Minority Report

[NebuchadnezzaR]

What do you think?

u put it will b terrible twice.

[HighWiredSith]

I think the premise is excellent, the source material, though I haven't read it, must be first rate if it flowed from the stylus of Phillip K. D_ick, and the director, Steven Speilberg has directed several of the best films ever made. I don't at all care for Tom Cruise, the most overrated actor of all time, but this could be a good film. However, it may get lost in all the Spiderman and Attack of the Clones hoopla...

[Nexus]

Er, no the second one reads "BARIBLE".

[Sonny]

it turned out to be just "ok". Nice idea, decent story but an all too predictable ending. Could there be room for a MR2 I wonder?

[Seraph]

Ick, don't be giving people ideas.

Funny, I really enjoyed it the first time I saw it, but unfortuantely it's a very "thin" film. Everything is displayed patently on the screen - which makes the re-watch value 0, and ensures that when you watch it again the lack of depth is transparently obvious. ~wonders how many allusions she can stuff in one paragraph~

[Nexus]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Ick, don't be giving people ideas.

Funny, I really enjoyed it the first time I saw it, but unfortuantely it's a very "thin" film. Everything is displayed patently on the screen - which makes the re-watch value 0, and ensures that when you watch it again the lack of depth is transparently obvious. ~wonders how many allusions she can stuff in one paragraph~

Most Spielberg films are like this.

[Seraph]

Totally disagree - fell down in this instance because it was a runner/who done it flick which bypassed character depth/emotive involvement - something Spielberg is usually good at. Explained it better in a different thread:

However to me it relies too much on the suspense of the final 'reveal' (or rather the audience's anticipation of what's going to happen), which means it leaves very little to be appreciated on watching it again - I just get irritated with Cruise and taking so flipping long running around like a headless chicken to work out what's going on. Er, except for Samantha, she rocks.

Only one which is just as guilty (although I'd say 10 times worse - on a character involvement level) is AI. To be fair War of the Worlds isn't far behind - eh, maybe he just has a problem with his later SF.

[Nexus]

Originally Posted by Seraph

Totally disagree - fell down in this instance because it was a runner/who done it flick which bypassed character depth/emotive involvement - something Spielberg is usually good at.

Well, I can't say about emotional involvement since everyone's going to be affacted difefrently, but I'm surprised you bring up character depth. One of the countless things Spielberg is criticized for is the lack of character depth, really. Saving Private Ryan was unwatchable for it's Bruckheimer-standard charicatures. But okey dokey.

[Seraph]

Never been one for following the masses.

Spielberg operates within the comercial arena, what he's lost in later years is the ability to get his audience to connect. His best films have always been where he has an emotional vien that travels through: ET - wonder, Close Encounters - discovery/self belief leading to purpose, Always - loss, Empire of the Sun - self discovery by transformation, Colour Purple - strength of love (Schindlers List obviously being the pinacle), or he'd use action/adrenaline in far more evolved way (ironically by keeping it rough and dirty) a la Jaws/Indie. However for each and everyone of these films, these elements started and ended with the characters and actors - even Jaws/Indie.

MR & AI both fell flat for me because (and WoW) they were too clinical, too glossy. Everything was washed out. AI should have been wonder a la ET but it got far too lost. WoW lacked the rough and ready fun action stuff he used to do so well, MR relied too much on formula.

(If that makes no sense don't blame me Im sick today)

[Nexus]

Oh, I know that. I was talking about the depth of characterisation, rather than emotional connection.

[HighWiredSith]

I dusted off my DVD of this film, which I have not watched in at least three years.

You know, it's still a solid film, very well filmed. I forget that smarmy Irishman whathisname is in this in a very decent role. Cruise, as always, manages to rise above his personality in just about every character he plays. This is still a very good movie, solidly one of the best PKD adaptations behind (way behind) Blade Runner

[The one......]

It is a good film- saw parts of it a few months ago and it still holds that wow factor. Well acted, well scripted and a lot of code in it too- I still have to harp on about the tramp saying Only the one eyed man is king', and with so much to do about the eyes and what they see, this is such a poignant line. Also very informative too in that sense.

With Tom Cruise getting his eyes done and using just one of them to show the spider things that he is okay, and alive , he becomes king in having the power to release the precog.

[HighWiredSith]

As fun and as easy as it is to bash Tom Cruise you have to give the man credit for having the ability to rise above his personality quirks and/or disorders and practice his craft solidly. You look at other meltdown-eque actors in the last few years and it's clear they have no ability to draw that line between themselves and the characters they play on film. Every Cruise movie I've watched in the last couple of years (The Last Samuri, Mission Impossible 3, War of the Worlds...) I have approached fully expecting to see a disply of couch jumping, scientology preaching lunacy only to discover, much to my surprise, that Cruise is a solid, talented actor. So yeah, kudos to Tom Cruise. He looks pretty darn sharp as that one eye'd Nazi in Valkrye.

[scifi_lover]

I really liked Minority Report. I'm not really a big Tom Cruise fan, but it was a good movie.