|
Directed by: Steven Spielberg Starring: Tom Cruise I found it hard to believe Spielberg could make a movie worse than A.I. but here you go. Nothing even tries to make sense in this thing, it's a string of events that barely fit together and never seem to end. Why is there an unfunny bit about Cruise eating medical waste? Why is there a lady with a garden full of sentient plants? Why is this thing over two hours long? There's a sappy scene of Cruise watching home movies of his murdered son. It's stated a couple times that he's driven in law enforcement because of what happened to his son. When he finds photos of his son in the hotel room of a man who may be the killer he repeats, aloud, in case the audience forgot, that this is his son and the killer of his son is the guy he'd like to catch. The whole movie is like that, you see something happen, then you watch the characters figure it out, then you watch them explain it to the other characters, and then probably after that there's some more direct way of explaining directly to you what's going on. Like every other recent Spielberg turd there's about three places where the movie could clearly end but things drag on and on and on. Steven should try his hand at children's programming for PBS, his flair for inane repition and glitzy visuals would enthrall toddlers.
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 14:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
I liked Minority Report for at least ending the predictable way and then rearranging everything. Definitely not a movie I'm going to buy but I didn't feel cheated when I saw it in the theater. 3.5/5 but went with 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 14:48
|
|
|
I thought it was enjoyable. I'm sure it could have been done better, being adapted from a Philip K. Dick story of all places (hey, at least it looks better than 'I, Robot' so far...) but it was fairly well constructed and had some nice visual design going for it. I liked the hazy camera effect (similar to immersing your eyes in a super-chlorinated pool). You could discuss the time/precog paradoxes to death, but it's probably better you just accept the movie and move on to your next chosen form of entertainment. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 14:55
|
|
|
Enjoyable mix of scifi and whacky Phillip K Dick fare. 4/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 15:06
|
|
|
It felt a bit disjointed at times, but I thought it was enjoyable overall. The ending was better than I expected it to be.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 16:10
|
|
|
I enjoyed it, I like Stephen Spielburg's visions of the future. The story wasn't that bad either.
Shady Lane fucked around with this message at 16:20 on May 3, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 16:14
|
|
|
Initially I really liked this film, but it quickly fell out of favour with repeated viewings. I like the idea behind the story, but the way it was implemented was just riven with holes and things that didn't make sense. There was *way* too much sentimentality, especially with the cheesy coda at the end. That aside, the future portrayed in the film was largly convicing, and it was quite entertaining in its own way. 3/5
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 17:27
|
|
|
It wasn't bad. Pretty entertaining, cool effects, nice look at the future. I'd give it a 3.5/5 but not a 4/5. So, 3/5.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 19:09
|
|
|
My biggest beef with this movie was that it tried to rationally explain why everything was happening, but it still didn't make any sense. If Agatha has a vision of Anderton killing Crow, and then only because of that vision does Anderton run around and end up killing Crow, then which is the cause and which is the effect? And more importantly, how did Burgess "frame" him if those two events are some sort of simultaneous causal loop? To use another example, how did Anderton use his old eyeballs to get back into the pre-cog headquarters? Are you telling me they didn't revoke all his access? And most importantly, the whole thrust of the movie is that Burgess killed Agatha's mom because he absolutely needed her as a precog... but precogs can only see things to within a few hundred miles, and Burgess wants to take the program nationwide. How exactly will they find enough precogs to blanket the whole nation when Burgess had to commit an extremely risky murder just to obtain ONE precog? If you're going to do hard sci-fi, you better be absolutely sure that it's internally consistent.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 19:41
|
|
|
This movie was OK. It was a decent premise for a movie but there were about a zillion plot holes (I can't remember any right now since it's been so long since I've seen the movie). This movie pretty much symbolizes mediocre, 2.5/5, voting two becuase of the plot holes.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 19:42
|
|
|
The plot was weak and broken. The gross-out scenes were utterly pointless, and not all that gross, abd bizzarrely tacked on. "OH No Tom! Don't eat the green sandwich!!!" Not the worse sci-fi flick I've seen. But might have been the worst sci-fi flick per dollar spent making it. Also, gently caress P.K. Dick in his dead destitute ear. Bladerunner was OK only because it had no relation whatsoever with the book that inspired it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 19:47
|
|
|
Genius when you realize that Agatha wasn't a vegetable and could map hypothetical futures (like when she tells Anderton what his boy would be like.) Then it makes sense because she was manipulating everyone the whole time into the best possible future, one where she escapes and Pre-Crime is shut down. Whenever anyone bitches about plot-holes its because they believed everything that the government assumed was true about the pre-cogs when it really wasn't.quote:If Agatha has a vision of Anderton killing Crow, and then only because of that vision does Anderton run around and end up killing Crow, then which is the cause and which is the effect? And more importantly, how did Burgess "frame" him if those two events are some sort of simultaneous causal loop? The initial vision of Anderton killing Crow wasn't the actual future, it was a hypothetical future (like the timeline where his son survives) that Agatha was dreaming up and showing the Pre-Crime agents so she could manipulate events. quote:How exactly will they find enough precogs to blanket the whole nation when Burgess had to commit an extremely risky murder just to obtain ONE precog? Once you can convince the government that something is a good idea, they will go to extreme, unethical lengths to support you. (see: Japanese internment camps, the War on Drugs, the siege of the Branch Davidians.) My guess is the government would just sieze all of the psychic crackbabies they could find "in order to protect them," and then use them in their Pre-Crime programs. Burgess just had to commit the first murder to set his plans in motion.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2004 19:57
|
|
|
Spielberg-haters be damned, I really liked this movie. One of the things you come to expect from most of his movies is that they are accessible to all audiences: Old people who forget things, young people who are excited by gross-outs, and even stupid people who need the plot explained to them. Picking apart Minority Report, Jurassic Park, Indiana Jones, et al is pointless. Most people know what they're getting into with these movies. Nothing too edgy or groundbreaking, just enjoyable, energetic fun. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 4, 2004 19:05
|
|
|
horrible, boring, poor acting, boring premise, flawed plot, predictable.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2004 07:35
|
|
|
I really enjoyed it. Great cinematography, good story. 5/5
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2004 11:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 17:49 |
|
|
This movie is full of loose ends. The sci-fi is very soft-- for people not into sci-fi, that means that cars are flying through the sky like in The Jetsons, technicians use translucent Star Trek screens with flashy animations for everything, and radioactive spider bites give people the power of precognition. (Okay, oversimplification, but you get the idea.) The world of the future is very gimmicky and full of obnoxious advertisements. But even if you are as forgiving in the fantasy department as I was, the story is not all that fun. Spielberg has this pathetic, pathetic love of happy endings that brutally slaughtered Kubrick's AI, and it shows up again here. A happy ending doesn't work for this storyline at all. What's more, the main plot feels like a bunch of tiny threads all poorly tied together than one continuous rope. Watch it if it comes on the TV, for the special effects and cyberpunk. Don't spend money on it. 2.5/5 Loose ends ahead: So what you're telling me is that once a car comes out of the car factory, it's ready and waiting for someone to drive it out of the lot? Wouldn't it be more realistic to not allow someone to just up and drive it off? Why didn't they revoke Anderton's door-opening privileges after he was put under arrest? Why didn't they do it after he broke in the first time? (His wife broke into the storage chamber A SECOND TIME with his eyes) ROLLPLUCKEDEYEBALLS Why did the one little corruption spoil the entire idea of "precrime"? They could have simply put more checks on the precogs and so forth. How did the precogs live happily ever after? Don't they wake up every night screaming about some murder they've foreseen? What happened to Anderton's eyeballs? He lives happily ever after with someone else's eyeballs? Gross. The green sandwich thing was just dumb. Shii fucked around with this message at 01:30 on May 17, 2004 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2004 01:10
|
|
