I would honestly give this movie four stars of four...it's an interesting story, had sweet CGI, and the acting was under par (remember, under par is better than par).

I can't wait to play the video game!!! I want to catch some "pre criminals"~!!!

Sooo...again ****/**** SWEET FLICK!

What a boring 2hr 20 minute mess. I could not believe that I actually stayed awake through the entire screening.
 

Ebert gave this 4 stars. I give it 3 1/2. The story was interesting and provocative, the acting and dialog rang true, and the effects were good. I'm deducting 1/2 star because of a couple of Spielbergian humorous touches that seemed very out of place in this serious movie (the eyes rolling down the storm drain? Please.)

 

Or like many people, find it all too boring for words. I wonder what life would be as a critic, just how many critics go nuts and think all movies are crap and boring after a while?

Dave

 

Seems like Spielberg's newer films are taking on a different feel than his older ones.

------------------
3% Body Fat. 1% Brain Activity.
 

I really thought that the photography was beautiful. It seems like Spielberg really wanted to make this picture in black and white, like most of the other great film noir movies. Also, every single frame of this thing is packed with massive amounts of information. That's so cool.

On top of all this, it's just a really solid detective story in the tradition of Dasheill Hammet. What more could you want?
 

Also saw the HBO first look at the film today. The design for the film was done by a think tank of futurists, to give it a look as if this stuff really could and will exist in 2054. Speilberg doesnt want this to be classified as sci-fi, but rather a futurist-adventure film.

Well done.

Dave
 

[SPOILERS]

I'd probably give the film a 3.5 out of 4. Up until he kills Crow, I would have given it closer to a 3.95, but everything after that point was a bit too formulaic. Think about how many movies you have seen where the where the bad guy almost gets away with it, until he makes that slip and mentions a detail that he shouldn't have known. Also think about how many movies have the good guy confront the bad guy by playing video of incriminating evidence at a gathering where everyone can see.

Then there is also the patented Spielberg, "the movie should be over, but I'm going to keep going" ending. Fortunately this time it was only a minute or two long, not 20 like in Shindlers List.

Maybe it's hubris to think I have a better way to end the film, but I really think it should have ended with the killing of Crow, and no hint that Crow was a plant, he was the real killer. This would have introduced some very interesting brain wrapping conundrums about the nature of causality, since the event in the future, and knowledge of the event in the future, is what causes the series of events that lead to that future. As it stands now, "the nefarious plot" is what causes everything.

None the less, this is one of Spielberg best endeavors in a very long time.

Geof

 

AFAIK, Kodak VISION Premier Color Print Film 2393 was used to make most of the prints, and processed through the Technicolor ENR process to achieve the unique "look" that Spielberg and Kaminski wanted.
http://www.cameraguild.com/awards/kaminski.html
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug98/saving/pg1.htm
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/jun98/lumin/pg4.htm
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/story/cinematographers.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

Geof
 

10 years ago, Harrison Ford would have played Tom Cruise's role.

That would have made for one excellent film.

SPOILERS!

I do feel though, that the last ten minutes caters for Joe Average way too much. Before the rooftop scene, I would have given it 8/10. The ending brought it back to a 7/10.

Still, more films like this and we're back in business.

Also. read today that this is Tom's 9th successive no. 1 opener. That is one amazing record. He has always been a great actor, but every now and then he shows he is one of the greats.

John

------------------
Too much of the rest of the film is given over to a romance between Padme and Anakin in which they're incapable of uttering anything other than the most basic and weary romantic cliches, while regarding each other as if love was something to be endured rather than cherished. There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche.

No, wait: Anakin tells Padme at one point: "I don't like the sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating--not like you. You're soft and smooth." I hadn't heard that before.

- Roger Ebert reviewing Episode 2. :)
 

The first 2/3rds of this movie are fantastic. It really soars, right up until the moment Crow is killed, and then it starts to go down a notch or two. The two plot twists that really hurt it were a) The g-man who was previously a clueless ladder-climber suddenly becomes the world's greatest detective and figures out that Tom Cruise was framed, and b) Director Burgess turns out to be the evil mastermind behind everything. Like Geof said, it became a little too formulaic at that point.

I was also a little disappointed at the attempted humor during the jet-pack chase scene. It seemed out of place. And the thing with using Tom Crusie's eyeballs to get back into the building twice was a little hard to swallow, seeing as how you'd think they'd cut off his access, especially after he had been put in storage. However, those are just minor nit-picks.

On the whole, I really enjoyed it.

Also, the print that I saw had amazing contrast. There was a "feature presentation" snipe which ended with a fade to black just before the actual movie started. When the cut to the real movie happened, I couldn't believe just how much darker the screen suddenly became. That continued throughout the whole movie. Very deep blacks. I appreciated that.

What I didn't like...
The grainy film that looked like colorized black and white.
Herky Jerky camera work.
The problem with a lot of futuristic films is that, like this one, they think that things are going to change more radically than they will or can. If they said this film takes place 100 years in the future I would have said Ok, but not 50. Magnetic cars on elevated highways? Hell we can't even get a good mass transit going around these parts. Futuristic pod-mobiles? Not a junker in sight? No pickup trucks? Buck Rogers jet packs? Think about it, I see cars from the 50s everytime I hit the road.
Just minor stuff, but I think they should get their dough back from their "future consultants" (ha).

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
 

I am going to play devil's advocate here though, because this really is an interesting topic of what really will life be like in 2054.

Well I can't say what things WILL be like in 2054, but lets put this to what things were like in 1950, compared to now. We have a space station, supersonic jets, the Hubble Telescope, road legal cars that drive 120 while feeling like you are still in park, computers that do more than add 1 plus 1 and are NOT the size of a large house anymore, etc, etc, and so on.

Take into account that magnetic transportation is not that far off. Nasa has been developing this for years and will be ready for tests within 25 years. Also realize that jet pack transportation was tested years ago, but was not deemed a viable form of transportation, but now is used in the space program. As for junker cars that wouldn't exist in the future, take into account that the environmental lobby has managed to put harder and harder restrictions as each year passes into emissions testing on vehicles. These restrictions get harder each year, and the reason is to cause the eventual removal of older vehicles on a faster time line, and to force the eventual demise of the fuel based vehicle. Remember also that we have between 100 and 200 years of fossil based fuels left to mine, so we are already seeking future options.

As to the loss of privacy and rights issues, we are already on that road as we speak, and all in the name of a little more security. I can't say that we will be able to predict crime, but just imagine what our government would do with that if they could.

Well it's true that futurists are often UNDERESTIMATING the amount of time it takes to get to where they say we will get to. After all it was in the early 1900's that they said we will have colonised the moon by 1950. Just add about 100 to 200 years to whatever they say and then you just about have it. The reason is not the ability to advance technologically or evolve species wise, but really it is down to pure political and capital gain involvment. If it doesnt get you power or make you a profit, or better yet, both, then it wont happen.

Dave
 

That's Kodak VISION Premier Color Print film 2393, with over a 10,000:1 contrast range (4.0 density) on the film. (Digital Cinema --- Eat your heart out! ):
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2393.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion
 

Greg: When you suspect that there was some other force at work, there was: Philip Dick. He is about as far to the opposite side of the spectrum from Spielberg as you can get. I feel like his original story (which I haven't read yet) kept Spielberk in check at times.

Geof
 

Anyway, I really got a kick out of all the customized advertising gags and Tom Anderton getting so annoyed by the animated ad on his cereal box that he throws it across the room. Somehow I think a lot of that overdone "spam" is going to hit is in exactly this kind of customized way. Newspapers that change their headlines as you read them? Pretty cool. The retinal scanners being everywhere is more of a frightening thing reminding me of 1984 and the phrase "Big Brother is watching you." But with matters of crime and the money-grubbing need for up to date market research and data mining, I can definitely see a day coming in which we can all be tracked very very easily.

The "sick stick" gag (no pun intended) was a pretty funny moment. Such a pacification tool might come to pass and work better than any can of pepper spray.

There were other bits of "futurism" that I found very hard to believe. One of the biggest ones for me was the freeway on-ramp directly from Anderton's apartment. Knowing that the "Dallas High Five" mega-interchange between I-635 and North Central is going to cost $250 million alone, I would highly doubt anyone will ever have their own freeway on-ramp driveways. The future, I think, will include cars that can go on auto-pilot and drive themselves on digitally enhanced roadways.

One other bit I found hard to believe was the stuff regarding Tom Anderton's eyeballs. I liked some of the dramatic payoffs from it, but I know you cannot keep something like human eyes in a simple sandwich bag without those organs "spoiling." Any organ intended for transplant has to be kept very cold and fresh otherwise it will ruin.

I'd like to see the film again (and definitely get it on DVD some months from now). For me it is the most entertaining movie Tom Cruise has been in since "Mission: Impossible" and Spielberg's best film since "Saving Private Ryan".
 

But I really did like the film.

--jhawk

This was the 2nd time for me. An outstanding effort by Spielberg. The main thing I want to mention though is image quality. Aaron Haney said: "Also, the print that I saw had amazing contrast. There was a "feature presentation" snipe which ended with a fade to black just before the actual movie started. When the cut to the real movie happened, I couldn't believe just how much darker the screen suddenly became. That continued throughout the whole movie. Very deep blacks."

The print I saw today was exactly as Aaron describes. When the black leader of the feature started, it was nearly pitch black dark in the theater -- I actually thought the xenon had blown or something, the screen was so dark. Well, the entire movie was like that - incredible contrast, and very deep, rich blacks. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before. And no, the screen is not under-lit. There was PLENTY of brightness (focus seemed perfect, and the image was steady too).

Long live film.

What I couldn't understand is why Speilberg didn't ban the Austin Powers in Goldmember trailer from Minority Report, which ran before the movie where I saw it. In the Austin Powers ad there's a character named Mole who has a mole on his lip that Powers makes fun of. In Minority Report there's a character with a mole the same size on the same spot on her lip. I was pulled immediately back to reality when I saw this, as was most of the audience based on the uneasy laughter.

Well, I came here to Film-Tech, and I discovered that Austin Powers was one of the enclosed trailers for Minority Report. Unbelievable!

Flaw?????

Ok if it's premeditated you get a long warning if it's spur of the moment you only get a half hour. Right?

Since our hero didn't even know the guy he was supposed to kill it could not have been premeditated so they would not have gotten the "long warning". He only decided to blow the guy away once he figured out who it was.

Is this a story line flaw or did I miss something?

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut
http://www.muellersatomics.com/
 

No really though...

*****SPOILER ALERT*****

The point was actually made at the end of the film that you can plot someone else to kill, and that is what the precogs see, the act of murder itself. Although the murder was not premedated, the plan for the murder was set up by von sydow's charachter for anderton to kill the guy. It was not ever said how exactly he was to get anderton to get there in the first place, but I imagine that there was a plan to lure him there as well. Remember, the precogs only see the violent emotional act of murder, and the immediate surrounding details. They do not see if someone else put them up to it or set them up for it. That is one of the main points of the story, is that you cannot ethically use predetermination as a way of dishing out punishment, as you do not take into account mitigating circumstanses, or the fact that you may have the opportunity to make a different choice.

Notice that the premurderers are held in that prison, because they were going to commit the murders. But what about the ball? It was going to fall, right? I didn't see them take that ball and punish it by smashing it or throwing it hard. It was caught, safely. Shouldn't they have done that instead? Put the premurderers in therapy??? All they needed was just a little cuddle.

And did anyone notice the guy playing the fake child killer was none other than comedian and star of the movie "The Sex Monster" and the HBO series "The Mind of the Married Man".... Mr. Mike Binder. Very funny guy.
 

It never occurred to Tom that there could be other possibilities, because he was showed only what his boss wanted him to see. He was shown that it worked perfectly, so in his guilt ridden mind, he needed to know nothing else. It is my suspicion that all of the other members of the team were more than likely just faithful followers and order takers, without having the cognitive resources to be leaders, just really good soldiers. The scene where he discovers he is guilty is a case in point, as his subordinate happily leaves the room on request, without question, and the tech in the tank gives him two minutes to run.

I must see this movie again, there are still so many points that even confuse me, just not sure where they are.

Dave