Reviews

7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
10/10
Response to a Prior post
22 June 2002
Warning: Spoilers
In response to another's comments:

"First of all, the foundation of the movie lies on the issue of the Pre-Crime department operating solely within the District of Columbia...riddle me this, Batman - how is it the Pre-Cogs ONLY have information about future murders only in DC?"

  • There is a line in the film that suggest their pre-cognative abilties are limited to a specific geographic radius from their own person. Someone says they can't believe anyone would contemplate commiting a murder within 200 miles - I took that to mean the pre-cogs would key in on anything within that radius. !!POTENTIAL MINOR SPOILER ALERT!! As for the final shot, well, it suggests that to get away from their visions they need to be far from civilization and other people, far enough away so as not to be troubled by their visions of future murders. !!END SPOILER!!


In the original story the Dept. of Pre-Crime is already a national program.

"it has been expected as part of the project that it would be expanded to a national project - yet the selection of the Pre-Cogs was shown to be a singular, non-recurrent event."

  • Is it singular and non-recurrent? Presumably you could have more pre-cogs born due to that drug being abused, and then train them. I might be wrong, but wasn't Tom's character addicted to the same drug that caused the pre-cog mutation? If he's addicted, then no doubt others are, too.


"Wouldn't the recruitment of more Pre-Cogs be needed? But the movie makes it clear that would be impossible."

  • Another potentially chilling aspect to the project is that these pre-cogs might have to be "farmed." Keep some women addicted to that drug, artificially inseminate them then raise and train the kids over the years. You'd need a large pool of "talent" because the process is so dangerous so that's a lot of women being kept to breed these kids. (or maybe just paid off). Even if you don't extrapolate this out so far, the whole notion that the project requires children born from mothers who are addicted to an illegal drug give it a very "Phil K. Dickian" moral taint. The notion of presumably benevelont institutions secretly addicting innocent people to drugs to further their own ends actually happens in at least one of Dick's novels, "A Scanner Darkly."


"Another key scene in the movie is Anderton returning to the Pre-Crime Laboratory in order to extract Agatha's hidden Minority Report - this after having been revealed as the perpetrator of a future murder and on the run from the Pre-Crime unit. Admission to the Pre-Crime unit is secured by, among other things, a retinal scan of the person's eyes, so Cruise remembers to bring his previously extracted eyeballs with him"

I'll concede that this was a bit of a problem, then again there wasn't much time for a security alert be be caused by his eyeball scan, and he clearly had his escape plan worked out in advance. Still, why was he not locked out of the system? In the original short story, when he goes back to examine the Minority Report, he is let in through security by one of his loyal former employees. There were hints, but not nearly overt enough, that some of his former employees might have given some help (that one particular black woman who clearly didn't believe his guilt). I get the feeling a scene may have been cut that helped better explain this.

"(fortunately there is no such thing as decomposition [of his eyes] in the future)."

The eyes were out of his head for less then a day by that point and had been kept on ice for much of that time, you might recall. They wouldn't have decomposed much, if at all. Actually, it wasn't a retinal scan but an iris scan the computers were doing, if I recall. So long as the pattern of irises are intact the scan would work.

"Didn't it occur to him to just STAY THE HELL AWAY from Les Crow??? He is even told to do so several times in the movie yet for reasons unexplained continues to pursue this person - HUH???????"

If he DOESN'T face Les Crow he's totally screwed. If he doesn't find Crow, his only link to possibly finding out who is framing him, he'll never prove his innocence. It's implicit that the future CAN be changed - they stop murders from happening all the time as it is, that's their job. What it doesn't change is his assumed guilt before the fact - the potential murderers they stop are still convicted as if they were guilty of murder. His only way to prove he will not commit this murder is to go to the scene of the future crime, at the appointed time, and then not commit said crime.
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
Glorious! Glorious! Glorious!
21 December 2001
As a huge fan of the books since I was 13, having read them many times, I was very worried that the films would not live up to my hopes, which were at best to do the books justice, if not be a perfect recreation (which might not make a great film from a cinematic point of view). Well, the movie is not a perfect recreation of the books, but what we do get is a glorious adaptation, sumptuous to look at and so exciting the near 3 hour runtime felt like but 1.

Jackson has done Tolkien's vision proud, I think.

  • PL
0 out of 0 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I, Claudius (1976)
10/10
Perhaps the best TV ever.
27 November 1999
Along with "The Prisoner" mini-series and some of the best episodes of "Homicide," to me this is the best work the television medium has ever produced.

The performances are superb from top to bottom. Like one other reviewer, it caused me to run out and get (borrow from a friend in my case) Robert Graves' original historical novel. The series very faithfully captures the horror, drama and often shocking comedy of the book, and in some instances, often due to the brillance of the actors, even improves upon Graves' work. John Hurt is especially standout for me as the mad Caligulia and Derek Jacobi of course in the title role. The scene in which a terrified Claudius must first watch then critique Caligulia's dance performance is one of the funniest moments in TV history.

Must been seen!
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Congo (1995)
Among the worst movies of the 90's
9 October 1999
Everyone involved in this production managed to be either awful or annoying. The story is lame, ILM managed to mess up the special effects (especially when the plane explodes, stops in the middle of the sky and falls like a rock - there is something called inertia in this universe, guys). Ernie Hudson and Tim Currey both were incredibly annoying in their roles, two actors whom I usually like. It's all just bad - bad, bad, bad. Oh, and did I mention the awful voice contraption that the "good ape" wears - I cringe every time I hear it.
0 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Oi, this really is the worst.
14 September 1998
This film is probably the worst movie of the 1990's, though I haven't seen them all. As for the previous comment, Sean Connery's return from the dead is "explained" but it doesn't make any sense so I'll forgive the commenter for not figuring it out. Highlander II was an opportunity for something really terrific and it turned out to be something truely terrible. One of the great missed opportunities in recent memory. There is nothing I can say positive about this film except that Virginia Madsen looked terrific in it. Should be avoided at all costs especially since it ignores everything that occured in the first film in terms of plot. I don't consider this a legitimate sequel to the first since the creator had nothing to do with it.
1 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Hard to believe it's Cameron
14 September 1998
Cameron defends his first film opus as being, "without a doubt, the finest flying piranha movie ever made." I must agree with The King of the World on that one.

This movie just goes to show that none of us should take early knocks in our careers too hard. From here to Titanic in 17 years is pretty good.
22 out of 32 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
3/10
At least the premise was good.
14 September 1998
The premise of this film is the only thing worthwhile. It is very poorly made but the idea was clever, if not entirely original. It's a shame the other aspects of the film weren't better. The acting is especially bad.
5 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed