Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » Minority Report (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
Author Topic: Minority Report
Will Morrow
Film Handler

Posts: 91
From: Mt. Pleasant, MI, USA
Registered: Mar 2001


 - posted 06-21-2002 02:15 PM      Profile for Will Morrow   Author's Homepage   Email Will Morrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Finally. A movie that makes me proud to be a projectionist. All are entitled to their own opinion, but I don't understand the adjective "jumbled". There was nothing jumbled about this movie. The ending was very clear to me. I wasn't left thinking, "jee, how shall I interpret that?"
If you want to talk about boring, I screened Bourn last week...should have been called "the Boring Identity" compared to Minority Report.

I would honestly give this movie four stars of four...it's an interesting story, had sweet CGI, and the acting was under par (remember, under par is better than par).

I can't wait to play the video game!!! I want to catch some "pre criminals"~!!!

Sooo...again ****/**** SWEET FLICK!


 |  IP: Logged

Jim Casterioto
Film Handler

Posts: 32
From: Wilmington, DE, USA
Registered: Feb 2002


 - posted 06-21-2002 07:30 PM      Profile for Jim Casterioto   Author's Homepage   Email Jim Casterioto   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Thanks for your review, sounds like an interesting movie!

 |  IP: Logged

Don Anderson
Master Film Handler

Posts: 312
From: West Bend, WI, USA
Registered: Mar 2000


 - posted 06-21-2002 09:28 PM      Profile for Don Anderson   Email Don Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Finally, as in finally the movie is over??????

What a boring 2hr 20 minute mess. I could not believe that I actually stayed awake through the entire screening.

 |  IP: Logged

David Stambaugh
Film God

Posts: 4021
From: Eugene, Oregon
Registered: Jan 2002


 - posted 06-21-2002 09:49 PM      Profile for David Stambaugh   Author's Homepage   Email David Stambaugh   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
06/21/2002, 3:15PM, Regal Cinema World 8, Eugene OR, #4, scope, digital sound format unknown. Attendance about 50. Presentation was very good except the tail of the last reel ran through with the lamp still on and there was a horrible pop in the audio. That can't be good.

Ebert gave this 4 stars. I give it 3 1/2. The story was interesting and provocative, the acting and dialog rang true, and the effects were good. I'm deducting 1/2 star because of a couple of Spielbergian humorous touches that seemed very out of place in this serious movie (the eyes rolling down the storm drain? Please.)

 |  IP: Logged

Mitchell Cope
Master Film Handler

Posts: 256
From: Overland Park, KS, United States
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-21-2002 10:42 PM      Profile for Mitchell Cope   Email Mitchell Cope   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Fascinating. Surely 3.5 to 4 stars. I stayed glued to the story line and the visual art design. Interesting choices on how the future would look. Story was as deep and clever as a good Hitchcock film. Exciting all the way until the final shooting. Good cast and I loved Lois Smith who played Dr. Iris Hineman. Nice acting and a great scene. Spielberg rules.

 |  IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 06-22-2002 02:48 AM      Profile for Dave Williams   Author's Homepage   Email Dave Williams   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This film was fantastic! I love movies, especially when they are this good. I very rarely find any movie to be a boring mess. It's kind of like going to an art gallery, you see different works of art, you view them, form an opinion, and then allow it to enrich your life.

Or like many people, find it all too boring for words. I wonder what life would be as a critic, just how many critics go nuts and think all movies are crap and boring after a while?

Dave

 |  IP: Logged

Adam Martin
I'm not even gonna point out the irony.

Posts: 3686
From: Dallas, TX
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 06-23-2002 12:46 AM      Profile for Adam Martin   Author's Homepage   Email Adam Martin       Edit/Delete Post 
Maybe it was the washed-out look and so much grain I thought I was watching bad UHF, but this one did nothing for me.

 |  IP: Logged

Daniel Boisson
Expert Film Handler

Posts: 157
From: Buffalo, NY, USA
Registered: Oct 2001


 - posted 06-23-2002 08:28 PM      Profile for Daniel Boisson   Email Daniel Boisson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I really liked the movie. The story for me was great. Did anyone notice that Spielberg used a lot of grays and blues. I think that gave the movie a real texture to it. The quality of this film was alos very good. It didn't look cheap or anything. 4 stars sounds good to me.

Seems like Spielberg's newer films are taking on a different feel than his older ones.

------------------
3% Body Fat. 1% Brain Activity.

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 06-24-2002 12:05 AM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This picture was brilliant. I love how the special effects seemed to be designed not to be awe inspiring (like JURASSIC PARK, for example), but to look as if this stuff actually existed, and a camera crew just happened to be there to capture it.

I really thought that the photography was beautiful. It seems like Spielberg really wanted to make this picture in black and white, like most of the other great film noir movies. Also, every single frame of this thing is packed with massive amounts of information. That's so cool.

On top of all this, it's just a really solid detective story in the tradition of Dasheill Hammet. What more could you want?

 |  IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 06-24-2002 04:00 AM      Profile for Dave Williams   Author's Homepage   Email Dave Williams   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
From what I understand, the film negs were washed out with a proprietary process owned by technicolor or something like that, and it makes the whole thing have a very greyish blueish tint to it. Same thing on PAYBACK with Mel Gibson. Well Done Speilberg.

Also saw the HBO first look at the film today. The design for the film was done by a think tank of futurists, to give it a look as if this stuff really could and will exist in 2054. Speilberg doesnt want this to be classified as sci-fi, but rather a futurist-adventure film.

Well done.

Dave

 |  IP: Logged

Geof Abruzzi
Film Handler

Posts: 14
From: Mesilla, NM, USA
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 06-24-2002 10:43 AM      Profile for Geof Abruzzi   Email Geof Abruzzi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I like the point about the bleaching process making the film look like "film noir" black and white. It also seemed to make a future devoid of color (in many ways, like the other great Dick inspired movie, Blade Runner)

[SPOILERS]


I'd probably give the film a 3.5 out of 4. Up until he kills Crow, I would have given it closer to a 3.95, but everything after that point was a bit too formulaic. Think about how many movies you have seen where the where the bad guy almost gets away with it, until he makes that slip and mentions a detail that he shouldn't have known. Also think about how many movies have the good guy confront the bad guy by playing video of incriminating evidence at a gathering where everyone can see.

Then there is also the patented Spielberg, "the movie should be over, but I'm going to keep going" ending. Fortunately this time it was only a minute or two long, not 20 like in Shindlers List.

Maybe it's hubris to think I have a better way to end the film, but I really think it should have ended with the killing of Crow, and no hint that Crow was a plant, he was the real killer. This would have introduced some very interesting brain wrapping conundrums about the nature of causality, since the event in the future, and knowledge of the event in the future, is what causes the series of events that lead to that future. As it stands now, "the nefarious plot" is what causes everything.

None the less, this is one of Spielberg best endeavors in a very long time.

Geof

 |  IP: Logged

Mike Schindler
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1039
From: Oak Park, IL, USA
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 06-24-2002 11:47 AM      Profile for Mike Schindler   Email Mike Schindler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Geof,
Have you read the short story? If not, you should check it out. It has an ending which is somewhat similar to the one you suggest.

 |  IP: Logged

John Pytlak
Film God

Posts: 9987
From: Rochester, NY 14650-1922
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 06-24-2002 12:52 PM      Profile for John Pytlak   Author's Homepage   Email John Pytlak   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
FYI, here is an American Cinematographer article on the "Soup du Jour" processes, including Technicolor's proprietary ENR process:
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/nov98/soupdujour/pg1.htm
http://www.cinematographer.com/article/mainv/0,7220,34805,00.html

AFAIK, Kodak VISION Premier Color Print Film 2393 was used to make most of the prints, and processed through the Technicolor ENR process to achieve the unique "look" that Spielberg and Kaminski wanted.
http://www.cameraguild.com/awards/kaminski.html
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/aug98/saving/pg1.htm
http://www.theasc.com/magazine/jun98/lumin/pg4.htm
http://www.kodak.com/country/US/en/motion/story/cinematographers.shtml

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion


 |  IP: Logged

Geof Abruzzi
Film Handler

Posts: 14
From: Mesilla, NM, USA
Registered: Jun 2002


 - posted 06-24-2002 05:10 PM      Profile for Geof Abruzzi   Email Geof Abruzzi   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Mike: I haven't read the story yet. I count myself as a Dick fan, but I am mostly familiar with the novels, and boy was prolific.

Geof

 |  IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 06-25-2002 04:43 AM      Profile for John Wilson   Email John Wilson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
This is one FANTASTIC movie.

10 years ago, Harrison Ford would have played Tom Cruise's role.

That would have made for one excellent film.

SPOILERS!

I do feel though, that the last ten minutes caters for Joe Average way too much. Before the rooftop scene, I would have given it 8/10. The ending brought it back to a 7/10.

Still, more films like this and we're back in business.

Also. read today that this is Tom's 9th successive no. 1 opener. That is one amazing record. He has always been a great actor, but every now and then he shows he is one of the greats.

John

------------------
Too much of the rest of the film is given over to a romance between Padme and Anakin in which they're incapable of uttering anything other than the most basic and weary romantic cliches, while regarding each other as if love was something to be endured rather than cherished. There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche.

No, wait: Anakin tells Padme at one point: "I don't like the sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating--not like you. You're soft and smooth." I hadn't heard that before.

- Roger Ebert reviewing Episode 2. :)

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1  2  3 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.