The first 2/3rds of this movie are fantastic. It really soars, right up until the moment Crow is killed, and then it starts to go down a notch or two. The two plot twists that really hurt it were a) The g-man who was previously a clueless ladder-climber suddenly becomes the world's greatest detective and figures out that Tom Cruise was framed, and b) Director Burgess turns out to be the evil mastermind behind everything. Like Geof said, it became a little too formulaic at that point.

I was also a little disappointed at the attempted humor during the jet-pack chase scene. It seemed out of place. And the thing with using Tom Crusie's eyeballs to get back into the building twice was a little hard to swallow, seeing as how you'd think they'd cut off his access, especially after he had been put in storage. However, those are just minor nit-picks.

On the whole, I really enjoyed it.

Also, the print that I saw had amazing contrast. There was a "feature presentation" snipe which ended with a fade to black just before the actual movie started. When the cut to the real movie happened, I couldn't believe just how much darker the screen suddenly became. That continued throughout the whole movie. Very deep blacks. I appreciated that.

What I didn't like...
The grainy film that looked like colorized black and white.
Herky Jerky camera work.
The problem with a lot of futuristic films is that, like this one, they think that things are going to change more radically than they will or can. If they said this film takes place 100 years in the future I would have said Ok, but not 50. Magnetic cars on elevated highways? Hell we can't even get a good mass transit going around these parts. Futuristic pod-mobiles? Not a junker in sight? No pickup trucks? Buck Rogers jet packs? Think about it, I see cars from the 50s everytime I hit the road.
Just minor stuff, but I think they should get their dough back from their "future consultants" (ha).

I am going to play devil's advocate here though, because this really is an interesting topic of what really will life be like in 2054.

Well I can't say what things WILL be like in 2054, but lets put this to what things were like in 1950, compared to now. We have a space station, supersonic jets, the Hubble Telescope, road legal cars that drive 120 while feeling like you are still in park, computers that do more than add 1 plus 1 and are NOT the size of a large house anymore, etc, etc, and so on.

Take into account that magnetic transportation is not that far off. Nasa has been developing this for years and will be ready for tests within 25 years. Also realize that jet pack transportation was tested years ago, but was not deemed a viable form of transportation, but now is used in the space program. As for junker cars that wouldn't exist in the future, take into account that the environmental lobby has managed to put harder and harder restrictions as each year passes into emissions testing on vehicles. These restrictions get harder each year, and the reason is to cause the eventual removal of older vehicles on a faster time line, and to force the eventual demise of the fuel based vehicle. Remember also that we have between 100 and 200 years of fossil based fuels left to mine, so we are already seeking future options.

As to the loss of privacy and rights issues, we are already on that road as we speak, and all in the name of a little more security. I can't say that we will be able to predict crime, but just imagine what our government would do with that if they could.

Well it's true that futurists are often UNDERESTIMATING the amount of time it takes to get to where they say we will get to. After all it was in the early 1900's that they said we will have colonised the moon by 1950. Just add about 100 to 200 years to whatever they say and then you just about have it. The reason is not the ability to advance technologically or evolve species wise, but really it is down to pure political and capital gain involvment. If it doesnt get you power or make you a profit, or better yet, both, then it wont happen.

 |  IP: Logged

That's Kodak VISION Premier Color Print film 2393, with over a 10,000:1 contrast range (4.0 density) on the film. (Digital Cinema --- Eat your heart out! ):
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/lab/2393.shtml

Greg: When you suspect that there was some other force at work, there was: Philip Dick. He is about as far to the opposite side of the spectrum from Spielberg as you can get. I feel like his original story (which I haven't read yet) kept Spielberk in check at times.

Anyway, I really got a kick out of all the customized advertising gags and Tom Anderton getting so annoyed by the animated ad on his cereal box that he throws it across the room. Somehow I think a lot of that overdone "spam" is going to hit is in exactly this kind of customized way. Newspapers that change their headlines as you read them? Pretty cool. The retinal scanners being everywhere is more of a frightening thing reminding me of 1984 and the phrase "Big Brother is watching you." But with matters of crime and the money-grubbing need for up to date market research and data mining, I can definitely see a day coming in which we can all be tracked very very easily.

The "sick stick" gag (no pun intended) was a pretty funny moment. Such a pacification tool might come to pass and work better than any can of pepper spray.

There were other bits of "futurism" that I found very hard to believe. One of the biggest ones for me was the freeway on-ramp directly from Anderton's apartment. Knowing that the "Dallas High Five" mega-interchange between I-635 and North Central is going to cost $250 million alone, I would highly doubt anyone will ever have their own freeway on-ramp driveways. The future, I think, will include cars that can go on auto-pilot and drive themselves on digitally enhanced roadways.

One other bit I found hard to believe was the stuff regarding Tom Anderton's eyeballs. I liked some of the dramatic payoffs from it, but I know you cannot keep something like human eyes in a simple sandwich bag without those organs "spoiling." Any organ intended for transplant has to be kept very cold and fresh otherwise it will ruin.

But I really did like the film.

--jhawk

This was the 2nd time for me. An outstanding effort by Spielberg. The main thing I want to mention though is image quality. Aaron Haney said: "Also, the print that I saw had amazing contrast. There was a "feature presentation" snipe which ended with a fade to black just before the actual movie started. When the cut to the real movie happened, I couldn't believe just how much darker the screen suddenly became. That continued throughout the whole movie. Very deep blacks."

The print I saw today was exactly as Aaron describes. When the black leader of the feature started, it was nearly pitch black dark in the theater -- I actually thought the xenon had blown or something, the screen was so dark. Well, the entire movie was like that - incredible contrast, and very deep, rich blacks. I don't think I've ever seen anything like this before. And no, the screen is not under-lit. There was PLENTY of brightness (focus seemed perfect, and the image was steady too).

Long live film.

What I couldn't understand is why Speilberg didn't ban the Austin Powers in Goldmember trailer from Minority Report, which ran before the movie where I saw it. In the Austin Powers ad there's a character named Mole who has a mole on his lip that Powers makes fun of. In Minority Report there's a character with a mole the same size on the same spot on her lip. I was pulled immediately back to reality when I saw this, as was most of the audience based on the uneasy laughter.

Well, I came here to Film-Tech, and I discovered that Austin Powers was one of the enclosed trailers for Minority Report. Unbelievable!

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged