I am a sci-fi junkie. A veritable cyberpunk aficionado. Therefore, my thoughts on Steven Spielberg's Minority Report are probably a little biased. Of course, I am one of those weirdos who really like A.I. in its entirety. So much so that I bought the DVD when it first came out. I do, however, realize that it was a long movie, but I don't think it would be any better if it had been shortened in length. But I'm not here to talk about A.I. My subject is Minority Report.
I don't think Report was as good as A.I., that would be hard to match; A.I. is one of my top 5 favorites. That being said, Report is still a good movie in my eyes. True, it had some blatant shortcomings but it's hard for me to find a movie without a few of those these days. My favorite movie of all time, Trainspotting, has been accused many times of being a souped up toilet humor movie. Despite that or maybe because of it, I love that movie. I just state that because I can overlook the flaws when I see a good movie. The plot of Report was very intriguing to me. Although parts of it sounded very reminiscent of Time Cop, Report did not suffer any, pardon the pun, Van-Dammage.
Precrime, based off predictions by 3 "precogs," psychics that could register murders before they happened, lays the groundwork for the movie. Set in Washington, D.C., one of the worst crime cities in the U.S., Report follows the chief of the precrime department, John Anderton played by Tom Cruise. Cruise did a fairly good job in pulling off the dyamic character of Anderton. I could see hints of his Mission Impossible persona, but that just may be the setting. Likewise, Max von Sydow (who, since Dune, has had huge respect from me) plays a very compelling and deep Director of Precrime and acts as a mentor for Anderton. For sake of not giving this movie away, I won't delve much more into the actors or their characters for fear of letting some important plot information slip.
As for the setting, it's 2054 in D.C. Spielberg's vision of this future is a little glossier than his in A.I., but both were much more optimistic than Blade Runner or Johnny Mnemonic. Nice flashes of technology are littered throughout the movie. I'm sure that everyone has seen the trailor where he's jumping from car to car on the vertical highway. Well, there's quite a bit more of that futuristic style and I thoroughly enjoyed it. That's probably because I'm a nerd when it comes to that sort of thing.
The technology ties into the effects of the movie. They are pretty excellent. Spielberg uses a "washed-out" look for this film, but it's not as dark and gritty as Saving Private Ryan. It has a bluish tint somewhat like Payback, only shinier. During the action scenes, which are pretty impressive, the effects look pretty realistic even though the action, for the most part, is not. The CGI is well-placed and adds a touch of futuristic flair to a movie that is permeated by it already. None of it seems overdone in the least, though.
Now, there are some things that detract from the movie, but they are mostly plot related. Minority Report is based on cyberpunk legend Philip K. Dick. He wrote the novel that Blade Runner was based and also the short (yes, I said short) story that Kubrick and Spielberg used for A.I. I have not read this story yet, but I'm not sure if it's the story or the screenplay that suffered from the cliche. Some of the biggest themes in the movie were either easily guessed early on or not given enough detail. Describing any more of these could also be giving away the movie, so I won't go too much more. The story also starts out with the viewer thinking one thing, but shifts on the viewer and leaves him or her scrambling to catch up. The bad thing is that this happens quite late in the movie and it's not done with the precision or finesse of M. Night Shyamalan, whose upcoming Signs I can't wait long enough for.
Like I said at the beginning of this review, I thought Minority Report was a good movie. Is it worthy enough to sit with the other cyberpunk/scifi classics? I think so. In fact, I will buy it when it's out on DVD. It's good, but it's not excellent, so here's my grade: 8.9.
Originally posted by me on Genuis
I have just finished the most depressing movie i've ever seen. as noted by the subject line, that movie is Requiem for a Dream with Jared Leto, Jennifer Connelly, and Marlon Wayans.
To start, i've never written a movie review, so bear with me. i'm just going to touch on the general because this movie needs to be seen without it being spoiled prior.
Here's the background: as i'm searching the movie coffers one day, i stumble upon a rather intriguing title, Requiem for a Dream. With my interest sparked, i decide to see what this movie is about and why the name sounds familiar. As i read a brief overview, i notice that Jennifer Connelly, who is an excellent actress, and Jared Leto, whom i haven't seen much work of, but have enjoyed some of his minor roles, are both in the movie. Then i notice that Marlon Wayans is also involved and i had some apprehension to watching another Scary Movie 1 or 2. Luckily, he has none of the badly acted, badly written toilet-humor shenanigans in this movie. In fact, he does a very good job in this film.
But i digress...after losing my interest in the movie because something better presented itself, i offhandedly ask Adam if he's ever heard or seen of this movie. His quote, if i remember correctly, was "I have and it was one of the most depressing movies i've ever seen. after watching, i wanted to kill myself." now that remark got me intrigued once again. What could be so depressing that even Adam would become depressed by it? One answer: Requiem for a Dream.
So now, after watching this movie, i understand what he meant. The camera shots, angles, "tricks," cinematography in general were simply beautiful. I haven't seen anything this innovative for a while (although i may have missed something because i tend to just watch movies over and over). The direction was equally good and the acting abilities of the three main characters were excellent...that's right, even Marlon Wayans. The soundtrack/score is almost haunting, but fitting to the style of the movie. I can still hear the violins of the main theme. In fact, i think i may try and find it somewhere because i liked the music that much.
Now why is it depressing? that i cannot tell you, you must find out for yourself. The one thing i can mention is that the movie brings about a sense of despair to the viewer...or at least i felt that. Not even freshly baked cookies (which i had made just for this viewing) could cure that despair, and i think that's one of the points the movie is trying to make: this is how bad these characters have it, and they cannot do anything about it.
With that said, i think the writing was excellent. it truly got the message across to me, though it brought me way down. So, if you want a very interesting movie, watch this. if you want a good, unique movie, watch this. if you are on anti-depressants or have been diagnosed with some psychological disorder that makes you susceptible to depression, you may not want to watch this...but it's a good movie in my eyes. on a side note, here's a little flavor of how odd the movie is.
Check it, yo...it's a good one. Grade is 9.8.
saw LXG (league of extraordinary gentlemen). not too good in my opinion. decent looking effects, bad character development, large suspension of disbelief. it's based on a little known (except in comic circles) graphic novel written by allan moore, one of the greatest writers in the comic book biz. i have reason to believe that hollywood muddied up the original material for "public consumption" and the story/character development, two things that moore is excellent at providing...the latter especially, were watered down, edited, thrown away...whatever you call it.
the characters are pretty interesting, though. in the comic the characters were meant to be legends but real (quatermain, jekyll/hyde, mina harker, dorian gray), meaning that while they were legendary, they were also real and existed in the same world...kinda like an alternate version of 1899, which is exactly what it's supposed to be. these characters, already having a background in literature, were fleshed or had the life breathed into them by moore and these characters, in particular, are very intriguiging as they are not the normal run-of-the-mill characters one finds in comics or movies.
but however intriguing these characters were, that's pretty much where my interest stopped regarding the movie. it seems like the important character development was all but left out of the movie, with the only noticeable scenes coming across as trite and uninteresting. one of the issues i had with the movie was this: quatermain was the good guy...the only good guy on the team (i'm not counting the american...i dont even know if he was in the original material) and the rest were tried and true villains...but they turned good, for the most part. perhaps with better character development, the reasoning used to fight the evil would have been more prevalent.
i do have a few good things to say about the movie. first, stuart townsend was a pretty cool dorian gray (a very interesting character). i think he played that part well. nemo's car, while way too sophisticated to exist in 1899 (then again, look at all the other stuff that was "around that time" in the movie) was still a damn fine-looking car. in fact, most of nemo's inventions were kickass looking, but where did he learn martial arts and become an indian (continental, not native american) worshipping kali, the hindu goddess of destruction. anyway, that's about it for my take on the movie. i'll probably lift this post and add it to the reviews page once i set that up. i'll also be on the lookout for the comic so i can see how it is. so, the story is interesting, but the movie didn't cut it.
my grade (typical scale of 10, including decimals): 6, just a 6...it wasn't that good.
Just set this page up for an easier way of reviewing things.
test.