Minority Report

Started by pumba, May 12, 2003, 05:30:21 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions

mutinyco

#60
September 07, 2003, 02:51:35 PM
But what I think makes it great and more unsettling -- as opposed to say Brazil -- is that it never actively explains anything one way or the other. It's left to be argued over.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Pastor Parsley

#61
October 24, 2003, 02:53:33 PM
I think Spielberg is one of the greatest story tellers out there, and an incredible filmmaker.  But, he doesn't take any chances, he's obviously looking at maximizing market value with everyone of his films.  I can't stand most of the films he's made.  I think he achieves what he's trying to do, but I get tired of watching Disney films.  I would never say his films suck, because they don't.  They're just not my cup of tea.  I enjoy seeing something I haven't see before.

modage

#62
October 24, 2003, 03:02:50 PM
i agree. AI was a surebet "safe" film, and certainly one i could see Disney adopting in the future to re-make as one of their animated classics.  Minority Report as well.
Christopher Nolan's directive was clear to everyone in the cast and crew: Use CGI only as a last resort.

SoNowThen

#63
October 24, 2003, 03:10:20 PM
Why watch Minority Report when you can watch A Clockwork Orange and Brazil?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

cine

#64
October 24, 2003, 03:30:25 PM
I still don't see the point in bashing Minority Report. It's one of his best IMO. It was original, funny, suspenseful, with great acting, score, editing, directing.. etc. etc. It was one helluva great movie.

SoNowThen

#65
October 24, 2003, 03:33:04 PM
Quote from: The Gold TrumpetEnding: That too, completely film noir. In film noir, it always the fight between the good and bad side, the light and the dark, and in most instances, the ending found the characters reaching the light and living happily ever after or whatever. I'm not saying it is the best creative decision to make, but it did have purpose and really, it is an ending that stands no match time wise to the rest of the film which a lot of people consider brilliant anyways. Not enough to judge an entire film by.

This is not really about Minority Report, but I wanted to say: film noir (as I understand it) has never been about good vs bad. It was always bad vs badder. ALL the characters are supposed to be scummy, that's what makes it so appealing, is the anti-hero stuff to it. Like in Double Indemnity, Neff KILLS a man, yet he's the protagonist. Noir is the dark side of humanity. Now, I guess MR put in that subplot about Cruise being a junkie, but whatever, they built all that up with his dead kid.

I guess why I can't really get into this movie is 'Berg seems to resort to petty sentimentalisms, as in mourning over the dead son. It would have been more interesting to me if Cruise was just a psycho renegade cop, or a sleazy detective like Mike Hammer. And the chase sequence stuff in the car (middle of the movie), just didn't excite me in the least bit. I don't see much mastery or command of narrative -- especially when the potentially most interesting scene (the eye doctor) just kinda fizzled out, to give way to another chase (the spiders), when it would've been infinitely more interesting to see the doctor interact with Cruise. And as to the ending, well if it's a dream, then it's a cheap way out, and it breaks with the film noir set-up you guys are praising. And if it's not a dream, then the annoying neatness comes from getting back together with his wife, and the "bad guy" dying.

I'm just not convinced it was all that great, despite reading the many good posts written here. I'm not calling anyone who liked it an idiot, but saying that I went in hoping to enjoy, and came out with yet another reason to stay away from Spielberg movies. He's just not my cup of tea, I guess.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

mutinyco

#66
October 24, 2003, 03:57:31 PM
Considering you think Gangs of New York is a masterpiece...um...well...I'd use the word idiot sparingly... :)
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#67
October 24, 2003, 04:02:51 PM
No no, that's why I said I WON'T call anyone an idiot. For some reason I really wanna chat about this now.

Muty, I read your theory on the dream ending. Based on that, I guess what I wanna know is, what point is that making? What idea is 'Berg presenting by showing us Anderton's Halo dream, and how does it connect with neo-noir?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

SHAFTR

#68
October 24, 2003, 04:08:39 PM
I was moderately impressed the first time I saw it and very impressed the second time.
"Talking shit about a pretty sunset
Blanketing opinions that i'll probably regret soon"

mutinyco

#69
October 24, 2003, 05:20:42 PM
Who gives a shit how the ending connects with neo-noir? Sounds like bullshit academic theory.

The ending is interesting because it plays into the whole concept of wanting to escape reality, which the film is actively dealing with. Whether that escape is through sentimental memories, drugs or extra-sensory entertainment centers. It's about a society that's so controlled that there is no escape. And that plays directly into the audience members watching the film -- do they want to accept and believe the happy ending (escape), or do they think something else is going on?

When you start applying these titles it just comes off as silly. Do you think in the 1940s-50s somebody sat down and coined the phrase Film Noir and set up parameters of what was or wasn't. If anything, film noir is a tone. A tone of dread. Film noir was never B & W, but gray. It was about atomic paranoia. But to sit down and say like -- well how does Minority Report play as a film noir? And it isn't successful because it doesn't fit your definition is...pointless.

It shouldn't have to fit a mold. I personally thought it was scene for scene consitently imaginative and creative.
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

SoNowThen

#70
October 24, 2003, 07:26:52 PM
Chiiiiiiiiiiillllll. I wanted to ask because I thought that's what you were getting at. I guess it was more of a GT question, maybe he'll wanna answer it.

Okay then, when a movie is creative and imaginative, does that qualify it as a great movie? If that creativity and imagination doesn't pay off, don't we just have a collection of scenes, rather than a great story?

I certainly think you're right, no one in the 40's was trying to define noir. But this isn't the 40's anymore. And if you are doing a film that touches/builds upon/presents an idea of noir, doesn't that mean you are setting out to give us what you think noir is or should be? So it's less me asking the question of how it plays as noir, than it is 'Berg, who after all chose to make the movie.

But you should expand about what you said with the whole escaping reality thing. This kind of discussion might open up why you guys loved the movie so much. I'm just trying to understand, not attack.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Banky

#71
October 24, 2003, 08:03:32 PM
after reading the 3rd act theory i really like this movie a lot more.  I re watched it and with the theory in mind it plays as an entirely different movie.  Maybe Speilberg took out the line about the number of deaths at the end becasue if it was the way Anderton wanted it to play out than it would not end on a down note, it would end on the log cabin.

mutinyco

#72
October 24, 2003, 09:29:11 PM
Can somebody please change the title of this thread...
"I believe in this, and it's been tested by research: he who fucks nuns will later join the church."

-St. Joe

Pas

#73
October 24, 2003, 09:57:48 PM
I enjoyed Minority Report a lot but by no means is it a great movie. I like the visuals far more than the mediocre story

Gold Trumpet

#74
October 24, 2003, 10:29:31 PM
First, I must say SoNowThen is right in what he said about my identification of film noir and how he corrected me. He is right.

My ideas about the 3rd act theory and trying to make it make sense? Well, I don't really believe in it. I think the theory doesn't pay attention to what drives the film: the fact it is an action film and interest in the blow by blow details of one. The basis of making the theory credible is really just information that drives a general action film only. The ideas don't push the film at all. To search for any higher meaning out of this is to search with ill will because the ideas are used as general stock.

And SoNowThen, if you weren't impressed by the action and dazzle of Speilberg directing, you likely just didn't like the film. I think the film is still magnificent. A film ten times more thought out and exciting than any other action film by Speilberg. I believed the film as human emotion only to the limits of the genre. Very constricting limits.

~rougerum
Print
Go Up Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
User actions