Minority Report

[Annux]

This is the image I get when I think of a wolverine:

http://animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/media//cleared/wolverine_th.jpg

I'm pretty sure (Prove me wrong) that most Wolverines are indeed tiny and do not reach the size of a bear. So using the one exception to back up an entire theory might be a bit improper.


More wolverine pictures that look like wolverines:

http://blindkat.tripod.com/zoo/wolverine1.jpg

http://blindkat.tripod.com/zoo/wolver1.jpghttp://blindkat.tripod.com/zoo/wolverine2.jpg

http://bss.sfsu.edu/geog/bholzman/courses/Fall00Projects/wolverinefigure1.JPG

[Puppet Master]

lol

[IlyaG]

Annux, I don't remember saying that thing that you quote me on. I'm not saying I did or did not say that, but I certainly don't remember it. And if you can somehow prove that I actually did say it, then all I can say is that my opinion of the movie apparently changed (though I don't remember ever thinking that the movie was anywhere close to "perfection", even when the ending credits started to roll in front of my eyes).

All I can say is that the more I think about LOTR, the more I dislike that movie... I'm still gonna check it out on DVD because it's an impressive action fest, though. It's just extremely thin on plot and any character development other than, "The hobbits never left their town... now they must travel on a great quest that will change their life"... but then again, this particular character development couldn't be any more subtle than if that blue monster from the udnerground level smashed his fist on top of your head.

I said "level" on purpose, since the movie is basically a three hour videogame, without any interactivity. The plot consists of characters venturing from one distinct environment (with it's own villains) to the next, exactly like a videogame where you go from level to level, battling the monsters that occupy it, and searching for a way out... only to enter yet another level. I'm basically saying that the movie has horrible pacing, which I attribute to the failure of the source material (which is written by a human being, and is therefore NOT perfect despite claims to the contrary).

My opinion of the movie (or the books it's based on, which I have no intention of ever reading) is not improved when Tolkien nerds justify the film's dubious Oscar win for Special Effects with the line, "It won for special effects because the cinematography with New Zealand in the background looked awesome!"

I STILL liked LOTR. Just like I liked the movie Independence Day. Flaws galore, but still enjoyable. Too bad CrvenBan can't enjoy movies just because of flaws like I can. And this is not an admission on my part that Minority Report has crippling flaws. Every movie has flaws.

CrvenBan, would you have liked Minority Report more if you saw it without knowing about the critical praise showered on it? I know I probably would've liked LOTR slightly more if LOTR wasn't praised so much (not by a lot, though).

Going in to see a movie not knowing anything about it, and then discovering that it's far better than anticipated is one of the greatest personal feelings you can have as a movie goer. When the movie Speed came out, it came out of nowhere. It wasn't really hyped. No one cared enough. Say what you will about Keanu Reeves or the screenplay, the people who first saw it realized they were witnessing before them one of the most revolutionary pop-corn action films since the original Die Hard. It's a great feeling. Speed isn't that great of a movie, but going to see it without realizing people think it's good makes you like it a LOT more.

I guess I'm just saying that the reason you disliked Minority Report is because you heard all the praise and were looking for flaws, because you expected something which the movie simply doesn't have. You probably would not do something had you not known about the critical success of the movie, and would have enjoyed it a lot more.

[CrvenBan]

About the LotR thing being like a video-game, I don't have all the facts, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that big chunk of RPG was based on writtings of Tolkien, and him alike. It was great adventure nonetheless.


I usually go see movies based on their director/cast, not att all due to hype (I saw LotR 3 weeks ago only) and I try to stay away from trailers (I dont even read back of the dvd/vhs box for info), just because I like to see it "clean". I want to find out what characters stand for during the movie, and if I do get that, then I can say char development was good. I didn't know anything about Minority Report apart from what I heard during AI, when it was said what Spielbers next project would be, and that was all up untill time I saw trailer and date of when it was coming to cinema. Next week I went and saw it. And I wasn't looking for flaws, but they kept popping up as I tried to hang with the story.

Camera work is typical Spielberg, so even that is not something original; it has been shown in Private Ryan. Characters are shallow, and story flaws are so obvious its rediculous for that type of movie on that level. Remember, it was supposed to be smart, dark thriller, done by a leading world director (I dont like him that much at all).


No one still explained how Anderton could plan a murder (there were brown marbles, not red ones) on a person he never knew (Leo), but only got to know 30secs before supposed crime. Even worse, why didn't pre-cogs pick up that murder as a murder of passion (since Anderton found about his son 10sec before supposed crime, a fact that would push him into passion-murder) ? Film does not follow its own story, own bases that it set up in the begining. And the story was its strong weapon.

Sigh, thumbs down for Minority Report. Spielberg has lost it too, and the fucker ruined Kubricks film too.

[IlyaG]

Anderton planned to commit this murder for years. Just because he didn't know who he was going to kill didn't stop him from planning it. He even told the guy in the apartment that he has thought about what he was going to do to the person had he ever found out who he was.

Also, remember him saying before reluctantly entering the Temple that by entering he creates a contamination? The fact he was there increased the psychic connection between him and the pre-cogs. Also, Samantha grabbed him, which increased it even further. It is not impossible to imagine that the link between them from that point on was much stronger than the link she had with the other people there... especially since their prediction came only moments after he entered the Temple. Remember that the power of the pre-cogs is based on DISTANCE, which explains why they only predict murder in the city they're in and why at the end of the movie they are isolated on an island to prevent them from seeing anything else.

Do you think these two elements of the screenplay (Anderton's line about planning the murder for years, and Anderton's line about contaminating the vision of the Pre-Cogs) were throw-aways? They're a part of the story because they explain this thing you think is a "flaw".

What are you gonna say to this explanation? That it doesn't satisfy you? That is just sad, man.

[CrvenBan]

That is the whole thing about the flaws, that's excatly what makes them even bigger flaws: holes are made to fit in plot by one line...cmon where's logic in that. Its only stupid, just like main villan giving himself away by one WRONG word. Yea, if it was some B-film. Now on with the show:

I didn't see that good male-nurse that took care of pre-cogs go through any kind of sterilizing room (and he was even in the pool at one time). If they were serious about contamination Spielberg would make that one scene where the nurse goes through a sterilizing process, thus telling the whole audience: make sure you wash your hand before going in. With that scene added I would buy contamination theory. Of course you can state that it would be too obvious, but story was supposed to be waterproof.

Cruises char said in the begining: Yea I'd kill fucker that took my son (something like that)....BUT...he would not KNOW who did that, if the pre-cogs DID NOT get that murder vision. There's paradox right there: at the time when they picked up vision Anderton did not know who took his son, thus making that vision impossible to even catch because it could not exist. So, if precogs are clairvoyant how can they see future that can not happen UNLESS they see it. It's a flaw right there (I dont mean to be picky right now, but we're discussing the movie, right). The only reason why he gets involved with Leo char is because he went looking for him not knowing who he is.

Clairvoyant, or able to see future should not be bound to a place or distance (maybe ppl/objects that come in touch with siars), but I would give you that, if they weren't 2 issues that come up:

1. They can only see murders, or parts of it (not clairvoyant), in which case putting them in remote area makes sense, but at the same time it makes escape scene impossible to happen, because that female precog could see future in that scene (and in other scenes). Not only murders but future.
2. Ability to see the future makes the final scene totally unnecessery because seeing future should not be bound to a certain place. They would see future no matter what, no matter where. Now if story said they could see future through objects/persons, that would be another story. Of course the whole Pre-crime could not exist because they were ISOLATED in pool whole time. Not to mention drugs that wear off as soon as pre-cogs leave the pool.

Its just contradictions that I see, and of course to some casual cinema visitor that could be good movie. I've been around movies for too long (even through my photography) to ignore those flaws that make whole story unbelivable. And again, this movie is based on the story.

[IlyaG]

"The story was supposed to be waterproof"

You've just proven to me you're a fucking idiot! That line alone made me realize I'm clearly not talking to a well-balanced individual.

It has become clear now that pointing out the flaws in YOUR argument would be a full time job. A job I do not wish to waste any more of my time on.

Nothing I can say or do can convince you that you're wrong and I'm right. Therefore, I will not post in this thread ever again. See ya around.

[Dabram]

Originally posted by Mythrandir
Donnie Darko is the best underrated movie I've seen. For me it's the best movie of the year, so far.

[CrvenBan]

Ilya abandoned me

Waterproof = impervious to or unaffected by water, ie has no HOLES in it.


I am just stating the facts on what I saw in the movie, if you can prove me wrong, then do so. Nothing that I said was made up, everything was there in the first place. Of course, one can add up every single piece on its own and draw the right conclusions, but that's not my job. I want movie with story that does not crumble to dust without explanation on a first question.

Minority Report does not deliver because of shallow, non-developed characters, lame out-of-place sub plots, and above all things a story that leaks all over the place. This is overrated piece of junk that ppl will praise, and keep on praising due to one or two names involved in making it.

You've just proven to me you're a fucking idiot! That line alone made me realize I'm clearly not talking to a well-balanced individual.

That clearly shows the state of your mind. Hmm, I had a feeling you were not 12 yrs old....

[Biatch]

Minority report was not that bad.

[Ewan]

sigh, stop bringing up the dead. We know you're sour about being banned, but do you really think this is going to make it any better?

[CrvenBan]

Lol what an old skank of thread.

Wonder what ppl think of Minority Report now...any changes ? Not with me, nope. How about you ?

[Necromotic]

what's minority report?

[Puppet Master]

wow i was a retard back then

[Mulkero]

I hated this movie while my friend liked it. I thought it was totally bs