Rating: 
Summary: Just one small problem...
Review: ...and I suppose this problem isn't specific to Minority Report, but rather to every film in which the concepts of predicting the future, and changing the future, co-exist.The problem is this: The processes which 'precogs' use to see future events are done so with the assumption that these future events are predetermined, YET the premise of the film is built on the assumption that future events are NOT predetermined.
Rating: 
Summary: Spielberg is a hack (reason #2)
Review: It only gets worse. The film is barely watchable since everything is in a cheap bluish hue. It's the future man, get it? Crime is bad so we can predict when it will happen and bust yo tail down! Get it?? Tom Cruise has a baby (and loses him) by natural means. Get IT??? Robo-spiders examine your eyeballs to see if you are an outlaw! Get IT???? Me neither.
Rating: 
Summary: Should we give up freedom to fight crime? No!
Review: There is an incredible amount of insight that went into this movie. Everyone likes the idea of fighting crime: politicians get re-elected fighting it; police receive praise for attacking it at every nook and corner; citizens feel safer when, as a society, we are defeating it. Given this context, what would happen if a politician were to endorse the idea of locking up criminals before they engange in their criminal acts? It sounds good: after all, aren't they likely to engange in the act if they are locked up? Forget the issue as to whether such acts are constitutional (they clearly they are not), the question is, is it good policy? Dick points to the idea that it clearly isn't, and that while it may seem like a good idea to completely eradicate crime, the practice of doing so would clearly create far more harm than good. For instance, if we label someone as extremely likely to engange in the act and arrest them before they committ it, we are saying that people essentially have no free-will and we eliminate the possibility that they may change their thinking before they engange in the behavior. What we would be doing is, in a sense, locking people up for poor thoughts--no--dangerous thoughts. This is an important lesson for all those closet utopians who believe that an intellectual can come up with an idea and cure all of society's ills. This book clearly errs in being skeptical of those in power who would sacrifice our freedom in the name of temporary security. As Benjamin Franklin once said, "Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free." Michael Gordon
Rating:
Summary: An Intelligent Thriller With Big Budget Fun!
Review: It seems contradictory to use the words "blockbuster movie" and "intelligent story" in the same sentence, mostly because the big budget movies that fill the summer season's screens lack any kind of real depth and instead feature dazzling special effects and characters that are dazzling, but completely unbelievable. So it is interesting to note that, while "Minority Report" dazzles the audience with a future that is slick, cold and high-tech, it also delivers a story that is engaging, challenging and even thought-provoking. Set in the year 2054, "Minority Report" is the story of a new form of law enforcement, an agency called "Pre-Crime" that uses pre-cognative telepaths to hone in on murder victims and murderers before the actual crime takes place. By forseeing the future, these officers can prevent murders from occurring. John Anderton (Tom Cruise) heads up this department until the pre-cognatives have a vision that depicts Anderton committing the act of murder. Anderton, confused by the vision, and desperate to clear his name, runs and goes into hiding until he can figure out the meaning of a vision that one of the precognatives shares with him that somehow has to do with his own future actions. Confused? I was too, initially. The movie, which is far more intricate than my synopsis above suggests, is not a film to be viewed casually. If you are looking for mindless entertainment, this is not the film for you. Instead, this film builds layer upon layer, with complex and interesting dialogue between completely developed and believable characters. Anderton, who became an officer of "Pre-Crime" did so because his son was abducted from him, and much of the story surrounds not only the physical events that are occuring to him, but also the emotional impact and ramifications that one, single event had, and how it changed him forever. Mixed up in a conspiracy that reaches to the very heart of "Pre-Crime", Anderton must deal with his own guilt, anguish and fear, while trying to determine the cause of the actions that are playing out, leading up to the murder he will ultimately commit. The movie has a very cold look to it. Spielberg, whose films are known globally, took a very definite approach to this film. The colors are drab, done largely in blues and greys, and the film itself has a very grainy feel. The camera work too is shaky, consistent with the type of footage seen in documentaries and shows like "COPS", giving the film a gritty and dismal look that is far from the glossy images so commonly seen in Spielberg's works. The soundtrack, by John Williams, whose music is heard in most of Spielberg's films, provides a soundtrack that is erie, haunting, beautiful and dark, again, adding a dimension to the stories abysmal feeling. The action sequences are elaborate, and the effects first rate. So many films today, especially those that rely heavily on CG animation, tend to look animated, artificial. The world created here by Industrial Light and Magic is completely convincing, and the effects blend beautifully into the film, even with the grainy look that was achieved by Spielberg while shooting. As a whole, this is a complex, intelligent thriller, with a storyline that is sure to keep you on the edge of your seat to the very end. I think that the primary reason this film didn't achieve larger success in the theaters was its marketability compared to many of the other films that were being released at the same time. Because of the darker tones, this film is not for everyone, but it is definitely a worthwhile experience, and a film that should be viewed multiple times to attain the full experience of the story Spielberg has created. Scott Kolecki
Rating: 
Summary: I watched it!
Review: I suppose this movie could have been deeper if I was intoxicated but, unfortunately I was not able to get into it as much as I thought I would have. Tom Cruise certainly has a way to catch the audience with his facial expressions and active moments throughout the scenes, but it is not enough to make you sit still throughout the movie. In fact, you would probably want to change to regular TV about 20 minutes into it. There is too much going on for a plot that seems to be so simple... Mystery with drama(extremely exaggerated). I know the director wanted high-tech scenes and special effects...but give me a break. Maybe if the special effects weren't so much, the director could've concentrated more on bringing the authentic storyline out. The conclusion of the movie left me as blank as the emoticon on msn and emotionless. Don't take my word for it, watch the movie. Film is a form of art, but this is definitely a piece that has left a frown on my face and my head cocked to the side. Enjoy.
Rating: 
Summary: Awesome!
Review: This is a great movie! I'm impressed, not only is this movie action packed, but it has a well developed plot. This movie presents an interesting vision of the future. Tom Cruise has another strong performance, but he's not the only good actor in the movie. Good character interaction and great special effects make this movie very engaging and fun to watch. I would say that this movie is a must see, must own.
Rating:
Summary: Decent thriller, average sci-fi
Review: Sure, the special fx are fun to watch, but nothing ground-breaking. The acting is good, great in some cases. The film does succeed on the whole. But... The plot is what tripped me up the most here. What could have been a more profound statement on free-will and future-control turns out to be a less-than-satisfying murder mystery. "Is that all," I asked as the mystery was revealed. I found the revelation and the "point" of the film anticlimactic. Also -- one major continuity flaw. If the agency was on the look-out for Anderton, how in the world could he get in to their facility TWICE without being noticed? He used his own eyes to get past security. Don't you think that someone in the agency -- a computer at the least, would have alerted them that he was in the building? It almost seemed silly at this point.
Rating:
Summary: Typical dull hollywood version of Phillip K. Dick's short
Review: Nice visuals, but the biggest flaw was straying from the awesome story and twist of the original short by Phillip K. Dick. What made Minority Report great in the short was the ending. The fact that Anderson (Cruise in movie) had to kill the general at the end to prove Precrime's validity was a great twist. Instead, in the movie, it's your typical good guy, then suddenly revealed to be the culprit of the whole setup toward the end of the movie. Then his demeaner changes. Just too 'hollywood.' This would have been better if done indepedently.
Rating:
Summary: Drab and unemotional, but some nice gadgets
Review: What starts with a mildly interesting premise, 'what if we could stop murder before it's committed by arresting the perps when they consider it' folds under the pressure of a really bland, banal execution. Set in the future, another of those grainy monochromatic futures, Tom Cruise heads up the pre-crime division. A trio of pre-cogs floats in a watery like womb dispensing images of murders that will be committed unless stopped. Tom and his crew have that job. One of the coolest things in the movie is the interaction with the flat panel LCDs of the future which appear to be glass and optic based. Tom wears VR gloves [anyone remember the old Mattel glove? No?] and interacts with the system like a conductor with hand movements opening images, sliding things around, pretty nice. About the only other thing of interest is the traffic in the future crawls up and down buildings vertically like cockroaches as well as horizontally on the ground. The story is standard whodunit fare leading back to Brewmeister Smith as usual. Has Max ever played a hero outside of Bergman? <g> Anyhow, beyond the philosophical issues of pre-determination and causality there really just isn't much to the story, nothing compels us to like or care about these characters. The near future's product placement with the GAP and bottled water only ads to the dead and depressing ambience. Worth a look for free on cable I suppose.
Rating:
Summary: Visually Stimulating With Senseless Plot
Review: Murder has been wiped out in Washington DC thanks to the efforts of the precrime team and three precognitives. Max Von Sydow is the head of the team and Cruise is one of the officers. The precogs predicts murders and the team prevents them from happening. But one day Cruise is predicted to murder somebody. He goes on the run. Cruise tries to clear his name. That would have made a good movie but to much didn't fit. The crisis occurs just as the Precrime operation is going to go national. How? There are only the three precogs. Are they suddenly going to start sensing nationally? It doesn't make sense. We see lots of scenes of fabulous highways and cars driving on buildings (many look like cheap CGI and could have looked better) but all of these things are absent from all of the outside backgrounds (sort of like how Hogwarts towers are never visible in the outdoor scenes in the Harry Potter movies). This movie was very reminiscent of Spielberg's A.I. which was also full of stunning visuals not backed up by story or plot. With a little more attention and fewer special effects, this could have been an excellent film. A sad tribute to Philip K. Dick.
| 
