• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

A few reviews

bionicbob

Well-known member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
8,265
Reaction score
2,391
Trophy Points
168
A CHRISTMAS STORY CHRISTMAS (2022 HBO/Crave)


Cute but lacks the wit and bite of the original.

1983's A Christmas Story is a modern classic. I still laugh uncontrollably when I rewatch it.

This sequel is 101% dependent on the original, bringing little to nothing new to the equation, and thus often plays predictable. There are a few charming and heartfelt moments as you would expect, but nothing elevates it above Hallmark material. Other than seeing many of the original children cast now as 50-ish adults, there is not much to recommend here other than nostalgia.

So while I did smile through it all, I kept thinking I would rather be watching the much funnier and heartwarming National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation that this sequel is trying unsuccessfully to emulate.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
Flesh + Blood (1985)
I can see why this was a massive flop, as the poster screams middling 1980s "post Conan" Sword & Sorcery but it's this grim, horrid nightmare, populated by characters who are murderous, treacherous, profane, rapists... and that's just our heroes! Paul Verhoeven's goal seems to have been to make a counterpart to the typical portrayal of these period films as fun adventures. Verhoeven's Middle Ages are a vision of mud, blood and plague. That would all be fine (although not to everyone's taste) but I believe studio interference led him to make it more mainstream, so we end up with a film that wants us to like, fundamentally unlikeable characters. Plus I got the impression that two of the mercenaries were supposed to be a gay couple but this aspect had been toned down in the edit? Conan's Basil Poledouris does the score by the way.

 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
^I read up on this after watching it recently, and all your thoughts are exactly right. The script was massively changed from what they got approved to shoot to when they started shooting, and Verhoeven kept trying to change it more as they went. It was his biggest production to date by far, and he wasn't used to script changes causing so much chaos, given all the different departments that they would effect. He was used to working looser, and this apparently drove the whole crew nuts and they nearly revolted multiple times. Hauer kept trying to get out of the production, feeling that his star was rising in the US and he should be making a US film rather than one simply co-financed by a US company. Verhoeven kept manipulating him and trying to reframe the story to keep him interested, and they developed an almost Herzog/Kinski relationship on set. The producers got nervous about all this and kept trying to cut the budget, whereas Verhoeven kept asking for more to do bigger battles and more fighting, most of which was cut from the script because the producers did not plan for him to spend so much on making the battles look good (like the one in the opening). The story was originally supposed to be a revenge movie, a battle of wills between Hauer's mercenary and his former commander, but the studio forced in the love story angle with the young prince so Verhoeven ended up making it more of a bizarre love triangle film. The whole thing was apparently taxing on everyone concerned, and pretty much everyone swore off doing anything like it again after, or working with any of the same people. Verhoeven hadn't gotten most of the cast he wanted anyway, and thought he'd end up dubbing over the thing to release in various European markets. So he told everyone not to worry too much about their accents when filming, meaning everyone sounds completely different from each other and anachronistic. It's a wonderful shit-show of a film, particularly the European cut with all the violence and nudity restored.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
Beirut (2018) (US Netflix)

Beirut_%28film%29.png


Halfway through my watch of the excellent series Andor, my old man says he's just seen a cracking film that he demands to watch again with me. Turns out it's the product of a 1991 script by Andor showrunner Tony Kilroy. It's also a quasi-sequel to Spielberg's Munich, in that one of the characters was a participant in the 1972 Olympic massacre, but I only saw that movie once, and my memories of it are vague. Watching this soon after Munich would probably be ideal.

Anyhow, Beirut is quite good, a mix of a spy flick and classic noir PI story set in a civil war-ravaged Lebanon. Ultimately, it doesn't carry much emotional heft, but it's a gripping ride along the way. Because the movie wasn't made for Netflix, it didn't provide automatic subtitles during certain non-English exchanges, so toggling the subs on/off during those scenes might help, but it's not necessary.

Grade: B+
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
Russia 1985-1999: TraumaZone (2022)
Adam Curtis'
latest 7-hour BBC documentary opus 'TraumaZone' is subtitled "What It Felt Like to Live Through The Collapse of Communism and Democracy", which neatly sums up it's focus. Clearly having not learned their lesson from junking many old episodes of Doctor Who, I believe the BBC where just going to throw away all the footage they'd amassed across 30-years from their Moscow news bureau, until Curtis rescued it from the proverbial dumpster, digitised it and sculpted this new documentary from the materials he found. There are amazing raw news clips, like a top Russian politician smashing his face full force into a telephone booth, or a soldier trying to forcefully kick down a door in the Russian parliament, before sheepishly turning the handle and walking through, or news reports on the Soviet Space Museum being repurposed as a used car lot, then a disco and much footage of President Yeltsin drunk in public. Cumulatively these clips are employed to convey a sense of chaos, collapse and contradiction. If I'd watched this prior to seeing 'Satantango' (which I hated) I might have liked, or understood it a little more because it captures exactly the atmosphere and tenor of the post-Soviet decline. There were many points in this doc where I was thinking "Hey that's kinda like that scene/character/situation from 'Satantango'". I always thought Putin's tight control, was a direct result of these terrifying years of zero control but I've not seen it so well articulated. As Manic Street Preachers sang on their 2001 album 'Know Your Enemy', "Freedom of Speech Won't Feed My Children".

For the first time in 30-years (I think) Curtis has chosen to not narrate this documentary in his own familiar voice and there is also none of his trademark ironic uses of pop music. The only bit of music is put over the credits and sounds a bit like Brian Eno's theme from 'Dune'. I can see the slight benefit of us being allowed to really listen to the footage and being able to draw more of our own conclusions from the visual juxtapositions but it sadly lacks a lot of the Curtis flavour that I love. I wish he hadn't done it. If you've not seen a Curtis doc before this is not the place to start. This is the advanced class, where you might fall asleep at the back of the lecture theatre. Maybe there's an AI technology to fan narrate the doc in Curtis' voice and create an alternate soundtrack?

Trailer:


The whole series can probably be found on YouTube if you're quick:

 
Last edited:

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
Minority Report (2002)
I hated 'Minority Report' when I first watched it 20-years ago but since everyone else on planet earth seemed to think it's one of Steven Spielberg's greatest films, I've been very curious to re-watch it. The short answer is that I still mostly hate it, for the same reasons. Let me preface this with saying that I've never read Philip K. Dick's short story, so maybe it made sense there but... I just can't buy that nobody in this world, not even our supposed hero, questions the logic of the "Pre-crime" concept, or only on the most infantile level. Colin Farrell's character brings it up in one early scene, just so Tom Cruise can swat it away with a simplistic example of a ball dropping off a table. Except that if you tell a ball "Hey you're about to roll off that edge" it won't make any difference, which is not the case with 99.99% of humans. The first Pre-crime case we're shown seems selected to demonstrate to us the audience how insane the system is. Where a guy who clearly was about to commit a sudden crime of passion, which he would never have committed and would never commit in the future if somebody had simply sat him down and gave him a cup of tea and a few minutes to calm down. Instead were shown this terrified guy being instantly imprisoned in a coffin of living death, without a moment to question what's happening.

Nobody seems interested in investigating the crimes, if there were accomplices, or if coercion was involved. I could see the benefits of the system in eradicating only premeditated murderers, those intent on committing those crimes regardless, or I could buy the system as presented, if characters of good conscious questioned it, or if the characters were shown to accept Pre-crime's failings because of it's overwhelming benefits. But were not shown that, Cruise's character only takes issue with Pre-crime when somebody is trying to pervert it and when he's personally endangered by it. He's not even troubled by the three Precog people they are clearly torturing on a daily basis. So I can only conclude that he's a callous, selfish, possibly evil individual but the film carries on as if he's not.

When discussing it's dystopian/utopian premise, Sylvester Stallone's 1993 action comedy 'Demolition Man' has more intellectual rigour than 'Minority Report'. I'm eternally engaged by an anti-hero super-cop like Judge Dredd, who perpetuates a similarly repressive and indiscriminate system of law enforcement because Dredd believes in the necessity of the system, at the same time as the writing denounces it. 'Minority Report' does neither, the hero is oblivious and so is the writing. These are the kinds of thoughts that occupy my mind while watching 'Minority Report' and no amount of bubble cars, jetpacks and robo-spiders can distract my brain from it.

The solution to the mystery is extremely convoluted and hard to follow but I'm pretty sure it's b*llocks. So Max von Sydow found a magic hobo who is prepared to take money to kill somebody (for which the magic hobo will be imprisoned forever with no use for that money) in order to cover a second killing. If we're going to be that stupid, why not have Sydow find a second magic hobo to commit the actual murder, instead of Sydow risking doing it himself? The dumb non-questioning of the premise continues right to the end, when our hero effectively brings back mass murder without a moments thought. Hurray! roll credits. By the way, was this the first film to do the super annoying transparent hand wavy computer screen thing? Reason enough to hate this film if it was.

 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
Cocktail (1988)
'Cocktail'
starts very promisingly on the edgy bromance between Brian Flanagan's amusingly arrogant, motormouth, experienced New York bartender and Tom Cruise's eager young newcomer. Unfortunately it soon falls apart when the action moves from gritty NY, to sunny Jamaica, with some shaky plotting, a half-hearted attempt at 'Wallstreet' like social commentary, questionable sexual politics and a mildly underwhelming romance with Elisabeth Shue. Cruise and Flanagan's exciting chemistry does keep the film ticking along though.

 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
Minority Report (2002)
I hated 'Minority Report' when I first watched it 20-years ago but since everyone else on planet earth seemed to think it's one of Steven Spielberg's greatest films, I've been very curious to re-watch it. The short answer is that I still mostly hate it, for the same reasons. Let me preface this with saying that I've never read Philip K. Dick's short story, so maybe it made sense there but... I just can't buy that nobody in this world, not even our supposed hero, questions the logic of the "Pre-crime" concept, or only on the most infantile level. Colin Farrell's character brings it up in one early scene, just so Tom Cruise can swat it away with a simplistic example of a ball dropping off a table. Except that if you tell a ball "Hey you're about to roll off that edge" it won't make any difference, which is not the case with 99.99% of humans. The first Pre-crime case we're shown seems selected to demonstrate to us the audience how insane the system is. Where a guy who clearly was about to commit a sudden crime of passion, which he would never have committed and would never commit in the future if somebody had simply sat him down and gave him a cup of tea and a few minutes to calm down. Instead were shown this terrified guy being instantly imprisoned in a coffin of living death, without a moment to question what's happening.

Nobody seems interested in investigating the crimes, if there were accomplices, or if coercion was involved. I could see the benefits of the system in eradicating only premeditated murderers, those intent on committing those crimes regardless, or I could buy the system as presented, if characters of good conscious questioned it, or if the characters were shown to accept Pre-crime's failings because of it's overwhelming benefits. But were not shown that, Cruise's character only takes issue with Pre-crime when somebody is trying to pervert it and when he's personally endangered by it. He's not even troubled by the three Precog people they are clearly torturing on a daily basis. So I can only conclude that he's a callous, selfish, possibly evil individual but the film carries on as if he's not.

When discussing it's dystopian/utopian premise, Sylvester Stallone's 1993 action comedy 'Demolition Man' has more intellectual rigour than 'Minority Report'. I'm eternally engaged by an anti-hero super-cop like Judge Dredd, who perpetuates a similarly repressive and indiscriminate system of law enforcement because Dredd believes in the necessity of the system, at the same time as the writing denounces it. 'Minority Report' does neither, the hero is oblivious and so is the writing. These are the kinds of thoughts that occupy my mind while watching 'Minority Report' and no amount of bubble cars, jetpacks and robo-spiders can distract my brain from it.

The solution to the mystery is extremely convoluted and hard to follow but I'm pretty sure it's b*llocks. So Max von Sydow found a magic hobo who is prepared to take money to kill somebody (for which the magic hobo will be imprisoned forever with no use for that money) in order to cover a second killing. If we're going to be that stupid, why not have Sydow find a second magic hobo to commit the actual murder, instead of Sydow risking doing it himself? The dumb non-questioning of the premise continues right to the end, when our hero effectively brings back mass murder without a moments thought. Hurray! roll credits. By the way, was this the first film to do the super annoying transparent hand wavy computer screen thing? Reason enough to hate this film if it was.

Honestly sounds like you just have an issue with the premise of the film itself. Can you conceive of any way the movie could have sold you on the premise without being about selling you on this world? What I mean is, is there any way to get on with a mystery/man-on-the-run film in this world for you?

For reference, a lot of Dick's works probably do function better as short stories, at least if you're examining them in this way. This one is pretty significantly different (like many of the film expansions) and really the short story moves to the next plot point as quickly as you realize what's happening in the current one. There's no time for examination, because there's nothing to examine. From our privileged point of view, this is clearly an inherently flawed and unfair system, almost Kafkaesque in its workings. That's how many of Dick's stories work. The point is that though the dystopian nature of his worlds are clear, they do seem like natural extensions of our own current societal path, taken to their final ends. As someone who grew up in the US, I can confirm that the (in)justice system there is almost as horribly dysfunctional and unfair as in this film, though it's presented to the public as the fairest and most logical mankind has yet invented. Many people don't bother to pick apart at the seams of it and question the way it's executed as you have done with the fictional system here. If the same rigor was applied to our real-world system, it immediately begins to fold.

But the Dick story is not supposed to be taken in this way, it's not an exercise in intellectual rigor. It's a humanist, philosophical work, meant to provoke moral musings and prod sympathetic mirror neurons. If you finish reading the story and think "well, our current justice system isn't this bad yet...there's time to make sure we avoid this insanity!" then that is exactly the desired response. There but for the better grace of god go we.
 

MusicEd921

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
1,985
Reaction score
701
Trophy Points
143
Stone Cold (1991)
If this had starred an A-list action star like Arnold Schwarzenegger, it'd easily be remembered as one of the greatest actions films of the 80s/90s but because it starred NFL player, turned actor, Brian Bosworth, it bombed and I only heard about it when the Red Letter Media gang were singing it's praises this year. It's not that Bosworth is any worse at acting than the muscle-bound stars of the period (maybe he's a bit lacking in screen charisma) and he certainly delivers the action but he didn't have the profile to attract the audience this deserved. When the film immediately begins with a crazed lunatic firing a shotgun into the viewer's face and breaking the fourth-wall by shouting "Yeeeaahh, let's go!", you know this is going to be a fun movie. For me, there is nothing less cool in a film than an actor pretending to ride a motorcycle, so it's wonderful to see Bosworth riding the bike at dangerous looking speeds in most shots and when it's not, it's a talented stunt performer, there's no fakin' it here. There are a couple of faces from 'The Terminator' franchise, not least Lance Henriksen, who eats up every inch of the screen, in every frame he's in. 'Stone Cold' has more ludicrous explosions, spraying squibs, raining bullets and hard-R violence than any action nut could want, with a gritty biker gang authenticity you don't expect... and some hilarious cheese. This is a blu-ray purchase I will never regret making.

This is a great review, except.....you left out the amazing scene of throwing everything he could find in his refrigerator into a blender which he promptly poured for his pet iguana that roams around his pad.
 
Last edited:

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
Honestly sounds like you just have an issue with the premise of the film itself.

As I was saying in the review, it's not the premise I have an issue with, it's the failure to really engage with the premise, internally by the characters, or externally by the directorial and story telling choices. For example: A more cohesive version of the script might have had Cruise's character not be getting high to forget about his dead child but getting high to forget about the doubts he has about the job. Or there might have been an early scene where he prevents a pre-crime murder, only to have the victim who has now survived thanks to Cruise intervening in "fate", do something much worse two thirds into the film, like accidentally killing hundreds of people, which wouldn't be preventable as a pre-crime. A Star Trek episode like 'The City on the Edge of Forever', or a Red Dwarf episode like 'Tikka To Ride' explore the potentially disastrous consequences of saving a person's life, who was already "destined" to die. I think I'm just wrongly expecting something more intellectually probing out of 'Minority Report' when Spielberg was just interested in a 'North by Northwest' wrong man caper, dressed up in shiny new Sci-Fi clothes. It does those thriller mechanics very well admittedly but I'm personally distracted from enjoying them by my brain.
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
1,165
Trophy Points
118
FWIW, I mostly like Spielberg and I like PKD’s story ideas. I tend to find his writing underwhelming, but he does provide some interesting jumping off points for philosophical sci-fi. I also tend to think well-adapted PKD is generally better than the source material. (I know that will be controversial). But Spielberg and PKD are not a good match IMO. I think you’ve outlined a lot of reasons why so I won’t rehash. But it seemed like Spielberg wanted his Blade Runner, but he wanted it to also be a fun tentpole Tom Cruise vehicle. And that seems to miss the point of making a PKD adaptation.
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
FWIW, I mostly like Spielberg and I like PKD’s story ideas. I tend to find his writing underwhelming, but he does provide some interesting jumping off points for philosophical sci-fi. I also tend to think well-adapted PKD is generally better than the source material. (I know that will be controversial). But Spielberg and PKD are not a good match IMO. I think you’ve outlined a lot of reasons why so I won’t rehash. But it seemed like Spielberg wanted his Blade Runner, but he wanted it to also be a fun tentpole Tom Cruise vehicle. And that seems to miss the point of making a PKD adaptation.

Now that I think about it, I really didn't like their 'War of the Worlds' either. Maybe Spielberg+Cruise+Sci-Fi/action just isn't a mix that is to my taste. I like those three things/artists a lot separately though! :LOL:
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
^Well, I'm not going to nitpick your review just because I disagree (I've done that enough recently I think lol)... I do get what you're saying, but I think your follow-up explanation is on point. It sounds like you really wanted more of a hard sci-fi examination of the concept itself, whereas Spielberg wants to just move immediately past that and tell a different story. It's a thriller that just happens to be in a sci-fi setting. I don't really have an issue with this as once you go into a sci-fi setting, I have less disbelief in people's actions and thoughts. Who's to say what feels normal for people? On the other hand, I run into these same issues all the time with respected dramas, where people's thoughts and behaviors make little sense to me, why they simply accept something or why they don't question someone. And there's no sci-fi setting there to explain that maybe these people don't react like those in the world we're used to. See: 80% of horror movies. 😅
 

Editzilla

Well-known member
Messages
564
Reaction score
341
Trophy Points
78
Well, I have been watching a bunch of Asylum mockbusters recently (yeah yeah....). And honestly, some of em weren't that bad.

HERCULES REBORN:
Surprisingly decent and enjoyable, it ain't some hidden masterpiece and still a bit stupid, but compared to some of Asylum's other works it's gold. Probably the best of the 2014 Herc flicks.
(the lack of OTT CG probably helps as well)

7/10

HANSEL AND GRETEL (2013):

Again, pretty decent if cheap. Kinda like the original story by way of Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Dee Wallace appears as the witch and hams up the screen enough to make it enjoyable. Watch for the fresh baked pies obviously being frozen Marie Callender's Chicken Pot Pies, LOL.

7/10

ADVENTURES OF ALADDIN:

Starting to get a bit lame here, Bad CG looms it's head heavily here and some of the supporting cast are absolutely useless and here for filler. Still, their Jafar knock-off manages to have more of a presence here than Disney's abysmal one from their remake.....a mockbuster besting a big screen hit like that gotta hurt.

6/10

GRIMM'S SNOW WHITE:

How can you tell when they give no effort in a film? How about having a film about Snow White and not even dying her hair black? It's blonde! Dumb idiocy. So of course it's good for a laugh. Watch for giant hairless CG dogs and ninja Dark Elves. (oh yeah, elves replace the seven dwarfs here. Cause LOTR).

5/10

SLEEPING BEAUTY (2014):

Well..........................it didn't piss me off like Maleficent did so there's a start.

But woof, this was a dog of a flick. Plot goes by a bit fast and it's never sure what it wants to go with in terms of characters. And the ending is mind bogglingly ridiculous. But it does have a Scorpion-style Spine Rip complete with gore, so there is that. Oh, and there's zombies here too. Cause why the hell not?

Fun fact: Not only was the mockbuster directed by Johnny Rico (Casper Von Dien) himself, but it also starred his daughter Grace in a pre-Stranger Things role. Michael York also provides narration for the beginning and end as well.
.......oh, and Iron Fist is the main hero too. though i doubt a lot of people care about him.

5/10

ABRAHAM LINCOLN VS ZOMBIES:

The one that almost everyone agrees is the best of Asylum's mockbusters. And for good reason.

Plot doesn't self-destruct upon itself and keeps itself simple with no real delusions of grandeur, Bad CG is used sparingly with no glaring "UUUGHHH" moments, and Bill Oberst Jr. as Lincoln is surprisingly good for a film like this.

It also has no qualms about being a straight up horror movie (with it's tongue slyly in cheek with lines like "Emancipate this!") unlike Vampire Hunter, which looks like it went full Underworld and wasted it's plot.........like most of Seth Grahame-Smith's works actually.

Honestly, if you have to watch only one of Asylum's mockbusters, make it this one.

8/10



Don't ask me if I'm gonna stop watching these now, at this point it's an addiction.
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
As I was saying in the review, it's not the premise I have an issue with, it's the failure to really engage with the premise, internally by the characters, or externally by the directorial and story telling choices. [...] I think I'm just wrongly expecting something more intellectually probing out of 'Minority Report' when Spielberg was just interested in a 'North by Northwest' wrong man caper, dressed up in shiny new Sci-Fi clothes.

I think a better comparison would be Vertigo. Vertigo also has an intellectually nonsensical premise that doesn't stand up to a moment's scrutiny: a wealthy businessman who wants to kill his wife doesn't arrange a plausible accident such as a car crash or mugging gone wrong, but instead emplys an unrelated woman (whose brand-new, retro portrait he gets hung in the city's classical art museum?) to pretend to be his wife obsessing over one of her ancestors, then hires a detective to follow said woman around, and then murders his wife in the immediate vicinity of said detective, all so he can escape prosecution when the detective testifies about his (pretend) wife's ancestral obsession. Sorry, what?! Vertigo only works as well as it does due to its performances and atmosphere.

Now, I myself think that Minority Report, in spinning a dark satire on the American criminal justice system, has subtextual depth that Vertigo, an adaptation of a French novel, lacks. But isn't it objectively the case that (and I haven't seen all his movies, so I could be wrong) Minority Report is Spielberg's weirdest movie? It's got tons of touches (the old lady kissing Anderton, Anderton landing in the yoga den with the upside-down woman, the wrong sandwich, the organ-playing warden of the confined souls, etc.) that are there seemingly only because they're flat-out strange, and of course there's a lot of dream imagery/symbolism in the precogs at work. I don't subscribe to the fan theory that everything that happens after Anderton is put away, leading to the happy ending, is a desperate/wishful dream of his while he remains imprisoned, but it's hardly an outrageous one given all the dream elements. Yes, the movie may have an outlandish premise, but in addition to the bravura filmmaking and great performances, it's also got a wonderfully strange and unsettling vibe - a vibe that would surely be dissipated by a more intellectual/debate-oriented treatment.

As I was saying in the review, it's not the premise I have an issue with, it's the failure to really engage with the premise, internally by the characters, or externally by the directorial and story telling choices. For example: A more cohesive version of the script might have had Cruise's character not be getting high to forget about his dead child but getting high to forget about the doubts he has about the job.

I think the Anderton being a true believer in the system is very much part of the movie's premise. The alternate take you suggest would be interesting, but if Anderton had serious doubts about the system from the start, he wouldn't be obsessed with proving his own murder prediction to be erroneous; he'd go straight to the press or a political leader and demand an intellectual debate, or something. The whole arc of the movie would have to change, and its vibe would be completely different. What's more, I think it's fair to assume that at the film's conclusion, Anderton has learned that he was wrong to support the system in the first place, even if that isn't quite shown.

In short, count me as one of those who count Minority Report as a great film. (Though I will admit that my old man, who thought the movie was completely naff, had one inarguable point: that the rusted tricycle in the front yard of Anderton's ex-wife was both egregiously trite and completely at odds with the ex-wife's character. And yet, it's also another moment of that same weirdness, I guess.) And I personally think it's a much more compelling exploration of dreams in a sci-fi thriller context than Inception.
 
Last edited:

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
The alternate take you suggest would be interesting, but if Anderton had serious doubts about the system from the start, he wouldn't be obsessed with proving his own murder prediction to be erroneous; he'd go straight to the press or a political leader and demand an intellectual debate, or something. The whole arc of the movie would have to change, and its vibe would be completely different.

That was just an example of one way the movie could be changed. I'd have been equally satisfied if it had gone in the opposite direction and had Anderton suffering no doubts and passionately defending the system, completely content to live with it's flaws because of it's clear benefits. But he does neither thing, it's never (shown to have) occurred to him that it's obviously a fundamentally flawed system.

What's more, I think it's fair to assume that at the film's conclusion, Anderton has learned that he was wrong to support the system in the first place, even if that isn't quite shown.

I don't think it's shown that he's learned anything at all. He brings down the system (and brings back mass murder) with zero thought, the same zero thought he put into perpetuating the system in the first place. He's merely discovered that via an extremely torturous and improbable method (that would be practically impossible to replicate again) that the system could be unsuccessfully and temporarily fooled once by someone with unique access and control over the precog system. For that slim reason (and his own selfish survival) he brings the whole system down and restarts the cycle of killing.

In short, count me as one of those who count Minority Report as a great film. (Though I will admit that my old man, who thought the movie was completely naff, had one inarguable point: that the rusted tricycle in the front yard of Anderton's ex-wife was both egregiously trite and completely at odds with the ex-wife's character. And yet, it's also another moment of that same weirdness, I guess.) And I personally think it's a much more compelling exploration of dreams in a sci-fi thriller context than Inception.

Yes it does have a lot of icky weirdness that to the film's benefit.
 

mnkykungfu

Well-known member
Donor
Messages
2,279
Reaction score
747
Trophy Points
123
^Hmmm...I may have to give the film a fresh watch while thinking critically about what an asshat the main character may be. You've made some strong points and may make me re-evaluate my love for the film. So...
teddy_congratulation.jpg
 

Moe_Syzlak

Well-known member
Messages
3,456
Reaction score
1,165
Trophy Points
118
^Hmmm...I may have to give the film a fresh watch while thinking critically about what an asshat the main character may be. You've made some strong points and may make me re-evaluate my love for the film. So...
teddy_congratulation.jpg
Well, in fairness, the simple casting of Cruise probably goes a long way towards the asshattery. 🤣
 

Gaith

Well-known member
Faneditor
Messages
5,785
Reaction score
291
Trophy Points
123
Anderton gives up on the system once he learns about the existence of minority reports, which suggest that not everyone they arrested would actually have committed their murders. The plot speeds by that revelation, since he himself did not have a minority report, but he only supported the system in the first place because he thought it was infallible, so he would clearly not continue to support it once he learned that it wasn't.

That doesn't mean he was a saint all along, but the movie isn't really about his personal morality. ;)
 

TM2YC

Take Me To Your Cinema
Staff member
Donor
Faneditor
Messages
14,871
Reaction score
2,384
Trophy Points
228
he only supported the system in the first place because he thought it was infallible, so he would clearly not continue to support it once he learned that it wasn't.

That's a fair point. People can blindly believe in the infallibility of something for half their lives, until something bad happens to them and they suddenly think, hang on a minute this doesn't add up! Personally I can't understand that kind of mindset but I have to acknowledge it's true to life, so it's not implausible that Anderton has genuinely not given the logic and/or morality of precrime a moments thought.

make me re-evaluate my love for the film.

No need to do that. As I said in my review...

everyone else on planet earth seemed to think it's one of Steven Spielberg's greatest films

It's just me that has the weird problem with it.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom