Minority Report

[Guest El Satanico]

I admit it does look good from the previews. However does anyone else think that it would've been better if someone other then Spielberg directed it. It sounds like a movie that Kubrick would've made and i don't think Spielbrg is the right guy for movies like that.

 

Don't get me wrong Spielberg is good and while i don't like him i'm not calling him a bad director. The problem with Spielberg is that he lets his political views invade his movies. On alot of his movies he seems to water down the ideas behind the movie like he's afraid of taking a chance of offending anyone or making people think about "bad stuff".

 

From what i've seen about Minority Report it appears that it probably touches on dark aspects of humanity and paints a bleak emotionless picture of the future. Like i said it appears to be a very Kubrickesqe type of movie and as shown in A.I.(which i didn't think was bad) Spielberg isn't that great at making those type of movies. I fear that Spielberg will water down any "dark ideas" brought up in the movie and it will end up as nothing but another sugary happy happy fun for whole family Spielberg film.

[Guest J*ingus]

Well, I've heard that the movie is very much a sci-fi action thriller, and definitely not so much an "idea" picture as A.I. was.  And for all the knocking that Spielberg gets, remember that this is the man who directed Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, two brutal and horrific movies with endings that were bittersweet at best.

[Guest areacode212]

From what I've read, he at least attempted to make the movie work on more than just an "action thriller" level. Here are a few paragraphs from an article I read over the weekend that I thought were interesting:

 

LOOKING around at a summer filled with sequels, special-effects franchises and kiddie fluff, Steven Spielberg decided that there was no better time to release his latest film, "Minority Report," a dark, complex, futuristic whodunit starring one of Hollywood's top stars, Tom Cruise.

 

"I thought that this could be more than just another action movie starring Tom Cruise," Mr. Spielberg said. "I thought this could be more than `Mission: Impossible 3.' I wanted a movie with layers and with a little more substance. Because I would have been the wrong director to do just another potboiler. I save my potboilers for the Indiana Jones series."

.

.

.

The strategy behind "Minority Report," Mr. Spielberg and Mr. Cruise said in separate interviews recently at a Beverly Hills hotel, was to marry two kinds of films — the action-packed blockbuster that is normally seen in the hot months and the more complex and demanding drama of ideas, the sort of film one is more likely to find in the fall and winter, closer to the awards season.

.

.

.

Like H. G. Wells's "War of the Worlds," a science-fiction allegory about colonialism, or his "Time Machine," an allegory about class struggle, "Minority Report" uses science-fiction to try to address, in an indirect way, issues that are the subject of political debate today, Mr. Cruise said.

 

Mr. Spielberg said: "Right now, people are willing to give away a lot of their freedoms in order to feel safe. They're willing to give the F.B.I. and the C.I.A. far-reaching powers to, as George W. Bush often says, root out those individuals who are a danger to our way of living. I am on the president's side in this instance. I am willing to give up some of my personal freedoms in order to stop 9/11 from ever happening again. But the question is, Where do you draw the line? How much freedom are you willing to give up? That is what this movie is about."

 

In fact, rapid advances in brain-mapping and neurology that could allow scientists to predict who is more likely to commit aggressive, anti-social or even criminal acts are already causing scientists to grapple with ethical questions involving law, forensics and civil liberties. "This is an area that is just now emerging into the scientific and legal discussion," said Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, who knows the plot of "Minority Report" but hasn't seen it. "Normally, I'm pretty critical of the way Hollywood handles scientific issues, but this one seems to have really hit the mark at just the right moment."

 

The rest of the article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/06/16/movies/16LYMA.html

 

You may have to register to read it, but registering is quick.

[Guest MarvinisaLunatic]

Im trying to figure out how the premise of Arresting future criminals works, especially murder.  Lets say in the future Im supposed to kill you, and I get arrested for it, do you still get killed?  If you didn't get killed, why the hell should I get arrested then?  Maybe they explain it more in the movie, and maybe it kinda is a cool futuristic idea to arrest people for doing something that they are supposed to do in the future before they do it, but it still is kinda stupid to me.

[Guest TUS_02]

The first trailer made this movie look awful.  But the second one and those since have made me very interested in it.  I guess I'm a closet Cruise fan and Colin Farrell looks like he's gonna whoop some ass.  Spielberg is hit or miss, and this looks like a hit.

[Guest Kahran Ramsus]

Im trying to figure out how the premise of Arresting future criminals works, especially murder.  Lets say in the future Im supposed to kill you, and I get arrested for it, do you still get killed?  If you didn't get killed, why the hell should I get arrested then?  Maybe they explain it more in the movie, and maybe it kinda is a cool futuristic idea to arrest people for doing something that they are supposed to do in the future before they do it, but it still is kinda stupid to me.

 

That is actually the main argument presented in the movie.  Whether the system works.

[Guest]

Another-version-of-Timecop.

[Guest J*ingus]

Actually, it's based on a short story by Philip K. Dick which was written many years before Timecop ever came out.

[Guest Black Lushus]

was Philip K. Dick the guy that wrote Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep, which Blade RUnner was based off of?

[Guest El Satanico]

Well i'm sure that it's mainly a action movie but sci fi action movies can still have a mind. It's based on a story written by a popular sci fi writer so i'm sure that the original story presented "ideas" and/or views on society. I hope that the article quoted by areacode is an accurate description of what the movie will be like. Actually hearing that Spielberg wants the movie to represent a view on society is a good sign, i just hope he doesn't water them down. I'm still not sold on him directing it. I still believe some other director would handle it better then Spielberg.

 

 

Saving Private Ryan wasn't that "horrific". Yeah the first 15 minutes were "brutal", but other then that it was nothing more then a cookie cutter war film. However then Spielberg ruined the movie by impling that all german soldiers were some sort of demons sent from the bowels of hell and that the allied forces were Saintly men sent by god and they could do no wrong.

 

Never seen Shindlers List but i'll give him that one. The only problem is that SPR and Shindlers List were "historical" movies so he couldn't really tone it down much.

 

Those movies were "horrific" because they were about real "horrific" events and is totally different from what i was talking about. I was referring to "dark ideas" or "hard edged views on society" which movies like this should have. And like i said A.I. showed that Spielberg isn't that great at handling that stuff.

[Guest redbaron51]

Saving Private Ryan wasn't that "horrific". Yeah the first 15 minutes were "brutal", but other then that it was nothing more then a cookie cutter war film. However then Spielberg ruined the movie by impling that all german soldiers were some sort of demons sent from the bowels of hell and that the allied forces were Saintly men sent by god and they could do no wrong.

What did you expect? Pratically everyone thought that the Germans were evil, driven by Satan (Hitler), and as all hollywood movies, they change the historical facts into fiction, and makes it unbelievable. In WWI the Americans were Saintly men in the war, in WWII, Americans were average people who basically helped Britian fight the Nazi Party, while Canada was liberating the dutch. He glorified the Americans too much.

[Guest Vyce]

I personally think that Spielberg is the most overrated director EVER.  He's directed some great films, true.  But sometimes he's made out to be the best director of all time, and I just don't feel that's true.

 

Im trying to figure out how the premise of Arresting future criminals works, especially murder.  Lets say in the future Im supposed to kill you, and I get arrested for it, do you still get killed?  If you didn't get killed, why the hell should I get arrested then?

 

For a great book with the same theme, read Alfred Bester's "The Demolished Man".  I believe it was written before the Dick story as well.

[Guest J*ingus]

Yes Lushus, that's the guy.  

 

Personally, I think Spielberg is one of the best directors alive.  Just look at his film list: Duel, Jaws, Close Encounters of the 3rd Kind, Raiders of the Lost Ark, E.T., Indiana Jones & the Temple of Doom, The Color Purple, Jurassic Park, Schindler's List, and Saving Private Ryan.  Yes, he's made some dogs too, but how many other directors have such a list of very good (and very different) films?

[Guest Black Lushus]

no the guy that's overrated is James Cameron...sure T2 was good, Aliens, yadda yadda, but Titanic was shit...where has he been lately anyway?  I did like the Abyss though but that's because Michael Biehn is the shiznit...so is Bill Paxton!  Anyway, if it wasn't for special effects, Cameron would be nothing...  

 

i'm still trying to figure out the Bill Paxton/Michael Biehn/Arnold Schwarzenneger/James Cameron connection.  you almost always see those guys together in some combination: Terminator, Navy Seals, T2, Aliens, Titanic, The Abyss, True Lies, Tombstone all had some sort of combination (though I think Terminator is the only one to have all 4 together).  Any ideas about this or is it just a weird coincidence?

[Guest]

Colin Farrel was on the conan O'brien show last night. Seems like a pretty cool guy, more entertaining than when Cruise is interviewed. But they showed a scene that think should have been in the previews.

 

Colin farrel and Cruise are talking and Farrel asks "How do you know they are going to go through with the act? What if the think it but dont do it"

Cruise then rolls a ball across the table, which Farrel catches.

Cruise:"Why did you catch it?"

Farel:"Because it was going to fall"

Cruise:"Exactly"

 

That scene right there makes me want to see the movie.

[Guest El Satanico]

What did you expect? Pratically everyone thought that the Germans were evil, driven by Satan (Hitler), and as all hollywood movies, they change the historical facts into fiction, and makes it unbelievable. In WWI the Americans were Saintly men in the war, in WWII, Americans were average people who basically helped Britian fight the Nazi Party, while Canada was liberating the dutch. He glorified the Americans too much.

Oh i fully expected it going in. I wasn't surprised at all, but still it pissed me off.

[Guest CoreyLazarus416]

I think Spielberg either make a great film or a piece of shit, with no middle ground. Well...Hook is a personal favorite of mine, but that's only because I like the story of Peter Pan, and I somehow enjoy continuations of old stories and modern updates (but not that terrible, terrible update of Romeo & Juliet that had DiCaprio in it).

 

Hmmm...you've noticed the connection between those 4 as well, eh Lushus? I used to have a theory that Biehn and Paxton were in most of their movies together...

 

And, for the record, Cameron's only bad film was Titanic, but even that had redeemable moments (the last 20 minutes are hysterical, and DiCaprio dies).

[Guest J*ingus]

I liked Titanic, but I'm in the vast minority on this board on that point, so I'm not even going to argue it.  

 

But Cameron is a hell of a director with a great resume: Terminator, Aliens, The Abyss, and T2 are all universally regarded as being good-to-great movies, and lots of people liked True Lies too.  The only movie he made that was REALLY bad was his first one, Pirahna 2: The Spawning.

[Guest Ripper]

Now, maybe I have the whole war movie swirl going(when all of them melt into one and I don't even remember which is which) but didn't saving privat Ryan feature a couple of scenes where the Americans were killing surrendering german officers. i mean, that isn't that damn saintly. I can say that in that movie, the German soilders were shown as nothing more than dedicatied to thier contry and never did anything that would resemble malice in war time. The German officers getting guned down while having dinner comes to mind as a scene where the American troops appeared a bit more cold heated.

 

 

 

And here is my thing about those "go back in time and change stuff" movies.

 

If I try to go back and stop a murder...lets say I wanted to stop MLK from being assasinated, a whole alternate reality would start where he didn't die. So when it comes up to when I went back in time in the first place, It never happened...so why would I go back? It seems like a big circle would start. But of course, as long as it is a action movie, I usually throw reality out the window and sit back and enjoy...As should all of you

[Guest Angle-plex]

But what would happen if you went back in time and killed your gandma? You would shoot here, which would mean that you would have never existed, which means that you could have never gone back and time and shot her, which means she'll be alive.

[Guest King_TIL]

Believe the hype. Go see this movie.

 

And regardless of whatever questionable movies Spielberg has directed (like the Lost World), he still has a resume of amazing movies that speaks for itself.

[Guest MaxPower27]

I was planning on maybe seeing it, but I saw the previews, and they lost me in the previews. Cruise is running, then there are these snail looking robots, which caused me to say, "What the fuck is that?!" outloud in the theatre. I don't like sci-fi, so the fact that they showed it in the preview, I'm thankful.

[Guest J*ingus]

they lost me in the previews... I don't like sci-fi

I don't understand moviegoers like you. You dislike a movie just because it's sci-fi? That's like a friend of mine who always pisses me off when he says "I just don't like movies that are set in outer space". That's an awfully broad range of films. Technically speaking Attack of the Clones, Men In Black 2, Spider-Man, and Minority Report are all sci-fi flicks, but they're all vastly different movies.