the film fails once again. What's next? Hmmmm... the good, ol' fashioned epilogue... Ahhh... the PRE-COGS have hair and look... they're having a real blast now! Oh those wacky twins sure like to read now! What could they have done differently? Well, the epic world they created allowed for about dozens of interesting plot possibilities, but because they wanted the big shocking revelation... they spend a lot of time setting it up. Personally, I didn't see the need for a mastermind villain, because I thought one of the films thematic strengths was fate itself. For that reason, I think Speilberg could have strenghtened the film had he gone a route similar to this; make the guy john is supposed to kill... THE REAL PERVERT. John wants answers but the man doesn't give him any... It would have been WAY MORE DRAMATIC if some perverted nobody caused the downfall of such a talented anti-hero. Also, give the pervert a weapon of his own... increase the dramatic tension and have the pervert mention something about John's boy screaming. Suddely John reaches for his gun when the pervert tells him he'll never know what happened to his boy... The pervert reaches for his gun and aims at the PRE-COGNATIVE girl. John blasts him, and proves that somethings are inevitable... The timeline was constantly in motion because John decided NOT to KILL HIM WHEN HE SHOULD HAVE. outlasts the original murder date proves that the system isn't 100 percent accurate, and is more than enough reason for a strong statement that they "system needs reworking!" I would have prefered the darker ending, myself. John's mind races with the possibilites of what this sick pervert did to his little boy and STILL... HE TRIES TO RESTRAIN HIMSELF...DOES THE SAME EMOTIONAL READING OF THE RIGHTS...WHEN SUDDENLY, the pre-cognative girl starts saying... "John, I'm ready to die." THEN THE PERVERT SAYS SOMETHING SOMETHING... John is looking at the girl and the pervert... THE PERVERT SAYS SOMETHING ELSE and as walks around the room, he readys a gun! The girl continues, "I am ready to die, because of you... my mother won't die in veign!) THE MOMENT JOHN DIDN'T KILL HIM LIKE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO, the timeline was in motion, and now the girl knows she's about to be shot at... JOHN SHOOTS THE PERVERT, but not before THE PERVERT KILLS THE PRE-COGNATIVE girl! The cops bust in and we see that they have no idea what do do now... After a brief sequay, we realize that because John acted more in self defence, they don't know what to do with him... After a subtle hint from the old man, John checks the tape that he recorded and figures the mystery out! The man commits suicide IMMEDIATELY (shawshank warden style) and John realizes why the girl was "ready to die." Then, simply give us a title screen explaining how the pre-crime unit was immediately shut down... The film was about CHOICE... TOO BAD (for me) SPEILBERG'S CHOICES during the final acts of his latest films (Saving Private Ryan, AI, Minority Report) ruin potential masterpieces... (IF YOU SKIMMED ALL THE WAY DOWN, OR IF THIS THREAD LOOKS LIKE A WASTE OF YOUR TIME... I beg you to give it a chance... It's better than reading about "Harry Knowles."
June 22, 2002, 5:52 a.m. CST
So here we are, another summer dividing all these movie freaks in half with a movie! That my friend is what I would call a stroke of Genius! I personally can't wait to see it again...Is it my fave movie of the year? No, but I was entertained, compelled and thought there were many moments of gems in this film! The Audience I sat with seemed to enjoy it allot! I do admit, This is not a movie for dumb people or people that are expecting balls to the walls Matrixy effects! I do however can admit to the fact that lately Spielberg does not know how to end a film, I would have been happy to see Tom Cruise locked up forever...and the killer roaming around with a glee on his face! That would have been a cool ass ending, but oh well, Thank god finally for a good movie, hopefully more will come this summer! men in black 2 will suck! mark my words!
June 22, 2002, 5:57 a.m. CST
I would have prefered a darker ending, myself. Imagine this: That guy that John's supposed to kill IS ACTUALLY THE CHILD MOLESTING ABDUCTE that well all thought he was... John's mind races with the possibilites of what this sick pervert did to his little boy and STILL... HE TRIES TO RESTRAIN HIMSELF...DOES THE SAME EMOTIONAL READING OF THE RIGHTS...WHEN SUDDENLY, the pre-cognative girl blurts out "John, I'm ready to die." THE PERVERT senses the oportunity and reveals a little about John's son...John is looking at the girl and the pervert at the same time, because the girl is now REPEATING HERSELF... over and over... "I'm ready to die now, John" THE PERVERT SAYS SOMETHING ELSE and walks around the room, this time...readying a gun! The girl continues, "I am ready to die now, because of this moment... my mother has been saved...) THE MOMENT JOHN DIDN'T KILL THE PERVERT LIKE HE WAS SUPPOSED TO, the timeline was in motion, and now the girl has just sensed that she is going to be shot! JOHN SHOOTS THE PERVERT, but not before THE PERVERT KILLS THE PRE-COGNATIVE girl! The cops bust in and we see that they have no idea what do do... brief time transition, and we realize that John acted more in self defence, they NOW don't know what to do with him... During interogation, John get's a happy visit from his old mentor. After a subtle hint from the old man, John remembers the recording...and figures the mystery out! The old man commits suicide IMMEDIATELY (shawshank warden style) and John realizes why the girl was "ready to die." Then, we get a simple black title screen explaining how the pre-crime unit was immediately shut down after these events. The film was about CHOICE... TOO BAD (for me) SPEILBERG'S CHOICES during the final acts of his latest films (Saving Private Ryan, AI, Minority Report) ruin potential masterpieces... (IF YOU SKIMMED ALL THE WAY DOWN, OR IF THIS THREAD LOOKS LIKE A WASTE OF YOUR TIME... I beg you to give it a chance... It's better than reading about "non-related topics"
June 22, 2002, 6:04 a.m. CST
Minority report was an amzing film, I was hoping Harry would like it, 'cos I mean, He RAVED about AOTC!!!!!! Mmm... Harry, please, be honest, and declare this is an astonishing film!!!
June 22, 2002, 6:22 a.m. CST
How is it a film like Minority Report--a film whose first 3/4 are among the most wonderous ever put to celluloid, and whose ending is admittedly disappointing and mediocre, is considered trash. Yet a movie like Attack of the Clones, whose first 2 hours are not just bad, but ludicrously bad--I'm talking Mystery Science Theater bad--and whose final reel, as part of some cheap, last-ditch effort by the director (and I use the term loosely) to save the turkey, bombards the audience with more cheesy cgi than a Dean Devlin wet dream--how is it considered to be a wonderful cinematic experience for both the young and the young at heart? I'm seriously asking.
June 22, 2002, 6:25 a.m. CST
Double Helix, great posts. Your ending is definitely much better.
June 22, 2002, 6:54 a.m. CST
June 22, 2002, 7:36 a.m. CST
How come you ain't rich? Assholes, hypocrites, poseurs all. Jealous much?
June 22, 2002, 7:44 a.m. CST
Now, don't get me wrong, I loved the film. But like awesome films like "Back to the Future" and "T2", it has huge flaws. HOW EXACTLY DID THE BAD GUY SET UP ANDERTON??? He wasn't going to that building and kill a man in the first place. The only thing that led him there were the chain of events that followed after the Precogs predicted that he will kill a man there. It seems to me that the only thing that the bad guy did was make a deal with the future victim, send him to the building, and instruct him to put the pictures on the bed. How is Anderton supposed to be involved now? Please someone prove me wrong.
June 22, 2002, 8:12 a.m. CST
by Trader Groucho
Minority Report's problems: 1. Kubrickian coldness through the better part of the movie; 2. the aforementioned plotholes so many people have pointed out; 3. lotsa flat characters (gotta agree with Harry on this). 4. the ending (more on that in a moment). What's good? The cinematography and action scenes rocked. Spielberg's shot choices were in many instances phenomenal. There was something Janusian about the one shot of Cruise's and Morton's heads facing opposite directions in the lobby of the hotel right before he goes upstairs (belated spoiler alert), and it felt very Kubrickian in a good way. A number of other shots so struck me. The entire opening sequence was Hitchcockian, again to the benefit of the story. Still, after 1:50 into the movie I was struck with how fast it slid downhill. The precog's mom being killed was lame and predictable. Von Sydow being the bad guy was equally predictable (and who couldn't figure out the golden gun was going to be used five minutes after it was introduced? Oh, and by the way, gifts like that are typically non-functional models). Cruise's wife suddenly showing counter-spy skills sneaking into the prison and holding a gun to the bluegrass singer's head was totally out of the blue for her character. And wasn't it sweet that the precogs live happily ever after with stacks of books in the middle of a pastoral BFE, and Cruise is back together with the missus and she's got a bun in the oven. Here's what Steven should have done. Cruise being set up to go after Joe Crow should have been engineered differently. The guy who wants to die for the insurance money should have really actually raped and killed Cruise's son. Then Cruise should have chosen to not kill him, but put the damn gun away and haul this jerk in for murder. Our lead boy has shown the precogs are fallible, and so is he for thinking precrime was perfect. We all learn our valuable lesson about the importance of freedom of thought. Precrime is disbanded. End of movie. Not that I'm counting, but this Spielberg's third movie out of his last four in which he shows he has no clue how many endings he wants. Amistad was over emotionally at the end of the first trial. Sam Q. Adams (Anthony Hopkins) gave a great speech, but it belonged in a different frikkin' movie. A.I. was over when Haley freezes in front of the wet blue bitch (and not a moment too soon, ugh). My overall on MP -- Spielberg proves himself masterful with shots, scenes, cinematography, and sequences; however, he's having serious issues with demanding proper focus in the scripts he chooses, especially going into the third act. -- Trader Groucho
June 22, 2002, 9:03 a.m. CST
The "major" plot hole that someone brought up concerning how Cruise was meant to be in that room with Crow does seems hard to explain but I would attribute it to the types of equally hard-to-explain conundrums that we usually find in time travel films where the entire plot seems implausible on some deeper metaphysical level. Such as the fact that in Terminator John Connor wouldn't exist if he didn't send his own father back in time to meet his mother. The events in MR seem like a stretch but I think it's more intriguing given the film's themes of choice and predestination than it is a liability.
June 22, 2002, 9:42 a.m. CST
I'll try and get through this as quickly as possible but I felt that Clutch Cargo's insipid list needed an answer. 1) It's possible (and probable) that he may have torn his own eyes out and therefore had his own reasons. And given the market for eyes in this world, he may have sold his eyes for drugs, which to him may have been more important than seeing. 2) Cruise kicks out the back window and his stands on the top of the car and also on the side. 3) The doctor he goes to IS a doctor on the street who can do this operation. That he seems a little "off" is not that suprising. I don't think any back alley doctor is going to come across as a calm, reassuring presence. And given that fact that time is an issue for Cruise as well as the fact that he can't be running around the city - Cruise had to go with what seemed like his first option. 4) The cop clearly took the brunt of the impact, dazing him. 5) As the squad that was chasing Cruise was in the building, they simply hadn't had time to cover the rear exit. In real life, suspects escape all the time. 6) Unless you took out a measuring strip, the "2 yards" is exaggerated. And if you've ever seen someone projectile vomit, you'd know that the distance shown in the film is not an issue. 7) Knowing how important his eyes are, it's not implausible that Cruise would find a way to hold onto them at all cost. If Indiana Jones can hang on to his fedora through every fight and chase, then Cruise keeping his eyes is not a stretch. 8) As Cruise says, he wouldn't get within five miles of Pre-Crime. Obviously they thought so too. It's awfully arrogant of them but that arrogance is part of the - human - flaws of any system. 10) Cruise's eyes were in the bag containing his personal effects that was in Von Sydow's office. And if they hadn't changed the system when Cruise was on the loose, what would've been the point afterwards? 11) I don't believe Farrel did give Von Sydow the gun. I think Von Sydow lifted it himself. 12) Killers do have a habit - especially in the movies - of being their own worst enemy. Von Sydow was at a point where he thought no one could touch him, plus he was rattled that Cruise's wife knew of this case. And I'm sure as soon as she mentioned the name "Ann Lively" he was planning to dispose of her and wasn't worried about his subsequent slip of the tongue. 13) The product placement makes as much sense here as it does in Blade Runner. Look at the world around you - especially in major cities. You can't walk a foot without seeing ads. It's logical to project that advertising is going to become more and more a part of our lives and more and more intrusive. ** Veidt out.
June 22, 2002, 10:43 a.m. CST
It seems to suffer with the same problem of all Spielberg's movies since Schindler's List, an inconsistency of tone. There's stuff, like the jetpack chase and ensuing fight in the warehouse that belonged in another movie, although that had more to do with the way the scenes were handled. The Precog's scene where she rambles about Sean's diverted future was confusing and treacly and seemed like the ice cream eating scene in Jurrasic Park all over again. And the last 20 minutes had a lot of dumb stuff in it, starting with the wife turning into Sam Spade all of the sudden. Give me a break Steve. Still, the first 1/2 hour was brilliant, and there's an hour long stretch in the middle that's compelling and suspenseful, too bad Spielberg had to put on his Mr. Showman hat every now and then and spoil the story.
June 22, 2002, 10:58 a.m. CST
I guess that's the down side to being somewhat involved in the movie business. You hear so much about movies before they come out that you practically break them apart in pieces even before they come out. Learn from this and don't be a fool.
June 22, 2002, 11:08 a.m. CST
It seems to me that the central issue of clarity (or lack thereof) in the film is whether the Precogs see the premeditation of a person to commit murder or the actual act itself. If it is the first case then they 'saw' the intention of the John Doe (Lamar's patsy) to kill Agatha's mother and he was arrested. If it is the second case, they could not have seen the actual murder because not only did it not take place, but it was never going to take place since it was 'preordained' by Sydow as part of his overly intricate plotting that the police would show up and stop him from doing it. Logically, one would argue, in that case, that it's only apparent intention that they sense, as with the example of the ball rolling off the table. But this is not my central problem - I must be stupid, but will someone PLEASE PLEASE answer this for me: assuming that the Precogs sense the intent of the John Doe to commit the murder of Agatha's mother (and why would he do so, knowing this system of apprehension was in place)and produce a ball for him, then why do they not also sense the premeditate intent of von Sydow to also commit murder and produce a ball for him as well? If the answer is that he was just hanging around night and day in the precog lab waiting for that unpredictable moment when the event would be predicted, I don't buy it - it could take months. If the answer is that, in fact, this was the basis of Agatha's minority report and thus it was never registered as a ball then please tell me how he could have known with any certainty that his future murderous act would produce a minority report and not a unanimous report. A bit of good fortune on his part, I should say. Total Recall is the only film of this type with bullet proof logic. It provokes discussions of this type, but the definitive answers lie in the film. In this case, I believe the answers that are provided are flimsy at best and all this debate is proof that there are some complexities that just, well ... too complex for fast-paced entertainment. Anyhow, if I'm missing something obvious about why no ball was produced for Lamar, will someone please tell me?
June 22, 2002, 11:16 a.m. CST
by wrestling studd
Someone said Harry shouldn't be a fool by letting his expectations ruin a movie, right? If I'm not mistaken many, many talkbackers blasted and bashed Episode I The Phantom Menace because George Lucas didn't make the movie they expected to see. If talkbackers can be let down because their expectations weren't met why can't Harry?....I'm a little confused. Back when Harry gave Spider-Man a glowing review noone said he ''sold-out'' yet he's a sell out now. Is Harry Knowles a sell out when he likes movies you hate or when he hates movies you like? Or is it all of the above?
June 22, 2002, 11:32 a.m. CST
... about this film is, and please correct me if I'm wrong, is the stupidity of Anderton. Why is he constantly consulting his watch (which he's put into stopwatch function) as though it's imperative that he arrive in time for the murder? Why does he not simply hide out for 36 hours since once the crime does not occur, he will absolved. Even more pointedly, why does he not simply wait down in the lobby of the apartment building an extra five minutes (or even one!) until after the deadline for the murder has passed and then go up. How could he, as a Pre-Crime investigator, possibly be so stupid as to contribute to the concatenation of events that would lead up to a murder? And if, in fact, it is a known fact (certainly by the PreCogs who have no reason to jealously guard the information) that one can change one's destiny, given foreknowledge of it, why are people arrested at all? Why are they not simply notified of their intention, monitored, and given the opportunity (as Anderton is) to 'change their destiny' - especially given the fact that these are almost all extenuating circumstance crime-of-passion killings and the killers are in no way habitual.
June 22, 2002, 11:39 a.m. CST
It's funny. People see a movie as a kid, love it, question nothing, honor it as Holy, and then get older and question every moment of other movies. Watch Star Wars again. Watch Raiders again. Hell, watch ET. Throw away the 5 year old logic you watched it with and realize that those movies were as full of holes as any movie you've ever claimed was garbage. The biggest reason people like pointing out holes in MR is because it has deservedly gotten RAVES and should win Best Picture. People hate that and want to prove that a FANTASTIC film does not and never will exist. It's called backlash.
June 22, 2002, 11:49 a.m. CST
by Shabba McDoo
Fucking hell, guys! The only Goddamn statement I see in his defense is "at least he was honest." So what!? Should we all send him flowers and cookies!? Fuck no! He's a movie critic! He shouldn't have to get credit for being honest! That kinda' thing is supposed to be expected all the time! It's like Chris Rock said about black men taking care of their kids or NOT going to jail (I'll paraphrase): "'Hey, that brother deserves credit. He never even went to jail!' or 'He's a good man...he takes care of his kids!'. You're SUPPOSED to take care of your kids and your NOT supposed to go to jail! You don't deserve credit for shit you're supposed to do in the first place!"
June 22, 2002, 11:56 a.m. CST
how can anyone say MR is equals to BladeRunner. First the good stuff -----------------------------------Visuals, Visuals, Visuals. the concept of future, and a few sequences in the movies ------------------ the story had too many plot holes as compared to Bladerunner, it wasn't immersive enough. the director puts in little tidbits that just messes with the flow of the sequences, take this for example ...spoiler... when the fellow precog teamates first caught up with Anderton in the alley, they go for a fight which eventually leads to tom flying with a dude, it's GOTTA be a speilberg movie when Anderton flies into a kid play a SAX, or busting up a ceiling and interrupting a family dinner, and in the process, the jet pack cooks the hamburgers, those are just fdup waste of film that got me out of the chase sequence! ---------- and what is up with anderton wanting to disguise his face only to go thru the back doors of this vaunted temple space that is supposely SUPER secret? and what's up with the eyeball dropping sequence too? , i guess i can go on about things that took me out of the movie........ end spoiler ..... i REALLY wanted to like this movie, but i was left uneasy afterwards, debating to myself wether it was a good movie or NOT. overall, the movie just did not work for me, it's a great topic and all but i think AI was overall much better, and had a deeper meaning. and to make matters worse, i am going to see Bladerunner again tonite just to wash MR out of my mind. some scenes in Bladerunner is so classic even after so many years, and i cannot think of any scenes in MR that will even come close to us remembering it after this summer. how can that be considered a masterpiece of SB as compare to the rest of his work?, thatsfdup!
Just saw it. A masterpiece? No. Spielbergs best film since Raiders? No, try since Saving Private Ryan(AI failed on many levels, notably its ending). But MR is a good enough film though, like a futuristic Fugitive with all the treats of a advanced society, but with less the action than the Fugitive. One of the things I didnt like about MR was the Big Brother syndrome presented in this film. People's eyes seemingly being scanned, where an array of advertising hits them, or where the government could track them at will. My disagreement with it probably caused me to enjoy this film less as i was opposed to it social views. But part of this movie is making an subconscious statement about our reliance on technology - can we trust everything in order to lead a simplified life? The action - there's not much of it. Theres only really one good action chase scenes at the start then the action goes downhill from then on. Maybe this is true to the story by Phillip K Dick, but more action chase scenes would have made the film more enjoyable. The visual imagery was stunning and the CG effects rocked. MR did get rather predictable to the end though, i felt like shouting out the answers to my fellow audience goers. But there were also a few twists and turns i didnt see. Nonetheless the last 20 mins seemed to drag on and the ending didnt end on a high. Sort of like a sweet everybody lives with a good future type ending. Though this movie was enjoyable enough and got i hooked right through it. RATING - 3.5 out of 5
June 22, 2002, 12:29 p.m. CST
Are you crazy. Minority report was great. What were you expecting, A.I?
June 22, 2002, 12:47 p.m. CST
Stop calling the paradox in which Anderton goes to murder Crow only because he knew he was supposed to a plot hole. In THE MATRIX when the Oracle tells Neo to watch out for the plant and then Neo immediately knocks it over the Oracle says that the interesting thing is wondering if Neo would of knocked it over if she hadn't said anything. You see, in MINORITY REPORT, the only reason Anderton went to the hotel to "murder" Crow was because he knew that he was going to. If he had never scrubbed the image that showed him murdering Crow, never saw it, then he would not have "killed" Crow. Now I know this may seem like a plot hole but it's not. It's your standard temporal paradox. Take THE TERMINATOR, for example. If future John Conner didn't send Reese back in time to knock up Sarah Conner then he would never exist. The fact is, no one knows what Time Travel or Precognition is really like. Many serious science fiction writers have written about the inherent paradoxes that come with this technology. Hell, they even talk about it in MINORITY REPORT. But to call this paradox a plot hole would be wrong. Oh, and to Harry's misunderstanding of why Crow's murder was pre-mediated: they same reason why Anderton went to "murder" Crow... because he knew about it.
June 22, 2002, 1:02 p.m. CST
First off the reason a lot of you have suggested to explain why the murder was premeditated is false. It was not premeditated due to the fact that Tom Cruise wanted to kill the man who took his son. If that were the case, wouldn't the precogs have seen that vision long before since he'd been wanting to kill that man since the kidnapping? It is no coincidence that they got the vision right after Cruise discovered the missing reports. It was at this time that the old man was setting him up. That's right the murder was premeditated because the old man planned it. It's the same thing as if a mobster decided to put a hit out on somebody. As soon as the mobster had the idea in his head, the precogs would see the actual murder and the hitman's name would show up. One could argue that since the mobster had to rely on a hitman he had not chosen yet, there is some uncertainty as to whether the hitman would actually go through with it. But this is no more uncertain than any premeditated murder a week before it happens. So the murder was premeditated just not by Cruise but by the old man. Personally I think the reason Harry didn't like this movie so much was A.)Inflated expectations and more importantly B.) It was the third movie he saw that day and was probably wrestless after spending 5 hours sitting down in the dark.
June 22, 2002, 1:08 p.m. CST
Did anyone else notice that when the crazy eyedoctor was talking about prison life, they dubbed over some noun for male genitalia with the word "attitude"? He said something like, "the other prisoners would come up behind you with their big attitudes." I took notice first to the fact that it sounded as if something had been dubbed over. It doesn't suprise me that Spielberg would take out talk of anal rape in this movie considering he took out the guns in E.T.
June 22, 2002, 1:15 p.m. CST
First off, I really liked the cinematography behind it and the questions the movie raised about fate vs. free will. That was interesting all on its own. But I think Minority Report was not executed well. Cruise just seemed to be playing himself, and as Harry said, the other cops were pretty much just add-ons. No significance to them. A set of cops having to bring in their chief should have - or could have - been a tearjerker moment. Weighing cameraderie against duty - it could be good stuff. But I just went "Oh." And I didn't buy that the halo was "terrifying" for a moment. It wasn't bad but it wasn't great. And I'm just an ordinary movie fan with a love for sci-fi.
June 22, 2002, 1:39 p.m. CST
by user id indeed!
1)Yes, he has no eyes in a future where you can buy them. Also, he has no.... HOUSE... in a future... where you can buy.... HOUSES. Could it BEEEEEE.... that HEEEE.... is a BUMMMMMM????? 2) Okay, a blooper. You're right, worst movie ever. Actually, I think he was standing on the side of the car, not where the glass would be. 3) The Doctor IS "ON THE STREET". Oh, I know you may have been looking for people literally putting up eye-swapping stands on the side of the road, but he is not an actual doctor anymore. He was put away. Underground. 4)Seen any action movies before? 5) Okay, first, ala Attack of the Clones. Exactly. My God, Steven saw a film that came out a month before his, halted post-production, and demanded all the actors go back and film a scene with an assembly line. I can't believe nobody noticed the obvious Attack of the Clones ripoff here. Wowee wow wow. Second, they basically ran in off the street chasing this guy, this wasn't a "Okay, we know where he is, we can set up a perimeter". Third, he's in a car. If they "secured the exits", they could be run over. Fourth, there probably just wasn't any time.6) Tom, using a lifted SICK STICK, SICK STICK, A MOTHERFUCKING SICK STICK, NOT A STUN GUN, SICK STICK, SICK STICK, A STICK THAT MADE HIM PROJECTILE VOMIT, OR ***SICK*** IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS A STICK, THAT MAKES PEOPLE SICK, IT IS A MOTHERFUCKING SICK STICK. Sweet fancy Moses.7) Eyes are of the utmost importance in the future, why wouldn't he have kept them? Sure, they are fragile, but he had a safe place for them. 8)Since he was one of the first detectives, I figure his access is built into the memory of the access system or something along those lines, and getting his name out of there would probably take more time than they have. Or, as Veidt said, maybe their Precrime cockiness is the problem. 9)In the mall, he is avoiding the cops so he can get to his destiny. The hotel room IS his destiny. Agatha doesn't want him to go in because she sees there will be a murder, and she likes John, and she hates murder. John doesn't care, this is his fate. Besides, up until that point it kind of determines if what he's believed in for six years is truly valid. 10) She got them in Lamer's office, along with all his other possessions. 11).... what the hell are you talking about? Names? Details? It's a 160-minute movie, guy. Veidt mentions it's Lamaer and Witwer, but then he seemed to answer these (and the other questions) really well. Sorry Veidt, I don't mean to reiterate, I just can't stand this kind of nitpicky BS. 12)The guy who committed the murder accidentally reveals himself? You think this is a PROBLEM??? How many movies have you actually SEEN, man?! 13) The product placements should NOT actually be considered "product placements", because 1) They are meant to try and anchor the audience, remind them this is our world, make it more realisticm and 2) Because all the ads, among other things, talk to you by name and follow you around, they are showing the future of advertising based on the worst aspects of present advertising. Ads today literally do everything except address you personally! That's the idea. Fella, if these are your problems with the movie, I really feel sorry for you. Now, if you have actual problems with the plot, pacing, or character depth, that's something else. But then again, this movie is so brilliantly done, I don't see how anyone COULD have a "list of problems" outside shortsighted pseudo-revelations and half-assed bloopers.
June 22, 2002, 2 p.m. CST
by Brian 2000
Why I believe that Harry has not only described himself, but all the talkbackers on his website. Good job! When are people going to look at a movie as being told a story rather then 'getting your moneys worth'? Harry - your little inconsistencies with the film are ludicrous (*SPOILER* Crow's death was premeditated you fool! Just not by John!*END SPOILER*)...I thought it was a great movie and I'm tired of people measuring Spielberg up to Spielberg. This man is a master filmmaker and all you want him to do is make more Shark/Whip cracking adventurer movies...I'm glad he's exploring different types of film.
June 22, 2002, 2:24 p.m. CST
by Rollo Tomassi
The people comparing this film to "Raiders" are doing the film and the public a disservice. I went in wanting a new "Raiders", and left a bit puzzled. It's more like "L.A. Confidential" or "Blade Runner" (I completely disagree with your negative comparisons. It's a good as those films are). "Minority Report" is a brilliant film, but it's FAR different from what most of us were expecting. It's lacking in the reassuring, sentimental, positive attitude EVERY other Spieleberg movie has. And yet, to say it's lacking humanity is inaccurate. Cruise grief and pain over the loss of his son is more poignant and real than anything we saw from Ruseell Crowe in "Gladiaotr" or Mel Gibson in "Braveheart". I also think Anderton is a more fully realized character than the ones in "Blade Runner" (a brillant film, do not get me wrong. But I think "Minority Report" is comparable). No one should go in expecting "Raiders". This is actually a much darker, somewhat Kubrickian vision of the future than "A.I." was, and it's surprisingly gisly for Spielberg. But, Harry, I think you should look at it again, ingoring those "Raiders" expectations. I believe you'll find you like it better than you think you do. It took me a while to sort of my feelings about "Minority Report". I am an obsessive Steven Spielberg fan (if it's not Spielberg, it's just a movie), and it's very rare for me to leave a Spielberg film unsure what I thought. That, actually, is one of the strengths of "Minority Report" - as much fun as they were, did "Spider-Man" or "Attack of the Clones" really make us think much about anything? To be sure, if I want a fun afternoon at the movies, I'd pick one of those. But "Minority Report" will stay in my head longer. It's not my favorite Spielberg - not by a longshot. But he's still the master, and is still challenging himself. It's one of the best films of the year so far. Maybe the best.
June 22, 2002, 2:46 p.m. CST
Didn't anyone notice all the references to Terry Gilliam's "Brazil" contained in "Minority Report"? The police coming down through the roof, the pipes, and of course the nearly visually identical last shot... If these references mean what I think they mean, then everything after Anderton puts on the "halo" is just a fantasy! Just like in the ending of "Brazil", except Spielberg leaves it ambiguous and never confirms it. But that would explain why everything seems to work out so down-pat after Anderton puts on the halo...and why the script seems to get worse...remember, the guy told Anderton that the halo "might show you your dreams coming true", or something like that? Well, they did...but all the Brazil references tell me it was a fantasy...
June 22, 2002, 3:06 p.m. CST
Yeah, a good buddy of mine recommended A Scanner Darkly to me, but I haven't gotten around to reading it yet. So, let's see...you're correct as far as my not saying you're "wrong." That's exactly why I didn't come and out and say it. (The Congressional Committee joke was meant to keep the tone friendly between us, something in which you are obviously not intererested.) I certainly didn't intend for my tone to be "snotty." I was simply giving you my interpretation of the events, an interpretation that I don't think you proved "wrong" either. Yes, I did read your earlier posts (though not until after responding to your posts closer to the bottom). Anyway, even if my viewpoint is purely "speculation," I don't think that invalidates it. Much of film appreciation involves reading between the lines. Often people read between the lines differently, and that's one thing that can lead to these ridiculous flame wars. I understand your expectations for the film to delve more into the political and ethical side of precognition, and that's certainly something in which I am interested. However, I obviously didn't have that expectation for this film to the degree that you did. I was just expecting a visually interesting action/sci-fi/mystery. That's what I got. As I mentioned in one of my previous posts, some of the lighter stuff didn't appeal to me either, but I was willing to forgive it. Sorry our opinions differ. As for the suspension of disbelief thing, yeah, I apologize for bringing that into it. Everyone has a different threshold at any given time as far as that goes. One person certainly can't control it for any given movie-watching experience. It's just that for me sometimes when the preponderance of a person's criticism is attributed to a lack of suspension of disbelief, I find it counterproductive in a discussion about the film with someone who was able to do suspend disbelief. Regardless, suspension of disbelief was not my main thrust on that point. (I only gave it one sentence in my statement.) I believe my second reason (the Burgess/Anderton duality) played much more into my appreciation of the film. As for the touting by Time Magazine, futurists, Spielberg, etc. that this is some incredibly accurate vision of the future, I guess I don't have the chip on my shoulder that you do on that topic. I don't read Time, and though I'm aware of the futurists who worked on the film, I've read no associated publicity. I generally try to avoid any information about a film in the form of magazine articles, tv features, etc., before I see it. My instinct as I write this is that the futurists' contributions had more to do with interactive cereal boxes, time-sensitive newspaper headlines, personalized electronic sales pitches, etc., than they did with precognition, which seems to be your central complaint. But I don't know, as I haven't seen anything outside the film itself. So, that's all I have to say. I'm sincerely sorry I irked you. (This is exactly why I haven't been posting on these silly boards.)
June 22, 2002, 3:12 p.m. CST
by half vader
Sorry if someone else asked this (I tried to read all the boring posts, honest), but WHY the hell do the cars go up & down the sides of buildings? Because it looks cool? That's all I can think, 'cause it sure wasn't explained and it didn't have any internal logic that I could see. Bah.
June 22, 2002, 3:24 p.m. CST
The explanations provided by myself and others are just that - explanations from people who actually watched the movie and cared to think about it. The doctor mentions a "mutual friend" of his and Cruise's. I imagine that "mutual friend" could've been Von Sydow who was probably aware of where Cruise would end up at various points in his journey and wanted to ensure that Cruise a) wasn't harmed and b) would be clear to committ the crime he was supposed to. As for the issue of blindess, only one eye was exposed to light and that was briefly in a dark room with a retinal scan that may not have been of a spectrum of light that would cause severe damage. And even if it had been, Cruise would still be able to function with one good eye. As for the earlier post, on reflection I believe that in the scene with Farrell and Von Sydow that Farrell either didn't suspect Von Sydow at the time and was trying to impress the person who he hoped would become his boss or that he did suspect Von Sydow and was either too smug to think the old man would be a threat to him - gun or no gun - or that given his obvious ambitions he may have had an intent of blackmail on his mind. As someone noted, almost every film has gaps and contiunity errors - especially sci-fi and action films. I don't think there's a single genre movie that's "gaffe-free" but Minority Report holds up better than most in this regard. In closing, Clutch, you've proven yourself to be a witless ass. It's fine that you didn't like the movie but don't try and argue your points as though you had a clue what was going on.
June 22, 2002, 3:32 p.m. CST
I'm a little impressed with these various analyses. It's always a risky move in this forum, whenever you try and actually discuss filmaking, but I think that a few of us "have gotten are money's worth." Hmmmm, I don't mind the "concept" that Anderton is dreaming after the "halo." They did say he was going to be dreaming... Oh well... I'll be able to form a more definative opinion after I pull another "double feature."
June 22, 2002, 3:35 p.m. CST
by Robert Blake
The truth is: he was never the genius that many of you may believe. A.I. and HOOK show how bad he can get, while JURASSIC PARK shows how good he can be... which is just a step or two above Michael Bay or Joel Schumacher.
June 22, 2002, 3:39 p.m. CST
This Lucas bashing is getting sadder and lamer the longer it goes on. For me, AOTC was the best SW film since 1980. You're free to hate it, of course, and I'm free to think you're full of shit. Peace.
June 22, 2002, 3:43 p.m. CST
Clutch Cargo, you are my hero. You are fucking insane and I admire the shit out of that. I must disagree with your assessment of MR (see my prev comments about said film.) I too have no tolerance for little nit-picking fuckboys. I just thought the ending blew.
June 22, 2002, 3:47 p.m. CST
If I was Spielberg, I would make these changes in the film. On the day that Anderton foresees his own crime, a fax or message is sent to his house saying he must go to the building the next day. This is sent by the bad guy to lure Anderton to the hired future victim, but he never gets to know about this because he goes on the run. Now, about the images of Agatha being in the same room, Spielberg could easily point that out as new images predicted by the Precogs because since Anderton knows his own future, he's now changing it by running away. Oh, and the murder countdown? Who cares about that?
June 22, 2002, 3:57 p.m. CST
**Spoilers**I have to watch it to look for a more obvious visual cue though... But if the movie actually is a dream of his after he's locked up then I may very well love this film... LOL...**Spoilers** I'm serious, what I'm looking for is a visual cue, something to tell me this could be the case rather then a you over-analyzing... Please reply :D.
June 22, 2002, 4 p.m. CST
Dammit I need sleep. I mistakenly gave my worthless props to a so-called Clutch Cargo. I actually was referring to User Id Indeedy, if anybody gives a shit. I'll put a bullet in my head now, thanks. MR's ending still sucks.
June 22, 2002, 4:43 p.m. CST
The cues are sparse and subtle, I'll give you that, but here are a few: 1. After he goes into the Halo thing, there is a period of black space, signaling some kind of break in the plot. 2. Before Anderton gets halo'd, he never narrates the movie, but afterward he does narrate, possibly indicating that it's in his head. The last few lines sound an awful lot like him telling himself what he wants to hear. 3. The precogs are blatantly wrong in the final scene, which had not previously happened. 4. We never find out what happens to people who get halo-d. The last thing we hear about it is what the guy says to Anderton right before he goes under. The guy mentions that some think that the halo makes you live out your fondest dreams...that may be the most conspicuous reference. 5. The parallelism with Brazil, which I already mentioned, is pretty conspicuous... After AI, we naturally are suspicious of Spielberg's compulsive "hollywood endings". But this movie was so much more subtle than any of Spielberg's others, it seems unlikely that he didn't see the ambiguity in his ending...which means he must have intended it to be there, I think.
June 22, 2002, 4:44 p.m. CST
by Billy Talent
'Minority Report' is the sixth adventure film Spielberg has made since 'Raiders', following 'Temple of Doom', 'Last Crusade', 'Hook',
June 22, 2002, 4:48 p.m. CST
Just try it. Go to the video store and watch Brazil (it's one of my favorites, an awesome movie in its own right), then go right out and watch Minority Report. If you don't see it in a new light, I'll be surprised. :-)
June 22, 2002, 4:49 p.m. CST
Ok, maybe I should have watched more closely, but why is Cruise bald in the final confrontation with Max? And in the pre-cog vision of Cruise's final confrontation, does he have hair? Is their significance to all this?
June 22, 2002, 4:54 p.m. CST
I apologize for substituting "their" for "there" in my previous post. Please direct your flames at the millions of other grammatical and spelling errors in this talk back.
June 22, 2002, 5:39 p.m. CST
**Spoilers** You sure the pre-cogs were blatantly wrong? I was under the impression that she was showing the minority report, you know the alternate future... If the hired gun didn't kill her... that in fact he would have done her in himself. They already established the fact that the two male pre-cogs had a different version than her in the scene where the Detective (his name escapes me right now) confronts the head of pre-crime about the Minority Report Anderton ripped from Agatha's mind... Talked about the water rippling to and away from the coast or something to show how the murder occured at two different times?**Spoilers Ending** I mean shit I hope your right and the links to Brazil are there, things like narrative are rather odd but I've seen them before... The one reason I'm sticking with you is the comments that guy from Oh Brother Where Art Thou said before he went in, but with all the unfulfilled promises of things happening in the future I didn't expect anything... **Spoilers** You know the doctor getting him back, The supposed blindness etc...**Spoilers** but I'll hold my judgement till after I see Brazil :).
June 22, 2002, 5:45 p.m. CST
I saw Minority Report last night and I thought it was going to be good from what I'd heard. It's based on something by phillip k. dick and Spielberg's behind it so it should be good right? Well unfortunately, No. The film looks great and I really did enjoy it for about the first half hour to 45 minutes, but after that it just lost me. I didn't care much what happened and it seemed to just drag on. There are three different places in the film that it could have ended and i wish it had ended earlier then it did. By the time the final plot twist was thrown in I just didn't care anymore, and what I had enjoyed so much in the first part of the movie didn't really matter much anymore. Minority Report is a great looking movie but it doesn't go beyond that and seemed to fall apart more and more as the movie went along. Whoever said it is Spielbergs best since Raiders is way off.
June 22, 2002, 5:50 p.m. CST
He's bald during the conclusion because apparently when your "Halo-d" your forced to get all facial hair shaved off... I'm basing this off the first scene in the prison when you see all the inmates bald as Mr. Clean... So after his ex-wife "rescues" him from the prison he's stuck with a rather unflattering do:).
June 22, 2002, 6:01 p.m. CST
First off, DarthCorleone, about the changing your mind issue...think about Anderton's example to Colin Farell's character near the beginning of the film, and one of the several reasons given by Anderton's narration at the end about why Precrime shut down....the reason precrime was mostly effective was because just the mere threat of a murder was there...there's always a choice, given the right persuasion, which is what Anderton remembers at the end....Sarah Marcs' husband had a choice....but what that means is that there's equal chance of him deciding to kill his wife, and equal chance of him giving up his conviction...however, can the police afford to take that risk when there's a potential ead body in the balance?? Especially in a system that's dependent on perfection? I think not....Next, Clutch Cargo....Who cares what the crazy doctor did?? Maybe it was to put the fear of a crazy doctor in him, maybe not...is this really that big of a hole? Sure, maybe it wouldve made more sense for the doctor not to say anything about it....maybe the rotten sandwich and the spoiled milk were his revenge....vengeance through salmonella is still vengeance, far as i know....but all in all, i chalk it up to crazy doctor being a fuckin' looney toon...as for the second problem, in case you werent paying attention, the effects of the surgery stay for only 12 hours, not 24...the DREAMS happen with 6 hours left on the clock....the spiders start arriving with somewhere less than an hour left, if im not mistaken....but even still, you also didnt notice how much fucking pain Anderton was in when the spiders scanned him. now, the next flaw from that's probably going to be "So why didnt he go blind from it, with an hour left?" Well, come on, now....how many people get injured, have to wear a cast, go to therapy, or some other healing process, and sometimes end up healed enough before the suggested time? Not recommended, of course, but still happens. Anderton was probably sensitive as hell, but not so bad as him going blind. Ball's in your court, nitpicker. What else ya got? Next, Karla, simple answer to your question, Anderton is placed into prison/stasis the day before the final confrontation, and none of the prisoners have hair., probably as not to interfere with the devices that would be connected to his head.....he's wearing the hooded sweatshirt and weird clothes when he meets Max Von Sydow's character because he was still nude from being broken out of prison/stasis by his wife....And lastly, UserIDIndeed, holy crap, man, i thought you dropped off the face of the earth for good! Good to see you're still alive and typing of your own free will from the basement of a chinese laundry(dont ask...i get worried)...anyways, youre right, much emailing necessary. much fat to be crushed between the teeth in preparation for digestion.....Lastly, just a quick couple of comments about the trailers....swimfan looked like shit, but the final Signs trailer still makes me wonder why August 2nd isnt here yet....The new XXX trailer finally managed to guarantee my ass in the seat when it comes out. Make us proud, Vin.....Daredevil, didn't really show much...lotsa fast moving images.....but, Affleck just might be the man in this....and as a side note, next person who complains about Michael Clarke Duncan as Kingpin deserves to be slapped. I think thats it for now....anything else to rant about this?? Revolution is still my name...
June 22, 2002, 6:15 p.m. CST
OK, so, problem 16 you have....yeah, the kiss is just weird as hell...but, come on, the LADY is weird as hell. She let a plant bleed her hand just for the sake of making a point....and shrugged it off like it was nothing. Wheel's turnin' but the hamster's dead for that chick. Guess thats what happens dealing with druggies all day. So, yeah, there's your explanation. My suggestion for number 17 is to get off the crazy people....there's really little accounting for the crazy things they do...if there was, then hey, they wouldnt be crazy. And thats no fun. NEXT?!
June 22, 2002, 6:32 p.m. CST
whatever self-enhancing hallucinogens the writer of that review is on, there's simply no way to dispute some things. Movie is a master's course and brain-explodingly brilliant. Not since Jaws, I mean Raiders, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, never mind--- I mean just never mind. It's not even worth discussing. What a beautiful, asskickingly perfect experience. If anyone's REALLY paying attention to what needs to be paid attention to, they know what the hell to do. See the flic again, make your friends and buy a ticket for your mom. Creative filmmaking of the original style deserves it.
June 22, 2002, 6:33 p.m. CST
Wow, lots of feed backs here. YEs, I was very stunned about HArry's reaction to Minority Report. None the less, heres my thoughts: First off, AWESOME Red Dragon trailer. I Was astounded by this, as I think most of us wrote Ratner off. But this amazing ensomble cast, tally script, and this trailer...this could be the best film next to One Hour Photo in 2002. Now then... I noticed THREE distinct similarities to other movies: 1. memento(Especially the opening scene) 2. vanilla sky(an almost exact shot of Tom's grostque face when hes trying to sneak into the lab) 3. unbreakable(When agatha is going up to people in the mall, just like bruce near the end of unbreakable) And The Matrix got an R? I was blown away how brutal Minority was. From the opening scenes, to all the murder scenes...gunshot wounds, oh and the scene where Tom Cruise is beating the shit out of the would be pederast yelling FUCK! My goodness. Dark subject stuff for a spielberg! (or like when the guy is doing that chick and the spiders stop them in bed) Minority Report was so good..I mean they dont tell ya in the ads, but this is an adult murder mystery, and a damn good one. The only flaw: The eye retina censors letting Anderton back in and not alarming. BIG FLAW. but otherwise very fadcinating film, and geat near future ideas and look. Everybody had their thoughts on A.I. They lamblasted it and Final Fantays. I came away from both those in a state of awe. After Minoirty Report it was more of a feeing of a good mystery like The Game or Memento. Glad to see Spielberg in such an adult film driection.
June 22, 2002, 6:49 p.m. CST
Yeah, I remember, things that get people all wet here: QT, Pulp Fiction, Fargo, Armageddon, Go, David Carradine, Ridley Scott's empty Bruckheimer period ie Gladiator/Crack Rock Down, crapasstic exploitation cheese recommended by "QT", Steven Soderbergh, Lord of the Rings, Russell Crowe, Hobbits, Hans Zimmer, faeries (sorry I meant Elves) anything with Bruckheimer all over it.//Things that get people all angry and vindictive here: Steven Spielberg, A.I., Saving Private Ryan, and now ...
June 22, 2002, 6:50 p.m. CST
one of the 2 things cruises's character dwelled upon was avenging his son's death, if that's not premeditated then what the hell is?
June 22, 2002, 7:05 p.m. CST
Now, don't get me wrong, I loved the film. But like awesome films like "Back to the Future" and "T2", it has huge flaws. HOW EXACTLY DID THE BAD GUY SET UP ANDERTON??? He wasn't going to that building and kill a man in the first place. The only thing that led him there were the chain of events that followed after the Precogs predicted that he will kill a man there. It seems to me that the only thing that the bad guy did was make a deal with the future victim, send him to the building, and instruct him to put the pictures on the bed. How is Anderton supposed to be involved now? Please someone prove me wrong.
June 22, 2002, 7:05 p.m. CST
If I was Spielberg, I would make these changes in the film. On the day that Anderton foresees his own crime, a fax or message is sent to his house saying he must go to the building the next day. This is sent by the bad guy to lure Anderton to the hired future victim, but he never gets to know about this because he goes on the run. Now, about the images of Agatha being in the same room, Spielberg could easily point that out as new images predicted by the Precogs because since Anderton knows his own future, he's now changing it by running away. Oh, and the murder countdown? Who cares about that?
June 22, 2002, 7:09 p.m. CST
The Emperor's New Clothes AKA The Masses Are Asses. Wow, the extent some must go to defend their heros. Spielberg is not a genius. Never was, never will be. Has he made some good films? Yes. Arguable, maybe even some are great. Indiana Jones, Best Popcorn Flick ever. Genius? Hardly. Just a B movie on an A Movie budget. Wasn't that the point? Minority Report was a disappointment.. I know one of the hardest things is to see flaws in heros. I don't expect the masses of Spielberg cum eaters to ever admit to a bitter taste in their mouths. The movie was a jerk-off is the way it manipulated the audience for no apparent reason...The Dr scene, with the revenge build-up, and then no real payoff, is a good metaphor for the fatal flaw of the entire film. Lots of emotional yanking about, gross-outs, and ill-logical twists that really don't advance the plot. Yes, they do COMPLICATE it, but that's not the same thing as real plot development. As an AVID reader of Dick since the 60's, I agree that he is spinning in the grave over this one. The movie story misses the point entirely. *****The best way the films works is through a comment made above: everything after the Halo is fantasy. ****Also, I agree very strongly that the film "borrows" from other truly seminal films such as "Brazil", and is nothing more that an amalgam of standard movie plots and devices. *****In closing, the only time to really get worried in life is when you are in accord with the masses, for they are truly asses. Titanic....nuff said
June 22, 2002, 7:10 p.m. CST
I think the sound was low in the theater I watched this movie in cause everyone seemed to mumble alot, but did anyone catch that scene during the first murder when Anderton is scrubbing the images? Something about a kid being on the right side in one image and on the left side in the other...
June 22, 2002, 7:23 p.m. CST
by Bad Guy
It's not a perfect movie, but I was entertained. No, it's not better than "Raiders...", which IS a perfect movie, IMO. It's an intelligent sci-fi flick ala "BladeRunner" or "Close Encounters...". Things about it did echo past movies of it's ilk: Specifically, the aforementioned "BR", "Logan's Run", "Total Recall" and "RoboCop". With a dash of "The Fugitive" thrown in for good measure. And when Cruise is in "action mode" I was reminded of his "M.I." films. (This is better than those, BTW.) I don't think it's the failure that Harry seems to think it is, but I'm also not sure if it will be held in the same esteem as some of the "classics" of the genre. Only time will tell. Looking at their two filmographies, here's my final judgement: A very good Spielberg film and one of Cruise's best. On the Harry bashing: He's definitely entitled to his opinion, and I remember a time not that long ago, when most of you were in agreement with him over his LOTR review. He loved it, you loved it, everything was good in Middle Earth. So he didn't like this. So what? Go check it out and decide for yourselves. Personally, I find myself in disagreement w/ Harry's reviews, more and more. i.e.: "Armageddon", "Hannibal", "LOTR" and "Minority Report". Just a few of the flicks where Harry and I didn't agree. But so what? I love coming to this site and reading the inside info and reading and participating in the talkbacks. I don't have to agree with everything the big guy says. I appreciate the fact that we have this site and this forum. Unlike some of you, who seem to think of this site as a place to spew venom just because no one can actually punch you in your stupid heads over the internet.
June 22, 2002, 7:28 p.m. CST
Everyone is speaking on how timely it is, and that is true. But the other themes in the movie call out to the viewer. Ebert was right - this is a masterpiece. A terrific piece of Science Fiction
June 22, 2002, 7:32 p.m. CST
Another Major Problem, mentioned in an above post: Critics loving the film and drawing the idea that the movie is GENIUS because of the timing with current socio/politics going on with our government. "Almost like Spielberg is predicting our own real furure" if we let things get out of control is the message. Scary......but the real scary part is that the movie is grounded in such a different universe, that no real parallels at all can be drawn to what is currently happening. The US dept of PreCrime is not based on ESP. Too many people have been taking the X-files a little too seriously. So yes, I admit, part of MY PROBLEM with the film is the build-up it received. But also, part of my problem is familiarty with the original story. Admiting films do need to stand apart from writing, the greatness of a Lord of the Rings lies in its originality without removing the heart and essence of the source material. Spielberg and Cruise take a philosophical/Socio/Political commentary and turn it into a formulaic star vehicle, by gutting the original themes and replacing them with nothing more than eye candy.
June 22, 2002, 7:35 p.m. CST
The murder was premeditated. It just wasn't pre-meditated by John Anderton. But it was set-up (pre-meditated). I think 3 movies was too much for you in one day if you can't grasp that!
June 22, 2002, 7:46 p.m. CST
The theory that Anderton's murder was pre-meditated by Burgess is ludicrous. Think about this...if it was really Burgess pre-meditating it why wouldn't the red ball have his name on it? The precogs are NEVER wrong, and they named John. This is because he HAD pre-meditated it. For six years John had been planning the murder of the man who took his son, without the opportunity to do so, since he didn't even know who the man was. The final piece of the puzzle fell into place when John found the kidnapper (or so he thought), and motive, pre-meditation and action came into play together. So the precogs weren't wrong, but John's knowledge of his own future gave him the power to change it.
June 22, 2002, 7:48 p.m. CST
As expected, of course.
June 22, 2002, 7:48 p.m. CST
Just read that Lilo & Stitch beat out MR $12.3 to $11.3 million. Looks like MR will be off the radar screen in 2-3 weeks, just like AI
June 22, 2002, 7:50 p.m. CST
When i said someone else pre-meditated it. Not the shot at Cruise in the end. The initial one, ya putz.
June 22, 2002, 7:56 p.m. CST
Hey Jabba? Where and what are you talking about? Did I miss the announcement that the FBI was forgoing the use of actual EVIDENCE and instead was going to use the hallucinations of three addle-brained mutants from parents that did too much acid in the 60's?
June 22, 2002, 8:30 p.m. CST
There was enough action in Godzilla to satisfy him and forget about the characters. The police officers in MR didn't need to have special attributes in the film because the film is not about them. This film is not about catching a fugitive, it's about uncovering the truth. Not every person in a movie needs attention. P.S. Those magnetic highways rock!!!
June 22, 2002, 8:31 p.m. CST
It was premeditated because he thought up Anderton killing the guy and set these things into motion. It wont say his name on the red ball cause he didn't commit the murder, Anderton did... That to me was probably one of the best parts of a movie I'm still unsure about... All those people out there talking about how fabulous it was should be reminded about how pathetic the ending was... I mean come on... unless the dream idea tossed around this forum is true I wouldn't even dare use that type of praise.
June 22, 2002, 8:38 p.m. CST
by Billy Talent
Come on, the kiss from Lois Smith is an obvious tip of the hat to 'Eyes Wide Shut', in which nearly every character reponds sexually to cruise. Think of the scene where Marie Richardson confesses her love to him.
June 22, 2002, 8:54 p.m. CST
You unfortunately said the following-- "The crazy Russian doctor says that Tom should not take the bandages off his eyes for at least 24 hours or he will go blind. But Tom gets his eye scanned by those "spider things" with six hours left on the clock. What happened to the blindness? Just more inconsistencies to a really flawed, overhyped, lackluster, debacle of a movie. You can't match wits with me--Clutch Cargo--because I'm too good" You are wrong here in so many ways. The doctor said he only needed to wait TWELVE hours, not 24, and his eye was not scanned with 6 hours left on the clock. We saw him lying in bed at one moment in which there was 6 hours left on the clock. His eyes were scanned by the spider "a few moments later" in the movie, a few "hours" later in real life. You're too good? Think again. I only saw the movie once and I can outthink you about this movie. Chalk it up- Best Picture.
June 22, 2002, 9 p.m. CST
by BETTER RED
Don't get me wrong, I love your website and your reviews, but unfortunately this is a case of the reviewer thinking that he has discovered a hole in a film where a hole does'nt exist, and quite honestly I expected better from you. The hole in question involves the supposed lack of premeditation invoving Cruise's murder around which the storie's plot revolves. This is true, however that does'nt mean the murder wasn't premeditated! In fact the whole thing was carefully planned and staged by the film's mysterious antagonist. Cruise was merely a pawn in a very well planned (or perhaps not so well planned according to the detective) murder. This brings me to my next point, which is your misplaced admiration for the poorly written detective. Aside from his lack of character, there is his stupidity to account for, which I found dissapointing since he was portrayed intelligently until his final scene. I mean, shouldn't he have seen it coming since the character he spilled his guts to was a possible suspect? And the fact that he handed him a loaded gun... Absolutely rediculous. That aside, Spielberg has created another thought-provoking and entertaining film.
June 22, 2002, 9:08 p.m. CST
John Anderton was trying to figure out where the first murder (of the movie) was taking place. He saw the man who was getting ready to come in and have an affair with the soon-to-be-murderer's wife standing somewhere with the boy on either side- one facing forward, one with his back facing out. John realized the boy was on a merry go round (no doubt remembering his son on one a few years ago) and that the murder would take place a park.
June 22, 2002, 9:31 p.m. CST
by Wild At Heart
like, "You had me before you had me at hello."Sorry, I just couldn't resist.
June 22, 2002, 9:33 p.m. CST
If I remember correctly, he was told not to take the bandages off for 12 hours and was scanned with 6 hours left to go. But he didn't go blind. At least, that's what I remember.
June 22, 2002, 9:35 p.m. CST
Harry was wrong when he said the murder was a murder of passion. Wasn't the murder just a set up for Tom Cruise's character to kill that guy? A set up that happened many days in advance? If two guys hate one guy and one guy finds a way to persuade the other to kill the hated one in some fit of rage, isn't that premeditated murder? I think Harry WANTED to hate this movie. He leads us to believe that he had high hopes for it, but that's just it, his high hopes are unfounded. Spielberg has reached, in many of our minds, a plateau the he himself cannot attain in his creative ability. He wants to be accepted so badly in his chosen art form, that he will go great lengths to amaze and astound, often taking the more crowd-pleasing choices to get there. What Harry wants to see is what has already been done just as what many Star Wars fans want and don't get is to revisit their youth the exact same way they experienced the first time. No, Minority Report wasn't Raiders of the Lost Ark. In fact, the film is just above average in terms of most of the Hollywood drivel that gets released nowadays. That's because young filmmakers inspired by Speilberg and his peers have grown up and are MAKING BETTER MOVIES. Speilberg will remain trapped in his creative holding pattern because he is no longer creative. He brought it all to the table and there's nothing left. Just like Kubrick. Just like Lucas. And, dare I say it, just like Scorcese. There is nothing original about any of these filmmakers anymore because the new fish are getting bigger than the old fish. So Harry wanted to see Raiders of the Lost Ark or Blade Runner, eh? Harry, go see Blade Runner or Raiders of the Lost Ark. The fact is, I liked Minority Report. I thought it was very enjoyable aside for a few things like when he ripped off Curtis Hanson's LA Confidential in Colin Farrell's last scene, or the assembly line scene that looked eerily like that scene in Episode II. But Speiberg brought it all to the table. He laid down the best hand he could, just like all of the other filmmakers I mentioned, and for that, I respect them all immensely. Their talent exceeds mine by leaps and bounds and it takes great courage to do what they do. Here's my advice: Don't see a film based on names or other movies. See a movie for what it is on its own, an original creation.
June 22, 2002, 9:38 p.m. CST
Other than a great 10 minute action scene, the entire movie was a downer (would be a great double bill w/A.I. another downer which IMO was a masterpiece compared to this disappointment). Major scene rip off from LA Conf. w/Spacey and Cromwell.
June 22, 2002, 9:55 p.m. CST
Who's to say Anderton didn't go blind after getting scanned? The spiders lifted up the bandages and they only scanned one of his eyes. To me, this validates the comment made earlier in the film by the drug dealer who says "the one-eyed man is king." It's either a reference to Anderton's one-eyed blindness or him saving one of his original eyes to get him in back into the PreCrime lab.
June 22, 2002, 10 p.m. CST
If thats the case, then Spielberg being the 'Master Film-maker' that he is, should've told the bloody audience that Anderton is blind in one eye. Directors think that adding these crucial plot points in the Extras on the DVD will cover their asses. Not so.
June 22, 2002, 10:05 p.m. CST
I thought I was the only one who could care less about Minority Report. That movie lacked so many things. The story seemed to slow and boring and I could have sworn i've seen a similar scenes in other movies (when the baddy is getting his award and the hero is near by and basically the baddy tells his "why i did it," and the hero tells the "i know that, and you did it because of..." Oh i just hate Minority Report. I'd rather watch 100 screenings of A.I. than watch M.R. again!
June 22, 2002, 10:36 p.m. CST
He doesn't understand it. He's DEFINITELY wrong about the premeditation/passion crime Anderton was supposed to commit. Spoilers: > > > > > > It was all a setup, to get Anderton to COMMIT a crime of passion. But it was premeditated for Anderton to do it, so ultimately it was premeditation. Now here's an interesting theory: Who was the one who premeditated this? Was it Burgess? or was it Agatha? Remember, she's the one who points Anderton to her vision of her mother's murder, she's the one who guides him unquestioningly to Anderton's "destiny". IMHO, it's very possible she knew how to exact revenge on Burgess for killing her mother (she seems very aware of it when she talks about how her mother was snatched away from her when she's at Anderton's house). I think she got away with the premeditation which ultimately caused Burgess to take his own life. > > > > > > End spoilers I think you can look at Minority Report as a simple whodunit or look at it through the more complicated theory I just posed. IMHO, I think they both work more or less. In any case, I think Minority Report was fantastic, and it's easily the best film yet this year.
June 22, 2002, 10:41 p.m. CST
you have no credibility as a film critic. You are a joke. Nobody respects your opinion or your word. Your bad typing means shit. Only ball lickers care about what you have to say. You will always be a fat, red headed, ugly, obiese, lying, piece of dog shit.
June 22, 2002, 10:46 p.m. CST
Shade, I agree. Friendliness is difficult to convey in an arena such as this one. I actually think if we met in real life we could have some good conversation. Anyway, the reason I chose to respond to your posts was that I considered them intelligent and well-considered. Plus, you're obviously well-read in the sci-fi lit department. I didn't mean the question of whether you had read The Minority Report as a challenge; it seemed a reasonable question seeing as how Dick was somewhat prolific. Admittedly, in hindsight it was kind of a dumb question, but I guess I was hoping you might expand upon whether or not you thought it was a good short story and how faithful or unfaithful the film should have been. I think I was paying attention to what you wrote. I just wasn't necessarily having the same debate that you were. :-) I understood your disappointment in the Spielberg/Cruise collaboration and the film's failure to connect emotionally with you; I just chose to focus more on the Pre-Crime ethics issue, since that was the topic of your most recent post. I apologize if I got a little combative. Being called a snot kind of riled me a bit. I was never trying to prove your impression or opinion wrong. I simply wanted to share my perspective and any insight I might have. It's rare that I have any original insight -- and I'm not claiming I do in this case -- but one of the best compliments I ever received was a friend of mine telling me that my movie discussion always gave him something to think about or a little more appreciation than he already had, especially for those films he didn't like. Sorry if I couldn't do the same for you. No harm, no foul. And for what it's worth, I do value your opinion, even if we disagree...........XTheCrovvX Yeah, I know what you're saying. The reason I focused on the changing your mind issue is that -- in the short story's resolution (very different from the film), Witwer (he survives and takes over Pre-Crime; Anderton, a murderer, has to leave the planet) asks Anderton if the mistake in precognition can happen again. Anderton replies that it could, but only for someone in a position of authority at Pre-Crime. And that ties into the fact that only Anderton and Burgess actually alter their destinies. Of course, any person with foreknowledge should be able to change their destiny, rendering Pre-Crime ethically bankrupt. Never mind. This is one of those Sarah Connor/Kyle Reese type things.........I absolutely love Brazil, and I didn't draw the comparison until I read the above. But, yeah, it's pretty apparent now. Gotta say I like it, and I like the ambiguity in this case -- sort of like Total Recall, even if Verhoeven's commentary completely endorses the lobotomy as truth. (In Brazil, though, I have to see the guy imprisoned, especially considering that awful happy ending cut even exists.)
June 22, 2002, 11:23 p.m. CST
by half vader
-and what do people in the suburbs do? Travel on horses like the cops? Fer cryin' out loud!
June 22, 2002, 11:40 p.m. CST
by Shabba McDoo
"This one kicks DEVIL'S ADVOCATE's ass in my opinion": You guys know what movie Harry's talking about here? The movie that kicked The Devil's Advocate's ass? I KNOW WHAT YOU DID LAST SUMMER! The whole time I've been visiting this website, I always shrugged off Harry's messy, beligerant reviews because I just saw him as being extremely easily excitable, but...wow. I always knew he had weird, maybe even bad taste in movies, but...but...WOW. To quote Lisztomania, a supremely cool movie, "time kills critics."
June 22, 2002, 11:42 p.m. CST
It was beat by Lilo & Stitch. It will be off the charts in three weeks and will not come close to $100 million. It might beat A.I. It might even be a hit in Japan so it might break-even. And don't talk about word of mouth. Filmgoers at EW are giving it a B-. Scooby Doo got a B. And just watch, the later reviews will drag it down at RottenTomatoes to as everyone sees that once again Spielberg has no clothes.
June 22, 2002, 11:54 p.m. CST
June 23, 2002, 12:19 a.m. CST
Are just that, idiots. Whether MR tanks at the box office, breaks even, or becomes a sleeper hit - none of that makes the film any more or less than what it is. How many classic films have been box office failures on their initial release? Everything from The Wizard of Oz to Blade Runner has failed to win a wide audience initially only to go on to become widely recognized as classics. And to Clutch, I don't know if my imagination might've helped but I know it couldn't have hurt to have someone with a brain explaining the movie to you. Not every movie needs to spoon-feed you the answers - in fact, the best ones usually don't.
June 23, 2002, 12:46 a.m. CST
To stimulate discussion by the audience, which both AI and MR have extensively. Like or not, they have the fim world talking.
June 23, 2002, 1:02 a.m. CST
When a freakin Spielberg movie seems too difficult to grasp... EYES: the drug dealer doesn't have eyes because in a society where your retinas keep track of you having no eyes keeps you untraceable to do unsavory things. There's all sorts of meaning in his culling of the one eyed are kings verse. Hence why replacing eyes is probably a shady if not illegal maneuver to be performed by crazy deposed medical practitioners CARS: it's a possible solution dreamed up by a transportation engineer to deal with all the traffic on the roads. Cityscapes can be designed so that traffic flows over and amongst buildings in order to maximize the utilization of space. PREMEDITATION: everyone else has covered this nicely. the real kicker is in figuring out who set in motion the setup because of foreknowledge... Burgess or Agatha? I actually thought we'd find out Anderton set it all up - that'd be a real Dickian twist. PRODUCT PLACEMENT: this movie has guaranteed I will never set foot in a Gap again. Doing that and getting money out of them at the same time is a stroke of genius.
June 23, 2002, 1:12 a.m. CST
Are you nuts Harry? This is the best film of the year. Heck, it's even better than Blade Runner. In fact, it makes Blade Runner look silly!
June 23, 2002, 1:27 a.m. CST
If you remember Harry, Max Von Sydow's character set the whole thing up. Hired the guy, Leo Crow, to pretend he killed John Anderton's son, knowing full well that John wanted to kill the guy responsible. So, technically speaking, Max is responsible for Leo's murder, not John. That makes it a pre-meditated murder. By the way, I loved the movie, and I liked the idea of a pre-crime devision. I do however, think they used it all wrong. Punish those who plan pre-meditated murder, and rehabilitate those responsible for crimes of passion, since most people who commit such crimes are rarely ever really themselves at the time. Which is why "temporary insanity" is a valid defense.
June 23, 2002, 1:44 a.m. CST
I think it's time we all realized something. Movie critics are useless. No matter what they say it all boils down to personal tastes and opinion. Why do you think so many people saw Scooby-doo? I liked Minority Report lots, and I trust Harry for his review more than 99.9999999 percent of anybody else. But if I like a movie the only one I trust is myself and no negative review is going to change that.
June 23, 2002, 1:44 a.m. CST
The Signs trailer ran before MR. This movie looks awesome, great atmosphere.
June 23, 2002, 1:53 a.m. CST
They're not cars! They're like elevators that you program to take you wherever you want to go. It runs on magnetic highways that go both vertically and horizontally and park directly at the side of your house. They're the taxis of the future, although Spielberg didn't say if people had to pay for the service.
June 23, 2002, 2:16 a.m. CST
When the Three witches Told Macbeth that he would become King, they set up a series of Events that would lead to Macbeth becoming King. He would kill the King, in order to gain his crown. As soon as Macbeth laid in his bed with his Wife and decided he would slay the king. A future timeline was created. A line that would bring him to the bed of his King. The Precogs would have seen this. This is a pe-determined murder. Tom Cruise was going to commit murder. A murder that would be a Crime a Passion. Crimes of Passion do not show to the Precogs. Because they are instant, they are instant reactions to a current situation. Kinda hard to see a time line, to an event that hasn't really began to snowball. So, How did They see Tom Cruise killing Leo Crow? Simple. Kinda.. When Max von Sydow decided to blackmail Tom Cruise, he created a series of events that would lead Tom Cruise to Kill Leo Crow. Wacky? Yes. But, Think bout it. If Tom Cruise just happened to walk in on Leo Crow and killed him, The Precogs would never have been able to see it 2 days in advance. The Fact that it was set up, the situation was set up.. Made it a Pre-Determined Murder. This House... Is Clean Mark NghtGambiT@aol.com
June 23, 2002, 2:55 a.m. CST
by Black Ceaser
Better known to some of us black folk as "Chocolate City." Jeez Tom Cruise ran through the slums of DC and only ran into one brotha playing a saxaphone. I guess we all escaped to The Matrix where black folks get to survive the future. Other than that I thought it was a magnificent piece of popcorn far superior to that lump of shit you talkbackers seem to love called AOTC. And more involving than spiderman. It makes sense that Harry wouldn't like this film. He seems to preferre crap produced by people he is friends with.
June 23, 2002, 3:40 a.m. CST
Harry, you're such a dumbass sometimes. Your problems with minority report seem to be with the actual short story not the film as a film. And as for your question addressing why there was such a large time window for Cruise's crime for it being a crime of passion??? The key here would have been to listen to the dialogue. Cruise makes a point to mention that for the last 6 years he has thought about two things, and one of those things happened to be WHAT HE WOULD DO IF HE EVER FOUND THE MAN WHO TOOK HIS SON!!! How's that for premeditation??!!
June 23, 2002, 3:45 a.m. CST
by Matt Daddy
Hey Harry, One point. You say Anderton's crime was of passion : correct. But it WAS premeditated. Not by Anderton but by the Director of Pre Crime. The event was set in motion. Remember the precogs see the Future, they don't read MINDS.
June 23, 2002, 4 a.m. CST
Anyway, in my opinion, it was a crime of passion until tom cruise character saw what was going to happen and the future was change. It went from crime of passion to pre-meditated. I'll tell you why. It was going to be a crime of passion because Sydow planned on sending Paul a letter telling him where the kidnapper is located at. Paul would've went to the hotel within that hour and killed the guy. However, the future was changed because Paul would've seen what he was going to do, then, the future would've been change anyway because Paul would've done things diffently. So, it became pre-meditated. With that, MR was a great film until the kidnapper told Paul that it was all a setup. Damn!!! The film should've ended there with Crowe being the kidnapper and Paul shooting the guy. It Spielberg gave me that ending, then, it would went from a gook film to a brilliant film. But, just like A.I, he gives us a sappy ending with hope. Blah!!!!!!
June 23, 2002, 4:03 a.m. CST
by Matt Daddy
Looks like everyone already pointed out the pre-med thing. Loved Minority Report. Best movie so far this summer. Episode II was a sloppy piece of work with great pomise in the first hour and a mess of a climax. Spiderman was much better than expected and great fun on a friday night. MR blew me away. Bring on more of the same, Beard. Carry this form onwards into Indy IV and save Harrison Fords career for us all!
June 23, 2002, 4:15 a.m. CST
The #1 logic plothole in this movie (akin to adding 2+2) is that once Anderton was considered a fugitive he STILL HAD ACCESS TO THE PRECOG POLICE FACILITIES! He used his eyeball to go back and kidnap Agatha. And then it just becomes plain laughable when he's a convicted criminal, in Halo confinement, and his friggin' wife USES HIS EYEBALL TO ACCESS PRECOG POLICE FACILITIES! Hello?!!! I don't care if you love Minority Report or not. What police force allows a rogue officer to have access to their facilities? Especially when they are on the verge of going national and the government head of the group has a lot to lose by Anderton discovering the truth. Anderton gets a new set of eyes, but saves his own eyes. I thought that maybe it was a moment about his humanity - that he wanted to have his eyes back after all this business was over. But no, he was plotting to use them to break into his own office. Apparently, Anderton is just smarter than everybody. Or, there's a big gaping plothole that was never fixed. It would've made more sense if he had found a way around it without utilizing the retina scan technology. Or that the pregnant woman who was obviously sympathetic to him would've worked with him to allow him to fake the retina scan, or if they pegged her as the person in charge of security clearance, and she didn't remove his clearance out of loyalty. Then, no problem. This is just such a huge gap in logic you can't overlook it. It's sloppy storytelling. I am really stumped as to how they let this slide. It's the kind of thing that should be flagged in the script. I know Spielberg isn't stupid, so my guess is that he thought the audience isn't smart enough to notice it, or wouldn't care because the story would be so compelling. Well, I noticed it. And then after I found this huge hole, I started to realize that a lot of things just don't make sense.
June 23, 2002, 4:29 a.m. CST
The thing is, we all get excited when we see the tomatoes Meter at 96% (appox.112 positive, 7 bad) but the truth is this...a tomatoe meter is really only a thunbs up/down type of things. You gotta READ the reviews people. Yes, Ebert LOVED MR but many of the positive reviews cited the end being weak and other some other quibbles. This happened with LotR last year. RT was like 95% but many of the reviews were positive but sitll mixed. (In LotR case, Ebert only gave it three stars but as far as tomaoes it was red.) Personsally, I love MR and I think the end is NOT as bad as people think. As for the plotholes and such they honestly don't bug me. It's interesting to discuss of course but it really doesn't alter my view of the film. Okay, now on to Ebert in particular. No, he's not high but he is a HUGE advocate of more interesting sci-fi. Back in 98' he put Dark City on the top of his list. No one cared and the movie only now is getting good word of mouth. This year he's loved Metropolis and MR. MR has two HGUE names attached and if I was Ebert I'd be damned before I let a good example of my tastes go un-noticed again like DC. Give the buy a break. (Except for giving LotR only thre stars...unforgivable! ;-)
June 23, 2002, 4:35 a.m. CST
Case in point Citizen Kane. We learn he has two kids with his first wife. This is the life of a MAN,etc. And yet after the news reel it's never brought up in the flashbacks. (yes, I get that it's different folks POV but come on!) The point is who the hell cares?!!! It's citizen Kane. The eyeball thing really bugs you that much? I watched him use the eye and just thought it was a little silly but who cares? At that point, I was more conecerned with Anderton breaking Agatha out of there.
June 23, 2002, 4:45 a.m. CST
Borrowed Brazil from a friend of mine and boy was that a fun movie. Anyway the ending of that movie was far more deliberate then what I saw in Minority Report. I mean sure I understand not leaving all the loose ends tied etc... but yeeesh. Unless theres an obvious cue in Minority Report that I can latch onto outside of similar shots like the men breaking through the windows and the offhand quote about prisoners having their dreams fulfilled I dunno... Would have been nice to hear the organ music playing at the end... just that and poof I'd have loved this movie. I'll watch it again just in the hopes that the entire force-fed ending was all a dream a la Brazil, but my hopes aren't as high as they were this morning =(.
June 23, 2002, 5:44 a.m. CST
In every major metropolitan area there's always going to be that one nutter who will do anything to co opt out of the existence that the status quo goes along with. There are many drug dealers who are not currently bling blinging and some (i said SOME, not all, and I volunteer at homeless shelters every Xmas) homeless people are transients who have decided to opt out of society all together. You often get these people spouting philsophical, weighty monologues about how out of tune the status quo is. What I thought was interesting and fully intended is that in MR's society, to do so you have to LOSE YOUR EYES, the window to your soul, because that's how far things have gotten to keep you in the system. It's another meaning for the whole one eyed are blind phrase: it's prophetic but it also means that everybody else who is going along with the facist state depicted in Minority Report, they're the blind ones. It's those who drop out and go to live in the Sprawl to deal drugs who are only true free - that's what he's saying on one level. I thought it was a terrific moment in that film, multilayered, totally unexpected, and just weird for a Spielberg film. In fact, some of the borderline cheesy humor worked for me because it kept me on my toes. When Cruise landed Yoga style distorting perspective and body all I could think of was "Where the FUCK am I now?" When that guy revealed he had no eyes, I went "this is a SPIELBERG FILM?" The eye motif in Minority Report to me is even better worked out than in Blade Runner (besides which, the eye motif in Blade Runner is only apparent in the 2nd - and if you pay attention to film history NOT the director's cut - available edit). The insanity in consumerist and paranoid America has gone so far that even your eyes, those private instruments of perception and beauty, keep you chained to the system. The whole security pass eye thing is not easily explained away but it's a MOVIE ABOUT BALD PSYCHIC KIDS PREVENTING MURDERS... I think the eye to gain access thing is another metaphor, that's all. And if Anderton's job at the board isn't a metaphor for film editing... Spielberg actually uses a virtual jug and shuttle knob in the hands of a detective to spot a merry ground. Fucking insanely brilliant. I hope to god that's what Final Cut Pro 18 looks like. Did you see how clips were assigned automatically textual context? Goddamn i could speed my work up with that thing.
June 23, 2002, 5:59 a.m. CST
As great as minority report is, there's something in its denouement which doesn't feel particularly right. I'm not saying it's the last two shots which seem to draw the ire of the cynical... I think the problem is those shots aren't ultimately earned with what we see, which is a fairly routine thriller ending. There are also many thematic questions dangling - when I think the film backs up Spielberg's concept of determinism - the idea that you are on an irreversible path towards major incidences but you have the freedom to act in the small moments between that determine your own self. It's never explained why Agatha is suddenly sensing so much more than murders - i think it's pretty obvious that after being freed from the tank and out in the real world her sensitivity skyrockets. Picture this: at the moment when Cruise is waiting for Crow to show up, Agatha tells him that she's seeing more than murder, she's seeing possible futures for him right now and the choice he's going to make will lead to a happy future or a bleak one. Continue as normal. Crow still dies despite Anderton's choice. Anderton now believes he's on a path to something irreversibly bleak because of this, he gives her a speech about how destiny can't be avoided... Movie proceeds again... Near the end Agatha and Anderton speak one last time and she cryptically intones that it was his choice in that moment, not the outcome of the situation, which will lead to his later life. Just a little fantasy scenario of mine, but I think part of the film's hopefulness is the idea that certain things are going to happen no matter what, but you have a choice as to how you react to them, in other words you do have free will - had that concept been driven home; the end, I believe, would be much more satisfying. But maybe Spielberg's to be applauded for burying this message and not hammering it home.
June 23, 2002, 7:55 a.m. CST
by The Founder
MR was good, and one of Speilberg's best IMHO, but as much as I tried, and made up excuses for, I just couldn't get around HOW THE HELL ANDERTON'S RETINA SCAN STILL HAS CLEARENCE????? I see a lot of you have the same grip, and the reviewer of my local paper mentioned it as well, but he didn't give away what it was, but he said we'll know when we see it, but his review was still positive. At any rate I'm surprised Speilberg would let something so far out obvious stay in, when he know we'll rip that element to shreds. I agree with another poster, i think it would have been better if a sympathetic person on the force, like the pregnant woman aided him or he found sound clever way to bypass the system, and I don't even wanna get started on his wife using the eyeball to get in the prison. If they just could have given some kind of answer, like maybe it takes 24 or 48 hours to purge his clearence or something believable. I think Speilberg wanted to show the cleverness of using eyeballs like using severed thumbs to obtain clearence, but i just can't forgive Steve for that one, but I really did enjoy the film, and though everything can't be perfect, that was just to obvious. I think the ending could have been different, instead of the villian taking the easy way out, but I can live with it. I enjoyed MR, and I'll more then likly see it again.
June 23, 2002, 8:12 a.m. CST
by The Founder
People just like Star Wars, because it's Star Wars, rather its sucks little time or big time, die hard fans will still sing it praise. One more grip about Minority Report, all that futuristic tech is amazing, I mean really amazing since it's only like 52 years away. I think a 100 years would have been more believable. I still like it, even with the faults.
June 23, 2002, 8:24 a.m. CST
Well, let me take a crack at this one...I believe the main reason Anderton still was able to use his retina clearance to get into the temple was to show the police's overreliance on their "perfect" system. Remember, they still think that if Anderton gets anywhere near the city, the advertisements, the doors, anything with a retina scanner will pick him up miles away...with that kind of coverage, what's the use in using valuable time to destroy Anderton's clearance at a place where he wont be able to get anywhere near without an alarm going off. It's sorta like saying "Why lock your front door when you own a rottweiler farm?" I mean, its obvious about a half hour in that the cops are relatively lazy...nobody needs to do anything except show up at the right time and hand 'em their head.....who needs to do detective work when you KNOW when shit's gonna go down? So for them, locking down Anderton's clearance is more or less a non-issue. There's my explanation, but who knows, might be a flaw with that.
June 23, 2002, 8:35 a.m. CST
by half vader
No I didn't ask how JP you moron. I asked WHY. In other words where is the reasoning for such a ridiculously impractical scheme. There was no intimation of massive overcrowding to justify such a stupid transport solution. Actually even THAT wouldn't explain the moronic amount of infrastructure needed to get it going. The suburbs sure looked spacey enough and I guess the people there ride horses or drive a Lexus. Folks in city apartments put up with garages/elevators in their living rooms. Basically what I was trying to get at was that there were things in the movie shoehorned in because they were 'cool' - 'cause we sure didn't get a rational explanation in the movie itself. Don't get me started on the stunguns or the incredibly important and badly handled explanation of just how you get a televion picture out of someone's head. Nice to know you can get an organ to play at your job in the future though (no metaphor can justify that crap). Idiots.
June 23, 2002, 9 a.m. CST
Besides the things Harry points out about the characters and all that - which didnt really bother me so much - there is the unsightly fact that the movie had some major plotholes goin on. Most of these are the fault of the script in my opinion, but jeez, Steven coulda noticed and tried to fix those up a bit. Another thing, something that I dont think anyone here has mentioned is how the title barely has anything to do with the movie. Unlike in the short story, where the Minority Report is actually a big part of the plotline, in the movie *spoiler* there isnt even a Minority Report for him to find. I think it woulda made more sense to change the name of the movie, I mean why not? they changed the name of all 3 other Philip K. Dick stories that were turned into movies (Do Androids Dream of Electic Sheep?= Blade Runner, We Can Remember It For You Wholesale= Total Recall, and Second Variety= Screamers). Personally, I think the short story by Philip K. Dick has much better cohesion than the movie does. Not like that matters though, the movie is totally different from the short story. I think it coulda come out better if they woulda stuck at least a little bit more to the source material. I loved the whole thing in the short story of how the minority report made by the 3rd precog superseded the other two in the fact that Anderton had already seen the card stating the murder (in the story it is just a card with killer and victim's names and time of murder instead of actual images and wooden balls) which changed the future by him being in the unique postion of having the knowledge of it happening. Therefor, the minority report proved he would no longer commit the murder b/c he knew about it...there is more to it all than just that, but you can get the picture. The movie, however, went about the whole "changing destiny" thing differently. That whole "echo" thing was kinda dumb. It was a totally contrived plot device, of which there were many. The ending kinda sucked too, a bit of a letdown...I didnt know why until *spoiler* the precog pieced in the thing about her mother's murder, but who couldnt figure out that it was the old guy? Shit, I wanted more of a surprise at the end. Even with all the plotholes and problems I have with the movie, I still liked it, I just didnt LOVE it the way I should have...really could have been better...well, those're my two cents. Supermonkey out!
June 23, 2002, 9:01 a.m. CST
by Black Ceaser
June 23, 2002, 9:43 a.m. CST
Great post, BTW. I typed a few things immediately after viewing Minority Report, but couldn't quantify a consise thesis that Speilberg should have been aiming for. I think yours would have worked nicely. Take a look at my previous posts, I think we share a similar opinion on this one.
June 23, 2002, 11:15 a.m. CST
SPOILERS! Spielberg cut to the timer that said there were six hours remaining. Then the PreCrime cops showed up, deployed the Spyders, we saw that amazing overhead shot, and then Anderton prepared the bathtub and submerged himself in the ice. The Spyders then enter the bathroom and search for Anderton. They electrify the water and Anderton pops up. Spielberg then CUTS TO THE SHOT OF THE CLOCK THAT SAYS THERE ARE SIX HOURS REMAINING (telling the audience that Anderton WILL go blind in that one eye because he did not wait 12 hours). It's cinematic grammar people. Why would Spielberg cut to the timer again if there weren
June 23, 2002, 11:46 a.m. CST
Harry, the crime in "the room" was pre-mediated. *Spoiler warning* It was premeditated by Max Von Syndow, not Cruise. He planned it all to set him up. But When the Pre-Cogs see a murder, they see it in terms of victim and assailant. It works. And I must disagree with your review, this was Speilbergs best in a long, long time
June 23, 2002, 11:48 a.m. CST
Spoiler: > > > > > The warden once says when you're halo'd it seems like your wildest dreams can come true. Well? Couldn't the ending part be a product of Anderton's dream? Couldn't he still be halo'd? Spielberg never tells us one way or another, doesn't lean one way or another, BUT that could be his intention. He wants to play the plot straight and leave it up to the audience to interpret it the way they want to. > > > > > > End spoilers If what I said is possible, I'm pretty sure it is, this movie's nothing short of brilliant, IMHO.
June 23, 2002, 11:57 a.m. CST
the hype and I agree with some of the character problems Harry mentions. I don't think it is all that bad either. The idea that is being missed in the discussion of whether the crime was a crime of passion or premeditated. Obviously the crime was premeditated, just not by Anderton. The precogs reported the crime as soon as Sydow's character hires Crow to set Anderton up. The system identifies Anderton as the killer because he pulls the trigger. This is the actual flaw within the system. The flaw is in the abilility of the system to interpret the visions, in trying to harness something subjective through the use of objective tools. When Danny Whitter claims that if there is a flaw in the system it is human, he makes the mistake that is so common when dealing with technology. If the technology fails then it is because a human did something wrong not because the technology is inappropriate to the use. As for Spielbergs movies, he has never had a film that didn't have huge holes. The only thing that used to save him is that he made movies that allowed people to empathise with the characters and cheer them on or experience their pain or pleasure. The audience didn't care about the plotholes only about the characters. Also the action moved to fast for the plotholes to matter. Lately his characters haven't been characters that include the viewer in their life. This film is immensly better than AI but certainly not the complete entertainment of his early work. If he manages to achieve a balance between his new darker more complex vision and the character skills of his older work he will become an even better filmmaker.
June 23, 2002, 12:11 p.m. CST
Sorry about the lack of spoiler markers in my last post - I hope it didnt screw anyone up. That said - ****Spoiler*** I think the reason that his eyes still worked in the building was that Sydow's character was the one in charge of the place and he needed Anderton to complete the crime or be caught. He couldn't afford to foil the crime in some other way and Agnes was in the crime picture. **** End Spoiler ***
June 23, 2002, 12:42 p.m. CST
Well, having seen trailers for this one here in the UK just the other night, all I can say is Minority Report looks like some Hollywood contrivance to allow Spielberg to make his own version of The Matrix. Sinister, low-saturation colored all-pervasive survailance world with a weird psychological/ethical twist; The Matrix - Big Brother rules by completely controlling your perception of reality. Minority Report - Big Brother rules by completely controlling your perception of the future. Oooh, it's all just SO intellectual and thought provoking :/ And the floaty 3D screens..isn't that just a more expensive version of the 'data streams' that formed a powerful motif for The Matrix? The similarity between the protagonists names Anderton/Anderson...I don't know whether to grin or cringe. And as for the 'hey, it's based on a Philip K. Dick story/concept'...that's just what they do with concept sci-fi movies since Blade Runner to give them an air of artistic and intellectual credibility. A.I. anyone? This is Spielberg attempting to make The Matrix. Harry's review adds weight to my suspicions - that it's merely a contrivance that won't have anything of the substance, social comentary and compelling human quality of the aforementioned classic. And a special effects budget that could by a small country. Ho-hum.
June 23, 2002, 12:55 p.m. CST
Rotten Tomatoes standing of 96%....rave reviews from some of the early posters on this board...some comments about Spielberg's best since Raiders...and what do we get? An overlong (by about half an hour) bad murder mystery with unnecessary gross out scenes (sick sticks? ok), major plot holes, multiple weird people molesting Tom Cruise at strange times (what's with the old plant lady smacking him on the lips??), unnecessary charcters (the eye doctor/nurse 'mole' were a waste of time) and plenty of unanswered questions. Scooby Doo was a better movie.
June 23, 2002, 1:17 p.m. CST
Well, I've had enough of the straw-graspers absurd contention that the murder 'was premeditate' because Lamar premeditated. That's ludicrous. Pause, for a moment and consider it - when Lamar set out to kill Agatha's mother, he hired a John Doe who then (completely ignorant of the existence of PreCrime, I suppose) proceeded to 'premeditate' what he would do. A brown ball was created for him as the person who premeditated the murder - NOT the person who commited the murder - sicne, if you will recall, he never a) actually commited the murder, nor b) was it ever actually his destiny to commit the murder since von Sydow intended to do it himself the whole time. Thus it is proven that the PreCogs IDENTIFY THE IDENTITY OF THE PREMEDITATOR. It also makes no sense, by the way, for the movie to contend that this John Doe was never identified since the PreCogs do not rely on 'eye-scans' to identify the people in their visions (the excuse given as to why the John Doe was never ID'ed. The movie is full of holes.
June 23, 2002, 1:33 p.m. CST
by War Eagles
The name of the victim and murderer are always identified on those glossy wooden balls. Pre-Crime may know little else, but they always know the name of the victim and murderer. Now how is this possible? We know that in the future, people are identified by EYE scan, not facial recognition. So, are we to assume that the computers that process and display the Pre-cog images, identify the victim and murderer via a scan of their eyes. I have no problem with that, sounds reasonable to me. Now, here
June 23, 2002, 1:34 p.m. CST
I hoped I would disagree with Harry like usual, I skipped his spoilers and just knew he didn't like the movie on an intellectual level, but now that I've seen it and red his review in full, I have to admit I think Harry is on the money for the most part! He names the biggest plot hole in the movie, Anderton's "murder" is a crime of passion, it's not premeditated at all, so why are the Precogs sensing it so early?! He's not even looking for the guy he's supposed to kill, he just stumbles on him! And as a set up, how can anyone frame a guy with a vision that is effectively a causality loop? And technically, Anderton doesn't kill anyone, it's an accident, so do Precogs pick up murder or just death? And why does Agatha say "the others didn't know their future, you still have a choice"? Uh, the WHOLE reason he's there is because he saw the future! So why doesn't he have a minority report reflecting that things might play out differently? Are the Precogs THAT wrong? What's more, if the precogs can only forsee murder, then how come Agatha is predicting little things during one of the admittedly more enjoyable chase scenes? She's predicting a guy dropping a suit case, a bunch of balloons covering her and Anderton from the cops(who were REALLY dumb not to look behind the balloons), and that they'd need an umbrella for the rain! She can pick up all that, yet she can't forsee rape or theft or anything other than murder? It may be one of the better scenes, Spielberg's touch is all over it, but it contradicts those paper thin rules the movie is housed in. Now, I think Harry is wrong about Anderton's son. Precrime would have allowed them to catch the killer before he could have killed the kid. I don't know about torture, but the actual murder would have been prevented and then at least Anderton would know what happened to his son. Part of his pain was that he didn't know what happened, he didn't know if his son was alive or dead. Although, all the kidnapper had to do was take little Sean away from DC and the precogs wouldn't have been worth shit...so damn, Harry's got a point there too! And in that scene where Agatha was in Sean's room, did she say Sean was still alive and kidnapped by a lady who had lost her own child, that he'd grow up and run track at 23, or was that an alternate future, or did she mean her own mother had missed her? Did that scene even know what the hell it was trying to say? To paraphrase the Oracle in the Matrix, "it's really going to cook youre noodle later."******I'm not sure I agree that the characters are all bad like Harry says--the cyber pimp guy left almost no impression on me, not worth complaining about IMO. The crazy doctor is a criminal, he's SUPPOSED to be bad! But the wife and Sydow are both stock characters--hell, Sydow's character was in Spellbound all the way up to his last scene! I think you're right about the cops though, and that Colin Farrell had the most interesting presence. In fact, I think he could have been as strong as Tommy Lee Jones in the Fugitive with a better script--one that focused on characters. As is, he's just a redherring--and it's to Farrell's credit he leaves such an impression. *********I want Spielberg to drop these fucking morality plays and get back to the fun and imagination that was what made him great to begin with. It's sad people are comparing this to Raiders, of the Lost Ark. I think he's preached enough, it's time to get back to what he was so great at before he spit all over fantasy adventure with Hook--aka "Why I can't be a kid anymore." If Minority Report is really supposed to be his return to action/adventure, then maybe it's a good thing he's not touching Harry Potter since he can't seem to do ANYTHING now without this "Here's my Wisdom" pendatic shit. Steven, you're lying to yourself with this "I can't go back" garbage. I saw the old you in those scenes with Anderton jumping cars on a vertical highway, those creepy spiders hunting for Anderton, every scene that emphasized there's no such thing as privacy in the future, the fight with the PreCrime Unit in the alleyway and building, and the chase with Agatha. I saw the glint of mischeif in your eyes again, that old "oh cool" thought skipping across your brain. Stop saying you can't make movies like Raiders or Jaws or Close Encounters, you CAN and it's there in you trying to get out. Stop trying to enlighten that inner child and just indulge it. PLAY, DAMN YOU, PLAY!
June 23, 2002, 1:42 p.m. CST
Hehehe, Clutch Cargo, superninja, and of course Shade, you guys remind me WAY too much of myself from last year where I was on some kind of friggin personal crusade to convince EVERYONE that A.I. was the BEST FILM EVAR! (and it is damned close!) While you may all feel MR was disappointing in aspects, you at least have to appreciate the fact that you can actually talk about it for hours on end (as you have). I mean, how many other recent movies can you do that with? Most talkbacks revolve around "Spider-man sure was great, I guess". I guess that is why I enjoy Spielberg's latest offerings, they really provoke the viewer. I saw Minority Report last night, and while A.I. played with my heart, MR played with my mind and in the good way. I highly recommend it.
June 23, 2002, 1:43 p.m. CST
LudwigVan, your posting makes absolutely no sense. Please, think about what you say, sober up and then post again.
June 23, 2002, 1:51 p.m. CST
1.Giant close up of the eye at the beginning- Blade Runner 2. Anderton escaping in his car to the countryside- Blade Runner (original cut) 3. Anderton's car looks like a police spinner- Blade Runner. 4. Anderton changes his face- Total Recall, Quaid with the mask at the Mars Spaceport. 5. Huge Video Billboard advertisements on buildings- Blade Runner. 6. Eye doctor- Blade Runner, chinese genetic eyeball designer. 7. Spiders attacking Anderton in the building- Blade Runner (Pris represents a Spider- read Future Noir by Paul M. Sammon) 8. The guns used in the car factory- Blade Runner, the black hole gun used to kill Holden at the beginning of the movie 9. Witwer following Anderton- Blade Runner, Gaff following Deckard 10. Ending: Anderton's Halo dream, or reality?- Total Recall 11. Precogs are products of a company-Blade Runner, Replicants are products of Tyrell Corporation 12. Anderton has a drug problem- Blade Runner, Deckard has a drinking problem 13. Pre-Crime can search through images in 3 dimensions- Blade Runner, the photograph machine Deckard uses in his apartment (which is much like the photograph machine in Anderton's apartment) 14. Burgess is an old man who loses control of his product that eventually leads to his demise- Blade Runner the old CEO Tyrell get's his eyes taken out by his product, the Replicant Batty 15. Detective Witwer is killed in the same fashion as when Holden is shot in Blade Runner, during an interrogation/revelation/inquiry (he is shot the same amount of times too, TWICE!!) There are many more, but I know that all three of these films were written by Philip K. Dick, so there are going to be similarities. A lot of the action sequences looked a lot like something out of Total Recall, same costumes worn by Pre Crime and Mars Army personnel, and same energy. Blade Runner and Total Recall are still superior films to Minority Report.
June 23, 2002, 2:09 p.m. CST
For one, everyone is running around screaming from the rooftops that this is Spielberg's best yet, it's not. Would it be someone else's best? Yes, it's a very good movie. You went in with your expectations so high nothing could satisfy them. Another problem you probably faced (whether you acknowledge it or not)is that over the lastt few years you feel Spielberg has betrayed you ,sending out sub-par efforts. I think you spent the entire film looking for imperfections, not just sitting back and letting it happen, you missed(or forgot)details they took the time to work into the film, some were mentioned more than once. I'm suprised how well they described why things were the way they were or how it all worked without making it sound tacked on. Most movies just let things hang out there and expect you to just assume everything about it. I know how pre-crime works, why the pre-cogs see only certain things, and from there I can make a decent argument about why they saw Anderton's crime so far in advance. Everything doesn't always have to be perfect, sometimes a few loose ends can be a good thing. Like in Blade Runner, how they never said whether or not Harrison Ford was an android or not and geeks everywhere had a good long argument going for a couple of years over it. Then the director ruined it for you guys when he announced in the DVD he was an android. See Minority again when it comes out on DVD, you may see a different film.
June 23, 2002, 2:57 p.m. CST
Only not as good. Gutsy review on Harry's part.
June 23, 2002, 3:14 p.m. CST
June 23, 2002, 3:16 p.m. CST
Harry Not only is your review poorly written and oblivious to the strengths of this movie, it is also abundantly clear that you don't understand how difficult constructing a 'real life' 3 d hologram in real time is. Stick to mediocre movie coverage my friend and leave what is or is not feasible for the future to people who know better
June 23, 2002, 3:29 p.m. CST
Hey Harry, Someone may already have said this (lots of posts for this movie), so I apologize if this is a repeat, but... I don't think it was against the film's rules for the precogs to see Anderton murdering Crow, because the murder *was* premeditated--just not by Anderton himself. Since the killing was a setup, and thus invovled a lot of premeditation, I think it's reasonable that it would show up 72 hours early. In fact, it may have been a clue meant for shrewd viewers (albiet one far more subtle than the others in the movie). I had the same thought as you regarding the logical problems with the crime of passion/72 hour window. However, after reflecting on it, I concluded that it was completely consistent with the rules Spielberg presented. However, it *does* raise more questions (could it have been considered a suicide? If so, should it have appeared to the precogs at all? If it *was* a premeditated murder, how come the true perpetrator didn't appear to the precogs?). Overall, I agree that the movie wasn't all it could have been, but it was a lot better than much of what's currently out there--if only for Dick's intriguing premise and the amazing futurist visions of advertising and media advances. Certainly not Blade Runner, nor Saving Private Ryan, but one of the most interesting so far this year.
June 23, 2002, 3:35 p.m. CST
by Shabba McDoo
"Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg's 'Minority Report' played top cop at the weekend box office as the dark sci-fi saga debuted with an estimated $36.9 million, edging Disney's rollout of its animated 'Lilo & Stitch' by just over $1 million."
June 23, 2002, 3:49 p.m. CST
You really have to take Harry's review along with most with a grain of salt. I went to Undercover Brother expecting it to be very funny. It was just okay and really was a "trailer movie". I thoroughly enjoyed Minority Report and thought it was the best movie Spielberg made since Saving Private Ryan. As to compare this movie to Raiders is not fair and needs to stand, like most movies, on it's own.
June 23, 2002, 4:23 p.m. CST
June 23, 2002, 4:34 p.m. CST
by Private Ryan
This film was awesome, Harry, all your problems with the film are kind of silly. The movie is cold, lacks emotion and humanity...yes, and that is by design. The movie is about a future that is cold, that lacks emotion and humanity...so well, how can that be a flaw? That is brilliant. Just because the movie is made by Spielberg and it is not ET does not make it a failure. This is an impersonal future- there is no such thing as privacy, corporations know everything about you and show that in their advertisments, and the cops can arrest you for thinking about murder, not for committing it. The creation of the future world is more than surface- it is part of the themes of the film. Cruise is great, because he is emotionally stunted. He is sad, his soul is dead, and he deadens it more with drugs. The one thing he believed in, pre-crime, turns out to be flawed, and he has to run. As for the ending- I didn't like the lame epilouge, but the theory that it is like the Brazil ending is quite interesting, and seems to have validity. Why else would Tim Blake Nelson make the point of saying "all your dreams come true"- which would mean the entire third act is in his head, but is also used to explain the motivation of the true killer. As for the plot hole of how Anderton only will murder the man because he sees it- well it is a paradox, a paradox that exists in all movies about seeing the future or traveling to the past- and it is a great one to wrap your mind around. Very cool movie, one of Spielberg's best.
June 23, 2002, 5:03 p.m. CST
Minority Report is a very good film and a great summer movie. Remember Armageddon made him cry. Michael Bay is pure hack too. Nice size check can certainly change emotions. Funny that we still consider Harry a rebel. Wait until that glowing Austin Powers review surfaces. Surprised Brittney Spears doesnt change into Harry on the Pepsi commercial. Keep collecting those checks, fatboy
June 23, 2002, 5:13 p.m. CST
by Josey Wales
I suppose I can't take Knowles to task for finding these characters flimsy; I found them much more involving those in say, the soulless Blade Runner. Really though, there are two points I think he's dead wrong about. What is worse, instant death or the fate of the pre-criminals. The scene with scores of bodies floating in the darkness was horrific The warden says that they do nothing but dream but we really don't know. Tell me it's not unsettling to contemplate spending the rest of your existence in some type of subconscious daze ... maybe you relive your nightmares, not your dreams. Also, Knowles writes, "How about using the visions of the future to confront the future criminals with, to get them to see, Jacob Marley-style, the error of their ways. I don
June 23, 2002, 5:32 p.m. CST
MR, which I saw over the weekend, was OK, certainly not great. The reviewer I trust the most gave it 2.5 stars. I concur. The review that appeared on this website that gave it four stars was embarrasing to read, even before I saw the movie. MR is not Spielberg's return to true form, and it certainly is not anything outstanding for Cruise, who was better in VANILLA SKY and MAGNOLIA. He's in MISSION IMPOSSIBLE mode here, but only in the blandest sense. It's acting by the numbers. And he's the most interesting person in the movie! It was easy to spot the villain early on, which is always a disappointment. The CGI was overused and not particularly convincing. The plot, which admittedly had to be beefed up a bit from the fairly simplistic short story that inspired it, was overly contrived and lifted whole scenes from L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, BLADE RUNNER, STARSHIP TROOPERS and FIFTH ELEMENT. The best part of the film is an extended chase through the alleys and buildings of the dystopian city, but even that was hurt somewhat by a dopey and predictable outcome. I went home and watched BLADE RUNNER, a far superior film that itself is something of a flawed masterpiece. By the way, Anderton in the Dick short story is about Harrison Ford's age today, not Cruise's. I think Ford might have done a better job, but who knows? He still would have been handicapped by the lackluster execution of the film. MR may play better on video. It is not worth the cost of a movie ticket.
June 23, 2002, 6:07 p.m. CST
By the way, for those who love a good film flub, there is a really good one approximately two-thirds of the way through MR. The female Precog is slumped on the floor, with Anderton standing over her. She needs a hand up and calls him "Anderson" very plainly and quite loudly. Guess no one thought it was worth reshooting. Maybe they figured we understood she was confused and half out of it at that point. I like Anderson better than Anderton anyhow. Ever know anyone by the name of Anderton? Also, for those who defend A.I., there is nothing to defend. The movie might actually have been pretty decent if it had ended properly, say at the conclusion of the Flesh Fair sequence when Jude Law is hauled away and essentially tells the kid, "You have helped make me feel human." As it was, Spielberg obviously couldn't decide how and when to end the movie, and ruined it in the process. The business underwater, especially with the Disney version of the Blue Fairy, was alternately interesting and appalling. The business with the aliens (robots?) was worse. the business with the mother was absolutely ridiculous. These multiple, increasingly sappy endings ruined everything that went before. I like to think of the proper ending as Jude Law saying goodbye to the kid, or even the kid committing a slow suicide by plunging into the ocean -- but without encountering the fricking Blue fairy. A.I. is better for it.
June 23, 2002, 6:21 p.m. CST
CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND was his last great film.
June 23, 2002, 6:22 p.m. CST
The spiders only scanned one eye, he was blind in that eye. Could still see out of the other one. Oh, and Spielberg didn't explain this specifically because if you are even slightly observant, you'll notice that the scanned eye's pupil looks bigger and burned out as compared to the other one. Sorry guys, this movie bit the big one. AOTC was better than this because it didn't try to be more than a popcorn flick (although I still think AOTC was pretty ungood.) MR tried to be a real movie, and suceeded in the first act, but fell off completely after that. Poop.
June 23, 2002, 6:30 p.m. CST
Watch the Director's Cut again. A lot of people don't watch movies looking to examine subtlety or understatement or symbolism or broad conceptualization. Four things that Blade Runner has in plenty. Four things that many people mistake for a whole lot of dull nothing when they give a movie less than their full attention. Blade Runner wears the guise of a cold dystopian science fiction film noir...and that is part of what makes it great. These characters live in purgatory, their existence feels lifeless...and yet at the same time they are fighting for survival. With its conclusion and denouement, Blade Runner proves itself one of the best films to expouse as its main theme the sacred, cherished value of life itself. It questions the nature of life itself, and answers that question by showing (not telling) that life is that which seeks to go on. To persevere, to endure hell in order to escape the end. Minority Report seems like it wants to be about something, but it can't decide exactly what that is. Sometimes it's about predestination...sometimes it's about the flawed nature of man...but most of the time it's about Tom Cruise and Steven Spielberg showing off. It's impressive in many ways, but not exactly a great movie. It has a weak ending, and I would say that A.I. is better except that A.I. had thirty minutes or so of an ending that was much, much worse than Minority Report's ending. All A.I. supporters, I can understand your backing of the first two hours or so of the movie. But that movie just did not know when to end. If it had ended when David fell from the skyscraper...great. If it had even ended with him looking at the Blue Fairy forever...that would have been good. But it kept going and going and getting more and more needlessly talky and sentimental. Kubrick could have pulled it off, but Spielberg just sapped it up...he poured schlocky syrup all over his conclusion by making it his most obviously manipulative and heavy-handed piece of filmmaking yet...and by Spielberg standards, that's pretty darn hammy. I would not have been surprised to see a Barbara Streisand cameo as the voice of the Blue Fairy at that point. She could have crooned a Disney-like song about dreams coming true and it would have perfectly fit the tone of the movie in its final, agonizing death throes.
June 23, 2002, 6:53 p.m. CST
There were two "virtuoso" shots in the film: the overhead shot of the spiders and the two-head shot of Anderton and Agatha. There were the well choreographed camera movements in the mall chase involving the balloons and the cops, and the reaction of a spider when the bubble popped out the tub. Does anybody care about film techniques anymore?
June 23, 2002, 6:56 p.m. CST
June 23, 2002, 7:08 p.m. CST
I wrote my post and then read yours and saw that you had already pointed out many of my A.I. complaints. Oh well, critical minds don't think alike very much, but when they do, they have a better chance of being right.
June 23, 2002, 7:10 p.m. CST
I read harry's review of Minority Report and I would have disagree on most points with him. Personally, when I dish out 8 bucks to see a new movie at the local cinema, I look for one thing. How freekin awesome the movie is!!! Harry blatently points out that MR has a lot more faults than it should have and that you should not see it. Forget Harry! Go see the movie! Tom Cruise played an excellent starring role in this film, but I think that much of the movie is made up of the less important characters. Colin Ferrell rocked in his portrayal of the cop who played the game by the rules, and he even whooped Cruise's @$$ in a fight. The Pre-Cog girl, Agatha (Can't remember her real name), played a role that was kind of like a scared little child in an adult body. The plot of the movie was quite good as well. Several times, I thought that the movie would end in bad places, but Speilberg did an excellent job of putting an excellent ending to a great summer film. So I say, Don't listen to Harry! His reviews have become increasingly played to what he himself thinks is great! Just take a look at his review of Star Wars Episode 2. I personally think he was too easy reviewing that film (probably sucking up to ol' George). Go see Minority Report! I guarantee you'll love it!
June 23, 2002, 7:14 p.m. CST
I'm serious here, the first 2/3's-3/4's of this movie were great... then it just spiraled into cliche after cliche... I mean my god... the best scene in the movie Anderton reading the supposed rapists rights was followed by a horrible ending that seemed more fit on a made for tv movie. When the movie continued after he was incarcerated I was scared, I was scared that Spielberg was going to find a way to pull off one of his absurdly happy endings... and what happens? He does in SPADES... Anyway if the "It's all a dream" idea that I've seen in this forum a couple times pans out then this ending is great... but otherwise, I don't see how people can love this so... great ideas but a poor conclusion is what I say. It leaves you with a bad taste in your mouth, like you were just cheated.
June 23, 2002, 7:27 p.m. CST
It was beautifully composed...but so what? It's composition had no great syntagmatic meaning other than being an easy way of trying to make us feel that Anderton and Agatha are connected even though they've only been running around with each other for a rather short period of time. It was a great shot, but a great shot does not a great movie make. The overhead roaming camera when the spiders invaded was quite impressive, but Jacques Tati choreographed stuff like that decades earlier with more skill and imagination. I'm not denying that Steven Spielberg's film technique is often impeccable...but there are many other movies with equally impressive technique that fully marry the presentation to a strong narrative or purpose or abstraction. Minority Report is a fairly good movie (except for the Murder She Wrote ending that another talkbacker pointed out), and I'm not complaining that I could make a better movie, because I certainly couldn't, but I am complaining with the critics calling this one of Spielberg's best or one of the best science fiction films ever, for Spielberg has certainly proved himself more amply with other movies and other directors have created more cohesive works that are getting the short end of the stick because the critcs like to have a love-fest with Spielberg. Whew.
June 23, 2002, 7:30 p.m. CST
I agreed with just about everything in Harrys review. But "exceptional" regarding John Williams score I think f#@king not. "Overpowering" "distacting" "Utter crap" YES!!!! This film needed The Dust brothers or even Tangerine dream, anything but the very dated horseshit that Williams STILL pumps out.
June 23, 2002, 8:32 p.m. CST
(1) The contents of the precog's murderprediction do not make sense--there is a causal paradox very similar to the one in "Terminator." First the precogs make a prediction about this murder which gets stored in Precrime's computer. Knowledge of this prediction causes John to flee, eventually leading him to kidnap the lead Precog, go to the arcade, and happen upon the apartment building where the prediction takes place. It is later discovered, when reviewing the precog tapes, that the precog was also present at the murder scene. Logically, the conspiracy to make John murder Leo Crow must have involved some other mechanism than having him "randomly" find Crow's apartment at just the same time as the predicted murder was to take place. That is to say, there needed to be at least one universe in which the murder occurred without a successful prediction of it, and without the presence of the precog. Otherwise having the precog see a murder whose time and occurrence depended in large part on the prediction happening before the murder is an irreconcilable problem. In Terminator one asks the question "How could John Conner be conceived if his conception is predicated on the existance of a soldier from the future coming to the past in order to ensure his conception?" It doesn't hold up to close scrutiny. [A smarter solution to this problem would have involved an anonymous phone mail message being placed to John telling him the name and location of Leo Crow, his son's kidnapper. In every possible universe, as soon as the phone mail message gets to John, he goes berserk and determines to kill his son's murderer. The prediction and his subsequent flight in no way affects his receipt of the phone mail message about his son's kidnapper. That solution makes more sense.] (2) In the Lexus factory--how exactly does John start the car he drives off in? Do the factory robots include the car key in the car? I highly doubt that. (3) Why do John's eyeballs work after he's been discharged from precrime? And they work again for his wife! I work at a large software company, and I know for a fact that when someone leaves the organization his keycard is immediately deactivated. To have that not be true in 2054 stretches credibility. (4) It is stated that removing the banaging from his eyes will blind John. Not addressing that apparent contradiction is in my view an error, but not as serious as the causal paradox mentioned before. (5) Dipping yourself into a bath of ice water isn't going to substantially increase your body temperature. Sorry, dude!
June 23, 2002, 8:40 p.m. CST
Colin character said that Anderton was coming back to the facility to get the pre-cog. So, he didn't set up any alarms for Anderton with the eye scanner because he wanted to catch Anderton in the act of taking the pre-cog without alarming him and losing Anderton. Also, like I stated before, how do you know that Sydow character didn't send Anderton a letter stating exactly where the kidnapper is located at, making it a crime of passion because Anderton would go directly to the hotel and kill the guy. However, since Anderton would've seen exactly what would happen, the future was changed because Anderton would have done things diffently, which, would made the crime pre-meditated.
June 23, 2002, 8:47 p.m. CST
ManOWar said: "I guess I'm the only one who doesn't jizz over Paul Verhoeven movies" You most certainly are NOT the only one. Verhoeven is an untalented hack who has made exactly one good genre movie in his career. He's also an unmitigated moron with delusions of importance.
June 23, 2002, 9:14 p.m. CST
And one more thing: this was another case of Spielber not knowing how to end things. It could easily have ended with cruise being incarerated. Then we would really have had something to talk about! I like the notion that everything that happens after his incarceration is a dream. It would explain how his wife suddenly became SuperSpy/SuperSleuth. Unfortunately, I see nothing to indicate itis a dream. Other than the warden's comment that the Halo-induced dreams may be pleasanter than anything in real life. If Spielberg goes on national TV and fesses up to the last 10 minutes being a dream, I will have to reevaluate my opinion and move MR to 3 stars.
June 23, 2002, 9:28 p.m. CST
And one more point. But let's start with this: Presumably Anderon went blind in the eye the spider scanned. So besides the fact he went around wielding one of his own eyeballs, he wandered around with only one good eye for the last 20 minutes of the movie. That fulfills the comment made earlier in the film about the land of the blind...But what about the facial contortion gag? It got talked up by the doc, and we see Cruise wincingly inject himself once he is back out on the street. We then see him for one very quick scene with a face almost as bad as the one he wore in VANILLA SKY. But then -- nothing. The very next scene, he is back to normal. Nothing more said. No dealing with the consequences when the face tightened up again. No pain. I think Mr. Spielberg may have experienced a small editing problem. And, hey! How about that kiss from Lois Smith! I assume she greatly enjoyed kissing Mr. Toothy. I know I would. Not. Anyone else notice Cruise's chest and stomach in MR looked like Harrison Ford's in WHAT LIES BENEATH? Not so bad, considering Anderton is supposed to be pretty damned old and Cruise is fast approaching middle age. He sported a middle-age body under his uniform! Maybe it was a prothesis.
June 23, 2002, 9:52 p.m. CST
How to commit murder if you are a DC resident. Drive one-quater inch past the city limit, the kill away. Another question: how do you take precrime nationwide? Find another batch of clairvoyant crack-babies? The "I've been thinking about killing the kindapper for six years" speech does not constitute pre-meditation. Aderton had no intentions of killing anyone until 2 minutes before Crow's appearance. Thus, it would been a crime of passion. A red ball alert, and no movie. And why would a former-employee/curretn inmate's eyes still be scannable in the security system allowing him to conveniently be broken out of prision. It's all just silly.
June 23, 2002, 9:58 p.m. CST
All throughout the movie we see him trying to be cool and funny where he should be thrilling, scary and summoned in dispair. Take the scene where Tom Cruise tries to use his removed eyes as an id and enter into the "temple", what happens? he drops them and starts chasing his "marbles", turning into a joke what could of being a very dark, eerie scene. And he did that thruoughout the whole movie. He just can't grow up and make serious profound movies without sugarcoating them. He's a genious brat playing to be all grown up.
June 23, 2002, 10:40 p.m. CST
Well . . . I paid my seven bucks and learned a lesson. I should have listened to my intuition and not wasted my money. Of course then I would be wondering if all the hype and reviews touting this as an excellent movie were right. I have been a Tom Cruise fan all my life (having seen Top Gun more times than I care to admit in public). But this movie just didn't get the job done. Tom's face was pretty much a blank throughout the entire movie. The minor characters showed more emotion in their scenes. I didn't buy that he had any feelings for his ex-wife, and certainly didn't buy the "happy ever after" ending with the two of them (and baby makes three). Colin Farrell's character (Danny Witwer) was much more intriguing, and his face revealed so much more throughout the movie. I'll be on the lookout for his next movie instead of Tom Cruise's.
June 23, 2002, 11:04 p.m. CST
I saw the movie again. John uses the guy with the helmet on to bust through the bricks. It TOTALLY makes sense that John would be fine and the other guy would be worn out! In FACT, the guy even gets TEASED about it later in the film. His cohort, during the spider scene, teases him about getting used by John "to sandblast through a building." Pay attention, folks, the whole movie makes sense. As for the eye doctor, he IS a guy off the street, a friend of his drug dealer in fact. And when the Dr says he wants to pay back John, he is sincere, he wants to thank John for the jail time which WAS a good experience for him. Great great great movie.
June 23, 2002, 11:34 p.m. CST
by Alec Cawthorne
I love how everyone is trying to explain away all the narrative inconsistancies in this film. I mean, the whole thing shouldn't have to be spoon-fed to you step-by-step, but when there is a contradiction or major plot hole, it would be nice to have some explanation. You can like a movie all you want, and fill in the story before, during, and after FOR YOURSELF, with whatever you want. But if it's not IN the movie, it's a hole, people. You can't just come up with an explanation and say, oh that makes the movie alright now (though the "everything after the HALO is Anderton's fantasy" thing has me wildly intrigued to see if it works within the film). ---The film is not a masterpiece, and it's not a complete pile of doo-doo. It is, in my opinion, an entertaining piece of B-movie sci-fi, but the noir is just derivative and poorly done at that; the visual story is great, the plot is dumb and obvious......and here's another thing no one has mentioned: if there are only three pre-cogs, and they are indeed mortal like every other human, how is the program supposed to 'go national'? If those three pre-cogs are all they need - then that means they see future murders outside the D.C. area (which one would assume probably happens anyway): does the Pre-Crime division just ignore everything that happens 'outside their jurisdiction'??? How sad. ---And I second the person who wonders where all the black people are that populate so much of D.C. in 2002 and that Jerry Maguire loves so much? (I count only Steve Harris and that woman officer that Anderton talks to at the very beginning) - everybody else of consequence in the movie, except that 'hacker guy', was white, to my recollection.....not to make a big deal about it, but it is kind of strange for a movie about the future......
June 23, 2002, 11:47 p.m. CST
I don't know why I'm bothering at this point, and I'm not sure exactly whom I'm addressing. I don't think the effort of looking up handles is worth it. Here goes regardless...The name "Anderton" is not a Matrix allusion as one person suggests, and, yes, it does seem sort of strange, as another suggests. I've never met an Anderton. But it's the name Philip K. Dick used in his short story. Therefore, in my mind, it's a homage to the source material -- nothing more, nothing less.....I like the conjecture that Burgess arranged for Anderton to regain access to the "temple," thus explaining the eyeball access problem that everyone sees as a gross error. As Shade says, if a director doesn't tell you, then it didn't happen. And I agree with that it some cases. But I don't necessarily agree with that in this one. Stuff can end up on the editing room floor. Other stuff just doesn't need to be told. I think this is one of those cases. (Though I think giving *direct evidence* of Anderton's being blind in one eye would've made for a stronger film. Again, maybe I missed that evidence, but I have yet to see anyone on this forum offer said evidence.) If I can come up with a reasonable explanation for something without having to think about it too much, then I don't always think devoting screen time to it is necessary. Sometimes omission is a cool thing in directing. And at that point in the film, to reveal that it was Burgess who was aiding Anderton would've given too much away......As for the Brazil theory, some of you are suggesting that you will upgrade your opinion *only if* Spielberg comes out and says "it's a dream," or if you see definitive proof that it was. Well, I think one person above (can't remember who) did an excellent job of giving all the evidence. The presence of narration, the wife's using the eye, the dreams comment by the containment keeper, use of cliches in resolution, etc. And in all likelihood, that's all the evidence you're ever going to get. Why does Spielberg have to *tell* you it's a dream? I liked Blade Runner better when Deckard's replicant status was ambiguous (not sure if Scott's new and "improved" director's cut is going to change that), and I like the ambiguity of Total Recall. I can choose one interpretation and enjoy the story with that resolution, or I can just enjoy the fact that the director doesn't take the hold-the-audience's-hand approach. So if the film would be that much better, why don't you just believe it's a dream? Voila. Better movie. Once a piece of art is in the world, it is subject to the viewers' interpretations, not just the will of the director. I'm reminded of something Hemingway once told someone who praised the symbolism of a certain object in one of his novels. They went on and on about how the mountain (or something similar -- maybe it was a barn) stood so perfectly for the novel's many themes. Hemingway just replied something along the lines of: "That's funny, I just meant it to be a [mountain]." Does that make the reader wrong? I don't think so. And I don't think you'd be wrong to consider Anderton haloed, regardless of what Spielberg ever says on the matter. Still, Minority Report is no Brazil.
June 23, 2002, 11:57 p.m. CST
...who allowed Anderton's eyeball to keep its access ability, I disagree. Witwer didn't discover Anderton had Agatha with him at the time of the killing until Anderton was already in the building. He makes the discovery and immediately rushes to the temple, where Anderton is in the process of breaking her out......One more completely random thing no one else has mentioned: was that James Marsden wearing Cyclops-like glasses on the billboard that's outside the window at the time of the murder. When we first see the billboard (though we don't know it's a billboard at the time), I thought to myself, "I didn't know Marsden was in this." Was that him? If so, was it a big X-Men 2 promo by 20th Century Fox?
June 23, 2002, 11:58 p.m. CST
First off, here is what I liked about this movie(I'll try to keep the spoilers at a minimum, but it seems like most people reading this will have already seen the movie anyways): 1. The character of Agatha: Damn, was she freaky. The whole "Murrrderrr..." line at the beginning was chilling, and the sequence in the mall was pretty damn sweet. She really made the movie for me, especially her vulnerability. Plus, the whole bit about her past was a nice touch. An interesting point about her is that people complained about normal people getting rights taken away by Pre-Crime, yet Agatha isn't even treated like a human by Pre-Crime. Very effective and one of the best Spielberg characters in a while. 2. The spider sequence: Beautifully shot and very suspenseful. 3. The Mother of Pre-Crime: Like Agatha, she was pretty freaky. The whole reclusive old lady bit seemed weird at first, but it kind of made sense if you think about the ending. 4. Tom Cruise's Vulnerabilities: Spielberg could have done the easy thing and made him picture perfect. But making him a long suffering drug addict added a needed human quality to the character. What I didn't like: 1. The Eye Thing: Yeah, I agree that it was pretty freaking unreal that Tom Cruise could get back into Pre-Crime, even though he was a wanted pre-criminal. Then, to have his ex-wife use his eyes to get further into Pre-Crime was even more unreal. Plus, why didn't he go blind when the spiders hit? 2. The Ending: A wicked ending would have been Cruise being put into storage, the Pre-Crime bill being passed, and Agatha being haunted by images of her past, all while "You Know Who" takes firm control of his project. The line about "Not trusing anyone" early in the movie pretty much tipped it off for me about what would happen. Watching pro-wrestling since 2nd grade can easily tell a person when a swerve will happen. 3. The Twins: A better explanation about why they were inferior to Agatha would have been nice. I figured twins would have had an advantage, although I can see why Agatha would be the one to fill a minority report when its up against identical twins. 4. The Title: I know it sounds good, but it really doesn't play into the overall plot of the film. It has a purpose, but it quickly fades out. All in all, I liked this film QUITE a bit more than I did A.I. I had high hopes for A.I., and they fell kind of flat. I was left a bit confused by it. However, with this one, I was entertained, regardless of the plot holes, and felt like Spielberg did a better job with the film. I just wish the ending wouldn't have been so "happy".
June 24, 2002, 12:15 a.m. CST
Best Spielberg movies: Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, ET, Color Purple, Schindler's List, Amistad, and SPR. Average Spielberg movies: Duel, Sugarland Express, Temple of Doom, Empire of the Sun, Last Crusade, Hook, and Jurassic Park. Worst Spielberg movies: 1941, Always, Lost World, and AI. Listening to everyone's opinion about MR, it's very hard to determine if the film should be considered one of Spielberg's best or worst. But one thing's for sure about this list, Spielberg is simply the best director of our time.
June 24, 2002, 12:42 a.m. CST
Not a horrible film, but certainly a castrated, syrupy, near-insulting ending. I wish someone would buy me a snuggly cabin in Montana to lounge J Crew-style and read in ... forever. That was just too much -- especially considering the powers those pre-cogs had. So Tom and his chick are going to give it another try, and the mutant superheroes are going on extended weenie roast. OK, maybe the film had it's moments, but wake UP, people -- with $XXX million, any one of us could buy some killer art and effects -- even story. However, we would hopefully have the creativity to spend that insane sum on a final work that lives up to its "unsettling" hype. What the hell kind of dystopian vision of the future ends with all the principals in toothpaste commercial land? Same total letdown as AI. Spielberg's only chance is to self-impose a budget cap on his next project and get back to the basics -- like having an ending on paper BEFORE you start shooting. What tripe. Harry, you're right on the $.
June 24, 2002, 1 a.m. CST
I think that Harry wasn't as off-base as people are suggesting. The characters are secondary compared to the concept, although I think the execution was fairly solid. There is definitely a theme concerned with religion in this movie, as one poster had the insight to point out. That being said, I think there are other avenues that could have been explored. . .people trying to "proselityze" perpetrators, perhaps, which was implied by Harry. Regardless, I do think that the movie is being sold short. Spielberg definitely knew what he was doing when he was making this film; there are motifs, scenes, and images that are not over-the-top. It is not a perfect movie, the mystery is underwhelming, and besides for specific "tics," many of the characters are not fleshed out, and serve only to further themes developed in the movie. The film is definitely worth seeing, although heart and soul are two different things. Spielberg should keep that in mind when finishing his next movie.
June 24, 2002, 1:31 a.m. CST
You know nothing! The sidebar characters are right out of Kubrick. They're supposed to be eccentric, oddball and lacking in dimension. This IS one of Spielberg's greatest. It avoids the sap and crap of nearly all of his works( although he can't avoid the happy ending). The film shows that Spielberg is actually growing UP as a filmmaker.
June 24, 2002, 1:39 a.m. CST
Goodness people... was I the only one that saw the almost insulting ending... All these people going on and on about how great this film was without mentioning the force-fed ending. I do hope it was all a dream... The biggest ammunition most people have is that it's better then Star Wars, amazing how people decide to compare what I thought was supposed to be a brilliant flick to a popcorn film. Or how bout the best film this year! Such great praise, what month is this again? Oh yeah it's June... So far the only other movie with this kind of hype is Insomnia which also wasn't what it was all cracked up to be.
June 24, 2002, 1:41 a.m. CST
Hey guys. Just thought of a few interesting points. First off I thought the movie was great but not as good as Spielberg's best. That is because his best are among the best films of all time. Raiders is my favourite film and this one doesnt touch it. But it was still a damn good film from the "new Spielberg"(but the mystery aspect was weak as others have also noted). Easily the best film this year(so far), (I never saw AI by the way). I must say I am surprised by Harry's somewhat negative review but I respect his opinion and in a way I am glad that he voiced his true opinion (at the risk of alienating his TBers). Anyway did anyone else think (SPOILERS)that the scene with the scientist lady/creator of PreCrime in the greenhouse was similar to the Oracle/Neo meeting in The Matrix? Also (ON A COMPLETELY UNRELATED NOTE)does anyone think that the love theme in AOTC is very similar to Marion's theme in Raiders? Responses would rule.
June 24, 2002, 1:41 a.m. CST
Harry, Your gripe about premeditation is off the mark. Although John hasn't planned it in specific detail, he has contemplated killing his son's abductor every day since the boy was taken. Do you think daily contemplation of a crime might count as premeditation? There are plenty of other flaws you could pick on - this ain't one of them. -Search
June 24, 2002, 2:25 a.m. CST
If Burgess had shot Anderton at the end, instead of performing a cliched suicide, and if the movie hadn't had an epilouge, it could have had a shot at greatness. But Speilberg, as is almost always the case, simply lacks the courage to be a great artist, because he cannot really look something fearful right in the face. He almost always backs away from it. Instead of giving us something to think about: instead of leaving Anderton's dilemna to Burgess hand in the air, it simply answers the dilemna with saccharine sweetness. Even if Speilberg thought that the message was that it SHOULD be shut down, leaving whether it WAS shut down an open question in the movie would have made that point even more solidly. But instead of giving us something disturbing and new that made us really sit down and confront the reality of a scary technology, we got a movie-of-the-week bad guys dead/evil technology plot foiled ending. Bah. The doctor and holo-lounge guy were also both over-the-top hams that added nothing cogent or intelligent to the film. The doctor was almost unintelligible. I sort of like that actor, but he hurt this movie bad, just like he hurt Dancer in the Dark with his AWFUL singing replacing Tom Yorke's gorgeous duet.
June 24, 2002, 3:49 a.m. CST
by Voice O. Reason
The headline for this article was "Harry Doesn't Care for Minority Report" not "Harry says its f---ing awful"! Yeah, a lot of you have your cute twentysomething way of exaggerating everyting, but don't put words in the guy's mouth just so you can attack him! Harry didn't like the movie because of plot holes (many of which he didn't even mention) and poor character development. (My opinion: Speilberg's a good director to me because he can make watchable movies out of bad scripts, and I think that's the case here.) Its also a cop-out to fault someone for liking another movie instead of the movie YOU happen to like. (Example: "Harry, how could you hate this movie when you liked AI or AOTC?") We're not talking about THOSE movies, we're talking about this one! Saying that Harry's dumb for liking AI or AOTC is not a substitute for presenting a defendable argument about the specific problems that Harry mentioned. (It is very commendable that some of you put up a good argument for the pre-meditation angle.)---Besides, not every movie is judged by the same standard. If it were, no one would ever want to see comedies or action movies because they'd be too busy raving about THE BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI or CHINATOWN.
June 24, 2002, 4:11 a.m. CST
If you look at a bottle of Ibuprofen the directions warn you not to take more than 6 pills in a day (or something like that). Truth be told you can take quite a bit more pills than the directions say, twice that many in fact. The directions don't say you can take 12 because they know people are stupid and will take 24 pills and get massive holes in their intestines if they tell them that. Like wise, Stormare tells Cruise not to take off the bandage for twelve hours because his new eyes need some time to rest and heal. Sure he'll go blind if he rips it off immediatly and watches a strobe light or reads small print. Cruise needs to wear the bandage for a good period of time, but he'll probably be relatively okay if he takes it off for a few seconds after a solid six hours. Just like how I'd be relatively okay if I take 30 motrin pills in one sitting after 15 shots of Jim Beam. The doctor wouldn't suggest it, but I'd probably live through it without too many ill effects.
June 24, 2002, 4:32 a.m. CST
You guys are being a little rough on Harry - before watching MR he probably found out that he's going to have to pay for two seats on Southwest. Seriously, by now everyone who comes to this site should know Harry is not a reader, not a thinker. He's a (over)grown man who reads comic books! This movie would certainly be way too challenging for him on a mental level. And he is obviously swayed by the treatment he receives (or doesn't) from the studios. And as far as Ebert, you people should know him too. He will give a thumbs up to movies based solely on hot females in the cast. He gave Spies Like Us' a positive review (this could be THE worst movie of all time and may have caused Siskel's tumor) - because of a very hot Russian woman who was on screen for about 5 minutes. MR is a good movie but certainly no masterpiece.
June 24, 2002, 6:44 a.m. CST
......are simply depressing. The reason AOTC was better than MR was because Lucas wasn't trying to make a great movie and Spielberg was. Have I got that correct? So Spielberg sets out to make one of the most unbelievable sci-fi experiences of all time, and for the first 3/4's manages to succeed spectacularly, before finally crashing and burning in the last 20 minutes. Hence, the movie's trash.......... Meanwhile, Lucas sets his sights really low. He wants nothing more than to make a fun forgettable "popcorn" movie that will rake in the dough, and for the first 3/4's he can't even achieve that! Yet somehow, seeing a cgi green midget doing ninja crap in the last reel is enough to qualify it as a good movie? What the hell?.............. And Blade Runner has flaws, people. As good as it is, it has its share of flaws. For one thing, the acting is generally pretty weak. I'm a fan of Ford, especially his earlier work, but his acting just happens to be terrible in this movie. Also, for everyone complaining about MR's "plot holes," guess what? Blade Runner has huge plot holes too. If Deckard was a Replicant, why the hell would they make him such a physically weak-ass one? To blend in? The man's a friggin bounty hunter going after super-humanly strong fugitives. That would be like building a shipping dock out of balsa wood.................. Back to Minority Report: The only reason they had cars that go sideways up the sides of buildings was because it looks cool?.......YES! It's a sci-fi movie. What about that don't you understand? When John Williams' music came up, did you say, "Oh please! The only reason they put this music in is so the action on screen would be inhanced dramatically." Nice work, Sherlock. During the closing credits did you sit there with your arms folded saying, "Oh, please! The only reason they're showing us all these names is so that we'll know who did what!"............ And A.I. is the worst movie ever made? Jesus, do I even have to argue against that one? If you honestly believe that, then just as someone with no taste buds has no business writing restaurant reviews, you have absolutely no business discussing movies. And no, I don't care that this post wasn't diplomatic. No one listens to anyone here anyway.
June 24, 2002, 6:53 a.m. CST
i agree with Harry, hate that "i made this video in my vacation" style
June 24, 2002, 6:59 a.m. CST
Sorry Speilberg.. You'll hafta do better than this to get my 7.50.
June 24, 2002, 7:30 a.m. CST
Actually, there was a very good reason for the crime to be seen as far in advance as it was. The reason is that one of the precogs was there at the murder scene when it occured.
June 24, 2002, 8:10 a.m. CST
The murder of Joe Crow IS premeditated by Max Von Sydow who sets the murder up. Minority Report is an engaging film made for adults who like to *think* about the stories unfolding before them, which is different than inaccurate *nitpicking*. Harry'll get it one day.
June 24, 2002, 10:20 a.m. CST
Extra-lame criticisms of a really good movie.
June 24, 2002, 10:36 a.m. CST
June 24, 2002, 10:42 a.m. CST
The concept that seems to elude most people is that the Pre-Cogs can see the future based on pattern that they perceive in the present, now they can't detect crimes of passion because they happen to quickly without planning but they can always predict planned murders, it doesn't matter who planned them just that they were planned. Thats the key concept of the film, Planning. Therefore the fact that the murder was set up and planned, even though the murderer had nothing to do with it, is irrelevant. Their group had long assumed that the murderer always planned the crime but tin this case it was much more simple, he was played like aa pawn in a game. The movie still sucks, but I just wanted to clear that up.
June 24, 2002, 10:48 a.m. CST
harry has a few good points in the middle of all the bitching. none of them really matter though. compared with most of the shit being dumped on us by hollywood, this was a great movie. i'm a longtime Philip K Dick fan, i don't have anything against Tom Cruise, and my biggest beef with Spielberg is that the movie wasn't R. it was the same with AI. He always wants stuff that's at least pseudo kid-friendly, it holds him back from making realistic, gritty movies. I still liked both AI and MR, though. also, maybe it's just me, but I expected some more action. The past two movies i've seen, MR and Bourne Identity, start off nice and quick with some action, but then drop off real quick to a more ho-hum pace. Both of these movies would have been better with more action interspersed in such a way to have more tension/suspense. oh wait, i forgot, i don't have my own website so my opinion doesn't matter.
June 24, 2002, 10:51 a.m. CST
For the love of Betsy, Harry, just admit that you're a corporate shill. There isn't too much wrong with whoring yourself out on a website to get exclusive access to the stuff you love. It's being dishonest about it where the problem lies. Key word being "lies." Why not admit that you're enjoying the penetration that "Goldmember" is bringing to your site. Admit that its review will likely be all daisies and sunshine because of the handsome figures AOL/TW has thrown at you for promotion. Believe me, you aren
June 24, 2002, 11:35 a.m. CST
I love how everyone tries to second guess Harry. Christ, do you think maybe the reason he actually wrote a middle of the road review was because he didn't care for the film that much. Naaah, couldn't be. He must have wrote the review because a.) Spielberg didn't send him free shit b.)he was paid off by columbian drug lords c.)from one fat guy to another he was trying to stick it to Ebert d.) he really cares about all you talkbackers and is just trying to win your love, commradare, and respect because after all, he just wants to be your friend. get real. I bet he doesn't even fucking read the talkbacks. I know I wouldn't if I ran this site. What if he said he loved the film?- you fucking jackalls would still tear him apart. It's a fucking movie. Get out more. Live. Most of you will see the film regardless anyways. If the lot of you really hate Harry's reviews than WTF are you doing not only at the review, but at the talkback nonetheless??
June 24, 2002, 11:45 a.m. CST
Almost all of Harry's critiques of this movie are good points, however, because Harry wrote a negative review, are we now supposed to believe he isn't a waterboy for shit movies? As countless people have mentioned in these posts, Harry's criteria is completely bogus. If Harry can write a positively glowing review of AOTC and can cream his jeans ovev Blade II, he has no credibility. Minority Report isn't great but it's a solid movie, as good as Matrix and probably as good as Blade Runner. Blade Runner, which I haven't seen in a long time, somehow has become an untouchable classic even though the Dick novel is much more of a mindfuck than the film ever was. The best thing about Blade Runner, if I can even remember, wasn't the plot, but, as with Minority Report, the visual representation of the future. Minority Report was better than Spiderman, which I liked, and I bet it's better than AOTC, which I didn't even see because it's the least liked and lowest grossing of all the Star Wars films (and if it is doing worse than ROJ and PM in both boxoffice and critical appreciation then it has to suck).
June 24, 2002, 12:05 p.m. CST
by Jack Olcott
Spoilers here!! Well...actually the murder Anderton is suppose to commit is very premeditated...just not by Anderton. Yes, Anderton is to pull the trigger, but he was set up by someone else. The big question is why the precogs didn't write that someone else's name on the bingo ball? Perhaps the precogs aren't that good at sifting out specifics. The emotional shock of Anderton pulling the trigger gets his name on the ball but the cold calculation of the third party trumps the crime of passion. Your right though, this is a Grand Canyon of a plot hole and I'm doing the plugging job the scriptwriter was paid to do.
June 24, 2002, 12:55 p.m. CST
Yes I know the answer Lamar premeditated it not John but you ever wonder how John got there in the first place? The pre-cogs only see murders right (except for Agatha apparently)? good that's point #1. Lamar set this up after John started asking questions about Ann Levine (I think that's her name, it's been three days since I've last seen this) which is point #2. Lamar (as were forced to assume) sets up John in order to get him to stop snooping, he finds some vagrant to act like a child molestor or whatever which is point #3. John then sees himself killing Crowe which in effect is what causes this murder. Does anybody see a problem with this? This isn't some oh super smart paradox or anything this is a plot hole where nobody is willing to look. Lamar Burgess never set up how John Anderton would get to the hotel room to kill Crowe, he never knew about the pre-cogs involvement... So then the question becomes if the pre-cogs didn't make a prediction that for all intensive purposes is impossible (think about if they werent involved John Anderton would never have known about Crowe and would never have killed him) what murder were they preventing? The only thing that caused the murder was the pre-cogs prediction which can't be the case, they predict the future they don't shape it in order to further the plot. That's my problem and that's why the whole premeditation idea doesn't work.
June 24, 2002, 1:16 p.m. CST
by Alec Cawthorne
I love how everyone defending this film is just filling in all the plot holes with rationalizations, as if that automatically makes it a better constructed film. You can't just come up with an explanation that is not a part of the narrative, and justify that the film is therefore better for it. I am all for adding your own conclusions before, during, and after a film, FOR YOURSELF (the whole "everything after Anderton's HALO is a fantasy" thing has me intrigued to see it again), but a plot hole is just a plot hole. There are too many narrative inconsistancies and unexplained plot propellants, for this film to be considered a "masterpiece" of filmmaking. That and the noir plot is just obvious, dumb, and unoriginal...... ---Here's another question I haven't seen yet: Lamar's political goal is to get Pre-Crime to 'go national', but how exactly is this to be done with only three pre-cogs??? Ok, let's assume that the three mortal human beings, who WILL eventually die (and then bring the whole country's system of law into chaos), can see murders that happen out of the D.C. area (a fairly easy assumption). Does Anderton's Pre-Crime Division just IGNORE all the other crimes outside of D.C.??? How sad. If there is some sort of 'filter', limiting the pre-cogs to D.C. currently, then when they remove it, how exactly are the different divisions around the country supposed to coordinate which pre-cog flashes belong to which jurisdictions? Now this question is probably fairly easy to answer, and not exactly that important to the picture as it is unfolding - but my point is not for you to come up with an answer, but that the filmmakers should have already done so. Even a small detail such as this could have easily been explained WITHIN THE FILM. But it is not, and so we are left with a rather ridiculously thin and unbelievable motive for the greed and corruption of the villian. ---It is stuff like this (and numerous other things pointed out above) that just doesn't take much for me to see how stupidly set up and fragile this state of FAITH (not law) is. If the filmmakers would have spent some time eloborating on this new mythical theocratic state, rather than showing Tom Cruise running around for half the movie, I would have accepted some of the plot holes....but come on, people. I grant that it is a fun, entertaining summer movie (a lot better constructed than that George Lucas piece of digital death), but a 'great movie' it is not. ----and I second the person above who asks where all the black people (that Jerry Maguire loves so much) have gone to in fifty years? A very sizable percentage of D.C.'s population is African-American. I count three (Steve Harris, the saxophone kid, and the woman Anderton speaks with in the hallway at the beginning). I don't mean to make a big deal about it, but it is rather odd for a movie about the future to be so WHITE......
June 24, 2002, 1:26 p.m. CST
I'm fucking schocked.
June 24, 2002, 1:40 p.m. CST
Ok, here's how it goes. I read a review by Harry for MR. he basically says the movie is crap, whines and bitches about it, but at least it's a review. By a sellout, maybe, but, it's still a review. THEN I see all these people in here badmouthing Harry and stuff, and the total amount of bitching done by the people is like 12 times more then Harry's review. I mean, jesus, if Harry does a a bad review(s), thats his problem. Since you people enjoy bitching about it so much, why don't you go get your own site and do yer own reviews?
June 24, 2002, 2:03 p.m. CST
by Jack Burton
It was still better then most films I've seen recently. It was challenging, interesting, and just plain weird. Seemed like most of the characters were suffering some kind of mental instability. The character of Agatha was great, I have no idea why Harry is bagging on Samantha Morton. She was a bit off the entire film and that made here scenes all the more powerful and interesting. The scene where she tells John and his wife how their son grew up was excellent. (Was that a Minority Report, or just Sean's fantasy of growing up that she picked up on?) Also the scene in the mall was excellent and I thought it made perfect sense. She's pre-cognitive, she was in essence seeing her own future, and time and time again they stated that Agatha was the most talented of the group. The only thing that is hard to wrap your head around is the set up int eh first place. It seems that just by hiring a stand-in, Burgess is able to force the events into motion. That seems like it stretches it but the key words are "suspension of disbelief" so I can go with it. Overall it was excellent. Not quite a masterpiece but an extremely interesting, dark, disturbing movie. And Cruise did some of his best work in years. I have no clue why Harry disliked it, maybe he just likes eye candy and explosions. This was smarter then that.
June 24, 2002, 2:07 p.m. CST
by user id indeed!
"As regards our newest strip, Harry Knowles is sort of an interesting phenomenon quite aside from his extraordinarily popular (not to mention populous) website. When we disagree with him on a movie, we breathe a sign of relief - it saves us the trouble of coming up with new opinions. When we do agree with him, it's gotten to the point where we feel vaguely uncomfortable about that, because no-one likes to share ideological space with known retards. We rather enjoyed Minority Report. He's not crazy about it. There's just something comforting about that." Heh heh...huh.
June 24, 2002, 2:08 p.m. CST
by Buckeye Boy
I saw Minority Report last night and was pleasantly surprised by the film as a whole. Great sci fi, good mystery - really what's not to like. In response to the point in the review stating Anterson's murder was not premeditated so shouldn't have had such a long lead time...This could be explained when Anterson, upon seeing pictures of his son in Crow's room, says to Agitha that he has thoughout the years repeatedly thought about what he would do to his son's murderer. He then says something to the effect that he now knows he will kill Crow. Thus I believe Anterson had premeditated that he would kill his son's abducter/killer even if he did not yet know that persons identitiy.
June 24, 2002, 2:11 p.m. CST
Harry- I have read your site everyday for the past few years. I have respected and shared your opinion on many occassions. This review of Minority Report shows a lot about you as a film critic and shows how deeply you have been entrenched in the Hollywood system. You are entitled to your own opinion, but don't take a ridiculous stance just to stand out from the rest of the critics. From what I have read above, many of us will not respect your reviews again. See the film again. Maybe you shouldn't see 3 films in a row. You might be mixing Minority Report with Bourne Identity in your reviews. Pull your head out of your ass and get some rest before you review a film. Damn...maybe the intelligence of this film threw you off.
June 24, 2002, 2:13 p.m. CST
The movie is based on the premise that precognitive, floating teenagers help to prevent murder, and some of you peole are complaining that some of the plot doesn't follow logically? Once you accept the (un)reality of the basic premise, just let go of the "real" world for two hours. I mean c'mon, Jesus.
June 24, 2002, 2:18 p.m. CST
Everything complained about in the webmaster's review is answered better by careful viewing of the film. The details are all there, and sometimes they are not jumping up to placate you. Everyone I know who has seen Minority Report says it is wonderful or kickass or sweet or great or fucking awesome or just "good movie." Maybe none of them spends time at sites like this, I don't know. It's a tight script, authoritatively directed with verve and consummate mastery of physical direction, and it's beuatifully acted with excellent performances detailing distinct characterizations. How is that not clear? Cruise has been this good only a couple times (in Born on the Fourth of July and Magnolia), and it's a character so locked in grief and anger he is a total believer in a dangerous system he justifies emotionally, and the events in the movie upend his bearings forcing him to look beyond his emotional convictions at the mechanations around him. From the selfish concerns to the social implications. That's not stupid material, it's extremely relevant. He finds his emotional motives are played for someone else's political gain and that means he has to use his instincts as a thinking intellligent animal not just a pawn. Good stuff, powerfully realized. The question of whether the precogs see real events to come or whether it's just intent is questioned early on implying there is much that is not defined and the plant lady (the jeff Goldblum character!)lets the chaos out of the bag. What's this big plot hole I keep raeding about? There are questions that stir up everything in the story, they're there for a reason, baby! Goddamn! This movie has the cynical noirish shadings as a starting point, so don't get your shorts all twisted up because it doesn't aspire enough toward Pulp Fiction-- in this movie the cynicism is taken as a starting point and is like a societal affliction. All the characters want spiritual relief. That's a step beyond the cynical hardass style which is just as sentimental as depicting warmth and affection for no reason, either way a big dump rubber nipple. Adult issues require adult responses.
June 24, 2002, 2:28 p.m. CST
I think some major points were missed by Harry, which could be accredited to the fact that he saw three movies back-to-back-to-back. As for small details, the time frame was 36 hours, not 72. And the crime was NOT a crime of passions; it was premeditated. Why? Because he'd already seen it. Which is why after finding the photographs, he tells Agatha, "The pre-cogs were right. I AM going to kill him." Tah-dah! That's premeditation! It's one of those mind-fucks, Harry! In any case, the movie was brilliant in that it's vision of the future was one were every character lived in the moment, not "THE FUTURE" where everything was new and strange. This is there way of life. This is all they know. They are used to it just as we are used to our time. That's why everyone seems so bored. Just because they live in the future doesn't mean their life is more exciting than ours. I think that may be the first sci-fi movie to ever look at a the future that way. It's not a Brave New World; it's the same old same old for the characters who inhabit it. Kudos to Spielburg. I thought this film was brilliant.
June 24, 2002, 2:29 p.m. CST
i totally agree with everything you said, PLUS... this movie had more holes than fishnets. like his retina scan would work after he's in trouble for pre-murder. THEN, he's busted, in jail, and his eyeballs STILL WORK!! What's up with that? if this director was a first timer, or even a 3rd or 4th timer...maybe i'd let this shit slide. but SS? come on now.
June 24, 2002, 3 p.m. CST
Having worked in a large corporation for sometime now, I can understand that it takes a considerable amount of time to do the simplest of tasks...yes even having your password changed can take up to 3 days because a central team controls all of the passwords and all these requisition forms have to be completed. In the future proposed by the movie, the data from the retinal scanners must merge into a central database (probably nationwide database). To delete Anderton's access, one would have to be sure that his data is not deleted elsewhere or worse off accidently giving him access to some other place. I would think that access is probably controlled by and can only be changed from a central agency where certain policies, procedures and forms would have to be submitted. From my own experiences, I didn't consider him still having access that far-fetched. Just for laughs, my engineer friend works at a large autofactory and he can't plug in a computer because it is against union rules. He has been waiting for two weeks now to get his computer plugged in. If we can be this inefficent now, I would think not getting access changed immediately in the future is not that unbelievable Now on to the wife using those eyes to get access. The operative word being eyes. I could have sworn she placed two eyes on that organ. Didn't John lose one eye down the drain? Was I seeing things or were those eyes not John's. I thought this movie was excellent. I must have said to myself five times during this film that this film is absolutely amazing. I would also like to say that AOTC is just OK. I was dissappointed in that film.
June 24, 2002, 3:06 p.m. CST
That "happy ending" is not as happy as you think it is. Pay attention to the shot before you criticize it. Also, while contrived, the rolling eyeballs scene (where one of Anderton's eyes was lost) served a purpose and was not just gross-out humor.
June 24, 2002, 3:27 p.m. CST
..the finished product. I expect much better from Steven and Tom. Spielberg may have lost it, Lucas perhaps as well... Remind me (when I'm in the future) to tell the Network Geeks @ Pre-Crime to ... um install a network so they don't have to sneaker-net the new murder files from one pc to another... or just buy some Macintoshes... BUT: Art Direction = ROCKED Visuals & FX = ROCKED Musical Score = ROCKED Story = ?????? unfortunately I think I was expecting too much... best since raiders.. riiiighhttt... maybe best since AI.. wait, that was his last movie... oh well...LOTR will be out soon... Peter knows how to tell a story... Steven used to be the best...
June 24, 2002, 3:37 p.m. CST
I don't think that Anderton's wife had his eyeballs. She laid down two eyeballs on the organ; however, John lost one of his eyeballs. Unless I was seeing things, I don't think they were his eyes.
June 24, 2002, 4:10 p.m. CST
by Shabba McDoo
User Rating: 8.7/10 (1886 votes) top 250: #128
June 24, 2002, 4:24 p.m. CST
Alpinestreams, Ewen, and several other talkbackers on the subject of Bladerunner. Bladerunner is not an overrated film. It is simply put, a brilliant film. I have found, however, that many people do not appreciate the film in the same way. It's more of a thinking film than a action film; that's for sure. Many find it dull, tedious, and not involving in its lack of excitement. I can respect that opinion. Bladerunner does what it is meant to do in my opinion though. It weaves an intellegent, thought provocing story about reality and the act of living. It is not and has never claimed to be an action film. It's a film noir set in the future. (Have any of you guys ever seen the Maltese Falcon?) It's an old style detective piece. With all the same style and swagger as the early greats. Alpinestreams, in answer to your question as to what makes Bladerunner a classic by so many... Bladerunner is a classic because, or at least I can hazard a guess, it's a classic because it is technically perfect. There is not a flaw in the entire film. The images are gorgeous; they still hold up even in today's cgi layered canvases. The music and sound give the whole thing a mood and atmosphere that really carries the film over into a whole separate realm of existance, but at the same time, it really sucks you in right to it. The casting is perfect. Never once in the whole film do you ever wonder if someone else would've been better at a certain role. The acting is spot on throughout. The future is hard and real and it's perfectly realized. It's the first and perhaps only time Philip K. Dick's voice and style actually comes through to screen... Oh yes, I know the story is entirely different, book from movie. I've Read the story many times. The movie still captures that essence of Dick's writing. Plus, there's nothing about the film that looks or feels out of place. And in case you're wondering, I can be pretty anal retentive when it comes to flaws in movies. I find something wrong with nearly everything I see. (I guess that's what I get for becoming a film student.) There's nothing wrong with this film. It's cinematically perfect. And there's been nothing quite like the thing since its first release. The closest thing, I can think, to it is AI. But that's like comparing ET to Jaws. They come from the same roots, but they are vastly different in plot and character. Think about the story behind the fx sometime, it's a very moving and very emotional piece. A very clever and a very ingenious look at life in general; what we know and what we think we know; how we take everything for granted until we're sitting eye to eye with its loss. Sure, Scott took some liberties, but again, the essence of PKD is still here. ***Wendigofett... I'm sorry I couldn't resist. But I was afraid that people would be saying that very thing all over the place when Fellowship came out. The reason being is that Fellowship is an introduction of sorts. It's only the first third of the story. Nothing really is supposed to happen, other than the hobbits get jumpstarted by Ringwraiths, until the "Quest" actually starts. The "Quest" starts right after Rivendell. Hense, you've got the Mines of Moria sequence as you say. After Moria, the fellowship gets a breather before the real action starts. I was pleasently suprised, and somewhat relieved, when most people didn't seem to mind that the quest, or the real action, didn't really start until towards the end of the first movie. To try and explain a bit, one of the pitfalls of adapting this book (notice I say book; it's only one story, not a trilogy like the public seems to have dubbed it). The Fellowship of the Ring was mostly, even in the book itself, comprised of introductions, backhistories of ring and the peoples of middle earth, and dozens and dozens of council meetings to decide what is to be done. Again, it's all set up. I do hope everyone has chosen to revisit middle earth for TTT. This is where the quest and adventure really picks up in earnest. Pretty much, the entirety of TTT and ROTK runs about the same pace as the Mines of Moria sequence in Fellowship. No one should complain about slowness or nothing happening in the next two films. That's for sure. Hopefully you'll keep with it and see the finished product, or the entire story, not just the first third.
June 24, 2002, 4:31 p.m. CST
CLOSE ON: a human eye... Pulling back to reveal a PRECOG floating in a tank full of viscous blue liquid. PRECOG: Kill... Bill... Review... IMAGES FLASH onscreen... "I'm lucky enough to go to strip clubs with my good buddy Quetin Tarantino. Just the other day I was thinking about who would be perfect to play in the new Dazzler movie would it be Shakira or Britney Spears when Tarantino called me and asked me point blank and I had to give my opinion to him. So then I went to the grocery store with the score to JASON X in my headphones and I remembered I had to go and see Kill Bill. Tarantino is a master of cock sucking when you sit down with Tarantino you just know he's going to give you the best dick sucking you've ever had as an audience member. At smoe point in KILL BILL he's down on his hands and knees stroking your shaft while playing with your balls and then it gets to the Cruel Fuselage of Pei Mei bit and WOW HE JUST DEEP THROATS YOU..." After this vision of the Precog ended, the whole system was dismantled for fear of the damage Harry's reviews do to the Precog's minds...
June 24, 2002, 4:40 p.m. CST
You don't go to a wine tasting event having first drank a six pack of Pabst Blue Ribbon. If you are going to right a review, do so with a clean pallet. Plus, who cares if people a "fleshed out" or seem "shallow". The real question is how many explosions were there? Any nudity? Come on. No one is expecting Citizen Kane.
the characters are souless because that's the future, the fact that everyone has accepted this new "security" within 6 yrs is kind of a clue i think (there all cattle)...also, I think the reason Anderton's crime was predicted as early as it was, is because Agatha was in the room with him, so that would make her a tad more sensitive i think to the situation than the others or another situation where she isn't involved.....and come on, it's the best homage to hitchcock in a long time....
June 24, 2002, 4:49 p.m. CST
by Reggie Jackson
I'm not gonna dicker with harry on his review, i mean we all have our own experiences while watching a movie...can there be a more subjective experience?...there are not many more purely subjective ones i'm sure...in any event, as i was watching the flick, the whole thing that got me was how could Anderton have pre-meditated a murder for a guy he doesnt even know..they put in that whole speech about the red ball thing in the beginning for a specific reason..to add to the intrigue, as we knew when the pre-cogs ID Anderton as a murderer that it was not a crime of passion..was in fact pre-medidated, and the rest of the movie is seeing what leads to that pre-meditation....and then the big payoff...when Anderton meets Crow after looking at the pix..he delivers a speech about the things he would do if he ever met the man responsible....and i paraphrase as my memory sucks..but it was basically..."I would kill him" --- sounds like he had been thinking about killing that guy (whether he be Crow, or some other dude) for a long long time which = pre-meditation last time i checked the crim law books. Forget about the fact that this murder was actually pre-meditated by someone else setting up Anderton's character...i mean my brain gets caught in a funk as i try to figure out how come the pre-cogs couldnt see that, but i think maybe they only see the person actually pulling a trigger or causing the blood to flow and not the mastermind who sets up such dastardly things (yeah i'm talking about Ming, the evil emperor). Anyway, ok, peace i'm outta here :)
June 24, 2002, 5:09 p.m. CST
Someone above mentioned the *two* eyeballs in the bag that the wife presents to Tim Blake's character. Is that correct? Well, if it wasn't far-fetched enough that Anderton's wife would have the wherewithal to use his eyeballs to free him in the first place, then there's your definitive proof that the last 20 or so miniutes were a halo fantasy. The other eyeball was lost in the sewer, so this could only be an Anderton delusion. A nice, subtle clue, if you ask me.
June 24, 2002, 5:17 p.m. CST
My final talkback on this one. I love the idea that everything that happens after Anderton is incarcerated is his dream. Makes the ending work. Explains how the wife suddenly becomes Miss Marple. Explains the PreCogs living out their lives in a cabin in forest. Explains the happy Andertons with the wife preggers. Marvelous! Who'd a thunk it? If I didn't read this website, I would never have considered the possibility. So thank you, talkbackers!!! Now, some other points of interest: I also noticed how few minorities were in MINORITY REPORT. Reminds me of the original STAR WARS, where there wasn't a brown or black person to be seen. That's because both films were made by white-boy dweebs. I also like the talkback suggestion that the reason Anderton could reenter the building after he was booted out is because that's the way the bad guy planned it. Makes perfect sense to me! I also liked the suggestion that the doctor saying he wanted to pay back Anderton was meaning he was literally thanking him and that prison was helpful in some strange way. How else to explain the new sandwich and drink in the fridge? By the way, did anybody notice how the doc's lovely assistant grabbed a giant handful of Cruise's ass when she escorted him to the chair? That ass-grabbing and Lois Smith's big smooch suggest to me that Spielberg and Cruise were having a little fun riffing on Cruise's reputation as a ladies man. (He couldn't possibly be queer, could he? Just because TOP GUN had huge homoerotic overtones.) I never liked Cruise until MAGNOLIA, his RAIN MAN performance notwithstanding. I also liked him in VANILLA SKY, which otherwise was a bad movie. He took real chances in those two films. I wanted to like him in MR, but he was on automatic. Too bad. So sad.
June 24, 2002, 6:17 p.m. CST
As many have pointed out...I can't get past the problem of Anderton's original retinal scans still working (and are those "special" sandwich baggies that preserve delicate ocular flesh?) especially when you consider that he went to enormous trouble and pain to replace the damn eyes in the first place. But I also can't get past Lamarr's motivation to kill Ann Lively in the first place. She's an addict who gives a baby up for adoption, who is in turn brain damaged and incapable of living a "normal" life. The whole world apparently knows who the precogs are and how important they are. Several years later...Ann Lively straightens up and wants her baby back. How could she pose any kind of threat to Lamarr? I can't see how any child services agency would re-grant her custody of a long-ago adoptive child, she certainly has no resources monetary or legal to take on a powerful corporation like pre-crime. Why does he have to murder her to prevent her from taking Agatha? As far as I can see, she has no basis to pose a threat to the PreCrime Corp.
June 24, 2002, 6:20 p.m. CST
* SPOILER * Look, the guy who Anderton was supposed to kill really killed himself... So why in the hell did the precog "see" Anderton murder the guy? Wouldn't the precog have seen that Anderton *DIDN'T* kill the guy? This is the only real flaw I see with the movie - but one that was necessary, I suppose... Otherwise, Anderton wouldn't have had to run, the future cops wouldn't have had to chase him, etc etc... Anyway, regarding Harry's opinion: I really could care less either way - he's provided a cool website that gives everyone great info about movies, and a place for fanboys to drool and discuss things that are important to them... so what if Harry didn't like minority report? Get off his ass; he's done you more favors than you've done him... and for free... Oh, and to the guy who's downloading Minority report instead of buying it, because spielberg didn't work "hard enough": Justify it however you want, but you're stealing. And you have a poor excuse; if you think spielberg didn't work hard enough, then don't watch it. You choose to watch it, then pay for it. Dumbass.
June 24, 2002, 7:26 p.m. CST
Spielberg has proven from time to time that he can make an imaginary film like "Hook" and then make a masterpiece like "Schindler's List". He can also make "The Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun" in between "Temple of Doom" and "Last Crusade". He has also produced "Back to the Future", "Best of Roger Rabbit", "Mask of Zorro", and lots TV specials along the way. He can change from the storyboarded thrills of "Jurassic Park" to the documentary style of "SPR". Unlike any other director, he knows exactly how each film should look.
June 24, 2002, 7:33 p.m. CST
Spielberg has proven from time to time that he can make an imaginary film like "Hook" and then make a masterpiece like "Schindler's List". He can also make "The Color Purple" and "Empire of the Sun" in between "Temple of Doom" and "Last Crusade". He has also produced "Back to the Future", "Best of Roger Rabbit", "Mask of Zorro", and lots TV specials along the way. He can change from the storyboarded thrills of "Jurassic Park" to the documentary style of "SPR". Unlike any other director, he knows exactly how each film should look.
June 24, 2002, 8:19 p.m. CST
if you look at it closely, it was pre-meditated, maybe not by the character you are thinking of though.
June 24, 2002, 8:27 p.m. CST
by Wee Willie
Jude Law states in the film that after the humans are gone the only ones left will be the AI's. With that line in mind, how could any semi-intelligent person think those were aliens at the end?
June 24, 2002, 9:27 p.m. CST
Harry, of course you are entitled in exercising your right as an American to voice your opinion against a movie widely regarded as ass-kicking, one that I happened to enjoy immensely myself, but there's a flaw in your argument. You say that Anderton's murder is not pre-meditated, but it is. When confronting the would-be-victim, Anderton said that he knew that he if he ever found him, he was going to kill him. So there. There goes your logic.
June 24, 2002, 9:41 p.m. CST
Why is it that, when there is a mainstream director trying to make an ambitious movie, people try to point out every little thing in the movie that could be a plothole. Well, little things like the eyes being used to open the retinal scanners...they make perfect sense. People wouldn't suppose that Anderton would be able to get past the 15 other retinal scanners that got to the Temple, so they wouldn't take the time to turn off all of his retinal scanner keys. In fact, I think that Anderton would be the ONLY person that would even know how to do that. I didn't suppose that the retinal scanners were part of some magical 1984-ish knowledge of the complete identity of each person that goes across it. I would just think that each door would receive the eye scans of those that were allowed to pass through the door. 90% of the plotholes people have found with this movie are things that shouldn't have been explained, or else it would have detracted from the main point of the movie. This is a sci-fi detective film. As with other magnificent films of this genre (12 Monkeys, Blade Runner, eXistenZ, etc.), you have to be able to fill in the blanks yourself in order to enjoy it. It's a thinking person's movie. Be a thinking person in a way that will help you understand the movie and not only criticize it.
June 24, 2002, 11:05 p.m. CST
by SLEAZY DINOSAUR
This is my first time posting here, I read these things a lot, but never had the desire to post, but after reading Harrys review, I couldn't help myself. I just saw this movie today, and I thought it was really good, one of Spielbergs better movies. I really like this darker period that he has entered, I was never much of a Spielberg fan, but after Schindlers List, I gained a new respect for him as a filmaker. I do agree with an above poster that this movie could have benefitted from an R rating, but thats a minor quibble. There are a few minor plot holes, I will grant you, but just about all movies have them if you really want to look. For example, in Die Hard, why didn't the terrorists kill a hostage every 10 minutes until McClean gave himself up, after all, you found out at the end of the movie that they were going to kill all of them in an explosion anyway. In E.T. at the end those kids are being chased by the police for like 20 minutes or so, why did he wait so long to make them fly? In just about every James Bond movie the bad guy explaines every detail of his plan to Bond, and then leaves him alone to be killed in some exotic way, why not just shoot him in the head as soon as you've captured him? I could go on and on, don't try to overthink it, it's just a movie.
June 25, 2002, 12:46 a.m. CST
Man was I happy when I read that Harry didn't care much for this movie, because it meant that there was a very good chance that it was good. Fortunately, I was correct on that assumption. The movie was great - much, much better then A.I., and the most inventive/creative/original vision of our future since...well, since I dunno what. My only complaint was the last two scenes - they didn't need to be there. But then this is Speilberg, and I don't expect anything less.
June 25, 2002, 12:55 a.m. CST
...this movie will not age well. The naysayers seem pretty precise about what they didn't like about it, the positive ones are (with one or two notable exceptions) tend to be of the "HARRY YOU SELL OUT RETARD" camp. Not a good sign for future acclaim, cause goofs like these burn themselves out pretty early, and the detail oriented reviewers will only remember more they didn't like about it. Good or bad, worthy or not, that's the nature of the beast. Oh, and BTW, I work at a theatre full of people who have to watch (in bits and pieces, or one form or another) MR over and over again...and NO ONE still likes it. This isn't just getting sick of it, that usually doesn't kick in until the end of the week. No, the entire theatre, even the people who lied it at first blush, has basically gotten more and more annoyed with the ridiculous plot holes that are ALL OVER this thing. You can rationalize it until your butt falls off, but from this little corner of Ohio, it looks like MR is losing stature by the hour.
June 25, 2002, 1:20 a.m. CST
by digi tony danza
I begged and pleaded for the movie to stop when Anderton put down his gun and spared Crowe's life... but it kept going. And ruined it. As John rode the elevator up to Crowe's apartment I thought, "What reason in the world could a cop possibly have for killing a man he didn't know?" And then it came to me. The only thing John ever cared about was his son... and the man who took his son would drive our hero to kill. So there's a huge confrontation... a few kicks and punches... then John points his weapon... hand shaking and all... yet doesn't pull the trigger. Thee end. I liked it... hidden identity, hero confronts himself... sort of a happy spin on "Seven." But it kept fackin' goin'... All those twists at the end... unecessary. The knee jerk, jump in your seat death of one of the more interesting characters (FBI wonderboy)... unecessary. Happy go lucky ending with the pregnant tummy rub and pre-cog cottage reading time... unecessary. So much potential, wasted. Like watching the Independence Day trailer, with all those menacing shadows creeping over our national landmarks. Then Will Smiff rears his corny head. Happy Endings blow... When will Spielburg learn...? Did you know that Jaws the book ends with Hooper and Quint dying... and the shark peeters out from lack of oxygen just before devouring Brody...? No... we had to have Hooper and the chief paddle home amidst shark poo and seagulls... Happy Endings blow... and so do Jewish directors... (just kidding) or am I...??? mauahahhahha...
June 25, 2002, 1:29 a.m. CST
Hello?!? A.I. part II? Jesus, what happened to Spielberg?! This movie had so much going for it, but instead we got eyeball chases and B-movie mad scientists! Maybe the movie wouldn't have sucked half as bad if it had been 40 minutes shorter. 50 years in the future and we're suppose to have all that technology?! Whatever! Nice product placements...it was like watching 2 1/2 hours of t.v. commercials!! Total shit movie...
June 25, 2002, 1:41 a.m. CST
Harry is right. He didnt even talk about other dumb inconsistencies like why did he get surgery to remove his eyes? Then used old eyes to get in the temple. Dont you think the police would have removed his clearance? Or at least set off an alarm when he tried to enter? Is that to much to ask? The movie turned into a standard "cop is framed, works to clear his name". How many times have i seen that? please... sure it looked cool, but so did Final Fantasy and look at that plot. You people have to read some sci-fi and get an imagination. What a bunch of maroons!
June 25, 2002, 3:10 a.m. CST
Just to answer your plot hole about the murder. If you hadn't read my post yet, I stated that maybe Anderton would have still killed Crowe because, maybe, Burgesse did set him up, somehow, by sending Anderton a letter stating where the killer is located at. Knowing that Anderton would find the letter and knowing that he would kill Crowe, the pre-cogs predicted what would happen. Of course, the future and the pre-cogs prediction was changed because if Anderton saw exactly what was going to happen he would done things diffently, so the pre-cogs had images of Anderton doing the diffent events.
June 25, 2002, 8:50 a.m. CST
You obviously didn't give the movie too much thought when you wrote this review...but I will explain at least one semi-obvious interesting twist that you neglected. (spoiler) The murder was premeditated...but not by Cruise, by the 'bad-guy' of the film. Once the gears were set in motion for that murder to occur in the future (even though those actions were pre-meditated by another party), the system didn't care...because Cruise was supposed to do the murder. Remember, the system didn't track intent to kill...only the moment of the murder. Overall, I'd say it's a pity you didn't enjoy the film. It definitely wasn't as good as some claimed, but it didn't deserve the review you gave. Going in with too-high of expectations based on other reviews leads to a biased opinion not based on the movies true merit, but your own unmet expectations.
June 25, 2002, 10:27 a.m. CST
I could definately see how somebody expecting to see a "film noir", dark vision of the future a la Blade Runner would be pretty disappointed with this film. That said, I did enjoy it, because once Spielberg stopped trying to overwhelm us with his unnecessary and, quite frankly, embarassingly out of place special effects in the first half (that chase scene felt like it would never end!), the second half really picked up the pace, as the mystery was solved. Sorry you didn't enjoy it Harry, I thought the last half made up for the silly first half!
June 25, 2002, 10:31 a.m. CST
The ending seemed very forced and rushed. Spielberg didnt want to go out on a down note and thus gave us a very drawn out a convaluted happy ending that undermined EVERYTHING that made the movie likeable. Harry is right about the "crime of passion argument" that is a pretty big plot hole, but the movie should have ended with Cruise being put in stasis and the bad guys getting away with it - that would have been cool - and save the long, forced and nesperatly in need of a editor happy ending for the DVD. Otherwise --- the future created was fantastic, great attention to detail---not bad
June 25, 2002, 11:30 a.m. CST
And what exactly did Ming the Merciless do to set up Anderton? Give some pictures to this ex-con guy? And the Pre-cogs did the rest? Made NO sense. I think Spielberg is on mushrooms or something, and I think the whole reason he made the movie was so he could use the little eyelid clips from "Clockwork Orange". And once Anderson became a fugitive, wouldn't they remove his iris from the database so that he couldn't enter the JAIL? Cut about half the plotting out and add about 5 action sequences, and I wouldn't have cared about how stupid it was. I honestly just wanted Tom to kill the guy like they predicted and end the movie right there, that at least would have a little poetry to it, when Tom has the gun on slimy dude, I said to myself, 'Shoot him, don't cop out on me Spielberg" and then the fucker went on for another HOUR!!
June 25, 2002, 11:41 a.m. CST
Ok, So it was not as good as the hype, but i thought it was great. Now, I am no Harry but i went to college and my major involved Film & Art. That does not make me a expert, but hear me out. We learned about genre & metaphors and what makes a great film. The metaphor's "eyes", "run" and "choice" were film in a way that was strong and forceful. This movie is forceful and important because it really tells us about "society". We are going in this direction of safey and government intrusion. The charaters were bored, thats the point, we feel less in this kind of society. Call me crazy but i loved AI and this movie was close to that feeling of amazment with storytelling in film and "art". It did have it's flaws but it was perfect for its genre. Hit 'em over the head....
June 25, 2002, 12:37 p.m. CST
by Miss Aura
I respect him for giving his honest view of this film. For me though, I just witnessed the greatest film since Memento. We all have different views on films and Harry has voiced his, which he is allowed to. Minority Report is the best film of the year, Just seen the Two Towers trailer and thought its ok and then my mind went back to the film I seen yesterday starring Tom Cruise and directed by Spielberg and thought HOW GOOD WAS THIS FILM? I doubt if I will see a better film this year, in fact I know I wont.
June 25, 2002, 2:58 p.m. CST
At least that is what Harry would have you believe. I LOVE that Harry disliked this movie. It proves that his taste in movies is unrefined, and exposes his inability to appreciate an intelligent film. Everybody views and criticizes movies from a different angle, but Harry's angle tends to mirror that of a stoned adolescent with a hard-on for yoda and curse words.
June 25, 2002, 3:16 p.m. CST
How can anyone believe that Harry is an idiot because he liked Undercover Brother and not MR? One's a lightweight comedy, the other a supposedly intelligent Sci-Fi movie. Apples and Oranges people!! Come on!! The same with AOTC, it is a different kind of movie!. I can see Liking UB as a comedy, and not liking MR as a Sci-Fi drama. That does NOT make one better than the other! This is exactly why I can't stand the Grammys! 'Record of the year???' I can see 'RB record of the year', or 'Rock record of the year'. They are different things. You can't compare the two. That's what I sort of like about the Golden Glodes, they separate at least Drama and Comedy. Personally, I enjoyed the film, but I agree with Harry about all the flaws. This was NOT Spielberg's best! For me, I am embaresed by all the Spielberg Apologists on this TB. Can't anyone simply say, Yeah, there were Major logic flaws, but I loved it anyway! I didn't love it, but I enjoyed it. But let's be honest, there ARE major logic flaws and plot holes that are very hard to overlook!
June 25, 2002, 4:23 p.m. CST
just wanted to say i disagree with your review of minority report. true, to each his own, no problem there, but you made an error in your review concerning john anderton's supposed murder attempt, and if it is a crime of passion or not...you were wrong in saying it was a crime of passion. he says in the "room" that there were two things he has always thought about: if he would recognize his son if he saw him again, and the second thing, what he would do to the man who took his son away from him, obviously that would be to kill him. so, this IS pre-meditation sir, not a crime of passion. this movie requires repeated viewings(i have seen it 3 times already), and hopefully your readers will not see it once like yourself and make snap judgements. this movie is deep, and to see it once would be cheating yourself of all the nuances.
June 25, 2002, 5:44 p.m. CST
Excuse me! The fact that Anderton may have thought of what he would do to the guy if he ever met him does NOT make it premeditated!!!!! Sorry, no dice! You may think that if you ever caught your wife in bed with another guy, you would kill him. Does that mean you are premeditating murder? No, if it happened, it would be a crime of passion! Premediation needs a specific target, not a vague, the guy who may have done this bullshit!! Besides, he only mentioned he thought of what he would do to the guy. He NEVER said what he would do! We don't know what he thought. When he finally got there and found the photos, he made up his mind of what he WOULD do from the many ideas he thought about! Enough of these lame excuses for major plot and logic holes!!!
June 25, 2002, 8 p.m. CST
Everyone: Harry gave thumbs down to Minority Report and thumbs up to Viva Rock Vegas. It's over, baby. It's over.
June 25, 2002, 9:30 p.m. CST
you know... i think it'd be easier to enjoy a movie f you didn't pick the shit out of it as soon as it started. generally i enjoy movies more if i just sit back and stop thinking about the technical aspects.
June 25, 2002, 11:19 p.m. CST
I'm not totally sure about this, but I believe the movie had a yellow ball drop for Anderton's crime; that means that the movie considers it a premeditated murder, even though it is a crime of passion. The only reason that killing that guy crossed his mind BEFORE he got to the room was that yellow ball, and even then, it wasn't PLOTTING the murder. In other words, either Johnny boy has multiple personalities and one of them is a serial killer, or the precogs were wrong. But the precogs are never wrong--which points straight at a plothole. Please note that I'm not trying to pick apart the movie - I actually enjoyed it very much. A hell of a lot more than our friendly reviewer, apparently. I just thought this was important enough to post.
June 26, 2002, 2:29 a.m. CST
Why does everyone badmouth Harry's review? Why does his being negative and all others being positive equal him being wrong and others right? There's no right or wrong with reviews, they're always a matter of opinion. Personal opinion. A film isn't definitely good or bad. It's all up to the individual. Personally I loved the film until the end. Should have ended with Cruise shooting the guy, then Farrell figuring out the plot with Sydow (though he should work it out in the scene, not beforehand, because it's ridiculous that he drags the killer to an isolated spot and then, get this, gives him a loaded gun). Farrell is shot, end credits. As it is I agree with some posts (Just what threat does Ann Lively really pose that's worth killing her?). I can't accept that a guy intelligent enough to come up with this plan to avoid getting caught then falls for the stupid 'but you didn't say she drowned' cliche (am I the only one really fed up with that?) And the rushed ending. I don't buy the fact that Cruise has always wanted to kill his son's kidnapper counts as pre-med (especially since he doesn't do it, surely the guy at the beggining might have thought if my wife sleeps around I'll kill her, that really doesn't count by any definition of premeditation). The Sydow plan explantation is better, but it still sucks that there's no better answer within the film (especially seeing the red ball/brown ball stuff is irrelevant anyway. OK so we get a good race against time at the start, but why not just allow for variable time in predictions?). And whilst I do like the Brazil ending suggestion, it's a bit dodgy. Do we really have to come up with random suggestions that don't entirely come from the film to excuse sloppy or poor scripting. Oh, and how did Cruise stand on top of his lift/car thing, when he'd kicked the glass out?
I loved this movie right up until the end, but when the credits started to roll, I noticed that they were not in alphabetical order, that ruined the entire movie for me. If Spielberg were to come out and say that the credits were some kind of dream sequence, then I might be willing to rethink my opinion.
June 26, 2002, 10:30 p.m. CST
THE REASON WHY ANDERSON'S MURDER WAS PRE-MEDITATED INSTEAD OF A CRIME OF PASSION WAS BECAUSE THIS MURDER WAS ALL PLANNED BY MAX VON SYDOW. THE MURDER WAS STAGED FROM THE START WITH HIM PRE-PLANNING THE MURDER EVEN THOUGH TOM CRUISE WAS GOING TO PERFORM IT. MAX VON SYDOW WAS PULLING THE STRINGS BEHIND EVERYTHING SO IT WAS PRE-MEDITATED. THERE.
June 26, 2002, 11:39 p.m. CST
Yes Anderton's killing was a crime of passion HOWEVER since the whole thing was orchestrated by Von Sydow then it was in fact premeditated, just not by Anderton. Not only that but Anderton pretty much knew that his first instinct would be to kill his son's kidnapper/murderer if and when he ever found him. That's beside the point though.
June 27, 2002, 1:37 a.m. CST
harry, you nailed it. this movie is a throw-away. fantastic technology cannot overcome the tired plotting and lackluster characterization. a real let-down after A.I.
June 27, 2002, 1:53 a.m. CST
In the film, it was not a crime of passion, but it was made to look that way. It was pre-meditated because the supposed killer's family would be set for life by him letting Cruise's character believe he was the killer of his boy. So the pre-cogs saw the pre-meditation and issued the warning 72 hours before it was suppose to happen. If someone else has mentioned this, I am sorry to repeat it. I don't have time to go through all the talkbacks on this subject. -Jason
June 27, 2002, 12:39 p.m. CST
SPOILER - How did Burgess know that by simply hiring a man to pretend he was Crow in hotel room full of pitcures of kids would cause Anderton to show up and shoot him? This seems completely preposterous to me. Did I miss something? I really thought about it. I'm Burgess and want Anderton to commit murder. I know he would kill the man who murdered his son Sean, so I hire a man to go to a hotel room with a picture of Sean. How does this get Anderton to that hotel room. Forget who premeditated what how does it make sense that the Precog has the vision of Anderton getting to that room and then actually have Anderton show up. This means that everybody in DC can plant evidence in random places and then have the victims or the prepetrators show up simply because it involves them (and not even really because the guy is not even Crow)? I mean there are a lot of other glaring plot holes that other posters have mentioned about why Burgess' name never seems to come up in those stupid 'wood' balls but this one was so distracting when I saw the movie that my suspension of disbelief had been snapped for the rest of the film. What a stupid fucking movie. I'm sorry Moriarty Spielberg is a hack and I'm not getting suckered gain by his marketing team.
June 27, 2002, 2:28 p.m. CST
by Thorn MS
There's actually two solutions: ...1) more simplistically, you'll note that the guy wasn't in the room when Cruise arrived. He could have been there for months, with those pics on the bed, and waiting for the right "time" to arrive through various means, clues and deduction... 2) I prefer itteration of time events... good sci-fi... If you've ever used a spreadsheet program, you know about entering formulas and "recalc"ing the spreadsheet to get certain components to adjust off of each other towards a true conclusion. Imagine when it started that Cruise was led to the scene and found his victim with pictures, and you get the conclusion. Now you get a time paradox, particularly since the Precog was involved, at least in later itterations of the event, and as the event went through various itterations and recalc (time paradox), they arrive at the final representation of events that even includes the precog being in the room, kidnapped, etc., that may not have been how it was originally and simply planned and executed with Cruise being directed there by an anonymous phone call - for example.
June 27, 2002, 3:24 p.m. CST
Hey, about Anderton's murder of Leo being a paradox that its a "crime of passion" that the Precogs picked up on early: Its not a paradox if you think about it. The murder was premediated...someone (Lamar) planned the whole thing out in advance. It's just that the one who premediated it wasn't Anderton even though he was the one how was supposed to pull the trigger.
June 27, 2002, 6:25 p.m. CST
1) Whether the fake Leo Crow has been holed up at the hotel for months doesn't mean that Anderton is going to show up at some point. Take the precogs out of the equationand just think about the reality of the situation. Let's say I need to frame you for murder and I know a guy killed your son. I take those two factors and decide that the best way to set you up is to plant evidence with a suicidal guy who is willing to admit to killing your son. So what? That does not get you into the hotel room. Which takes us to your second point. 2) Whatever about your spreadsheets. I get it. Now the only hypothesis that has any relevance in your 2nd point is that Burgess might have planted evidence or somehow led Anderton to the room which is feasible but does not exist in the movie. The movie moves forward through the precogs visualization of Anderton murdering the fake Leo Crow. There is no other guiding hand besides the precogs prediction which means there was nothing real to lead Anderton to that room in the context of what was shown to us in the course of that stupid film. Thanks for trying though, appreciate it. However, you haven't changed my mind.
June 27, 2002, 8:29 p.m. CST
June 27, 2002, 10:29 p.m. CST
OUUCH! ONLY SEE THIS IF YOUR AIR CONDITIONING DIED AND YOU NEED OUT THE HEAT! SCOOBY DOO HAD FEWER PLOT HOLES!!! How dumb are you supposed to be to like this? Flashy and cool to look at, but seriously flawed story. Would his removed eyes actually open doors and where did his wife get the eye in the bag? Did he bring to the house with him and say, "Dear this is my real eye the other went down a drain, if things don't work out use it to save me?" If all the cops saw Farrel's character with the gun, how did Atherton get into his office and go to his wife's house at the same time?" And these are just the obvious flaws. Sorely disappointed by a movie that I thought was going to be one of the best of the summer. Go to Sum of All Fears, surprises and tension, a better way to spend $10 bucks.
June 29, 2002, 7:20 a.m. CST
harry...dont listen to them, they dum...good review, right arm.
June 29, 2002, 8:20 p.m. CST
Finally, got to see this thing and let me say Steven Spielberg is back in action. After "A.I." you'd thought he wouldn't come back with something good, but whammo he's back. The part where the doctor takes out Cruise's eyes was a little sickening, but it doesn't linger on it too long, there was some funny moments, intriguing moments, and some cool moments where the cars are going down the sides of the free-way and buildings. I thought the Agatha (pre-cog) was a HOTTIE!!!
June 30, 2002, 1:34 a.m. CST
There certainly were a lot of terrible plot holes in this movie--it is indeed impossible to explain how Anderton was supposed to end up in the room with Crow, for example. But the premeditation part is obvious, as some other posters have noted. As soon as Anderton says, "I *am* going to kill this man," there's your premeditation. Has nothing to do with Burgess having set it up. It's not (or wouldn't have been) a crime of passion; that's like the guy at the beginning, who doesn't intend to kill his wife until the moment he lunges at her, driven by unpremeditated passion. Overall, of course, the movie has too many logic problems to address in detail (but kudos to those of you who've made the effort). And the ending really did suck, although I like the "just a halo'd dream" theory.
June 30, 2002, 11:19 a.m. CST
All I know is if i report my work badge lost or stolen I cant get in the building with it an hour later. The same would apply if Im fired. What are they protecting at my work? A couple PCs. This clown is wanted for murder and eventually arrested and his amputated eyeball still works in a building housing criminals and various other highly confidential secure brick brack. AND THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER KNOWS HE IS COMING BACK Also, the subway scanner scanned eyes that were closed yet the spider scans HAD to open his eyelid? Harry is right, This movie makes rules and then breaks em.
June 30, 2002, 3:23 p.m. CST
I am sure that Steven Spielberg's latest is a dud and that Bubba Ho Tep is a glorious classic, just as Harry says. Jeez..
June 30, 2002, 4:19 p.m. CST
Alright, so the movie *tries* to establish a motive for Sydow to kill the mother of the female pro-cog, but here's my problem. The way he tried to get away with this murder was relatively complex and pretty dangerous. So here's my question, why didn't he just tell her to come to a meeting OUTSIDE of Washington D.C. where all this pre-crime stuff isn't!? I mean, as I recall, it was only being used in DC, so theoretically one could simply walk over the state line and waste someone without any pre-cog to see it beforehand. And on that note, how were the precogs only to see DC murders? I mean, did the technicians "tune them locally" only? Movie had a lot of holes, but was fun to look at. I thought it was ok.
June 30, 2002, 9:14 p.m. CST
You can only fit so much into a normal person's attention span. I'm a big fan of books, especially long ones, but you can't compare the character and plot development in a book to the same qualities in a movie. There's simply too big a difference in size of the format. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a new kind of movie - a serialized movie, like a movie with sequels, but on steroids. Lord of the Rings is possibly the closest set of films I can think of that approaches this kind of thinking, with characters and plotlines that continue to develop over the span of several pictures. Unfortunately, movies cost a lot of money, and I don't think I'll be seeing my dreams realized in any big way soon. Back to the point, though, Minority Report did a good job of infusing elements from several genres of film and making an entertaining and thoughtful movie that isn't too long. So quit your bitching.
June 30, 2002, 11:37 p.m. CST
I could write much more than I'm about to- about how Harry enlarges small plot holes to epic preportions, or how he liked Godzilla and Armageddon but not MR, but I'll just stick to one thing. Hey Harry, Anderton's murder is premeditated (Spoilers coming). Besides the obviousness of that fact in lieu of, well, what we know watching the movie, there are also lines in the vein of "She was right: I always knew I was going to kill the man who took my son." It's a clever loophole in the logic of the Pre-Crime program. You say the film establishes rules and then ignores them? Did you fall asleep near the end? Phfff.
July 1, 2002, 10:43 a.m. CST
by max sterling
what are you on crack? i listened to you before an actually saw the trash that was "a knight's tale". you liked that but you didn't like minority report?!?!? that's when you've lost perspective and let expectations take over...
July 1, 2002, 4:14 p.m. CST
Hey all, this address some of the problems some of us had with the plot holes. Everybody's talking about whether there was really pre-meditation in the murder or yaddy-ya, but what I found intriguing is the possibility that Burgess was NOT responsible for setting up Anderton but rather the pre-cogs were behind it all. If Burgress DID setup Anderston, how exactly did he do it? The images of Anderton killing Crow were created by the pre-cogs and yet we think that because Burgess sent Crow to the room at a particular time that he is responsible for the setup. HOWEVER, if I remember the movie correctly we actually NEVER find out who it was that sent the guy to meet Anderton and pretend to be his kids killer; Burgess never actually admits to doing this. Even at the end of the movie when Burgess seemingly admits to setting Anderton up it is in the form of pre-cog vision. The precogs could have made everything up. I believe the pre-cogs wanted freedom from the constraints imposed on them by their pre-crime "job". Perhaps they trusted that Anderton would choose NOT to kill CROW (remember the pre-cog girl was there to persuade him that he had a "choice"), disprove pre-crime, and therefore be freed. Pre-crime is supposed to be about freedom but yet the pre-cogs had none. We also have to pinpoint the initial reason why Anderton started looking for Crow (i.e., the setup). Even, if Burgess had simply told Crow to be at that motel at a certain time how in hell would Anderton have found his way there based on this (i.e., the setup would have been impossible)? It was not because of Burgress but rather because of the vision of the pre-cogs; the one and ONLY initial reason why Anderton tried to find Crow. The pre-cogs knew Anderton would look for Crow, then go after Burgess. In the end the pre-cogs have manipulated Anderton and get want they want (particularly the girl): freedom and revenge (the precogs knew that Burgess killed Ann, the girl precogs mother). Even the final shot of the movie movie ends with the pre-cogs enjoying their newfound freedom (hint hint). What do you all think?
July 1, 2002, 5:22 p.m. CST
The PreCogs couldn't have initiated the Leo Crow setup because they are completely removed from reality and are not allowed contact with anybody for fear that they might be influenced. The only way they could've done it is through that nerdy guy who takes care of them. He certainly seems like a candidate to help them because he does seem to have a great amount of affection for them but I don't think this was the way the story was intended because this guy wants Agatha back so he can take care of her. I didn't get the sense that he wanted the PreCogs free. Spielberg made it clear this caretaker wanted the PreCogs as they were like floating vegetables. He even tells Anderton that they never speak and I believe him. I think the actor gave that line genuinely as he was suppose to. The only excuse I could give for this massive plothole is that they did shoot some type of scene where Burgess initiated Anderton to end up in that room but decided to cut it in the editing room because they thought it was stronger if Anderton's motive was solely based on the PreCog's vision because remember up to the point where Leo Crow admits that Anderton was setup there is nothing based on reality to send Anderton to that room so there is no clue that there is some bad guy behind all this. It keeps the story at a mythic level where the audience's judgment of Anderton is always in doubt. It makes you think that maybe there's something wrong with Anderton. I mean the guy does smoke something like crack. Spielberg and the editors probably went this route after they started realizing all the other glaring plotholes during the rough cut and said fuck it - what's one more. "It's a piece of shit anyway but the idiots will love it."
July 1, 2002, 5:26 p.m. CST
by Triumph the Dog
From First to Third in the space of a week and falling behind "Lilo and Stitch" and "Mr. Deeds" is a sign of doom. Another pretentious message picture of Steven "Spewburg" bites the wax tadpole. Wait until he turns "Indy 4" into a dissertation on the cold war and the evils of plundering the treasures of indigeous peoples.
July 1, 2002, 7:31 p.m. CST
1. I wanted only one eye to work after he got them put in to fully bring out the prophesizing statement: "The one eyed man is king" or whatever it was. 2. and most importantly: If you were to set up a murder, how would you go about doing it? because merely hiring a man to come into a hotel room and take a couple punches and be killed and decking it out with pictures how would you know for sure that enough information would show up on the data screen in order to plant enough information in the mind of the killer?
July 1, 2002, 9:44 p.m. CST
If the pre-cogs are "completely removed from reality and are not allowed contact with anybody for fear that they might be influenced" (schnipple, 2002), then why is it that Agatha at one point grabs Anderton, looks at him and points to the ceiling for him to look at the image. This behaviour does not seem independent of reality but rather may represent an attempt of the pre-cog to restore some kind of human contact, hence some kind of reality, or an attempt at freedom from constant removal from reality. Therefore, it is possible that the pre-cogs (especially Agatha) are not completely removed from reality and may have chosen Anderton as a means to escape, so to speak. The nerdy guy may have been the guy that called Crow and told him to present himself at a certain place in exchange for whatever he promised him; we`ll never know really... Even if they did "shoot some type of scene where Burgess initiated Anderton to end up in that room but decided to cut it in the editing room" (Schnipple), what exactly could this scene be? This does not make sense since the instigating factor for the search for Crow was the vision and there is no way Burgess could have influenced this or changed this. The vision came directly from the pre-cogs and there is NO way that "there is some bad guy behind all this" (Schnipple). Anderton did not need Burgess to reach that room so I dont see why there would even need to be a scene with him telling Anderton to go there. It was Agatha that led Anderton to the room. Anderton had NO idea where he was going therefore he was not guided by Burgess (the mysterious "cut scene"). This makes more sense than thinking Anderton is a fucknut or that the discrepancy is meant to create mystic. I still think my interpretation holds up... Cheers...
July 2, 2002, 12:07 a.m. CST
I have never in all my time as a daily reader of this site felt compelled to 'talk back.' Well, after reading that Harry thought John Anderton was pegged as a 'crime of passion' candidate, I just had to. He was marked as a pre-meditated murderer. Period. It's not a 'red ball' it's a 'brown.' Remember? Pay attention to the damn film. Especially if you're going to write a review about it later. Brown not red! Got it? That's kinda like thinking that Mr. Anderson from the Matrix had taken the blue pill. It would kill the movie. ^_^ Red not blue! So, other than that fabricated plot hole you came up with, Harry, there's not too much wrong with the story. And to the poster that mentioned Tom Cruise hating on America based on poor box office - 73 million in 10 days is really good. AND... America is scary. Don't fool yourself.
July 2, 2002, 12:26 a.m. CST
You're missing my point. I don't care if Burgess or Agatha set Anderton up. There's nothing within the movie that supports either one. All we know is that Agatha has a vision that Andeton will kill a man at a certain place and a certain time. When the filmmakers take us to that point in the story we find out that Anderton was setup. The problem with the film is that there is nothing presented within Anderton's reality that guides him to that room besides the vision which means whoever set him up must not only be precognitive but also be able to control people's actions in an omniscient way. I mean sure your hypothesis about Agatha setting Anderton up is as good as Burgess setting Anderton up because there's nothing in the film to refute or support either one. We could even say his ex-wife set him up. She still blamed him for Sean's death and set him up. Why not? There's nothing in the film that refutes it. How about Burgess' wife. Or maybe the second in command in PreCrime. My point is we can only go by what's presented in the film. Everything else is your version of a backstory which is fine but it's not Minority Report. To tell you the truth, if there were some indication that Agatha might have been behind it, it probably would've been a stronger film. Also, when she grabs Anderton, it's presented as being a precedent.
July 2, 2002, 12:52 a.m. CST
Agatha does set a precedent, and that precedent is what causes the setup. As soon as Anderton has to run, he takes it upon himself to find the person he supposedly will murder (in order to try and prove he's innocent). Anderton uses the clues provided by the precogs to find him. That's what gets him to where he needs to be for the setup. He goes looking for answers.
July 2, 2002, 8:38 a.m. CST
Again, Agatha does set the precedent but within what is PRESENTED IN THE FILM there is no mention of anybody actually contacting the fake LEO CROW. Let's suppose Agatha guides Anderton to the room. That means that who ever set up the fake Leo Crow must've known that Agatha was going to set a precedent by grabbing Anderton which would still make this person omniscient. Really, I'm not trying to be anal but his Plothole is just not explainable within the film. All the other plotholes I've heard so far are somewhat explainable within the context of the film but this one really is not. But whatever, it's just a movie.
July 2, 2002, 10:20 a.m. CST
in a word...no. i don't think this is speilberg's best film. that honor would belong to SAVING PRIVATE RYAN, SCHINDLER'S LIST, or JURASSIC PARK. tom cruise's best? nope. i love tom cruise movies so i really can't pick a favorite, but MINORITY REPORT is not the best one. however, it is a fun movie. it was released at the wrong time though. and marketed the wrong way. this is not a summer action movie like M:I-2 or THE LOST WORLD. this is a tight suspenseful "whodunit" film. its well paced despite what harry says. there are great action scenes and some good moments where the morals of pre-crime are questioned. very entertaining stuff. i must say there are parts of the movie that have the same feel of ROBOCOP and TOTAL RECALL. i loved the movie. it was very fun. cruise continues to be one the best actors working today and i really like the new spielberg. with A.I. he matured and with MINORITY REPORT he has become a new director. i like it and look foward to his next project. i recommend this movie to everyone.
July 2, 2002, 10:57 a.m. CST
This is in response to the poster who earlier called this a box office disaster. The movie finished second against Mr. Deeds over the weekend so you really need to get your facts right. Your remind me of the neighborhood retard who would run down the streets while slapping his back and yelling "BEE'S, BEE'S". This movie was simply awesome. The only reason you hate it is because it was so much more than that piece of crap ATOC.
July 2, 2002, 1:47 p.m. CST
Hold the phone... did Harry actually blast this movie because the characters didn't have enough depth for him? He admits to the visual brilliance, good acting, and spectacular direction, but the wooden characters ruin it for him? Somehow, this doesn't seem consistent with a guy who loved AOTC. If you want to talk about an otherwise dazzling movie that was ruined by lifeless characters, AOTC is it. For some reason, however, Harry wasn't bothered by it. Maybe he just turns the other cheek for Star Wars movies, who knows? The point is, Harry is being utterly inconsistent as a reviewer by damning the characters in Minority Report. Harry, you've already lost credibility as a reviewer... badmouthing a terrific film is not going to set things straight.
July 2, 2002, 3:54 p.m. CST
Schnipple, I was not missing your point; it is true that there is nothing in the movie to directly support or refute who exactly setup Anderton. However, it seemed that logically speaking there were suggestions that the pre-cogs had something to do with it. I did not dream this up. I mean, what kind of director would allow such a discrepancy in a movie anyways? Did Spielberg expect us to simply believe that Anderton was setup by Burgess or whoever? If so then he must really think movie viewers are complete tards, so much so that they would not notice that there is no way anything but the visions could have initiated Anderton's search for Crow. As for who called Crow, who cares... there are many alternatives. All I am saying is that since the visions initiated the search for Crow then the pre-cogs are seemingly responsible for the setup, with some motive (freedom/revenge). Logically, there is no other alternative. Since the visions led Anderton to Crow, who else but the pre-cogs could be responsible? Agatha knew about the visions so it wasnt just someone tapping into the computers at pre-crime. You said we can't disprove that Burgess or his wife set him up but I think we can. How could they logically set him up WITHOUT the vision or how could they make the precogs have the vision?? By thinking about the setup? To me it is more plausible that the pre-cogs are behind it and that they found a way to call Crow (who knows how?) then believing someone "omniscient" is behind it all or that simply thinking about the setup could lead to visions. Unless we throw common sense out the window the movie makes no sense as is, but seems to make a bit more sense through systematic interpretation. I was simply giving Spielberg the benefit of the doubt by attempting to logically piece together the movie... disappointingly so, perhaps I shouldn't have... Next Spielberg movie I'll simply have to turn off my brain... lates...
July 2, 2002, 4:01 p.m. CST
For such a HIGH TECH society, and Security up the yin yang, you would think that as soon as Cruise is declared a criminal that his "ACCESS" would be terminated, but NOOOO, instead he gets to go in and out for over 3 days. (well his "eyes" anyway).
July 2, 2002, 5:11 p.m. CST
Hey Harry, I saw and was also disappointed by MR, although to a much lesser extent than you. The visuals were beautifully rough and sleek at the same time, the ideas were compelling, and the acting.. eh. So so, admittedly. As with most big movies today, it made a grand show of covering details while managing to overlook many of the nuances you mention in your review. How precrime affected the average Joe outside the flood of video propaganda. Why the cops immediately brain- shackled the preguilty immediately upon apprehension without any questioning or investigation. What happened to the crime scale of manslaughter, murder-1 and so on? Although the pre-cogs easily pinpointed Cruise's crime, the fact that it was a setup would have bore a huge weight in a regular court had there been a post-precrime investigation. But no, future criminals are immediately iced and the cases left closed. Big movies today boast of extended detail in the way a warehouse boast of tight inventory checks. You'll get everything on the list, but you might not get a sense of atmosphere or know anything about the people. Nuance is much harder to fill a movie with than details. Spielberg seems no exception when dealing with a blockbuster, although I'll admit these details were on average much smarter than most. Ok, to the one point I wanted to make: Harry.. John's crime was pre-cogged in the advance fashion of premeditated murders because he had admitted to thinking about it for years. Sure, it was a crime of passion when the plot (thinly)unravelled and he saw that his mystery victim was supposedly his son's kidnapper. That reality only came into probable light once the wheels of the setup were put in motion, creating the situation where John could unload all the build-up for vengeance he had been drowning in work and drugs. Passionate, yes, but he knew all along how he would deal with his son's kidnapper. Until then, though, he had no suspect to pin it all on. Aside from the glorious gloss, if there's any reason to up-thumb this movie it's because MR can make you think over ideas like this, or the missing nuances in your review, if one is willing. Despite its flaws, MR managed at least a modicum of provocation. Spielberg said himself that he was more comfortable, in his old age, to let things dangle in his films than always provide a clean T-Rex ending. But he could have given us a little more paper under the gloss. Ciao.
July 3, 2002, 11:32 p.m. CST
Plot-holes exist in every movie, or at least the vast majority of them. I usually take the position that I'm going to sit and watch a movie and hopefully enjoy it w/o worrying about every single issue that might pop up, like why wasn't Anderton's murder a red ball or how could he get tabbed for a murder he won't commit until the pre-cog itself sets him on his way? Those are questions I'm not going to bother with... I can suspend my disbelief enough to enjoy this type of movie. Same with movies like The Terminator. If the machines never create a time-machine and send back a Terminator to kill Sarah Connor - then Reese never goes back to impregnate Sarah Connor, i.e. How in the hell can John Connor ever exist in the first place w/o the machines CAUSING him to exist??? Can't a machine say "Let's never build the time machine and our problems are solved." (And also - Reese says that only living tissue can come back, i.e. no weapons. But yet the first Terminator comes back - as does Reese - complete with hair and finger nails and then in T2 a Terminator that has abosolutely NO living tissue - he's liquid metal - comes through time w/no problem whatsoever.) Plot holes just exist. Maybe it's laziness... maybe it's just a filmmaker saying "I can't take X amount of screen time to explain this." Maybe it's someone saying "Let's use this big afro-wig on this extra when she runs through plate-glass even though our actress has short/straight hair. Mistakes happen. Spielberg would probably tell you, like Lucas would, that there aren't mistakes. What you think are mistakes are just there to make you THINK in the first place. Why have your eyes removed if the scanners at the HQ building will read the ones you've got and NOT alert anyone, but yet when they read your eyes on a subway a hundred cops come running? I don't know... because the writer/director were lazy? And to the person that wondered how Anderton's wife ends up with his eye... did you miss the part where they gave her his box of personal items? The eye was in his possession and ended up in the box with his clothes, wallet, keys, etc. Silly sure... but that's how she got the eye.
July 4, 2002, 4:01 a.m. CST
maybe why people compared this film to Blade Runner is because it was the same author (of the BOOK!)Philip k. Dick. And you know, people compare things to things that that same person has done, or in this case influenced and/or inspired. Which, by the way, was written in 1956 so if you think the MOVIE is ahead of its time...
July 4, 2002, 9:38 p.m. CST
I'm new to this site, but I have a lot a love for films in general and one of my pet hates is people who slag off and slate directors and actors for their films where it goes to the point where it almost becomes personal.I have just seen Minority Report and thought it is messier Spielbergs better adult films and I enjoyed Toms acting throughout. It's getting to the point where I read said reviews and think "do these people enjoy films or are they just suffering from the "green eyed monster syndrome", in which case they watch a film and all they can do is crititise directors and actors for their work when these people have never worked in the industry so are just picking holes in the medium just to make themselves feel a little bigger and important! I mean if these so called film buffs actually liked films why spend so much time and energy putting them down! can prove your point why not do what these directors and actors did in their younger days and pick up a camera find some friends and make their own movies!!
July 4, 2002, 9:48 p.m. CST
Good. This opened today in the UK and I decided to see it, even though this was a film which I had no positive expectations for, but I came out of the cinema, having enjoyed a good, or even possibly great, movie. Is it a Spielberg classic? Guess we'll have to wait a decade or so and look back upon this film with that wonderfully insightful tool called hindsight.
July 6, 2002, 3:48 a.m. CST
I agree totally with Ain't it Cool's review of one of the worst in Speilberg's impressive stable of films. I have to be honest, I was really drooling for this thing. I heard such rave reviews for MR--I thought it would make up for the weakness A.I. had. Needless to say, I stepped out of the theater with my mouth wide open. WHAT THE HELL WERE THESE CRITICS WATCHING??? Y'know, sometimes I feel film critics today (especially those on tv) feel they must earn their large paychecks and simply go with the flow. Shame on Corliss, Ebert & the rest!! I was surprised by the clear plot holes in the script, the empty characterizations and although I'm a fan of sci-fi hardware in films I was bored by the technology in MR. We've seen these kinds of things in dozens of other science fiction films before. Different forms of telepathy, flying cars, exotic robot drones, rocket packs (whose idea was that??), thinking machines and advance genetic engineering...done before, saw before! I'm getting a little worried...science fiction films just aren't as innovative as when I was growing up in the 70's. Computer games are far more interesting, in some cases better written as well. Those of you old enough to remember how it was to see Star Wars: A New Hope for the first time in '77? I was 12 years old, a kid from the South Bronx, parents who just got divorced...that little film propelled my imagination beyond any form of fiction had done for me. Sci-fi films have to become more daring, not just in efx, but in solid story telling, with characters that can touch people across racial, economic, religious divides. I got hope! P.S. Men In Black 2 was lousy...I was really hoping Lara Flynn Boyle would return MIB HQ back to the Port Authority of New York!!
July 6, 2002, 8:05 a.m. CST
by TMA 149
About comparing MR to Blade Runner... MR beats the living shit out of Blade Runner. Usually I'm a fan of the whole deep, weird, needlessly slow thought provoking movie... Hell 2001 is by far my favorite movie ever..Not that I "get it" anymore than anyone else with a brain does.. I get it AND I happen to enjoy it a lot. But Blade Runner was simple as fuck. The little thought it did provoke in my was shit I'd already thought about... Granted, maybe in terms of uuh conversation outside the theater factor it was just a tad more complicated than MR, but at least Minority Report had some fucking great action sequences. I've been waiting forever for someone to bring back shit like jet packs and hover craft and big futuristic cities and actually do it right (Lucas can't achieve subtlety or suspense or coverage at all It seems.. He's pretty good at fitting as much fast, erratically moving things designed by a crack team of ILM artists into one frame as possible though..)Anyway, my point is it's been too damn long since a scifi as awesome as MR has been made. It should erase all memory of the unimpressive, OVERRATED turd that was Blade Runner. John Anderton doesn't have enough character development... At least we actually learn things about his past and he has emotions.... I guess it's that being human part.
July 6, 2002, 2:26 p.m. CST
I'm relativley knew to this site but thus far I'm liking it. I really like your indepth analysis and scrutiny of each movies I would have to say that I both agree and disagree with your Minority Report review. I agree that the plot is quite flawed in places and many of the characters are completely one dimensional. I think this movie is one of the better futuristic movies out there. Had it not been for Spielbergs vision the movie would not be as good as it is. Unfortunately it seems that more emphasise has been put on making the characters look natural in their futuristic environment and what would be the nearest thing we could see as a future version of our time ad opposed to giving the characters a little more depth. I did think that much of the product placements were very well done even my own national drink Guinness (I'm from Ireland) reared it's foamy head. In your review you asked how it would be possible to see a crime of passion 72 hours in advance when essentially precrime usually only have a bare amount of time for them. I would suggest that given Anderton was set up, essentially it was a premeditated murder, even if not premeditated by the framed murderer. That's just my take on it. On the other hand, the biggest flaw I could see was how Anderton (and later his wife) was able to get into a couple of different buildings using his exumed eyeballs, particularily precrime HQ. Don't you think that being as advanced as they are portrayed they would have taken Andertons retina precrime access from his retina scan thus disabling him from entering precrime HQ to kidnap the precog. Just my opinion.
July 6, 2002, 3:29 p.m. CST
I have to disagree with the review on Minority Report. While the movie wasn't fantastic and suffered from Spielberg's recurring problem of losing momentum in the last thirty minutes it was, by far, one of the better movies I've seen this summer. There was one major hole in your review that's been bothering me a little bit. And I quote: "Now John Anderton
July 6, 2002, 5 p.m. CST
Harry just wanted to add to this massive talkback that you are wrong. VERY VERY wrong. This film is fantastic, the vast majority of the critics are CORRECT, this film is brilliant. I mean seriously, WTF? Get a brain and watch it again. Its LIGHTYEARS ahead of AOTC. Why? Because Speilberg uses FX to ENHANCE the story, not to MASK its absence.
July 7, 2002, 1:26 a.m. CST
by Frying Bologna?
Sorry, Harry, but this was a pretty good flick. Here is my question for y'all: As with every 'travel-through-time' movie, there are plot holes. I am stuck on this one. I can buy the 'echo' thing with the old murder, because what was manipulated COULD be manipulated; the murderer. BUT, how in the blue Hell could van Sydow have manipulated Cruise into that apartment at that time for the main murder? "The pre-cog saw it, stupid", I hear you typing, but the pre-cog can only "see" what is actually going to happen. The chain of events that got Cruise and the pre-cog there were because of what the pre-cog saw, but it was what the pre-cog DID that actually got them into that apartment...ARGGHHHH!!! This is exactly the kind of loop that always spoils it for me in these flicks. Still, this is the best movie I've seen this summer. Spidey was a disappointment, AOTC was a joke.
July 7, 2002, 10:54 a.m. CST
It's like he read my mind and wrote it all down. This film is again style over substance. I just didn't connect with the characters at all. I couldn't take it seriously. Wish Verhoeven has directed this one.
July 7, 2002, 11:40 p.m. CST
by Frying Bologna?
Hey, GREAT comment(that I missed earlier) regarding my post, by if76 at 2002-06-22 13:02:30. Essentially, it was a double-premeditation! One character had all the potential to kill, the other planned to set-up a situation that could be acted upon with murder. Since the pre-cogs could see only potential, this would make sense! Or, at least enough sense for me to sleep tonight! Plus, someone else said to relax and enjoy the movie instead of picking apart the thing. My reply is, take it as a compliment that I would spend the time to make the movie really work for me!
July 8, 2002, 1:05 p.m. CST
by Movie Slob
Now, I am a big fan of Spielberg, Cruise and the likes, and I was really jazzed to see another Dick story get the big screen treatment from reputable Hollywood types, but for the MOST part I agree with the naysayers on this one. I left the theatre intact, but feeling empty, and it has taken me the night to decide on my feelings for the movie. That in itself is a good thing really, as a really bad movie would not promote the kind of inner discussion I had to have of it. So take that for what you will (1) The damn eyes. Anderton would not have been able to get within 20 miles of PreCrime NOW! If the future is as advanced as it looks, every time he got scanned getting off the train, at the mall, he would have been surrounded by cops. Also, they KNEW he was coming back to the building, yet his "on the Lam" status did not negate his entry into the place? At the very least it should have set off alarms. (2) The whole Assembly line scene. I already disliked that scene in one movie this year. Was it just me or was that just TOO damn close to AoTC?? Was it an homage or a tribute? I hated it (3) Witwer punching his fist after watching Cruise pop up in the Lexus. "Curses! Foiled Again!" I was waiting for him to start twirling his mustache (4) All the odd comedy thrown in. Th jet packs cooking the burgers, the odd doctor, the eyes rolling down the dirty hallway. WTF? This movie had the potential to be great, and I still enjoyed it to a certain degree, but I can see how some might not like it at all. The only thing that really stood out for me is the computer manipulation in pre-crime, I wish that was in effect now!
July 9, 2002, 4:56 p.m. CST
Spider-Man, yes. Episode III? Well, aside from that fact it hasn't been made yet . . . no. AOTC had much better effects than MR, at least on the digital version. MR was too grainy and fuzzy for my liking. I did enjoy the film, but I agree with some of Harry's criticisms. Especially about the lame holo-memories. Who would want to watch that? It was a good film, but I still prefer AOTC.
July 9, 2002, 9:01 p.m. CST
While I didn't dislike the movie as much as the reviewer here did, I agree that it wasn't what I was hoping it would be. But you got something wrong in your details as far as things that bugged you went. Right before Anderton gets "tagged," as they put it in the movie, his homie and he have a brief conversation about the fact that this murder is a brown ball (ie. premeditated), not a red ball as you seemed to have thought. However, I did have to do some rationalizing in my head to figure out how this guy murdering the man he just found out killed his son (or so he thought) but didn't know previously could be considered a premed....I figure the line of dialog about dreaming about what he would do to the guy if he ever found him accounts for the premeditation (although that is a bit flimsy perhaps). To me it also seemed a crime of passion but the precogs classified it othewise and thus the advance warning on the murder. In otherwords the movie stayed true to its own information on this one, regardless of how odd that premeditated classification may seem. One thing that dig bug me a bunch though (to which I also have a rationalization) was in the pre-crime commercial. You heard one girl (the chick who used to play Andie on Dawson's actually) say "He was going to rape me." And then about 20-30 minutes later it is established that the precogs can't detect rapes. I am assuming that he was going to rape and kill her and that's how that works....that or precrime ad people are big fat liars.
July 10, 2002, 6:20 p.m. CST
Maybe the difference shouldnt be defined as premeditated/crimes of passion so much as things that happen in the heat of the moment, or things that are intended/planned on happening. So it was planned that Cruise would kill the guy, whether Cruise planned it or not, the crime was "premeditated" it didnt only happen because Cruise flipped out suddenly...
July 10, 2002, 7:11 p.m. CST
Although Harry's comments on certain mechanical flaws were valid (shaky cam scene) everything else was his opinion, which, seems to be worth less and less these days. Bad acting? this coming from a guy who creamed over every aspect of Blade 2(which was a awsome movie though). Harry, turnover ownership of this site to Moriarty, drop a couple hundred pounds, loose your virginity and then we'll listen to what you think of movies. By the way, this was called Speilberg's best movie since Shindler's List, not Raiders.
July 11, 2002, 1:55 p.m. CST
whoever said that Speilberg will never be remembered as one of the sci-fi greats alongside Ridley Scott, Kubrick or Darren Aronofsky (!) is a complete imbecile!!!!! Sorry pal, but you're too late. I think Close Encounters, ET, Jurassic Park and A.I. already secured that title. The guy virtually invented the modern sci-fi movie. God, you guys are so dumb sometimes. As for the chap who keeps popping up and saying that the film has tanked, how embarassing for Spielberg blah, blah, blah - yes, Scooby Doo must be a better film if it makes more money - idiot! Does that mean that MR is better than Blade Runner as it's made more cash???
July 12, 2002, 5:06 a.m. CST
So if Kubrick had made AI would you have the same issues with it even though it would have been directed by one of the Sci'Fi 'greats'? Remember, Spielberg didn't change that much! AI has to be one of the most misunderstood films of the last few years. The frustrating thing about it is that it WILL be seen as a classic in about 10 years but no one can see that now - i guarantee that (how about that for a bit of pre-cognition). As for you dismissing Spielbergs sci-fi classics. If Sci-Fi is the art of making 'Science' 'Fiction' that looks to the future or into the stars and gives you a taste of what life could be like in a manner that is completely believeable (and, yes, entertaining) then Speilberg succeeds on all counts. Yes, Spielberg does ask questions, continually - that is the purpose of Sci-Fi! Of course with certain films he is asking exactly what the author was asking (Crichton, Philip K Dick) so your criticism cannot be levelled squarely at him. The fact that his films also work as mass-entertainment is simply the icing on the cake. Sci-Fi does not need to be elitist or 'underground'. Popular does not always mean irrelevent! You mention Ridley Scott, but Alien and Blade Runner can have all your criticisms levelled at them also! You obvioulsy just have a dislike for Spielberg and will not see faults in your own 'great' Directors.
July 13, 2002, 5:22 a.m. CST
I've always respected what Harry does but now I get the feeling that he's just making bad noises about aspects of a film to go against the expected response. An example would be Harry slagging Minority Report cause the precogs didn't pick up the son's death. If he'd had a wee think about it he would've realised that any kidnapper with a modicum of intellegence would've ensured they were outside the 200 mile zone before killing the lad. Have a think before you write things Harry and you may find that you're upside down on some issues!
July 13, 2002, 8:55 a.m. CST
To me, this seems the most blinding flaw in the entire film (nevermind all that wooden/red ball stuff, or other "paradoxes" and plot-holes, which can and have been easily explained away). Why, oh why, if Anderton wanted to prove his innocence after escaping the city, did he not just hide somewhere until the time where he was "meant" to kill Crowe? That way, after the time had passed, he could show up again (after killing no-one) and so prove that pre-crime detection could be wrong. Why did he not just do this?, instead of going to all the bother of getting his eyes taken out etc, so he could go back to the pre-crime building to get Agatha to get his "minority report" etc etc etc. It was all just so unnecessary. (think about it, if you were told you were gonna murder someone, you wouldn't do everythnig in your power to track them down would you???!)
July 13, 2002, 9:10 a.m. CST
They said the precogs only predicted murder. If so, then when Anderton was leading Agatha through the shopping mall, why was she predicting a load of meaningless things, like a woman dropping her bag, or that if Anderton gave an old man some money the policemen would trip over him, etc. If it is said they can't even detect something like rape, or torture, then why show them predict something as trivial as a rain shower?
July 13, 2002, 11:01 a.m. CST
Well, now maybe I'm just smarter than everybody else, but I seem to be on a higher plane of understanding than mere mortals. I saw this film a few days ago (These things take longer to hit the west coast of Ireland, you know) and I have listened to all the alleged 'plothole' theories that have propounded. Thing is, every one of them can be explained. Sure, there are some questions of 'motivation' but you could do that with any action film. I am always suspicious of these fast-moving, twisty, complex plotlines, usually they're hiding something. I think they hope we'll get so caught up in it that we won't have time to ask questions. Minority report, while not quite watertight, is certainly not the narrative sieve some would have us believe. Just think about it, grasshopper.
July 13, 2002, 6:24 p.m. CST
July 14, 2002, 12:43 a.m. CST
by Col. Klink
They should have ended it with the scene where he decided not to shoot his son's killer and arrests him, instead. Forget the convoluted double-double cross ending. It would have been a clever ending if the pre-cogs were right to accuse him, but he was a big enough man to change his own destiny. I loved that line, "I wasn't set up. I AM going to kill him." It turned the whole POV of the movie upside down.....Tom isn't an innocent man being wrongly accused; he's a guilty man who doesn't realize it. Why drag out the story with the whole Max Von Sydow twist? SOmetimes these screenwriters screw up the story trying to be TOO clever for their own good.
July 15, 2002, 2:04 a.m. CST
This movie was terrible. Anyone who does not think so does not deserve to talk back on this site. If you can't understand why this movie was horrendous, there is no hope in explaining it to you. After viewing it, I cannot fathom the glowing reviews this movie got in the press. The last South Park could not have been more timely in skewering Lucas, Spielberg and Coppola by simply asking these great directors, "What the fuck?"
July 15, 2002, 8:50 a.m. CST
Funny fucking shit yo!
July 15, 2002, 6:18 p.m. CST
This film had me, then lost me. Like Speilberg's last film, A.I., it's a half hour too long and goes out of it's way for a "happy ending". SPOILER ALERT: As far as I'm concerned, this film should have ended with cruise being put into "storage". The whole Max Von Sydow conspiracy sub plot plays like a T.V. movie of the week. Which ending is more powerful? Cruise reunited with his wife, all smiles or Cruise realizing that he can't change fate as he's put into deep sleep. I choose the latter. Imagine what Speilberg and his creative team would do with something like the original "Planet of the Apes". (Yes, Mr. Burton made a bad remake.) They would probally have Mr. Heston somehow propel himself back to the sixties to give the film a "happy ending". Not every damn film needs a happy ending. Does Othello have a happy ending? Chinatown? You get my point. The films and stories that resonate are the ones with the HONEST ending. Not the ending that "the suits" think the audience wants.
July 16, 2002, 3:18 a.m. CST
Harry, i love the site, sometimes you are right on point with my opinion, this time you are so far off its not even amusing. This movie is AMAZING!!! Has been entered into my top 10 films of all time. To the talkbacker that bitched and complained about the ending, i for one think some movies SHOULD have sad endings, this one would have worked either way, i think the ending was VERY suiting! The thing i noticed about it was the story took all the traditional cliche driven outcomes we have come to know and love and rubbed them in our faces saying........oh yeah, you thought you were clever and figured something out before i wanted you to.....HA i wanted you to think that way so i could steer you this way!!! I think this movie had an incredible story!!! The only character that was really fleshed out was Johns, because, well HE IS THE PREMISE OF THE STORY!!!!!! This story and world revolves around his events. I think everyone did a superb job in it, but cruise (an actor i used to hate, but am steadily growing to really like) was brilliant! you really get into the characters mindset. The other thing is, i think the reason that the characters life isnt incredibly discussed in depth and merely displayed in small bites, is because Spielburg is intelligent! I really respect him for his choices, and not acting like the audience is a bunch of mindless fools that cant put the missing pieces in with their imagination!! The only problem i had with it was the rocket pack scene, he would have been burnt to shit, but the rest of the film is great, so i can allow one badly thought out scene......and that point aside, that scene was wildly entertaining. The other thing you will notice about this one over AI (which i also thought was a harshly overlooked GEM of a movie) was the humor! It comes in abundance, whenever the movie starts getting really serious, there is something there to make you giggle to yourself. It really reminds me of Gilliams approach, adding little things that make you smile in the middle of really tense moments, and in doing so this movies almost 3 hour running time goes by SO fast! I really didnt want it to end! I for one cant wait to go see it again.....and then get the DVD!!!!!!
July 16, 2002, 3:41 p.m. CST
Were you not paying attention at all in the movie, or something? They specifically say that Anderton's crime was pre-meditated, not a crime of passion. Hence, the 72 hour in advance warning of his crime.
July 17, 2002, 6:31 p.m. CST
by Dickie Greenleaf
I am at a total loss to explain Harry's comments here. MINORITY REPORT is the first truly great picture of 2002, and what really excites me about the film is the sense that as Spielberg moves into the next phase of his career, and make no mistake, I think we are witnessing something of a transition, he remains as ambitious as ever. Like A.I., this film is imbued with all of the spirited boldness of a fresh, young filmmaker, not the most commercially successful veteran of the present generation. Though MINORITY REPORT shares many of the thematic elements of Spielberg's work over the last decade, it still represents a first foray into another new genre; film noir. The confidence with which Spielberg orchestrates these grand experiments and the conviction he brings to the material (has he ever directed a scene as intense as Anderton's confrontation with Leo Crow?) makes for thrilling viewing. The sheer visceral energy he brings to mainstream cinema is absolutely vital, now more than ever. It has been said before and it's worth repeating again, that it might take the full length of Spielberg's career to fully appreciate his abilities and understand his importance. It is entirely plausible that he may well come to exceed the impact of Hitchcock or Lean because of his continuing desire to push himself and produce such varied and accomplished work. What he does after CATCH ME IF YOU CAN is anybody's guess, and it is precisely that unpredictability that is so enticing.
July 17, 2002, 8:57 p.m. CST
The creepy kiss lady, Dr. Iris Hineman, was none other than longtime Tom Cruise fan ROSIE O'DONNELL! I'll betcha that was a flub and they left it in there cause it creeped the cast and crew out more than made them laugh.
July 19, 2002, 7:05 p.m. CST
Harry, I've read and watched science fiction for over twenty years.; and after watching Minority Report, I'm moved to write something. I'm worried that the genre is in decline. Surely not though with so many block busting productions this year? Well everyone has had Blade Runner on their lips for a decade and a half. Minority Report has highlighted the fact that it's a re-hash of it's post modernist elements. That in it's self is sad. It's a replicant with a one year life span. Someone name me one film in the last ten years that has been a land mark sci fi master piece. GATACA, Pitch Black? Am I going crazy or have the script writers and directors getting their orders from the bean counters and CGI cohorts? These last few years have been bereft of productions that are crafted pieces of imaginative and thought provoking sci-fi movie making. There's plenty of material out there. Ian M. Banks for starters. Let's see something that really challenges our attitudes, our culture, our values and makes us think about the now and the future. After all that's what Science Fiction is all about. Harry, the viewing public like the film because it's easy to enjoy, you don't think about it. In fact it's the equivalent of wearing one of those halo head bands. You just sit there and watch the beautiful images and not realise that what you're seeing is just alluding to be a masterpiece by nature of association. When I went to see it I too felt deflated and disappointed. I asked myself why didn't I like it? What's wrong with me? I should have walked out of the cinema with a buzz and be full of praise. Instead I was desperately trying to piece the broken elements of the film together into a justifiable experience. NO. So many moments, lost like tears in the rain. So when I saw your review I felt glad. You pointed out all the flaws I felt. I'm not crazy, I'm just sensitive to what makes a good piece of science fiction and what makes a good piece of movie craft. This film has filtered out the challenging elements of the genre and hi jacked it for its ability to contain neotech eye candy. Such a beautiful, empty film. I hope someone has seen it and has the ability to be the one to make the film that replaces Star Wars or Blade Runner, or 2001, or Clock Work Orange, now that would be something.
July 19, 2002, 10:39 p.m. CST
by a goonie
for the past month and a half, i was backpacking across europe. as a result, i didn't get to check aicn nearly as much as usual and i only posted on tb like once. also, i had to see Minority Report three weeks late. but i saw it. and i was so damn happy. but i was very disappointed. i give the film two and a half stars (out of five). it is certainly spielberg's strangest, wierdest movie. but it doesn't fit. it's Spielberg TRYING to be different, and getting more wrapped up in this newly discovered warped sense of originality, while neglecting the truly important aspects of narrative storytelling. there is not a single terrible performance in this movie, but there is not a single GREAT performance either. and the ending is bad. just plain bad. Minority Report plays much like a failed experiment, a less satirical version of a better movie, Robocop. Minority Report is certainly worth checking out. it's lightyears ahead of the crap, the utter shit that is Attack of the Clones. but it is still ultimately a failure.
July 20, 2002, 9:15 p.m. CST
by Johnny Ahab
...but add my voice to Harry's and the other Unsatisfied Ones on the site. Took me a few weeks, and I knew I was gonna be busy -- so I didn't read a single review or anything on this site. Wanted to see it as unbiased as possible cuz the trailer looked cool a few months back. I usually don't agree with Mr. Knowles on his reviews, but I saw it last night, finally, and Harry was spot on here. This movie made me as angry as A.I. It's 2/3s brilliant, and then Spielberg can't help himself. He is genetically programmed to give us a happy ending. I too thought the film was over when Anderton chooses not to shoot Crowe. And I was in awe thinking, fuck! He did it! Spielberg didn't pussy out! He made a "Seven", something dark, gritty, and that will haunt audiences as they leave the theater...but NO. Then came the tacked-on, convoluted bullshit murder mystery. I tried to stick with it, but I didn't care. The film was ruined. Sap runs through Steven's veins, and he had to have his pretty, happy ending. And Cruise is just as complicit. Did they test-screen this thing? Maybe because they have the clout of being the world's top box-office director and actor, they figured they didn't need to. And who of the flatterers in Hollywood is going to tell these two Titans the movie needs to lop off the last act. Nobody. A sheer disappointment. And I REALLY wanted to like this movie too.
July 22, 2002, 4 a.m. CST
by SLEAZY DINOSAUR
I absolutely loved this movie right up until the very end, but when the credits started rolling, I noticed that they were'nt in alphabetical order, what kind of half assed moviemaking is that? It completely ruined the movie for me, and it shows what a hack Spielberg really is. Now, I might be willing to reassess my opinion if Spielberg comes out and says the end credits were part of some kind of dream sequence. Maybe he will fix it when it gets its DVD release.
July 23, 2002, 3:43 a.m. CST
I guess I'm in the minority, too Harry. But I didn't really like it either.
July 23, 2002, 11:11 a.m. CST
The film lacked any whit and passion. two things that speilberg used to do so well, also the end is nothing short of disgusting. The plot could barely stand on its feet and turned into a morality finish. Sick Man Sick!! Frills and Spills, bells and Whistles, whatever you wanna call them, this only deserves a 7/10. AI had a morality ending and after watching that i felt the same as i do about minority report but as often drawn back to it and it is a great movie. shame its not speilbergs. i am not in the slightest looking forward to seeing this stinker again. Very flawed and twistless. No spoilers but if you call that a twist i'm donald duck!!! What is it with the generally patronising tone of films these days, with the absense of any real faith or living miracle we need to make films that challenge a bit of logic. DO YOU WANT PEOPLE TO GET STUPIDER!!!
July 26, 2002, 2:28 a.m. CST
I just cant f**king stand critics I really cant
July 28, 2002, 5:09 a.m. CST
ok im a geek too, so can someone please tell me where the cottage scenes in the movie were shot. It looks like Vermont, Washington State or even British Columbia or somewhere else in Canada. I've seen it twice but my dates didn't want to stay to the very END - help me out here
July 30, 2002, 6:51 p.m. CST
It was pre meditated...just not by Anderton...okay? It was pre meditated by Lamarr to be COMITTED by Anderton...hence huge flaw in Pre-Crime set up. Of course the REAL plot failing is this: Lamarr sets Anderton up to kill Crowe so that Anderton is out of the way. How does Lamarr do this? By paying off Crowe and saying something like "When this guy comes to see you, act like you killed his kid, then I'll look after your family." Okay, all this happens BEFORE pre crime see the event...how does Lamarr know when Anderton will kill Crowe? How does he know anything about the crime? He hasn't set up the location, he hasn't set up the time, the only thing he's does is arrange for some guy to confess to Sean Anderton's murder at some unkown time and place in the future. How does Lamarr know that Anderton will ever meet Crowe, how does he know his actions will be enough to precipitate a Pre-Crime precognition? Still...how did the Millenium Falcon get to Bespin with no hyperdrive? How did the Ewoks arrange all those enormous trees to smash the ATST's at such short notice? Why didn't the Empire just look over THEIR copy of the Death Star plans and say "Hey...there's a small thermal exhaust port just above thw main port..." or perhaps throw more than a dozen TIE fighters at the oncoming X Wings. "We count thirty ships Lord Vader, but they are so small they're evading our turbo lasers" "So? We've got eighty thousand TIE fighters...swamp the bastards." You can find rather large plot holes in quite a few of our favourite films, does that make them any less entertaining? And Harry, AOTC good Minority Report bad? Do me a favour. I loved the end lightsaber battle and the big land battle and I generally think the original series walks on water but come on. The last two installments suck ass through a straw and you know it.
Aug. 2, 2002, 3:53 a.m. CST
I just have to say that this was the most dissapointed I've been in a film since Jeepers Creepers.Yah, yah, the visuals were great, but I friggin retarded monkey could make good special effects in movies these days. Tom Cruise was ok. I step back into the old macho cruise, he was much better in Vanilla Sky. The worst part was it was too by-the-book. I knew what was comming after I saw the Trailor the fisrt time. Ok, I've badmouthed it enough, it was an ok movie. To sum it all up, this movie is, like most Speilberg movies these days, a supermodel. Pretty on the outside, but not much goin on inside.
Aug. 3, 2002, 10:47 p.m. CST
You geeks just can't accept the fact that Spielberg is the #1 filmmaker of all time. If you check AFI's 100 greatest movies, Spielberg has the most entries. But you don't need to see all of those films to conclude that. You just need to see one, Schindler's List. Out of all the summer action movies today, Minority Report is the most unique. It's not an orgy of special effects from beginning to end, Spielberg pays attention in every aspect of filmmaking from cinematography to acting but doesn't use them just to display his talent, he uses them to transform the story from script to film.
Aug. 5, 2002, 3:53 p.m. CST
Good god people! waht r u thinking! At first I thought Spielberg was only some guy who could tell a cute story and make huge blockbusters. i was wrong, he is tallented, he made schindlers list for christ sakes! Kubrick trusted him with A.I, the work of his life! Kurbrick! the man behind 2001, if he deserves Kubrciks respect eh deserves mine! he is a good filmmaker, because he is good I believed there weas something BESIDES entertainment in the movie, it's not what's it's all about, and I'm sorry, I'm not able to be entertained with it! I mean, Mib is even kinda funny, this movie only merit is the technology and the concept, BOTH not Spielberg merit. They took like 30 minutes and ALMOST DIDNT STOP THE CRIME IN THE FIRST ONE! Do they want us to believe that in a violent citty like Washington tehre's only a murder every half an hour, even so, there would be coincidents crime. And they want to take it to the WHOLE COUNTRY! come on! And why the hell would Cruises character go to the exact place he was supposed to commit the crime! Why didn't he ran away to the woods or some, proved he wasn't guilty and then proved it was a set up! He was risking too much for no good reason! God, I just hate such stupid bullshit, and teh ending! ooh, as good as it gets! He's friggin afraid to do less than a perfect ending, with a happpy litle coouplle staring at eh rain with their new baby! Oo it's all so eprfect isn't it! yuuuh
Aug. 15, 2002, 12:35 a.m. CST
Sept. 11, 2002, 6:22 a.m. CST
And come on, he's a professional that plays silly games around the pre-cog pool. It's a film ruined by product placement, a lazy ending and Spielberg's arrogance.
Sept. 12, 2002, 11:17 a.m. CST
"Maybe my expectations were raised too high...hearing that this could be Spielberg
Oct. 22, 2002, 5:20 a.m. CST
Until the ending sucked so bad it killed my gramma.
Nov. 26, 2002, 5:07 a.m. CST
this was one i have being aching to see but since mission impossible was found abit complicated we seem to have a lack of intelligant films this had such a poor ending [Tom explaing everything] what a waste
Dec. 6, 2002, 2:32 p.m. CST
I really loved this film and it had me thinking for a long time after I watched it last night. Couple of things raised in earlier posts : Happy ending...I'm not so sure about that, Anderton never got his son back..life just went on. All a dream...well the previous thought discounts that, surely if Anderton was dreaming he would have dreamt his son back. All in all a really good understated film which just lost it a bit in moments of wackiness. Oh on the point of how Anderton found Crow...Here is a potential scenario..ssshhh you know who sends Anderton an anonymous tip off as to where the killer of his son is...Anderton goes around there in a rage and kills him. Of course the precogs see this and Anderton being warned is able to change the future..well it almost works.
Feb. 26, 2004, 8:44 p.m. CST
I loved this film, and Tom was clearly psyched for it. He used all three facial expressions! Method!
March 7, 2005, 2:58 a.m. CST
Great review Harry. How can a man wanted by the world get back into the pre-crime building through a back door? Using his own eyes after bothering to have them replaced? One door and he's in the pool with the Precogs! He goes to the guy to change his eyes. The guy turns out to be an ex-con Tom put away a while ago. Time for a little revenge? Well, no, because he fixes Tom a nice sandwich and milk. But Tom eats the wrong sandwich and drinks spoilt milk, and if he said anything, he might have said, "Damn you bastard getting revenge on me like that!" only he didn't actually get revenge. WHy introduce the ex-con angle at all, if you are not going to do anything with it? And why trick the character into thinking he did, when he didn't, and is didn't matter either way anyway? A really fucked up movie. But hey, I'm ffrom the future. It gets worse. Speilberg makes a piece of shit called "The Terminal" that makes this look like fucking ET in the Matrix.