Minority Report

[Guest chirs3]

But that would only apply to crimes of passion. Predmeditators know what they're doing, know what will happen, and know they CHOSE to kill the person, and can inversely choose not to.

 

And remember, they got a Predmeditated one once that was two days away, and they said "Send a protection team to the victim" or something similar. It was a minor scene, I don't even remember it much, but one assumes from that that they don't take down the killer-to-be until he makes a move to kill. Otherwise, why send a protection team in when they could take the guy down two days before the murder?

 

If that assumption is correct, then the Precogs do successfully pin Premed murders that WILL happen, and in that regard the system is a success. The only ones in question would be the crimes of passion, and the Minority Reports, which are rendered unimportant if there's any other flaw in the system anyway.

 

But your explanation did help in some regards. Thanks.

[Guest DrTom]

I had a few problems with the movie, which I felt squandered an enormous amount of potential. It could have been great, but ended up weighted down by plot holes and shoddy storytelling in spots, and ended up being quite average.

 

The biggest complaint I have is that Spielberg didn't spend enough time getting into the ramifications of Pre-Crime, the brief religion debate, and things like that. I don't want a lot of social commentary, but the film raised some interesting questions and then swept them under the rug. The audience should always draw its own moral conclusions, but Spielberg could have had the decency to toss a couple logs on the fire instead of busting out the extinguishers right away.

 

The plot hole with Anderton being able to use his former eye(s) to gain access to Pre-Crime, and especially the "Temple" was irritating. It was even worse when his wife basically did the same thing, after he'd been put in prison. As I said above, shoddy storytelling. Keeping with the eyes theme a moment, I also didn't like how the spider lifted the bandage after six hours, yet Anderton suffered no ill effects. This was despite repeated warnings to keep the bandages on for 12 hours or go blind.

 

I also didn't like the ending. It was too neat and tidy, too Hollywood. Spielberg committed the same sin in AI: drag the move out for another 20 or so minutes just to send the audience home with an artificially happy ending.

 

In my Full TSM Review, I gave Minority Report a 5/10. It could have been so much better.

[Guest chirs3]

I had a few problems with the movie, which I felt squandered an enormous amount of potential. It could have been great, but ended up weighted down by plot holes and shoddy storytelling in spots, and ended up being quite average.

 

The biggest complaint I have is that Spielberg didn't spend enough time getting into the ramifications of Pre-Crime, the brief religion debate, and things like that. I don't want a lot of social commentary, but the film raised some interesting questions and then swept them under the rug. The audience should always draw its own moral conclusions, but Spielberg could have had the decency to toss a couple logs on the fire instead of busting out the extinguishers right away.

 

The plot hole with Anderton being able to use his former eye(s) to gain access to Pre-Crime, and especially the "Temple" was irritating. It was even worse when his wife basically did the same thing, after he'd been put in prison. As I said above, shoddy storytelling. Keeping with the eyes theme a moment, I also didn't like how the spider lifted the bandage after six hours, yet Anderton suffered no ill effects. This was despite repeated warnings to keep the bandages on for 12 hours or go blind.

 

I also didn't like the ending. It was too neat and tidy, too Hollywood. Spielberg committed the same sin in AI: drag the move out for another 20 or so minutes just to send the audience home with an artificially happy ending.

 

In my Full TSM Review, I gave Minority Report a 5/10. It could have been so much better.

 

You kick so much ass.

 

While my review was a little more colorful and immaturely written, it said more or less the same thing. They had great potential for the moral and ethical ideas and consequences that they never touched, and went too far for the happy ending.

 

Some of the plotholes I only saw in hindsight, but I agree - this is a movie where people go to be wowed with a good story, and plot holes of any kind, plus the hyper-extended happy ending, kill it.

 

This movie is not nearly as smart as everyone is selling it to be.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

I never said it was a smart movie, I said it was a good movie that I enjoyed. Honestly, the only opinion that counts when it comes to a movie is your own. Everyone else's is meaningless (except for debates, which are fun, but serve no real purpose).

 

Although I find debating plot points tiresome, if were forced to explain the "eyeballs working" plot hole everyone is complaining about, I would do it like this.

 

Once Anderton had been labelled a murderer, the PreCrime unit focused all of it's energy on finding him and preventing the murder. Perhaps the last thing on their mind was cancelling his "visual access" to the office, and they probably assumed he wouldn't be caught within 10 miles of the area anyway.

 

Or, it could be lazy screenwriting. It happens a lot in big budget Hollywood movies.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

Complaints about gaping plotholes and shoddy storytelling are okay. But bitching about "potential" is pointless. EVERY movie has the potential to be something else, but you can't damn them all for not living up to your personal expectations.

 

I don't Spielberg swept anything under the rug, he just didn't dwell on it as long as you would've liked. Sorry. Things like that slow the pacing. I wouldn't be surprised to see deleted scenes of this nature on the DVD, but for right now, Mr. Spielberg only had so much time. Summer audiences are antsy folks.

 

And WHAT religion debate? It was a side debate and it was relegated rightly to such. No way should that have been lingered on for any amount of time. Farell's character was simply using an analogy. It wasn't the jump off point for something more meaningful, I don't think.

 

As for Cruise using his old eyes to gain access into the building:

I think the Pre-Crime Unit either thought a.) Anderton would never come back or B.) wanted to know when he did. Because, let's face it, they already had the precogs' vision of his abducting Agatha, so they knew he would have to come back to pull that off. Colin's character already felt powerless to stop it because of the precogs' visions, so maybe he thought his best hope was to let Anderton infiltrate and capture him there. You know, the ol "let him come to us" trick. So, they sorta fulfilled the prophecy by refusing to take Anderton "outta the system".

 

Look at it like this: You've got a leg up; you know he's gotta come back. They wanted Anderton to come back, they already knew he would. But you can't catch the guy when he comes back unless you leave the backdoor open. So they did. Simple as that.

 

I was waiting for Cruise to say that he went blind in that one eye, too btw. But I guess it never happened. To be honest with you, after it happened I didn't think about it anymore. I was watching the movie, not worried about whether his one eye would be affected. I thought about it at the time, but I soon forgot. I was wrapped up in the story itself. Who's to say that his vision was perfect in that eye? Or if that shady doctor was just lying to him? Maybe he didn't open it wide enough for that spider to cause any long term effects? He WAS in a dark room and he BARELY cracked that eyelid. But I'm not gonna sit here and pick little things like that apart...

 

I think Speilberg touched on the ethics and philosophy as much as can be expected in a summer blockbuster starring Tom Cruise. He raised the questions, he left it to the audience to discuss/decide and didn't get the characters into any lengthy debate (which Tom wants SO bad). Which is the right move if that isn't the focus of your flick. Speilberg's focus wasn't to engage your brain and talk about the pre-crime aspect for 2 hours. It was to make a pretty-looking, action/thriller; not a movie to spark morality debates. Those going in expecting that are going to be sorely disappointed.

 

That approach isn't wrong, but it's not what this movie is and you've just gotta accept that. This isn't Blade Runner. I think Speilberg does his job addressing what he does address and answering the few questions he did raise.

 

In the beginning, the audience like Tom Cruise, believes in Pre-Crime and how it works. Cruise's character makes us believe. But through his debate with Colin Farrell's character and the Greenhouse Lady, we begin to see the flaws as Tom begins to see them as he slowly unravels the mystery.

 

We even see that Tom's superior KNEW of all it's flaws, but because he was seeking fame and fortune, he chose to ignore them. Even used them to his advantage.

 

Ultimately, all the questions that are raised are answered. Tom realizes nothing is perfect and that he may have put some innoent folks away due to all the imperfections in the system. Pre-Crime is disbanded and all the criminals set free. What more of an answer or debate do you want? Those were the ramifications. Spielberg could've made the movie Dr. Tom wanted and discussed the ethics of pre-crime but 1.) considering the ending I don't think it was needed (no need to beat you over the head with Tom and Colin's debate over and over) and 2.) intelligent debate does not a summer blockbuster make. And that's what this is and it's sole purpose is to make money, not pander to intellectuals and the arthouse crowd.

 

All of the plotholes and those other points are sorta valid, but look at it like this: people that make movies aren't idiots. I'm sure the movie got discussed a whole lot before, during and after production by the hundreds of people involved, and I'd wager alot of them know a fair bit more about movie making than us. So what we see as mistakes may not be errors at all. We don't really know the director's or cast's intentions. Spielberg just needs to stop copping out and giving us an extra half-hour of bullshit endings. That last 20 minutes of AI RUINED it for me.

 

It may not be supremely smart, but it's a little deeper than what the average movie-going automaton is used to; maybe that's where the "smart" tag comes from. It was very good for what it was, (and I'm looking at what it WAS, not what it WASN'T. It's unfair to rate a movie based on it's potential and what YOU personally thought it should be. You rate what IS there and what was there is damned good) and I'd have to go higher than 5 outta 10. That's an insult. It's a good sci-fi flick, just watered down compared to what your run-of-the-mill Asimov reader is used to. Too bad. It's superior to a popcorn movie like Planet of the Apes, but inferior (content-wise) to something as thought-provoking as say...Blade Runner. I'd give it 8 outta 10.

[Guest DrTom]

"EVERY movie has the potential to be something else..."

 

To a point, yes. "Dude, Where's My Car?" did not have the potential to be great, for example. It's a one-note joke full of crude humor, which, while funny at times, would never be great. "Minority Report" could have been great, and it wasn't. That's wasted potential.

 

"I don't [think] Spielberg swept anything under the rug, he just didn't dwell on it as long as you would've liked. Sorry. Things like that slow the pacing."

 

The thing is, not all conflict in movies needs to be physical, or be resolved physically. There were some very interesting undercurrents in the movie, but Spielberg never brought them out into the light. Things like that only slow down the pacing if you let them; they can be quite compelling if done properly.

 

"Summer audiences are antsy folks."

 

That's a cop-out.

 

"And WHAT religion debate? It was a side debate and it was relegated rightly to such. No way should that have been lingered on for any amount of time. Farell's character was simply using an analogy."

 

No he wasn't. He made a very specific point about the power resting with the priests, not the pre-cogs. I didn't expect (or want) anyone to get on a pulpit and bleat on and on about religion. But again, there's an interesting conflict that isn't physical and wouldn't be resolved physically. But because Spielberg apparently shares your opinion of summer audiences, we got a parade of CGI intermixed with action scenes.

 

"I think the Pre-Crime Unit either thought a.) Anderton would never come back or B.) wanted to know when he did."

 

Then a.) they're really stupid, and b.) they had thousands of other scanners able to keep an eye on him. I can't believe security would have worsened by such a revolting degree in fifty years. When someone is fired at my job, their network account is immediately disabled, and their ability to access any resource they previously had access to is terminated. It's ridiculous to presume the chief of Pre-Crime would still be able to access the building and all its top-secre areas when he's a high-profile fugitive charged with murder. It's just sloppy storytelling.

 

"I was watching the movie, not worried about whether his one eye would be affected."

 

I thought about it, since the "surgeon" character made it a point to tell Anderton more than once that the bandages were to stay on for 12 hours or he would go blind. But one side is peeled back after half that time -- and a light is shone into that eye -- with no ill effects. Again, sloppy storytelling.

 

"I think Speilberg touched on the ethics and philosophy as much as can be expected in a summer blockbuster starring Tom Cruise."

 

He glossed over them both. The problem is, science fiction is intelligent by its very nature, so stripping it of that intelligence in favor of shooting a futuristic whodunit with some neat sight gags insults the intelligence of the audience. Philip K. Dick was all about ethical conflicts and the ramifications of various things on the society he spent his career lampooning. It was disappointing to see that element removed from a movie based on one of his works. Summer audiences can handle a little bit of brains in their films, I think.

 

"Speilberg's focus wasn't to engage your brain and talk about the pre-crime aspect for 2 hours."

 

You seem to be under the impression that I wanted Anderton and Witwer to have a Lincoln-Douglas debate on the ethics of precrime, and how arresting innocent people is justifiable in a society ostensibly built on liberty. That's not what I wanted at all. But the movie only made token mention of this. Where was the backlash from society? If Witwer was there at the behest of the DOJ, where was the pressure they were exerting to see how airtight Pre-Crime really was?

 

"I think Speilberg does his job addressing what he does address and answering the few questions he did raise."

 

I don't want Spielberg to *answer* the questions. He does enough moralizing in his movies without drawing the audience's conclusions for them. What I wanted him to do was at least pay attention to the questions, make the characters seem interested in them, and make them relevant to the society in which the movie is set.

 

"And that's what this is and it's sole purpose is to make money, not pander to intellectuals and the arthouse crowd."

 

Any movie directed by Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise will make money. Cruise could be a sewage treatment worker, and the movie could be his quest for the perfect ham sandwich, and it would still make money because of its star power, and because summer audiences are large and tend to be easily entertained.

 

"Spielberg just needs to stop copping out and giving us an extra half-hour of bullshit endings. That last 20 minutes of AI RUINED it for me."

 

I will fully agree with you on both counts there.

 

"You rate what IS there and what was there is damned good..."

 

I did rate what was there. The problem is, it's hard to discuss what is there without bringing up what wasn't there. Every film misses some opportunities and has segments where things could have been done differently. Pointing these out and juding the movie based on that is perfectly acceptable.

 

"I'd give it 8 outta 10."

 

Then you're both more generous and more forgiving than I.

[Guest jimmy no nose]

I noticed some of the plot holes as well, but I still enjoyed the movie. I don't like the idea of taking down the rating of a movie based on potential. Every movie has potential to be a great movie, even Dude, Where's My Car could have been good.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

I don't agree with decreasing a movie's rating based on what you think the director SHOULD have done or what you believe he had the potential to do. That's unfair. Just because someone choose's a different route than you doesn't mean they are wrong or should be penalized.

 

The problem is, science fiction is intelligent by its very nature, so stripping it of that intelligence in favor of shooting a futuristic whodunit with some neat sight gags insults the intelligence of the audience. Philip K. Dick was all about ethical conflicts and the ramifications of various things on the society he spent his career lampooning. It was disappointing to see that element removed from a movie based on one of his works. Summer audiences can handle a little bit of brains in their films, I think.

 

Science fiction fans are an intelligent crowd. Minority Report was BASED on a science fiction work. But that doesn't mean that Spielberg was required to gear his movie to that audience or appease their sensibilities. He went for mass appeal and the masses don't want the same things you do. The summer audience as an excuse is not a cop out, it's the truth. If it wasn't the truth, movieland'd be a lot different. And maybe Spielberg would have the courage he used to. But what he won't do is cater to the pocket protector-wearing, Rodenberry-worshipping, "I still in live in my mom's basement" sect.

 

 

Any movie directed by Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise will make money. Cruise could be a sewage treatment worker, and the movie could be his quest for the perfect ham sandwich, and it would still make money because of its star power, and because summer audiences are large and tend to be easily entertained.

 

So when I generalize the summer audiences it's a cop out but when you do it, apparently it's ok. Sure Cruise and Spielberg could make some worthless tripe and put it out. And it would bomb regardless of who they are. Names bigger than them both have bombed at the box office before; I don't thin they are somehow are an exception. A bad movie is a bad movie, regardless of who's starring or directing.

 

What I wanted him to do was at least pay attention to the questions, make the characters seem interested in them, and make them relevant to the society in which the movie is set.

 

I think the characters in MR were supremely interested in the questions raised by the ethics behind pre-crime. It was their main motivator. Sure Cruise was out to prove his innocence, but once he realized there may be flaws in the system he championed, he was determined to shed light on them. Farrel was as well.

 

As for public backlash and such, maybe if they showed a city outside of DC. But even then, how can you be so sure there would be backlash? I know if someone told me there was a system that was perfect and would protect me and my loved ones from crime by predicting it, I wouldn't be up in arms trying to protest.

 

When someone is fired at my job, their network account is immediately disabled, and their ability to access any resource they previously had access to is terminated. It's ridiculous to presume the chief of Pre-Crime would still be able to access the building and all its top-secre areas when he's a high-profile fugitive charged with murder. It's just sloppy storytelling.

 

But at your job are they trying to capture you with the prior knowledge that you are definitely going to come back? They knew Cruise had to come back so they simply left the door open for him to return to make his apprehension easier. I never said it was a case of their security measures being bad.

 

the "surgeon" character made it a point to tell Anderton more than once that the bandages were to stay on for 12 hours or he would go blind. But one side is peeled back after half that time -- and a light is shone into that eye -- with no ill effects. Again, sloppy storytelling.

 

From my post above: Who's to say that his vision was perfect in that eye? Or if that shady doctor was just lying to him? Maybe he didn't open it wide enough for that spider to cause any long term effects? He WAS in a dark room and he BARELY cracked that eyelid. The doctor never said, "Let any light in whatsoever and you'll go COMPLETELY blind." If he did, I missed it. In life, people disobey doctor's orders all the time and live to tell the tale. More often than not, those orders are excessive to be on the safe side anyway, not because there are 100% necessary. But arguing that point about a movie is so stupid, I don't even wanna go any further.

 

I did rate what was there. The problem is, it's hard to discuss what is there without bringing up what wasn't there. Every film misses some opportunities and has segments where things could have been done differently.

 

You didn't only rate what was there, you decreased a rating based on what YOU thought SHOULD HAVE been there. That's not for you to judge. Every director is going to have a different vision. You've penalized this director because his vision differs from your own personal vision of what you thought a Dick adaption ought to be. But this is to be expected since fans of the source material are generally hard on adaptions. To them, nothing can be left out, changed or glossed over. If it is, it's some kinda supreme injustice or personal travesty. Gimme a break.

 

If you're a teacher, you grade what's handed in, not what you think the student should've handed in based on your personal assessments of his/her potential. And that's exactly what you did to MR. What Spielberg GAVE us is worth more than a 5 outta 10. What's on the screen is good; it's an insult to give it a 5. You'd be overlooking everything he did to rate it that low. But you rating is based on what is there, but what you think SHOULD be there. When you start nitpicking about what he left out and what you think he should've included then I can see why you're rating would decrease.

 

It's acceptable to point out those flaws and mention what you would've liked to have seen happen. What is unacceptable is letting your blind bias skew your grade. Each movie should be graded on it's own merits and what is there, not what isn't. What is there is quite good in MR. All in all, how you rate your movies is your business, but I don't rate movies based on what I think should've happened and the "potential".

 

You go in, you forget the book or whatever other source material, you throw your personal bias out the window, you clear your mind and you rate what you see. Had you done that and forgot about Dick's works, etc. your rating might be different. While a reviewer can't be completely unbiased, you can't go around for deducting points for what you think isn't there.

 

I aplogize in advance for any grammatical errors or typos, as I had to type this fast because I typed it TWICE and had a little 'puter problem. Also excuse if I didn't rebut each of your points. I just couldn't type all that jazz again.

[Guest jimmy no nose]

Wow, some good, semi-intelligent debate at thesmartmarks, who'd have thought that?

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

I hope you guys realize the guy who wrote the screenplay you are overanalyzing got paid millions to do so, while you're wasting your free time on a message board complaining about it for free.

 

Kind of makes you wonder what the point is.

[Guest DrTom]

" I don't agree with decreasing a movie's rating based on what you think the director SHOULD have done or what you believe he had the potential to do."

 

Then I guess we approach movie reviews differently. I think characters drive a story, and f the director keeps railroading them toward his vision and sacrificing elements of the story in the process, I'm going to call him on it.

 

"So when I generalize the summer audiences it's a cop out but when you do it, apparently it's ok."

 

I said they tend to be easily entertained. Your implication was that they can only handle straight-ahead adventure movies (and comedies, presumably), and any movie made for summer release should be made with that idea in mind.

 

"I think the characters in MR were supremely interested in the questions raised by the ethics behind pre-crime. It was their main motivator."

 

It was? Anderton's motivation was to prove his innocence, then bring down his boss after he learned what really happened. Everyone else, especially Burgess, seemed to want Pre-Crime to march onward and move into a national model. I didn't see much concern for ethics and things like that, except for a few throwaway comments.

 

"I know if someone told me there was a system that was perfect and would protect me and my loved ones from crime by predicting it, I wouldn't be up in arms trying to protest."

 

I don't believe in perfection, so I'd be immediately skeptical of it. I think a lot of other people would, too. There would be legal questions raised by something like Pre-Crime, and I don't think I'd be alone in raising them.

 

"Maybe he didn't open it wide enough for that spider to cause any long term effects?..."

 

And maybe spending a couple of scenes establishing the consequences for an action, then failing to deliver on them, is just poor storytelling. You might think it's silly, but it's a major oversight in my opinion, and one that's difficult to forgive.

 

"You didn't only rate what was there, you decreased a rating based on what YOU thought SHOULD HAVE been there."

 

Exactly. Squandered opportunities should be penalized.

 

"If you're a teacher, you grade what's handed in, not what you think the student should've handed in based on your personal assessments of his/her potential."

 

If that were true, there would be no room for teacher comments on report cards. It is absolutely a teacher's job to inform parents if their child is not living up to his potential. And if you see wasted potential in something you're grading, it's hard to judge it stricly on what's there because your opinion of it has already been colored by what isn't.

 

"What is unacceptable is letting your blind bias skew your grade."

 

How is it blind bias? Blind bias is something like, "Spielberg sucks, so this movie does too. Zero stars." I've stated what I think are the flaws with the movie, and why I think they knock its final score down. There's not one iota of that that's blind.

[Guest DrTom]

"Kind of makes you wonder what the point is."

 

Funny... I was wondering that very thing about your latest post.

[Guest chirs3]

Each movie should be graded on it's own merits and what is there, not what isn't.

 

So we should review the glass that's half full without noticing it's also half empty?

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

No, chirs 3, but you do have a responsibility to the fans who are reading your reviews to do something other than bash something based on your personal opinions rather than just telling them what was there and rating what was presented; not what you think should've been there or what you think should've been presented. Everyone has their own idea of how to write this, direct that, book this or shoot that. And it's fine to interject those comments. But your final grade is supposed to grade what is on the screen, not what you think didn't make it there.

 

That's exactly why reviewers who just needlessly bash something or are so biased it clouds their judgement aren't read for much more than entertainment purposes. Most good reviewers review the movie as best they can without saying "But in the book it was like this!" or "In the comic his costume was this color!". And that's basically what this argument is all about. Tom went in with expectations based on what he already knew. When those expectations weren't met, he thought the movie was lacking. But if you ask Joe Average on the street who hasn't ever read Dick, most of them will tell you the movie was great and very entertaining. They'd certainly give it more than 5 outta 10. And those are the people you write reviews for not the two guys playing Magic down at the local comic shop.

 

Head...hurts...

 

If that were true, there would be no room for teacher comments on report cards.

 

That's why there is a seperate space for teacher comments and another space for an actual grade. I don't see anything wrong with mentioning what you think may be lacking. I do it all the time. I just don't grade that way. I grade what is presented, not what I think wasn't presented or should have been presented.

 

How is it blind bias?

 

It's blind bias because you let your vision of what you think the movie should have been affect your rating. Because this is based on an author's work you are familiar with, you already had your mind made up going in as to what you wanted to see. When Spielberg didn't deliver that, you lashed out against him and decreased your rating because of it. That's the same shit every comic geek pulls when his/her favorite comic is adapted and it doesn't follow the 500+ issues over the years of continuity to the letter. They whine and cry foul instead of enjoying what IS there.

 

Squandered opportunities should be penalized.

 

But undestand that is a personal opinion. It is a squandered opportunity in YOUR eyes. Someone else may think he blew it somewhere else, another may think the flick was perfect. But a movie reviewer should do his best to be objective. To review a movie, you have a big responsibility to those reading your review. A reviewer can't be perfect, of course and a little personal bias will always exist but unless a movie is called "Freddy Got Fingered" you should try to call it somewhat straight down the middle and inform to the movie goer of what they are going to see, not what they're NOT gonna see or what you think they should've saw. It's fine to interject these comments into your review; that's what makes every review different but I don't agree with deducting points based on predetermined notions and potential.

 

I don't believe in perfection, so I'd be immediately skeptical of it. I think a lot of other people would, too. There would be legal questions raised by something like Pre-Crime, and I don't think I'd be alone in raising them.

 

Once again, that's you. When you direct a movie you can do whatever you like. But you can't say a guy is wrong and penalize him for disagreeing with you. Sure legal questions would be raised. That's why Farrell's character was there. He was the embodiment of this possible public backlash you wanted to see. Sorry Speilberg didn't opt to show mobs of angry picketers outside of the White House just for YOU; he went another route and hey, it's just a movie. But obviously there were enough people skeptical of Pre-Crime to warrant an investigation of their methods. What it seemed like to me personally, is that they were trying to investigate and point out any flaws BEFORE there was any public backlash; to sort of nip it in the bud before it got outta hand.

 

Anderton's motivation was to prove his innocence, then bring down his boss after he learned what really happened. Everyone else, especially Burgess, seemed to want Pre-Crime to march onward and move into a national model. I didn't see much concern for ethics and things like that, except for a few throwaway comments.

 

Anderton's "murder" rap did jumpstart all the action but along the way he did concern himself with the ethics of Pre-Crime. He didn't just want to bring down his boss for setting him up. After he found out the truth about his boss, he wanted to expose him AND the flaws in Pre-Crime at the same time. Anderton was very concerned that he had been putting away innocent men and that drove him just as much as anything else. As much as he wanted to prove his innocence he wanted to know just as much how fallible the system he believed in for so long was. He wanted to see the systme shut down if it contained all these flaws, not just prove his innocence or put away his boss.

 

I said they tend to be easily entertained. Your implication was that they can only handle straight-ahead adventure movies (and comedies, presumably), and any movie made for summer release should be made with that idea in mind.

 

I didn't imply that, but okay. All I said is that they are "antsy" and I don't think they wanna sit through three hours of a character-driven, dialogue-filled civics lesson. Go back and read my comment. I don't know how you got what you said above out of me simply saying that "Summer audiences are antsy folks".

 

You on the other hand, insulted them more than I did by OUTRIGHT saying that they are "easily entertained"; presumably by these straight-ahead action/adventure flicks or comedies you think that *I* think they wanna see. Unfortunately, I never said that. You can make any movie you like you like in the summertime and you can make it any genre. Just keep it interesting and keep it relatively short is what *I* was "implying". Spielberg did both. Your vision would not.

 

Then I guess we approach movie reviews differently. I think characters drive a story, and f the director keeps railroading them toward his vision and sacrificing elements of the story in the process, I'm going to call him on it.

 

I think it's safe to say we approach movie reviews differently. I try to stay objective and grade what was presented as opposed to what I think should've been presented. I'll comment on its shortcomings, sure, but I won't let if affect my final grade. Especially since everyone who goes to movies doesn't go looking for the same things as me. That's what makes it important to grade what is presented.

 

Not everyone goes in with the same expectations but everyone IS presented the same movie. I grade the movie AS IS, you grade according to what you believe are missed opportunities and so-called squandered potential. You go in saying, "Dick would've spent more time on this. Dick would've said that and touched on this." And then knock off a point every time the director doesn't take your road. I go in saying, "Let me watch this and not expect this movie to be just like the book because I KNOW it's not gonna be. Just give me what you got; forget the rest." That is exactly why comic geeks can't enjoy a movie like Batman. They're so concerned with what Burton didn't follow and what he supposedly didn't do right, they don't even bother to pay attention to what he actually did. They're too busy pointing out flaws and nitpicking. To give MR a 5 is to ignore what Spielberg did and instead you focused on what you think he didn't do.

 

I don't think Spielberg railroaded any characters on the way to telling the story that he was telling. The characters were shallow, cardboard cut-outs but so was the story he was telling. Now if he were telling the story YOU wanted him to tell, then yes, he railroaded the shit outta them and sacrificed looks for plot. But since his movie was paper thin (despite the source material being anything but) the characters are going to be, too. His way to the finish line of his movie was the right road to take. He may have taken the wrong road to the finish that YOU wanted, but then again, he was NEVER going the same direction as you anyway; he was NEVER making the movie YOU wanted to see in the first place. So I didn't see him as sacrificing story elements. He wasn't telling the story you were looking for or think he should've been telling. He was telling a more straight-forward summer audience story and he took the perfect route getting there.

 

Maybe next time, Ridley Scott or Paul Verhoeven'll direct the next Dick adaption and even then I have a feeling, none of his fans will be satisfied. Call it a hunch.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

Funny... I was wondering that very thing about your latest post.

Nice try. This coming from someone who writes mini-essays for every response. I don't have that much spare time.

[Guest DrTom]

"Tom went in with expectations based on what he already knew. When those expectations weren't met, he thought the movie was lacking."

 

This is getting to be a tiresome road to go down. I've read several of Philip K. Dick's books, but I haven't read the story that is the basis for "Minority Report." I didn't really know much going in. What I thought was lacking was entirely within the context of the movie.

 

" I grade what is presented, not what I think wasn't presented or should have been presented."

 

The thing is, stuff that is missing, stuff that could have been included, is still a part of the whole. If I see a place where a director could have introduced a cool story element and they didn't, I'm going to mention it, and that's going to affect my opinion of the movie. As I said, I think characters drive stories, and I don't like it when the director (or the writer, or anyone) gets in their way and moves the story along in spite of something else that might have happened.

 

"Because this is based on an author's work you are familiar with, you already had your mind made up going in as to what you wanted to see."

 

What I wanted to see was a compelling science fiction movie. I'm not familiar with the specific source material, so this isn't something like "Lord of the Rings," where I was going into the theatre knowing what was supposed to happen. (I gave LOTR a 9/10, btw, which is the highest score I've given a movie. Even "Spider-Man" only pulled an 8.5.) To me, "Minority Report" was just kind of empty. It had an attractive outer shell, but there just wasn't very much at its center, and there could have been a lot more just within the context of what was presented on the screen.

 

"Squandered opportunities should be penalized.

 

But undestand that is a personal opinion."

 

So is a movie review.

 

"But a movie reviewer should do his best to be objective."

 

A review is ultimately the reviewer's opinion of the movie. Opinions are, by their very nature, highly subjective. I think a better choice would be to say a movie reviewer should do his best to be fair. And I think I was fair. The movie did have its strengths, which I mentioned, but I also felt like it dropped the ball on several counts, which I also mentioned. Overall, that works out to be an average movie in my opinion. Without the missed opportunities, I probably would have given it a 7.

 

"But you can't say a guy is wrong and penalize him for disagreeing with you."

 

It's not that he's disagreeing with me. It's that he introduced certain elements into the movie, then did nothing with them, which to me is a missed opportunity.

 

"I don't think they wanna sit through three hours of a character-driven, dialogue-filled civics lesson."

 

That's certainly not what I wanted the movie to be. I wouldn't want to sit thru that, either.

 

"Just keep it interesting and keep it relatively short is what *I* was "implying". Spielberg did both. Your vision would not."

 

People are used to movies being over two hours now, so I don't see where the need is to keep it short. A good action movie or sci-fi film can routinely be two hours or longer; it's comedies that tend to wear out past ninety minutes. Anyway, my "vision" would not have added appreciably to the length of the film, but I think it would have developed the characters better and let them drive the story more. I guess that would have complicated the movie overall, but I don't really think that's a problem within the sci-fi genre.

 

"To give MR a 5 is to ignore what Spielberg did..."

"The characters were shallow, cardboard cut-outs but so was the story he was telling."

"But since his movie was paper thin..."

 

So I should ignore the fact that he made a paper-thin movie populated by shallow, cardboard cutout characters? I thought I was supposed to concentrate on what was there...

[Guest DrTom]

"This coming from someone who writes mini-essays for every response."

 

Wow, what a stinging indictment.

 

Was that brief enough for you?

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

This is getting to be a tiresome road to go down.

 

I agree. And since I am tired, I'll just have to agree to disagree. I have my opinion, you have yours and it's painfully obvious no one's mind is gonna change. So no more "mini essays" from yours truly. There's only so many ways you can say the same thing.

 

I also aim to please C.H.U.D.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

Was that brief enough for you?

No, because I still had to scroll past your next long ass essay post to get to this one.

 

Doesn't writing long, drawn out posts take up your social time?

 

Oh, nevermind.

[Guest Crucifixio Jones]

Doesn't writing long, drawn out posts take up your social time?

 

Oh, nevermind.

 

I wish I could tell you, C.H.U.D. how TIRED this "you have no life because you post on a messageboard" routine is.

 

If the best you have is "you don't have a social life because your posts are long" then maybe YOU should find something else to do.

 

Maybe some of us don't have to hunt & peck for every key and can type just as fast as we think. Obviously you're not capable of either.

[Guest C.H.U.D.]

Hello? Like anything you say about me means anything to me. Save your strength.

[Guest ArkhamGlobe]

I personally liked the film, despite it's short comings, until the ending, which came close to ruining the entire film for me. Then the plotholes started creeping up on me. The film got me worked up in my usual entertainment vs art debate with myself, and I thought the film worked as entertainment, but as art it was a HUGE missed opportunity. Most of the (biggest) problems could have been fixed with a simple rewrite of the screenplay. A little subtelty in the narrative goes a long way, which is something I think mr Spielberg should know. You don't have to hit the audience over the head with ethical debates and such to add depth to a film, present the issues and use the actual situations in the story, and the actions of the characters to add depth to them and then let the audience interpret them as they see fit, just do it in a more subtle way. You can can do a spectacular action movie and still add some ethical and philosophical depth to it without slowing down the pacing or dumbing down the narrative to appease the summer crowd. Were I using star ratings, I'd probably give it about ***½, as I thought it was good, but flawed.

 

(If my reply comes off as touching upon issues without discussing them further, it's because I'm too tired to go into more depth, I'll try to do that later on when I've gotten some rest).

[Guest jimmy no nose]

I think ArkhamGlobe had pretty much the same thoughts as I did. It was still a good movie although I thought something was missing.

Even though I disagree with DrTom, I find his posts to be very good and they make me think again about my opinion. I agree with Crucifixio Jones whose posts have also been quite good and have nicely shown the opposite of Tom's thinking. I don't see where the whole "They have no life because they write whole paragraphs" thing came from.