The future, we are told, are what we make of it. Philip K. Dick did not want to take that chance, so he wrote many many many short stories about the future of man and where we, as a society, were headed. Blade Runner, Total Recall, Paycheck, Screamers, and Minority Report are all short stories written by Dick about the future that have been turned into a movie, and most have a less than enthusiastic view of where we are headed. In Minority Report, we see the effects of predicting the future to the point of crimes are prevented by arresting murderers before they kill. If that does not appear logical, there is a quick little scene early in the movie that addresses those concerns, and on the surface makes sense. Tom Cruise plays the Washington, DC pre-crime chief, John Anderton, who runs the investigators who rely on 3 scientifically engineered beings who can see murders before they happen. The system, of course, raises civil liberty issues, but seems to work perfectly, that is until Anderton is fingered for a murder. The rest of the movie, Anderton tries to not only prove that he is innocent, but also that he was set up, possibly by an oily Department of Justice figure who is investigating Precrime before it goes national after an election, played by Colin Farrell. Directed by Steven Spielberg, Minority Report plays as both a "Whodunnit?" and a futuristic exercise of science fiction. Much time was spent on designing the Washington, DC of the 2050s, including cars that run on magnets, virtual reality stations, and much more throughout the film. The most interesting design is of the "sick sticks" used by cops to bring down criminals. The blueish tint given to the film also gives us a cold feeling, a future that is not as loving or as hospitable as the time we live in, another trait of a Dick story. A wonderful movie the works for both the crime buff and the science fiction fan.
1,470 Reviews
Underrated & A Film To Think About
ccthemovieman-113 February 2007
This gets high marks for being an involving film that, despite a long length of almost two- and-a-half hours, keeps ones interest all the way. Being a Stephen Spielberg-directed film, it's no surprise that the photography is first-rate. This is nice-looking movie. Tom Cruise also was very good in here, not the obnoxious character he sometimes portrays (or did more often in his younger days.).
The film is a good mixture of action and suspense. Only the one chase scene was overdone with Rambo-like mentality of the good guys not getting hit when they should, and vice- versa.
The subject matter is interesting, too: what would do you (or the police) had very reliable information on crimes that were about to be committed, that you could prevent things from happening before they actually did?
I recognized two people in here who went on shortly thereafter to become recognizable in TV series: Kathryn Morris ("Cold Case") and Neal McDonough ("Boomtown"). Add Colin Farrell, Max Von Sydow, Samantha Morton and you have an interesting cast. I am of the opinion that this is one of Spielberg's underrated gems.
The film is a good mixture of action and suspense. Only the one chase scene was overdone with Rambo-like mentality of the good guys not getting hit when they should, and vice- versa.
The subject matter is interesting, too: what would do you (or the police) had very reliable information on crimes that were about to be committed, that you could prevent things from happening before they actually did?
I recognized two people in here who went on shortly thereafter to become recognizable in TV series: Kathryn Morris ("Cold Case") and Neal McDonough ("Boomtown"). Add Colin Farrell, Max Von Sydow, Samantha Morton and you have an interesting cast. I am of the opinion that this is one of Spielberg's underrated gems.
Looks great, interesting story
rbverhoef4 February 2003
May be this film has some flaws but while watching it I wasn't too distracted by that. Here we have one of the greatest directors alive (Steven Spielberg), a very big star (Tom Cruise) with a great ensemble (Max von Sydow, Colin Farrell, Peter Stormare, Samantha Morton, Tim Blake Nelson) around him, a good cinematography (Janusz Kaminski) and a nice score by John Williams all packed in a great story (based on the novel by Philip K. Dick) with perfect visual effects.
In the year 2054 murders can be predicted and stopped before they happen. If you were about to kill but stopped you are locked. Tom Cruise is one of the agents who stops those murders. Then he discovers the next murder they have to stop will be committed by himself.
I will not reveal more of the plot. The story itself is great. It is intelligent, but also exciting with great action scenes. The visuals are truly beautiful and perfectly support the sci-fi story. If you like action thrillers and you don't mind they are set in the future (with some futuristic gadgets) this is your film. 9/10.
In the year 2054 murders can be predicted and stopped before they happen. If you were about to kill but stopped you are locked. Tom Cruise is one of the agents who stops those murders. Then he discovers the next murder they have to stop will be committed by himself.
I will not reveal more of the plot. The story itself is great. It is intelligent, but also exciting with great action scenes. The visuals are truly beautiful and perfectly support the sci-fi story. If you like action thrillers and you don't mind they are set in the future (with some futuristic gadgets) this is your film. 9/10.
Minority Report is one of the top films of 2002
fsuplaya200317 July 2002
I read a lot of previous posts about this movie. This is one of the best films of the year, and of recent years. This is a perfect blend of action, suspense, thrills and film-noir. The plot is intelligent and fresh. People saying it is not original must have slept through the movie. Tom Cruise is fantastic, Colin Farrell is amazing, as well as Samantha Morton. Spielberg again proves that he is the master of cinema. A truly great director. I'll agree, the ending was a little too happy, but not worth complaining about. This film is not about product placement as previously suggested, it is simply a entertaining and yet realistic glimpse of what our future may look like, as advertising becomes more advanced and intrusive. The film creates many moral questions and issues, and should leave you thinking. Is being arrested for doing something you actually havn't commited yet fair? It is worth seeing again and again. As a film lover and critic, i can say it is one amazing movie.
What must film makers do? This was GOOD - believe nothing else.
DGoodger17 July 2002
I think some people just write reviews for sites like this because they like to complain. I actually find myself wondering if all the gripers here have actually seen Minority Report, as I just have, because I have to say that is one of the most gripping and involving movies I have seen in quite a while.
The content is amazing - all the little details that put the audience firmly in the middle of the 21st century. Personally I can absolutely believe that technology will have advanced in the kind of ways portrayed in the film within 50 years. Just look back 50 years into the past and you should be able to see why. The lives of everyday people in the film, where they are scanned and advertised 'at' all day every day, apart from an excuse for product placement (and why not?), certainly make you think about a world where 'they' know your every move (a future towards which we are already hurtling with some speed).
The style is amazing - why the wooden balls? Because they're cool is why. I like to think that as we progress as a civilization we will keep a few such elegant idiosyncrasies knocking around. The plastic, chrome and glass sets, objects and architecture all looked clean and functional and the way that they suck the color out of a scene worked well and gave the film a distinctive palette. The cars are the best looking vehicles I have ever seen in a film. I have only one criticism here - why do all the computer displays look like Macs? Surely a touch unrealistic ;)
The story is amazing - complicated, yes, but also engrossing, exciting and scary. There are elements here that are only hinted at, but which give the plot a depth increasingly lacking in modern action flicks. And it asks the kind of questions about morality, justice, exploitation and society that'll keep you thinking for much longer that the film's two and some hours.
The direction and performances are amazing - the pre-visualization on this movie must have been a nightmare and yet all the incredible special effects blend perfectly into a visual style that is completely natural and assured, as might be expected from Spielberg and Michael Kahn. There are, of course, numerous references and homages to the work of Stanley Kubrick, which have given a hint of the edge and flair of 'Clockwork Orange' or '2001'. I hope it will continue to be a big influence on Spielberg.
Cruise delivers a first class performance as usual, but the discovery of this film is Samantha Morton as Agatha. Who saw the film and didn't share her terror and vulnerability? Little touches such as the way she clings to Cruise, almost like a baby's reflex, make her a character you immediately care about, innocent and tragic.
Anyway, if that's not enough to recommend the film, then you'll probably never find another one you like again. But if you need another reason, go to see it just for another fantastic soundtrack from the master, John Williams.
Full marks, five stars, a must see several times and buy the DVD movie.
The content is amazing - all the little details that put the audience firmly in the middle of the 21st century. Personally I can absolutely believe that technology will have advanced in the kind of ways portrayed in the film within 50 years. Just look back 50 years into the past and you should be able to see why. The lives of everyday people in the film, where they are scanned and advertised 'at' all day every day, apart from an excuse for product placement (and why not?), certainly make you think about a world where 'they' know your every move (a future towards which we are already hurtling with some speed).
The style is amazing - why the wooden balls? Because they're cool is why. I like to think that as we progress as a civilization we will keep a few such elegant idiosyncrasies knocking around. The plastic, chrome and glass sets, objects and architecture all looked clean and functional and the way that they suck the color out of a scene worked well and gave the film a distinctive palette. The cars are the best looking vehicles I have ever seen in a film. I have only one criticism here - why do all the computer displays look like Macs? Surely a touch unrealistic ;)
The story is amazing - complicated, yes, but also engrossing, exciting and scary. There are elements here that are only hinted at, but which give the plot a depth increasingly lacking in modern action flicks. And it asks the kind of questions about morality, justice, exploitation and society that'll keep you thinking for much longer that the film's two and some hours.
The direction and performances are amazing - the pre-visualization on this movie must have been a nightmare and yet all the incredible special effects blend perfectly into a visual style that is completely natural and assured, as might be expected from Spielberg and Michael Kahn. There are, of course, numerous references and homages to the work of Stanley Kubrick, which have given a hint of the edge and flair of 'Clockwork Orange' or '2001'. I hope it will continue to be a big influence on Spielberg.
Cruise delivers a first class performance as usual, but the discovery of this film is Samantha Morton as Agatha. Who saw the film and didn't share her terror and vulnerability? Little touches such as the way she clings to Cruise, almost like a baby's reflex, make her a character you immediately care about, innocent and tragic.
Anyway, if that's not enough to recommend the film, then you'll probably never find another one you like again. But if you need another reason, go to see it just for another fantastic soundtrack from the master, John Williams.
Full marks, five stars, a must see several times and buy the DVD movie.
In the world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king
Anonymous_Maxine26 December 2002
Warning: Spoilers
This is spoken in Minority Report by a drug-dealer on the streets with no eyes at all, so I suppose its free advice for John Anderton, our hero, or a bit of wise-sounding advice meant to get across to the audience but with no other good place for it to fit in the film. This is fine with me, too, because Minority Report is such a taut futuristic thriller that an incongruous little bit of wisdom like this is not to have any negative impact on the film as a whole. John Anderton, played with precision by the great Tom Cruise (oh shut up, the man's awesome), is the chief of the Pre-Crime department in the District of Columbia, which has successfully eradicated murder entirely for the last six years. He works with a group of `pre-cogs' that, together, dream of murders that have not yet taken place and project enough information for Anderton and his team to watch the video emanating from their heads to determine where and when the murders are to take place and to get to those locations and stop the murders from happening before they happen.
This is obviously a formula for a highly successful action movie, but the thing that really makes Minority Report succeed is that it pays so much amount of attention to things that would occur in this situation in real life. It is explained very early in the film that the invention of Pre-Crime has eradicated premeditated murder, as this is most easily detected by the pre-cogs. The majority of the `business,' then, of the Pre-Crime division in the District of Columbia, are crimes of passion. This not only provides the possibility of a lot more tension in that these crimes leave a lot less time for prevention, but also avoids complicating the plot with the details of premeditated murders. We don't care about a guy who wronged another guy five years ago or drug deals gone bad, all we need to hear about are a guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man and loses control.
Given the fact that the movie involves some sort of time-travel (even if information is the only thing traveling through time), it leaves itself open to criticism about plot holes. This is obvious, because plot holes like this even permeated the unparalleled Back to the Future series, which obviously had plenty of plot holes but handled them spectacularly well. Given the amount of movies that I have seen that involve time travel, I have come up with this equation: Time Travel = Plot Holes. This is a universal equation that is never escaped, but it does not mean that any movie that involves time travel will be brought down by the subsequent and unavoidable plot holes. Minority Report did not suffer from its necessary plot holes and neither did the timeless Back to the Future series (which has FINALLY been released as a complete set and which no respectable movie collection could possibly be without).
My esteemed colleague and close friend Christopher Brown (see his brilliant reviews at http://us.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?625436) points out one of these plot holes in his review of Minority Report, but makes the mistake of suggesting that, given the nature of the precognition and of the crime itself, Anderton's murder should never have been predicted since it did not entail premeditation. Sorry, Chris, but you've missed the boat on this one. The only thing that this does is bring up the fact that it's impossible to tell where precognition starts. It could be argued perfectly well that the pre-cogs played a part in their own precognition. They predicted that Anderton would commit the murder under the circumstances that he would have been watching the thoughts of the pre-cogs and seen that he would commit murder, and then obviously sought to find out for himself how he could have been expected to commit a murder against a person he has never heard of. In this case, if he had called in sick that day, all of this would have been avoided. But he's the best at what he does, he has personal reasons for wanting to stop murder, he does not slack off, he does not call in sick. John Anderton was predicted by the pre-cogs to commit murder because he was at work that day.
The action in the film comes from the possibility that the whole prediction of Anderton's murder might be what is called a `minority report,' where the pre-cogs disagree on something that is going to happen. If he can prove that only one of the pre-cogs came up with the vision that he was going to commit a murder, it might cancel out the entire prediction because it is unreliable. On the way to this goal, we are presented with everything from a tremendously dedicated investigator (played brilliantly by Colin Farrell) to some amazingly creepy but strangely accepted identification spiders that scan John's implanted eye in one of the more uncomfortable scenes in the film.
Minority Report is one of the best and most unique thrillers to be released in years. It is the conglomeration of such a dizzying array of films that it is difficult to contemplate them all at once. We see elements of action films, futuristic thrillers, crime films, science fiction, and of course, the influence of Stanley Kubrick is never far off. There is even, especially in the later portion of the film, a heavy influence on the soundtrack by Bernard Herrman, who was the composer for most of Alfred Hitchcock's films, among many others. It's always nice to see such a respectful homage like that, and it is only one of the many things that makes Minority Report yet another addition to Steven Spielberg's extensive list of high-end films (the last of which was the spectacular A.I.). The only thing I can think of that holds Minority Report back from joining Spielberg's list of timeless classics is that it does not have the scope as far as its target audience as such films as E.T. and Jurassic Park. However, despite not having quite as large of a target audience, Minority Report stands as a strong entry in Spielberg's growing list of great films.
This is obviously a formula for a highly successful action movie, but the thing that really makes Minority Report succeed is that it pays so much amount of attention to things that would occur in this situation in real life. It is explained very early in the film that the invention of Pre-Crime has eradicated premeditated murder, as this is most easily detected by the pre-cogs. The majority of the `business,' then, of the Pre-Crime division in the District of Columbia, are crimes of passion. This not only provides the possibility of a lot more tension in that these crimes leave a lot less time for prevention, but also avoids complicating the plot with the details of premeditated murders. We don't care about a guy who wronged another guy five years ago or drug deals gone bad, all we need to hear about are a guy who comes home to find his wife in bed with another man and loses control.
Given the fact that the movie involves some sort of time-travel (even if information is the only thing traveling through time), it leaves itself open to criticism about plot holes. This is obvious, because plot holes like this even permeated the unparalleled Back to the Future series, which obviously had plenty of plot holes but handled them spectacularly well. Given the amount of movies that I have seen that involve time travel, I have come up with this equation: Time Travel = Plot Holes. This is a universal equation that is never escaped, but it does not mean that any movie that involves time travel will be brought down by the subsequent and unavoidable plot holes. Minority Report did not suffer from its necessary plot holes and neither did the timeless Back to the Future series (which has FINALLY been released as a complete set and which no respectable movie collection could possibly be without).
My esteemed colleague and close friend Christopher Brown (see his brilliant reviews at http://us.imdb.com/CommentsAuthor?625436) points out one of these plot holes in his review of Minority Report, but makes the mistake of suggesting that, given the nature of the precognition and of the crime itself, Anderton's murder should never have been predicted since it did not entail premeditation. Sorry, Chris, but you've missed the boat on this one. The only thing that this does is bring up the fact that it's impossible to tell where precognition starts. It could be argued perfectly well that the pre-cogs played a part in their own precognition. They predicted that Anderton would commit the murder under the circumstances that he would have been watching the thoughts of the pre-cogs and seen that he would commit murder, and then obviously sought to find out for himself how he could have been expected to commit a murder against a person he has never heard of. In this case, if he had called in sick that day, all of this would have been avoided. But he's the best at what he does, he has personal reasons for wanting to stop murder, he does not slack off, he does not call in sick. John Anderton was predicted by the pre-cogs to commit murder because he was at work that day.
The action in the film comes from the possibility that the whole prediction of Anderton's murder might be what is called a `minority report,' where the pre-cogs disagree on something that is going to happen. If he can prove that only one of the pre-cogs came up with the vision that he was going to commit a murder, it might cancel out the entire prediction because it is unreliable. On the way to this goal, we are presented with everything from a tremendously dedicated investigator (played brilliantly by Colin Farrell) to some amazingly creepy but strangely accepted identification spiders that scan John's implanted eye in one of the more uncomfortable scenes in the film.
Minority Report is one of the best and most unique thrillers to be released in years. It is the conglomeration of such a dizzying array of films that it is difficult to contemplate them all at once. We see elements of action films, futuristic thrillers, crime films, science fiction, and of course, the influence of Stanley Kubrick is never far off. There is even, especially in the later portion of the film, a heavy influence on the soundtrack by Bernard Herrman, who was the composer for most of Alfred Hitchcock's films, among many others. It's always nice to see such a respectful homage like that, and it is only one of the many things that makes Minority Report yet another addition to Steven Spielberg's extensive list of high-end films (the last of which was the spectacular A.I.). The only thing I can think of that holds Minority Report back from joining Spielberg's list of timeless classics is that it does not have the scope as far as its target audience as such films as E.T. and Jurassic Park. However, despite not having quite as large of a target audience, Minority Report stands as a strong entry in Spielberg's growing list of great films.
An addition to the compendium of Spielberg might-have-beens - SPOILERS
j30bell20 December 2004
Warning: Spoilers
This film is worth watching for lots of reasons. The best is Philip K. Dick's dystopian vision. And the acting is good too: Cruise as the high priest of pre-crime, catching murderers before they commit their offences using the mysterious power of the "pre-cognitives"; Max Von Sydow adding his usual air of gravitas (how can Hollywood justify treating him so badly?) The look of the film is somewhere between Total Recall and the leeched colours and retro chic of Gatacca.
Others have commented on the plot, so I'm not going to; it's good enough. Would have been better without the last 10 minutes, but Blade Runner suffered the same affliction. Suffice to say - for those who prefer to switch off Blade Runner after Gaff turns to say, It's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does? the ending for MR will probably set your teeth grinding too. But this is just one problem.
Firstly, the film is a real cut and paste job. It looks like Gatacca, has the plot twists of Total Recall, has that media-savvy thing from Robocop. All good stuff, all been done. OK, so this is a better film than his mate George Lucas would have made, but this just goes to prove that Spielberg is still more of an engineer than an artist.
And if it is meant to be SF film noir, it's a very white shade of black. Spielberg seems to shy away from anything the least edgy (note the keystone cops chase with the jetpack - "but, yee, we can't have our hero hurt any good guys" and the comedy fight between Anderton and Witwer). Even Peter Stormare is less Hannibal Lecter and more the comedy-Russian he played on Armageddon.
Then there is the riding off into the sunset ending. Can someone please explain to me what would have been wrong with Cruise ending up in the vault and Max Von Sydow, turning his collar up against the rain, walking out of a bustling pre-crime department to the sound of Schubert's 8th Symphony? Von Sydow's should be the most interesting character in the film and the man worked with Bergman for goodness sake why not use him.
SF films have a reputation for being more "deep" than they really are. A few manage to be thought-provoking though (2001, Bladerunner, Gatacca). One of the key things that sets them apart seems to be a willingness to leave the audience thinking about what the film is trying to say. All the audience is of MR is left with is the feeling that "well, that's alright then."
Enjoyable. 6/10 just.
Others have commented on the plot, so I'm not going to; it's good enough. Would have been better without the last 10 minutes, but Blade Runner suffered the same affliction. Suffice to say - for those who prefer to switch off Blade Runner after Gaff turns to say, It's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does? the ending for MR will probably set your teeth grinding too. But this is just one problem.
Firstly, the film is a real cut and paste job. It looks like Gatacca, has the plot twists of Total Recall, has that media-savvy thing from Robocop. All good stuff, all been done. OK, so this is a better film than his mate George Lucas would have made, but this just goes to prove that Spielberg is still more of an engineer than an artist.
And if it is meant to be SF film noir, it's a very white shade of black. Spielberg seems to shy away from anything the least edgy (note the keystone cops chase with the jetpack - "but, yee, we can't have our hero hurt any good guys" and the comedy fight between Anderton and Witwer). Even Peter Stormare is less Hannibal Lecter and more the comedy-Russian he played on Armageddon.
Then there is the riding off into the sunset ending. Can someone please explain to me what would have been wrong with Cruise ending up in the vault and Max Von Sydow, turning his collar up against the rain, walking out of a bustling pre-crime department to the sound of Schubert's 8th Symphony? Von Sydow's should be the most interesting character in the film and the man worked with Bergman for goodness sake why not use him.
SF films have a reputation for being more "deep" than they really are. A few manage to be thought-provoking though (2001, Bladerunner, Gatacca). One of the key things that sets them apart seems to be a willingness to leave the audience thinking about what the film is trying to say. All the audience is of MR is left with is the feeling that "well, that's alright then."
Enjoyable. 6/10 just.
"Minority Report" excels above all.
Dennison32730 November 2003
Warning: Spoilers
Steven Spielberg is at his directorial best with this action, adventure. Tom Cruise is at his acting best as a futuristic cop on the run. I was pleased to see one of the best directors team up with one of the best actors to make a brilliant movie.
Tom Cruise plays John Anderton, the chief of the Pre-Crime unit of the Washington D.C. police department. This unit stops murders before they happen, with the help of the "Pre-Cogs." The "Pre-Cogs" are three psychics who see the murders before they happen, and Cruise is the one who puts their visions together to predict the location, the killer, and the victim of the future crime. So far, the "Pre-Cog" division has been successful, with its six-year span going on with no murder ever happening. Things get complicated for the future of Pre-Crime when Detective Danny Witwer, played by Colin Farrell, is sent to inspect the operation. Anderton is suspicious of him, because he starts to see cracks in the system. When Anderton believes that the cracks are minor, he believes wrong.
Anderton sees another murder happening in the Pre-Cogs' visions and is shocked to see that he is the man committing the murder. Now that he is on the run from his own men, which of course is under the command of Witwer, Anderton must unravel the mystery of why he has to murder a man whom he hasn't even met yet. As time runs out, Anderton finds clues that there is a conspiracy behind it. Can he figure them out in time, or will Pre-Crime see its first murder in six years?
"Minority Report" is a movie with a fantastic storyline, one of the best I've ever heard of. The actors are great, the directing is great, of course, it's Spielberg. Even the effects are great, they are done with ILM. Roger Ebert says that this movie "reminds us why we go to the movies in the first place," and I agree with him.
Tom Cruise plays John Anderton, the chief of the Pre-Crime unit of the Washington D.C. police department. This unit stops murders before they happen, with the help of the "Pre-Cogs." The "Pre-Cogs" are three psychics who see the murders before they happen, and Cruise is the one who puts their visions together to predict the location, the killer, and the victim of the future crime. So far, the "Pre-Cog" division has been successful, with its six-year span going on with no murder ever happening. Things get complicated for the future of Pre-Crime when Detective Danny Witwer, played by Colin Farrell, is sent to inspect the operation. Anderton is suspicious of him, because he starts to see cracks in the system. When Anderton believes that the cracks are minor, he believes wrong.
Anderton sees another murder happening in the Pre-Cogs' visions and is shocked to see that he is the man committing the murder. Now that he is on the run from his own men, which of course is under the command of Witwer, Anderton must unravel the mystery of why he has to murder a man whom he hasn't even met yet. As time runs out, Anderton finds clues that there is a conspiracy behind it. Can he figure them out in time, or will Pre-Crime see its first murder in six years?
"Minority Report" is a movie with a fantastic storyline, one of the best I've ever heard of. The actors are great, the directing is great, of course, it's Spielberg. Even the effects are great, they are done with ILM. Roger Ebert says that this movie "reminds us why we go to the movies in the first place," and I agree with him.
Minority Report
Prismark1030 December 2020
Minority Report is a scuzzy futuristic action thriller based on a short story by Philip K Dick.
John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is law enforcer in a pioneering Pre Crime unit in Washington D.C. He catches murderers before they commit the crime thanks to some psychics called Precogs who can see these future crimes.
Anderton is an ace cop who is also part Judge Dredd. He he also takes drugs. The after effects of losing his son in an abduction that resulted in his marriage crumbling.
Murder rate has gone down in DC and the system is about to go national under the leadership of Director Lamar Burgess (Max Von Sydow.) Danny Witwer (Colin Farrell) is the Federal agent who arrives to examine the system. He is sceptical and is also out to get Anderton.
Anderton's world falls apart when Precogs saw a vision of him killing a man that he does not know. Now his colleagues wants to arrest him. Anderton needs to see if the system of pre crimes he believed in has any flaws. He thinks Witwer has set him up.
Steven Spielberg after his second Best Director Oscar win attempts to be a different type of filmmaker. Eschewing Ridley Scott's dark neon look of Blade Runner. He has gone for washed out colours and hi tech. Characters get tailored adverts but it also allows the film company to introduce product placements. Some of the brands ain't going to make it into 2054.
Minority Report is also a murder mystery with religious symbolisms. The three Precogs are seen as religious deities by some. One man immediately kneels and starts to confess his sins when he sees one.
The screenplay also plays around the ideas of Isaac Asimov. What if this perfect system have flaws and it can be exploited?
The movies works better as a sci fi mystery thriller. I just felt that the action sequences were tagged on, allowing for Tom Cruise to run like a rabbit. The clever scene was when one of the Precogs Agatha (Samantha Morton) guides Anderton in the mall.
However there are a few weak links in the narrative which resorts to cliches. Witwer begins to have doubts about Anderton's guilt but then he makes a clumsy error, surprisingly for someone who was also an experienced homicide cop. The comparisons to Judge Dredd makes the villain easy to guess.
The ending was also a little too pat especially when the villain is publicly revealed but still gets to have a showdown with Anderton.
John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is law enforcer in a pioneering Pre Crime unit in Washington D.C. He catches murderers before they commit the crime thanks to some psychics called Precogs who can see these future crimes.
Anderton is an ace cop who is also part Judge Dredd. He he also takes drugs. The after effects of losing his son in an abduction that resulted in his marriage crumbling.
Murder rate has gone down in DC and the system is about to go national under the leadership of Director Lamar Burgess (Max Von Sydow.) Danny Witwer (Colin Farrell) is the Federal agent who arrives to examine the system. He is sceptical and is also out to get Anderton.
Anderton's world falls apart when Precogs saw a vision of him killing a man that he does not know. Now his colleagues wants to arrest him. Anderton needs to see if the system of pre crimes he believed in has any flaws. He thinks Witwer has set him up.
Steven Spielberg after his second Best Director Oscar win attempts to be a different type of filmmaker. Eschewing Ridley Scott's dark neon look of Blade Runner. He has gone for washed out colours and hi tech. Characters get tailored adverts but it also allows the film company to introduce product placements. Some of the brands ain't going to make it into 2054.
Minority Report is also a murder mystery with religious symbolisms. The three Precogs are seen as religious deities by some. One man immediately kneels and starts to confess his sins when he sees one.
The screenplay also plays around the ideas of Isaac Asimov. What if this perfect system have flaws and it can be exploited?
The movies works better as a sci fi mystery thriller. I just felt that the action sequences were tagged on, allowing for Tom Cruise to run like a rabbit. The clever scene was when one of the Precogs Agatha (Samantha Morton) guides Anderton in the mall.
However there are a few weak links in the narrative which resorts to cliches. Witwer begins to have doubts about Anderton's guilt but then he makes a clumsy error, surprisingly for someone who was also an experienced homicide cop. The comparisons to Judge Dredd makes the villain easy to guess.
The ending was also a little too pat especially when the villain is publicly revealed but still gets to have a showdown with Anderton.
Amazing concept well made by master filmmaker
SnoopyStyle25 May 2014
It's 2054. Crime has been virtually eliminated from Washington D.C. area due to the Department of Precrime. They use three Pre-cogs to predict future crimes and arrest the criminals before any crime actually happens. John Anderton (Tom Cruise) investigates the precrimes. However one day, the Pre-Cogs predict that Anderton will murder and the system is now coming after him. He kidnaps the most powerful pre-cog Agatha (Samantha Morton) and discovers a flaw in the system. Federal agent Danny Witwer (Colin Farrell) is on the manhunt as Anderton tries to prove he's innocent of a crime he's yet to commit.
The concept of free will vs determinism from Philip K. Dick is amazing. The production from Steven Spielberg is terrific. The movie is so well made that it maintains its tension with all the crazy ideas being thrown at the audience. Tom Cruise is the perfect protagonist for this movie. He has a touch of that boy scout with a dark edge. He matches the intensity of the material. There is a good mystery, compelling performances, and expertly made all growing out of a great story. It does wrap up a little too neatly. I'm not sure a Spielberg movie could have gone that dark.
The concept of free will vs determinism from Philip K. Dick is amazing. The production from Steven Spielberg is terrific. The movie is so well made that it maintains its tension with all the crazy ideas being thrown at the audience. Tom Cruise is the perfect protagonist for this movie. He has a touch of that boy scout with a dark edge. He matches the intensity of the material. There is a good mystery, compelling performances, and expertly made all growing out of a great story. It does wrap up a little too neatly. I'm not sure a Spielberg movie could have gone that dark.
Interpretations
bkoganbing23 May 2016
It's the year 2054 and mankind through the good graces of pioneering criminologist Max Von Sydow we're about to abolish crime all together. Von Sydow employs three psychics, no doubt the three best in the world and while it looks life is a pretty dull thing for them, spending all that time in water the better to receive images they're doing yeoman service to mankind anticipating murders to come. Right at the beginning of the film we see them in action as police are dispatched to capture Arye Gross as he's about to murder his wife and her boy toy.
But some disturbing images come in regarding police chief Tom Cruise murdering a man who he doesn't even know. Now Cruise is a Richard Kimble like fugitive and he hasn't done the terrible deed he's supposed to do. But one of the water bound psychics turns in a different interpretation of the images she sees. It's that Minority Report that Cruise is interested in so Samantha Morton is taken by Tom who wants very much to find out what's going so he can alter his destiny if possible.
I won't say more other than destinies can be altered and images can be manipulated and wrongly interpreted by some malevolent forces at work.
Cruise and Von Sydow and the rest of the cast turn in some fine performances for Steven Spielberg. And Spielberg's own vision of the future is fascinating. I did love those images of horses making a comeback as a method of transportation. I'm guessing that fossil fuels had polluted the planet enough and we wanted biodegradable waste once again.
Science fiction is always interesting, even the worst future films offer us someone's vision of the future be Steven Spielberg or Ed Wood. Spielberg at least has the talent to bring it off.
And maybe crime prevention taken to its ultimate is not such a good thing. Watch Minority Report and see how you feel.
But some disturbing images come in regarding police chief Tom Cruise murdering a man who he doesn't even know. Now Cruise is a Richard Kimble like fugitive and he hasn't done the terrible deed he's supposed to do. But one of the water bound psychics turns in a different interpretation of the images she sees. It's that Minority Report that Cruise is interested in so Samantha Morton is taken by Tom who wants very much to find out what's going so he can alter his destiny if possible.
I won't say more other than destinies can be altered and images can be manipulated and wrongly interpreted by some malevolent forces at work.
Cruise and Von Sydow and the rest of the cast turn in some fine performances for Steven Spielberg. And Spielberg's own vision of the future is fascinating. I did love those images of horses making a comeback as a method of transportation. I'm guessing that fossil fuels had polluted the planet enough and we wanted biodegradable waste once again.
Science fiction is always interesting, even the worst future films offer us someone's vision of the future be Steven Spielberg or Ed Wood. Spielberg at least has the talent to bring it off.
And maybe crime prevention taken to its ultimate is not such a good thing. Watch Minority Report and see how you feel.
Dark Spielberg
TechnicallyTwisted22 June 2002
Steven Spielberg continues to channel the late Stanley Kubrick in his latest film, "Minority Report." He also throws in a little Terry Gilliam, Ridley Scott and Paul Verhoeven along with some Hitchcock and John Huston and the soul of Philip K. Dick to create something utterly unique. Minority Report dazzles with it's visuals, great action scenes, urgent story-line, and topical issues. To say any more would give too much away. This is unlike any Spielberg film to date. Not to be missed.
Dick's Paranoia Watered Down to Hollywood Chase Flick
noralee13 December 2005
I went to see "Minority Report" as a Philip Dick fan, not for Tom Cruise.
As soon as I heard he was cast, I knew he was either mis-cast or the movie would substantially change the original story. Ed Harris would have been a brilliant choice for Dick's intent in showing a mid-life crisis of faith with bureaucracy, and more logically setting up the conflict with his older (Max von Sydow as his usual craggy self) and younger (terrifically aggressive Colin Farrell) competitors.
In Dick's story the titular discovery is a shocking revelation of the bankruptcy of policy-making behind bureaucratic intent, whereas here it's just a means to an end for Cruise's character to clear his name. Instead we get an action story that grafts Dick's story outline onto a tribute to George Lucas's brilliant student thesis project "THX-1138," which he himself later expanded into a feature film; I always cite those films as the best visual analysis of bureaucracy. I guess Spielberg wasn't satisfied that we never really knew what the politics were in Lucas's films so he provides explicit reasons via a personal rather than systemic conspiracy theory for the chase and an optimistic conclusion.
On its own, we get a rippling Hollywood chase movie with a soupcon of the old "The X Files" paranoia, now newly relevant about our Justice Dept. arresting people, and even several laughs.
The cinematography for the future is wonderfully metallic and there's so many clever CGI's that the long credits list three "in memoriam"s to colleagues.
Lois Smith is very effective as a cynical inventor, reminding me of the last time an older woman made a key appearance in a sci fi epic, "Outland" in a role not necessarily written for a woman.
John Williams's music is interferingly bombastic.
(originally written 7/5/2002)
As soon as I heard he was cast, I knew he was either mis-cast or the movie would substantially change the original story. Ed Harris would have been a brilliant choice for Dick's intent in showing a mid-life crisis of faith with bureaucracy, and more logically setting up the conflict with his older (Max von Sydow as his usual craggy self) and younger (terrifically aggressive Colin Farrell) competitors.
In Dick's story the titular discovery is a shocking revelation of the bankruptcy of policy-making behind bureaucratic intent, whereas here it's just a means to an end for Cruise's character to clear his name. Instead we get an action story that grafts Dick's story outline onto a tribute to George Lucas's brilliant student thesis project "THX-1138," which he himself later expanded into a feature film; I always cite those films as the best visual analysis of bureaucracy. I guess Spielberg wasn't satisfied that we never really knew what the politics were in Lucas's films so he provides explicit reasons via a personal rather than systemic conspiracy theory for the chase and an optimistic conclusion.
On its own, we get a rippling Hollywood chase movie with a soupcon of the old "The X Files" paranoia, now newly relevant about our Justice Dept. arresting people, and even several laughs.
The cinematography for the future is wonderfully metallic and there's so many clever CGI's that the long credits list three "in memoriam"s to colleagues.
Lois Smith is very effective as a cynical inventor, reminding me of the last time an older woman made a key appearance in a sci fi epic, "Outland" in a role not necessarily written for a woman.
John Williams's music is interferingly bombastic.
(originally written 7/5/2002)
Rarely does a film have 2 huge flaws, destroying pivotal moments
karlhinze5 January 2007
Warning: Spoilers
But alas, this one does.
First of all, there's no point reading this if you've not seen the film unless you trust me entirely. I'm reviewing this to broadcast my opinion to those who may not realise its two critical errors.
FIRSTLY. John Anderton discovers, with the help of the precogs, that he will kill Leo Crow (a man he does not even know). This is the ONLY THING that causes Anderton to go looking for his victim. In other words the precogs led HIM to the discovery of the man he is supposed to murder. Without the aid of the precogs, Anderton would not have gone looking for Crow and would therefore have committed no murder. So why was one predicted?
SECONDLY. At the end, when Lamarr Burgess is face to face with Anderton, Anderton gives Burgess a lecture in how he can change his future if he wants to, saying "No doubt the precogs have already seen this". But how would Burgess know he was supposed to kill Anderton? Did he see the pre-vision? Did Anderton see it? No. Therefore neither of them knew for sure that Burgess would kill Anderton. In the end, Burgess turns the gun on himself. Which means that he was never destined to kill Anderton. The precogs could have refrained from making the prediction and it would have made no difference. So, again, why was this murder predicted?
This isn't even taking into account other, smaller, yet silly flaws, such as: why was the missing person's case of Anne Lively never pursued? Or why didn't anyone else in Pre-crime remove Anderton's security clearance (he was still able to get through the doors by the use of his eyes)?
Poor, poor film. Probably the worst I've ever seen in terms of storyline.
First of all, there's no point reading this if you've not seen the film unless you trust me entirely. I'm reviewing this to broadcast my opinion to those who may not realise its two critical errors.
FIRSTLY. John Anderton discovers, with the help of the precogs, that he will kill Leo Crow (a man he does not even know). This is the ONLY THING that causes Anderton to go looking for his victim. In other words the precogs led HIM to the discovery of the man he is supposed to murder. Without the aid of the precogs, Anderton would not have gone looking for Crow and would therefore have committed no murder. So why was one predicted?
SECONDLY. At the end, when Lamarr Burgess is face to face with Anderton, Anderton gives Burgess a lecture in how he can change his future if he wants to, saying "No doubt the precogs have already seen this". But how would Burgess know he was supposed to kill Anderton? Did he see the pre-vision? Did Anderton see it? No. Therefore neither of them knew for sure that Burgess would kill Anderton. In the end, Burgess turns the gun on himself. Which means that he was never destined to kill Anderton. The precogs could have refrained from making the prediction and it would have made no difference. So, again, why was this murder predicted?
This isn't even taking into account other, smaller, yet silly flaws, such as: why was the missing person's case of Anne Lively never pursued? Or why didn't anyone else in Pre-crime remove Anderton's security clearance (he was still able to get through the doors by the use of his eyes)?
Poor, poor film. Probably the worst I've ever seen in terms of storyline.
One of the best/most complex science fiction films
will_liao14 August 2004
Steven Spielberg sets Minority Report in the near future of 2054, in which the technology is advanced, but not far-fetched. Cars can drive themselves and ride up elevators, computers come with holograms as a user interface, and stores recognize you from your eyeball scan. As all science fiction fans know, however, the genre is not about technology but about ideas. The big idea for Minority Report is based on a short story by the venerable Philip K. Dick. In this future, there is a "pre-crime" unit in the police force, which revolves around three psychics who are able to see violent crimes before they occur. These visions are projected in a flat screen panel and manipulated by detectives with the grace of a symphony conductor. Equipped with futuristic stun guns, jet packs, and search robots, these cops then arrest and intern the criminals before the crimes are committed.
We learn all this in the first ten minutes of the movie. After this introduction, the plot really starts when Detective John Anderton (Tom Cruise) finds out that the precogs saw him kill someone, someone that he has never met. He finds himself in a race. With the forced recruitment of a precog, Agatha (Samantha Morton), he must clear his name before the predetermined murder. All the while, his old buddies, now helped with a special agent from the FBI (Colin Farrell), are trying to track him down.
Spielberg, with Janusz Kaminski, his cinematographer for many films, have crafted a visually stunning movie. The special effects are seamlessly incorporated of the world they created. The muted blues echo the style of black & white film noirs. John Anderton is similar to noir's morally ambiguous characters--a good cop with an illegal habit that is forced (by circumstances and desire) to betray the very things he loves.
But this is not just a special effects or mystery movie. The characters, all well drawn, are supremely acted by the cast. Tom Cruise is a good physical actor and he shows it here. By the way he sits or walks, we can intuit the grief and confusion that's going through him. Samantha Morton does a good job of portraying a haunted young lady who has seen too much. Colin Farrell skillfully balances the ambitious and professional sides of his character. As always, Max von Sydow authoritatively plays the respected father figure.
This is one of my favorite Science Fiction films. I would also recommend the following films. These (I think) influenced Minority Report.
"The Maltese Falcon" ~ film noir "A Clockwork Orange" ~ science fiction "Blade Runner" ~ science fiction (also based on a Dick story)
***** out of *****
We learn all this in the first ten minutes of the movie. After this introduction, the plot really starts when Detective John Anderton (Tom Cruise) finds out that the precogs saw him kill someone, someone that he has never met. He finds himself in a race. With the forced recruitment of a precog, Agatha (Samantha Morton), he must clear his name before the predetermined murder. All the while, his old buddies, now helped with a special agent from the FBI (Colin Farrell), are trying to track him down.
Spielberg, with Janusz Kaminski, his cinematographer for many films, have crafted a visually stunning movie. The special effects are seamlessly incorporated of the world they created. The muted blues echo the style of black & white film noirs. John Anderton is similar to noir's morally ambiguous characters--a good cop with an illegal habit that is forced (by circumstances and desire) to betray the very things he loves.
But this is not just a special effects or mystery movie. The characters, all well drawn, are supremely acted by the cast. Tom Cruise is a good physical actor and he shows it here. By the way he sits or walks, we can intuit the grief and confusion that's going through him. Samantha Morton does a good job of portraying a haunted young lady who has seen too much. Colin Farrell skillfully balances the ambitious and professional sides of his character. As always, Max von Sydow authoritatively plays the respected father figure.
This is one of my favorite Science Fiction films. I would also recommend the following films. These (I think) influenced Minority Report.
"The Maltese Falcon" ~ film noir "A Clockwork Orange" ~ science fiction "Blade Runner" ~ science fiction (also based on a Dick story)
***** out of *****
Full of imagination.
BA_Harrison7 December 2016
Before they joined forces to give sci-fi fans their hugely disappointing version of War Of The Worlds, Spielberg and Cruise worked together on Minority Report, a near-future tale based on a short story by Philip K. Dick in which violent crimes can be predicted and prevented from occurring, the perpetrator intercepted before they can carry out the deed. Star Cruise plays pre-crime cop John Anderton, who finds himself on the run after it is predicted that he himself will commit a murder.
The good news is that Minority Report is a lot more enjoyable than the duo's H.G.Wells debacle, with an engrossing murder mystery plot, lots of great visuals, excellent production design, and some well executed and extremely fun action set-pieces, all of which help detract from the story's inevitable paradoxical issues and Spielberg's occasional, frustratingly unrestrained direction (Cruise leaping from car roof to car roof on a towering vertical road stretches plausibility a bit too far, but at least it's not 'nuke the fridge' bad).
7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for the 'sick stick' a police baton that makes the victim projectile vomit.
The good news is that Minority Report is a lot more enjoyable than the duo's H.G.Wells debacle, with an engrossing murder mystery plot, lots of great visuals, excellent production design, and some well executed and extremely fun action set-pieces, all of which help detract from the story's inevitable paradoxical issues and Spielberg's occasional, frustratingly unrestrained direction (Cruise leaping from car roof to car roof on a towering vertical road stretches plausibility a bit too far, but at least it's not 'nuke the fridge' bad).
7.5 out of 10, rounded up to 8 for the 'sick stick' a police baton that makes the victim projectile vomit.
You still have a choice...
Quinoa198421 June 2002
Steven Spielberg is one of the few directors around today who can still manipulate an audience in one sense while dazzling and daring that same audience with storytelling and character skills fused with ingenious visual effects. Minority Report is a shining example of that, which also has the grace of having an intelligent concept to start with, which so many sci-fi films lack much less summer sci-fi films (look at MIB2 to see what I mean), and also better than average acting.
Cruise takes the lead role here as John Anderton, who leads, more or less, the agency of police that prevent all murders on the basis of predictions from three Pre-Cogs (one of them Samantha Morton who has the most important role of the three). The system is presumably perfect, until to the surprise of Anderton, he is seen to commit a murder and so starts his quest to try and find out if there is a flaw in thirty six hours. This could be the basis for average sci-fi fodder (Impostor, a film based on another Philip K. Dick story that came out earlier this year, is an point of that), yet Spielberg elevates a story and creates a unique atmosphere to coexist with his characters; by the time the film is HALF way through you'll be exhausted in entertainment.
Bottom line, this is the type of picture to see twice, first to get the feel and presence, and the second to clear up any misunderstandings in the plot (or maybe to avoid Scooby Doo and Windtalkers), since this is indeed one of the best pictures of the year and one of Spielberg's best recent pictures. Grade: A+ or A
Cruise takes the lead role here as John Anderton, who leads, more or less, the agency of police that prevent all murders on the basis of predictions from three Pre-Cogs (one of them Samantha Morton who has the most important role of the three). The system is presumably perfect, until to the surprise of Anderton, he is seen to commit a murder and so starts his quest to try and find out if there is a flaw in thirty six hours. This could be the basis for average sci-fi fodder (Impostor, a film based on another Philip K. Dick story that came out earlier this year, is an point of that), yet Spielberg elevates a story and creates a unique atmosphere to coexist with his characters; by the time the film is HALF way through you'll be exhausted in entertainment.
Bottom line, this is the type of picture to see twice, first to get the feel and presence, and the second to clear up any misunderstandings in the plot (or maybe to avoid Scooby Doo and Windtalkers), since this is indeed one of the best pictures of the year and one of Spielberg's best recent pictures. Grade: A+ or A
A merely good Dick adaptation
mgruebel11 February 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I think the critics went a little overboard loving this one. It is good - with Spielberg at the helm that's almost a certainty, but it is not outstanding. Chief of its crimes is happy ending syndrome. Max von Sydow is really the best character in the film by far, so why not let him get away with his well-meaning but tragic master plan for humanity? Dystopia does not need a happy ending. But far worse, do we really need to find out that the abused human crime sensors, who have spent a life immersed in an isolation tank, get to live happily ever after in a cozy cottage? In AI, a whole half hour finale separated the film from Kubrickian quality. Here it's only 10 minutes, but entropy being what it is, 10 minutes of garbage can destroy 2 hours of vision quite easily.
And what a vision it is. Cruise as a detective bereft of his son, himself a son-figure to the fatherly von Sydow who developed a crime prediction program that arrests murderers before they get a chance to carry out their crime. When Cruise is on the verge of discovering how his mentor pulled off a premeditated murder to save the program, Von Sydow uses Cruise's dead son against him, and the detective becomes a hunted man. Crime mystery, action and science fiction are deftly blended in the plot, in the set design, and even in minor characters like the woman geneticist who surrounds herself with flesh-eating plants, or the eye transplant doctor who had a previous encounter with Cruise: Cruise comes begging to him to avoid detection by the ubiquitous eye scanners of the future. Silly action like Cruise escaping 10x by a hair trapped inside a car assembled by industrial robots does not help the film, pulling you out of the sense of futuristic reality created by the cinematography.
So, good, but not great. When Spielberg makes Ubiq, I hope he just sticks with Dick's story, without the alternate ending. Philip K. Dick is already 'alternate' enough as it is.
And what a vision it is. Cruise as a detective bereft of his son, himself a son-figure to the fatherly von Sydow who developed a crime prediction program that arrests murderers before they get a chance to carry out their crime. When Cruise is on the verge of discovering how his mentor pulled off a premeditated murder to save the program, Von Sydow uses Cruise's dead son against him, and the detective becomes a hunted man. Crime mystery, action and science fiction are deftly blended in the plot, in the set design, and even in minor characters like the woman geneticist who surrounds herself with flesh-eating plants, or the eye transplant doctor who had a previous encounter with Cruise: Cruise comes begging to him to avoid detection by the ubiquitous eye scanners of the future. Silly action like Cruise escaping 10x by a hair trapped inside a car assembled by industrial robots does not help the film, pulling you out of the sense of futuristic reality created by the cinematography.
So, good, but not great. When Spielberg makes Ubiq, I hope he just sticks with Dick's story, without the alternate ending. Philip K. Dick is already 'alternate' enough as it is.
A rare dose of true brilliance
BroadswordCallinDannyBoy26 June 2006
In the year 2054, Washington DC is run by a new type of crime fighting system - PreCrime. Using sophisticated computer and neural technology, the police are warned of crimes that will occur (via "previsions") in the future and they try to stop them. With a 100% success rate and no murder in their jurisdiction for the past six years the system looks flawless. A coming vote, which looks very hopeful for PreCrime, will instill the system nationwide. But when Chief John Anderton, a loyal and decorated PreCrime cop, is seen to be killing someone in one of the previsions he suspects that someone set him up and that not everything is as perfect as it has been made out to be.
It doesn't happen very often that a big studio production with a big name star produces such a great movie. But here it is. Spielberg and his team have crafted an engrossing vision of the future that is not only good looking with its top-notch special effects, but thought provoking and actually interesting on a pure story level. Adapted from one of science fiction's cleverest authors the story is complex and thought provoking on many levels. Not only does it get you thinking about the possibilities where the film can and cannot go, but it will get you thinking about what you yourself actually do.
The direction is also among Spielberg's best with a terrific pace and nail biting tension in some scenes that almost recalls Hitchcock. Backed up, of course, by a great score from John Williams. The movie's vision is also great - the whole futuristic world is shown in what are not just money/eye candy shots, but shots that really place you in the film's world and take you for a terrifically exciting ride. Also of note is Peter Stormare, who has a brilliant, but brief, appearance as a whacko surgeon.
One of the best science fiction films to come out of Hollywood in a long while. 10/10
Rated PG-13 for violence
It doesn't happen very often that a big studio production with a big name star produces such a great movie. But here it is. Spielberg and his team have crafted an engrossing vision of the future that is not only good looking with its top-notch special effects, but thought provoking and actually interesting on a pure story level. Adapted from one of science fiction's cleverest authors the story is complex and thought provoking on many levels. Not only does it get you thinking about the possibilities where the film can and cannot go, but it will get you thinking about what you yourself actually do.
The direction is also among Spielberg's best with a terrific pace and nail biting tension in some scenes that almost recalls Hitchcock. Backed up, of course, by a great score from John Williams. The movie's vision is also great - the whole futuristic world is shown in what are not just money/eye candy shots, but shots that really place you in the film's world and take you for a terrifically exciting ride. Also of note is Peter Stormare, who has a brilliant, but brief, appearance as a whacko surgeon.
One of the best science fiction films to come out of Hollywood in a long while. 10/10
Rated PG-13 for violence
Entertaining blockbuster
gbill-748774 April 2020
Great concept, one with themes of predeterminism vs. free will, as well as the use of advanced technology to fight crime with the drawbacks of loss of privacy and potential for abuse. There are some pretty cool moments, but overall it's flawed in execution; you'll have to suspend disbelief too many times, and there are lots of groan-inducing moments. Maybe the biggest one for me is Tom Cruise's character weepily saying "I want him back so bad" in a scene about his son, and there are several others where Spielberg should have trusted his actors to deliver emotions nonverbally, instead of having them say cheesy lines.
For my taste, the film would have been better pared down and darker both visually and in tone. Think of what it could have been if it had focused more on the weightier philosophical or police state aspects, as opposed to settling for the sentimentality of a personal story amidst an excessive number of plot twists. Think of the possibilities for an ending with either a skyrocketing murder rate or an injustice, something ambiguous or chilling. Think of what it might have been like delivered ala Blade Runner (1982), which was also based on a Philip K. Dick story.
With that said, Spielberg targets a blockbuster popcorn movie and there's a certain appeal to that, and it's reasonably entertaining. I also loved seeing 73-year-old Max von Sydow.
For my taste, the film would have been better pared down and darker both visually and in tone. Think of what it could have been if it had focused more on the weightier philosophical or police state aspects, as opposed to settling for the sentimentality of a personal story amidst an excessive number of plot twists. Think of the possibilities for an ending with either a skyrocketing murder rate or an injustice, something ambiguous or chilling. Think of what it might have been like delivered ala Blade Runner (1982), which was also based on a Philip K. Dick story.
With that said, Spielberg targets a blockbuster popcorn movie and there's a certain appeal to that, and it's reasonably entertaining. I also loved seeing 73-year-old Max von Sydow.
Excellent futuristic thriller
jofitz2715 February 2005
Warning: Spoilers
Steven Spielberg is a genius. So many great films he has directed. The Man who created "Jaws" "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindlers List" is back for more. In one of his best pictures yet.
It's 2054. A new method of crime prevention "pre-crime" allows the police to look into the future and see the horrific results of murder and rape as they unfold. After a quick introduction to this process, were straight into the big and bold; main man John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is accused of a future murder- to a man he's never heard of. So he's on the run, from a harsh detective (superbly played by Colin Farrell) as he uncovers some horrible truths and has to go back to the unwelcoming past.
Minority report is very good, but also very disturbing- the fact that this film was a PG-13 or a "12" in England is shocking. Parents, a note: if your child is under 12 at least I would strongly recommend you watch this film first. It's dark, compelling, and disturbing- particularly in a scene where he has to exchange his eyes for protection...
This is a fantastic film however that should be viewed and loved by everyone bold enough to come in its path. Never fail to believe: Spielberg has come up with yet another masterpiece.
Overall: ****/ out of ***** (4 and a half out of 5)
It's 2054. A new method of crime prevention "pre-crime" allows the police to look into the future and see the horrific results of murder and rape as they unfold. After a quick introduction to this process, were straight into the big and bold; main man John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is accused of a future murder- to a man he's never heard of. So he's on the run, from a harsh detective (superbly played by Colin Farrell) as he uncovers some horrible truths and has to go back to the unwelcoming past.
Minority report is very good, but also very disturbing- the fact that this film was a PG-13 or a "12" in England is shocking. Parents, a note: if your child is under 12 at least I would strongly recommend you watch this film first. It's dark, compelling, and disturbing- particularly in a scene where he has to exchange his eyes for protection...
This is a fantastic film however that should be viewed and loved by everyone bold enough to come in its path. Never fail to believe: Spielberg has come up with yet another masterpiece.
Overall: ****/ out of ***** (4 and a half out of 5)
Big ideas and action film is worth it, even being dense and overly long
paul-allaer31 July 2020
"Minority Report" (2002 release; 146 min.) brings the story of Chief John Aderton. As the movie opens, we are at the "Department of Precrime, Washington, DC", and Aderton and his team are getting ready to make an intervention to stop a double homicide from happening before it does. It's a close call, but with seconds to go, Aderton arrives at the house and stops the perpetrator-to-be. We then learn that the Precrime program started 6 years ago and not a single murder has happened in DC since then. It's now 2054 and a national referendum on Precrime is set to take place soon... At this point we are less than 15 min. into the movie, but to tell you more of the plot would spoil your viewing experience, you'll just have to see for yourself how it all plays out.
Couple of comments: this Steven Spielberg-Tom Cruise collaboration is nearing its 20th anniversary. I saw the movie when it came out in theaters but haven't seen it since, and the other day I watched it again. I had forgotten many of the plot points, and frankly it was almost like seeing it again as if for the first time. What struck me is that the movie wants to be both a movie of big ideas (which it certainly is) and an action movie (which it is at time), at the same time. This makes for some awkward back-and-forth. Second, the movie's plot is dense, frankly too dense. There are so many side bars that it's hard to keep track of them all. It also leads for the movie to be overly long. There is no reason this needs to be 2 1/2 hrs. On the other hand, I was surprise dhow well the movie holds up being technologically relevant after almost 2 decades. And I was also amazed how similar the overall tone is between this film and :Blade Runner 2049", which takes place just a few years before this (and both of course are based on Philip Dick short stories).
As mentioned, I saw it the other day on Showtime. I certainly don't regret seeing it again, but neither was I blown away. Still, if you are into science fiction or are simply a fan of Tom Cruise or Steven Spielberg, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.
Couple of comments: this Steven Spielberg-Tom Cruise collaboration is nearing its 20th anniversary. I saw the movie when it came out in theaters but haven't seen it since, and the other day I watched it again. I had forgotten many of the plot points, and frankly it was almost like seeing it again as if for the first time. What struck me is that the movie wants to be both a movie of big ideas (which it certainly is) and an action movie (which it is at time), at the same time. This makes for some awkward back-and-forth. Second, the movie's plot is dense, frankly too dense. There are so many side bars that it's hard to keep track of them all. It also leads for the movie to be overly long. There is no reason this needs to be 2 1/2 hrs. On the other hand, I was surprise dhow well the movie holds up being technologically relevant after almost 2 decades. And I was also amazed how similar the overall tone is between this film and :Blade Runner 2049", which takes place just a few years before this (and both of course are based on Philip Dick short stories).
As mentioned, I saw it the other day on Showtime. I certainly don't regret seeing it again, but neither was I blown away. Still, if you are into science fiction or are simply a fan of Tom Cruise or Steven Spielberg, I'd readily suggest you check this out, and draw your own conclusion.
Philip K Dick inspired sci fi gem
singhlall12 December 2020
Good, but very, very flawed
zetes18 July 2002
Steven Spielberg has made a couple of clunkers in his career, that's for sure. When sitting through Hook or The Lost World: Jurassic Park II, it's difficult to believe that the same man who made Jaws or E.T. or Close Encounters had a hand in them. Most of Spielberg's output, though, has been fantastic. Despite the occasional 1941, his films, even when flawed, soar above the average film. Minority Report falls into the category of fantastic and soaring, yet deeply flawed.
Minority Report is, above all else, an enormously entertaining film. I personally like actioners and thrillers and sci-fi, and Minority Report fits well into all these categories. There are a couple of action set pieces that are simply amazing, like the chase through the car factory or the spider scene. Unfortunately, in the idea department, the film is kind of a dud. Critics have immediately pointed to the politics of today to show how prescient Minority Report is, but no matter how large and powerful the intelligence industry gets I seriously don't believe that we'll ever live in a world where, even if it were possible to predict crime, law enforcement could arrest someone for a crime they were about to commit. And then, without a trial, apparently, they not only imprison the pre-perpetrators, but they encase them in suspended animation goo, apparently forever. At least they never say whether these prisoners are ever to be released. I mean, what happened to correctional institutions! And, what's worse, almost every perpetrator chooses to murder for reasons of passion since everyone knows that it's impossible to commit premeditated murder. That means that a man who was about to stab his wife and her lover with a pair of scissors - a horrific but understandable crime - is doomed to never see the light of day again (apparently). And I haven't even mentioned the time frame: this story takes place in just over 50 years from now. It specifically states that the ACLU still exists. Perhaps if the film took place a hundred and fifty years from now and the ACLU had been disbanded or something (with some heavy explanations in that department), I may have bought the story. The screenwriters never come close to making the situation believable.
And even if it weren't so unbelievable, the film has dozens of flaws besides that, and several poor, not very well thought out scenes. For example, the crimes are predicted by three psychics whose origins are dubiously explained. Part of the plot of the film is that this Pre-Crime department is supposed to expand nation-wide. The three pre-cogs are supposed to be the only ones alive, so where are they going to get others to predict the murders of every other city in the United States? These three only cover Washington D.C. I assume they aren't going to now cover the entire country (and soon, the world!). Okay, so maybe more exist. Perhaps I misunderstood that part of the exposition (which is generally very bad in this film). But if these three cover a populace only as big as the capital, they're going to need hundreds if not thousands of pre-cogs, and the three that they show in the movie seem to be so important and irreplaceable that the logistics of the project seem completely unfeasible. Then there's a scene where Tom Cruise kidnaps one of the pre-cogs to help him avoid the murder that he is accused of having been about to commit. First of all, you must know that the three pre-cogs are kept in a sort of sensory-deprivation chamber where they are suspended in a vat of liquid nutrients that is supposed to foster their psychic abilities. So Cruise kidnaps Agatha the pre-cog and escapes from the authorities in a ridiculous manner (there's apparently a drain in the bottom of the pool big enough for two people to slide down; the Pre-Crime division must have a hell of a time preventing the pre-cogs from accidentally being flushed in the first place!). Agatha, for the first time in a long while, begins to exist in the present. Then there's this scene in the mall, where she is able to protect Cruise by predicting every second of what's going to happen. She couldn't even do anything near this in the nutrient bath, and even there she could only see one thing: murders; but outside of it she sees every single thing that's ever going to happen. It just doesn't make any sense. And then there are the poorly calculated scenes. The scene with Peter Stormare (Fargo) as a black market surgeon makes little sense. It's completely ridiculous and also rather foul. The writers set up a whole history for this character, but don't follow up on it at all. And Cruise's whole backstory is very lame. Has every single individual who works for any law enforcement body had a child or wife who was murdered?
All the good stuff in Minority Report is technical. It's often beautifully done. Spielberg's direction is often fantastic. The set designs are miraculous - it would be insulting if it didn't get nominated for an Oscar in this department - as is the cinematography (a very beautiful, bleached look). The acting I would rate as merely adequate. Tom Cruise's character is not developed well enough, and therefore the performance isn't anything special. Max von Sydow, as nice as it is to see him in a summer blockbuster, has a very stereotypical role. Tim Blake Nelson (O Brother, Where Art Thou?), as Gideon, the warden of all the criminal tubes, should have been axed. Nelson is totally wrong for the movie. The only great performance in the film comes from Samantha Morton, who plays Agatha. She is amazing at times.
Many critics have praised this, saying that it's a great rebound after the failure of A.I. That's so incredibly insulting. A.I. is by far the superior of the two. Overall, Minority Report is a fun movie when you're watching it, but the more I think about it, the more my opinion shrinks. I give it a 7/10. Good entertainment, far too many flaws to even count. I think I could go on for days pointing them out.
Minority Report is, above all else, an enormously entertaining film. I personally like actioners and thrillers and sci-fi, and Minority Report fits well into all these categories. There are a couple of action set pieces that are simply amazing, like the chase through the car factory or the spider scene. Unfortunately, in the idea department, the film is kind of a dud. Critics have immediately pointed to the politics of today to show how prescient Minority Report is, but no matter how large and powerful the intelligence industry gets I seriously don't believe that we'll ever live in a world where, even if it were possible to predict crime, law enforcement could arrest someone for a crime they were about to commit. And then, without a trial, apparently, they not only imprison the pre-perpetrators, but they encase them in suspended animation goo, apparently forever. At least they never say whether these prisoners are ever to be released. I mean, what happened to correctional institutions! And, what's worse, almost every perpetrator chooses to murder for reasons of passion since everyone knows that it's impossible to commit premeditated murder. That means that a man who was about to stab his wife and her lover with a pair of scissors - a horrific but understandable crime - is doomed to never see the light of day again (apparently). And I haven't even mentioned the time frame: this story takes place in just over 50 years from now. It specifically states that the ACLU still exists. Perhaps if the film took place a hundred and fifty years from now and the ACLU had been disbanded or something (with some heavy explanations in that department), I may have bought the story. The screenwriters never come close to making the situation believable.
And even if it weren't so unbelievable, the film has dozens of flaws besides that, and several poor, not very well thought out scenes. For example, the crimes are predicted by three psychics whose origins are dubiously explained. Part of the plot of the film is that this Pre-Crime department is supposed to expand nation-wide. The three pre-cogs are supposed to be the only ones alive, so where are they going to get others to predict the murders of every other city in the United States? These three only cover Washington D.C. I assume they aren't going to now cover the entire country (and soon, the world!). Okay, so maybe more exist. Perhaps I misunderstood that part of the exposition (which is generally very bad in this film). But if these three cover a populace only as big as the capital, they're going to need hundreds if not thousands of pre-cogs, and the three that they show in the movie seem to be so important and irreplaceable that the logistics of the project seem completely unfeasible. Then there's a scene where Tom Cruise kidnaps one of the pre-cogs to help him avoid the murder that he is accused of having been about to commit. First of all, you must know that the three pre-cogs are kept in a sort of sensory-deprivation chamber where they are suspended in a vat of liquid nutrients that is supposed to foster their psychic abilities. So Cruise kidnaps Agatha the pre-cog and escapes from the authorities in a ridiculous manner (there's apparently a drain in the bottom of the pool big enough for two people to slide down; the Pre-Crime division must have a hell of a time preventing the pre-cogs from accidentally being flushed in the first place!). Agatha, for the first time in a long while, begins to exist in the present. Then there's this scene in the mall, where she is able to protect Cruise by predicting every second of what's going to happen. She couldn't even do anything near this in the nutrient bath, and even there she could only see one thing: murders; but outside of it she sees every single thing that's ever going to happen. It just doesn't make any sense. And then there are the poorly calculated scenes. The scene with Peter Stormare (Fargo) as a black market surgeon makes little sense. It's completely ridiculous and also rather foul. The writers set up a whole history for this character, but don't follow up on it at all. And Cruise's whole backstory is very lame. Has every single individual who works for any law enforcement body had a child or wife who was murdered?
All the good stuff in Minority Report is technical. It's often beautifully done. Spielberg's direction is often fantastic. The set designs are miraculous - it would be insulting if it didn't get nominated for an Oscar in this department - as is the cinematography (a very beautiful, bleached look). The acting I would rate as merely adequate. Tom Cruise's character is not developed well enough, and therefore the performance isn't anything special. Max von Sydow, as nice as it is to see him in a summer blockbuster, has a very stereotypical role. Tim Blake Nelson (O Brother, Where Art Thou?), as Gideon, the warden of all the criminal tubes, should have been axed. Nelson is totally wrong for the movie. The only great performance in the film comes from Samantha Morton, who plays Agatha. She is amazing at times.
Many critics have praised this, saying that it's a great rebound after the failure of A.I. That's so incredibly insulting. A.I. is by far the superior of the two. Overall, Minority Report is a fun movie when you're watching it, but the more I think about it, the more my opinion shrinks. I give it a 7/10. Good entertainment, far too many flaws to even count. I think I could go on for days pointing them out.
HORRIBLE movie, skip it
bdoran925 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** This is an absolutely horrible movie and a travesty to both film and to the short story it was based on. SPOILERS...
First of all, you can't judge a movie "based on a short story" without considering and comparing the movie to the book itself. We always hear 'the book was better.' Well, not only is the book better...it's also very different. I have no idea where Spielberg gets the notion that he can completely destroy the work of Philip K Dick by making this nonsense.
Let's start with the title: Minority Report. The Minority Report is a VERY IMPORTANT item in the short story. It's critical to the plot. However, in the movie, there is no Minority Report. There's a mention of it ("where's the minority report?") but it is dismissed quickly and absolutely ("there is no minority report") That's it. A critical element of the story, and the TITLE OF THE DARN MOVIE is...non existant.
I won't explain the role of the minority report...just visit a bookstore, grab the collection of short stories, and you can read the whole Minority Report "book" in about 30 minutes.
Another conflict is: In the book, Anderston ABSOLUTELY and above all else loves and defends Precrime. At the end of the book, he decides to go ahead and kill the guy just to "prove" that precrime "works." However, in the movie, he fails to do this. Further, he works at the end to bring it down by confronting his nemesis, remarrying his wife, having another kid and living happily after.
What else isn't in the book? Anderton getting new eyes, Anderton getting divorced, Anderton losing his son, Anderton getting setup by his own boss, Anderton running around town with a precog, Anderton having a drug problem, doctors who burned their patients, jetpacks, spiders....you name it. Anderton in the novel is no Tom Cruise, but a 300 pound slob, but why mix some book facts with a bad movie? This movie resembles the original short story as much as it resembles The Wizard Of Oz.
For those that say "well, I didn't read the book and the movie looks great," I can only say: this is one of the most ill thought out, poorly constructed movies with entirely too many plotholes.
One example that comes to mind is Anderton's eyeballs: they could track Anderton in his car and reroute the car, yet, even after he was being pursued, he still used his eyeballs to easily enter the precog room. How? Don't you think they would have turned off his access? Hell, laid off employees get their card access turned off...surely, access to the most important room in the PreCrime building would have been turned off?!? Funnier still, even after he is IN JAIL, his wife uses his eyeball to gain access to the prison...with a gun...to free prisoners. You figure it out.
What about the movie saying "precogs can only see murders" yet Agatha the roaming precog can see rain coming, balloons needed, etc?
What about the movie saying all the precogs must be "connected" in order for it to work, yet with Agatha running around solo she is seeing the aforementioned umbrella, balloons, etc?
Why didn't the precogs see the Witwer murder since that was premeditated?
Spielberg has said that he added in extra twists and turns as the book didn't have enough...that's bogus. Anderton suspected even his 'loving' wife of possibly framing him in the book, or was it Witwer, or was it... plenty of twists. Anderton electing, at the very end of the book, to go through with the actual killing, was also very interesting.
I feel bad for Spielberg. He's washed up. He hasn't made a decent flick since the 90's. I just hope he doesn't ruin any more of my favorite books or short stories.
First of all, you can't judge a movie "based on a short story" without considering and comparing the movie to the book itself. We always hear 'the book was better.' Well, not only is the book better...it's also very different. I have no idea where Spielberg gets the notion that he can completely destroy the work of Philip K Dick by making this nonsense.
Let's start with the title: Minority Report. The Minority Report is a VERY IMPORTANT item in the short story. It's critical to the plot. However, in the movie, there is no Minority Report. There's a mention of it ("where's the minority report?") but it is dismissed quickly and absolutely ("there is no minority report") That's it. A critical element of the story, and the TITLE OF THE DARN MOVIE is...non existant.
I won't explain the role of the minority report...just visit a bookstore, grab the collection of short stories, and you can read the whole Minority Report "book" in about 30 minutes.
Another conflict is: In the book, Anderston ABSOLUTELY and above all else loves and defends Precrime. At the end of the book, he decides to go ahead and kill the guy just to "prove" that precrime "works." However, in the movie, he fails to do this. Further, he works at the end to bring it down by confronting his nemesis, remarrying his wife, having another kid and living happily after.
What else isn't in the book? Anderton getting new eyes, Anderton getting divorced, Anderton losing his son, Anderton getting setup by his own boss, Anderton running around town with a precog, Anderton having a drug problem, doctors who burned their patients, jetpacks, spiders....you name it. Anderton in the novel is no Tom Cruise, but a 300 pound slob, but why mix some book facts with a bad movie? This movie resembles the original short story as much as it resembles The Wizard Of Oz.
For those that say "well, I didn't read the book and the movie looks great," I can only say: this is one of the most ill thought out, poorly constructed movies with entirely too many plotholes.
One example that comes to mind is Anderton's eyeballs: they could track Anderton in his car and reroute the car, yet, even after he was being pursued, he still used his eyeballs to easily enter the precog room. How? Don't you think they would have turned off his access? Hell, laid off employees get their card access turned off...surely, access to the most important room in the PreCrime building would have been turned off?!? Funnier still, even after he is IN JAIL, his wife uses his eyeball to gain access to the prison...with a gun...to free prisoners. You figure it out.
What about the movie saying "precogs can only see murders" yet Agatha the roaming precog can see rain coming, balloons needed, etc?
What about the movie saying all the precogs must be "connected" in order for it to work, yet with Agatha running around solo she is seeing the aforementioned umbrella, balloons, etc?
Why didn't the precogs see the Witwer murder since that was premeditated?
Spielberg has said that he added in extra twists and turns as the book didn't have enough...that's bogus. Anderton suspected even his 'loving' wife of possibly framing him in the book, or was it Witwer, or was it... plenty of twists. Anderton electing, at the very end of the book, to go through with the actual killing, was also very interesting.
I feel bad for Spielberg. He's washed up. He hasn't made a decent flick since the 90's. I just hope he doesn't ruin any more of my favorite books or short stories.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
