Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

"Minority Report" (Spoilers)
Pure Vanity | 6/30/02

Posted on 06/30/2002 1:23:37 PM PDT by pabianice

A life-long sci fi fan (started with "House of Mystery" and "Colonel Tommy Tomorrow" comic books), I went to a noon matinee of "Minority Report" (a benefit of being a free-lance reporter).

SPOILERS..........................

"MR" is based upon yet another short story of the late, great Philip K. Dick (who had to die before his estate could become wealthy from the rights to his work). The tale deals with a new technology that allows the police to arrest someone before they commit a murder.

In general -- nice try, but it doesn't quite come together. The CGI are so sophisticated that, in most scenes, it is not possible to tell what was filmed from what has been created through computer imaging, and the CGI is excellent. That's the good news. The bad news is that they have made a 160 minute movie out of a short story, leaving about 115 extra minutes to doodle with.

The movie is shot with a blue-gray metallic hue, perhaps to make it look "futuristic." However, the result is to make it look artificial, like an Etch-A-Sketch in color. The sound track is frequently unclear, which is especially annoying since you have to hear the dialog to have any idea of what is happening on screen.

The plot is basically Hollywood's 5th remake of "The Fugative," this time set 50 years into the future. A cop, mourning the death of his young son, is framed for murder (Tom Cruise) and runs for his life while trying to figure-out what happened and who did it to him. Supporting players are almost uniformly flat; even Max von Sydow comes across as tired and cranky instead of evil and scheming. The best sequence involve's Cruise's character having his eyes replaced by a maniac surgeon and then left to fend for himself in a filthy flop house while police robots search for him.

Technology is horribly mixed and improbable. After you are left to swallow that within the next 40 years genetic engineers will accidentally create mute clairvoyant savants that can foresee murders, you have to also choke-down police flying around with Buck Rogers rocket back-packs (very badly done, esp. for an SKG film), VTOL jet police cars, vomit-wands (colorful, non-lethal crowd control devices), guns that fire force fields to immobilize criminals, and a world-wide, error-free system of hundreds of millions of fully automated luxury cars that run not only on roads but up and down the sides of buildings, all by computer control and with no accidents (this the same month Amtrak is about to go out of business for a combination of technical and financial reasons). Product placement reminds one of "Back to the Future II," although in that movie, it was fun. In this movie, it's just marketing. VR computer technology shown in the movie is flashy and perhaps the only realistic approximation of technology likely in 2054.

The story gets ever more convoluted until I and those around me in the theater were murmuring, "What is going on? Who is that?" There is some clever plot misdirection and the finale' is ok but it isn't worth waiting two and a half hours for, especially when you know that Cruise is going to triumph. "Vanilla Sky," Cruise's recent movie, is so far superior to "MR" that the contrast is stark and disappointing.

My unsolicited, amateur rating: 3 out of 6.


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2002 1:23:37 PM PDT by pabianice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I have not seen it, nor do I plan to, given Spielberg's betrayal of the Boy Scouts.

Let me guess, in such a repressive society, the President is supposed to be a Republican.

2 posted on 06/30/2002 1:27:33 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
More importantly, **I** won't see it, because of the star: Tom Cruise poster-boy for the Cult^H^H^H^H Church of Scientology. . . .
3 posted on 06/30/2002 1:32:20 PM PDT by Salgak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
vomit-wands (colorful, non-lethal crowd control devices), guns that fire force fields to immobilize criminals

This ain't so farfetched. In fact I would be surprised if it takes 10 years for this stuff.
4 posted on 06/30/2002 1:37:15 PM PDT by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I already invented one ("Vomit Stick" aka 'Barf Baton') and patents are pending...

The Vomit Stick is a law enforcement device that, when police are confronted with a large out-of-control crowd, they employ use of this crowd-control device - the 'vomit stick' is actually a playback system, which transmits images of Hillary Clinton into the brainwaves of the crowd... though I classify it as non-lethal, testing has not quite been successful in that regard...

I can't wait to market it. Only drawback is, it doesn't work on Leftists...

5 posted on 06/30/2002 2:03:24 PM PDT by Chad Fairbanks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
In fact I would be surprised if it takes 10 years for this stuff.

Well, its in R+D now.

Sonic Doom (Acoustic Weapons)

6 posted on 06/30/2002 2:08:21 PM PDT by jae471
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I agree with much of your analysis. But I thought it far superior to last year's awful AI. The largest problem was suspending disbelief in clairvoyance which can "see" the future...it just so preposterous.
7 posted on 06/30/2002 2:18:05 PM PDT by Faraday
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
The real problems I had this movie were the two big plot holes.

1) The premise is that premeditated crimes have a 36-hour notice, while crimes of passion allow less than an hour. But the one they nail Anderton on is a crime of passion, but has a 36-hour lead time. What gives?
2) Why don't the police change the locks on their headquarters, so to (ocularly) speak? This is the one that really bothers me. The film falls apart if they deny TC retinal access.

8 posted on 06/30/2002 2:19:20 PM PDT by denydenydeny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Funny. I saw it last night, and that wasn't my reaction at all.

In spite of a relatively low body count, I found it quite a violent film (it should've been rated R). In some obvious ways this is a negative; however, it does contribute (if you can call it that) to the film's "shock value."

A couple of annoying camera effects aside, I thought it was well produced, and pretty much of a gripper.

WOuld I go see it again? Maybe. But then, I always did like PKD stories. I just can't wait for the upcoming film version of "Paycheck."

9 posted on 06/30/2002 2:23:41 PM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
IT was a really good movie, a great sci fi thriller, although a slightly lame ending
10 posted on 06/30/2002 2:25:45 PM PDT by equus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
2) Why don't the police change the locks on their headquarters, so to (ocularly) speak? This is the one that really bothers me. The film falls apart if they deny TC retinal access.

Not a plot hole at all -- they were too darn busy -- and incompetent. Remember, this movie was set in Washington, DC!

1) The premise is that premeditated crimes have a 36-hour notice, while crimes of passion allow less than an hour. But the one they nail Anderton on is a crime of passion, but has a 36-hour lead time. What gives?

Yeah, this was the one major plot hole. You juar have to suspend belief on that one. (WARNING - SPOILER AHEAD!) Or else, you consider that it was entirely premediated -- from the standpoint of someone other than Anderton.

11 posted on 06/30/2002 2:27:13 PM PDT by john in missouri
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All
Okay, I have not seen this movie, but I heard that the whole precrime thingie goes national at the end of the film. How does that work? What happens to Tom Cruise? Do those psychic mutants ever screw up?

I guess what I'm asking is for someone to explain the ending and everything for me so I don't have to go see it :-)
12 posted on 06/30/2002 2:31:57 PM PDT by Hawkeye's Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
"I have not seen it, nor do I plan to, given Spielberg's betrayal of the Boy Scouts.

Agree 100 percent. Anti-Boy Scouts = Anti-American in my book. Steven Spewburg and Levis are still at the top of my boycott list. And I am about as hardcore a Sci-Fi fan as there is, and used to buy levis jeans exclusively.

13 posted on 06/30/2002 2:42:27 PM PDT by JustAnAmerican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: JustAnAmerican
Spielberg is also a big FOB. Isn't that something? Kick the Scouts overboard yet schmooze with Bubba.
14 posted on 06/30/2002 2:46:30 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: JustAnAmerican
I forgot; he's also a big anti-gun dweeb.
15 posted on 06/30/2002 2:46:58 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Enjoyable review- Cruise is aming to be a movie mogle in his own right someday. Partially the film is meant to let us know that he is not aging much...,sorry Tom, nothing we can do about your real stature though.
16 posted on 06/30/2002 2:54:09 PM PDT by Helms
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
Wife and I walked out after 50 minutes. Really bad movie. We went against our better judgement after hearing Michael Medved give it an extremely positive review. I'm not getting burned by any more Tom Cruise movies.
17 posted on 06/30/2002 3:12:39 PM PDT by Bug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pabianice
I really enjoyed this movie. I am not usually a science fiction fan, but being that it was science fiction, I could overlook some of the things that usually bother me.

For an interesting review of this movie from a Christian site, check this link. They gave it a very good rating.

http://entertainment.crosswalk .com/partner/Article_Display_P age/0,,PTID74989|CHID304226|CI ID1143542,00.html
18 posted on 06/30/2002 3:49:07 PM PDT by AUsome Joy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
3.)Why doesn't the savant with TC (towards the end of the film) detect that von Sydow is committing a murder to set TC up?
19 posted on 06/30/2002 3:56:44 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: denydenydeny
>2) Why don't the police change the locks on their headquarters, so to (ocularly) speak? This is the one that really bothers me. The film falls apart if they deny TC retinal access.

He takes his eyes out to get into the Temple only to use his old eyes to get into the Temple.

20 posted on 06/30/2002 4:12:10 PM PDT by Dialup Llama
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-42 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson