Now that the OP question has been answered, and now that I finally watched this film, I’d like to ask what people who truly appreciate science fiction thought about this movie.
Did anyone else think that this film was very pretty and pleasant but lacked the depth that Spielberg tried to fool us into thinking was there with, for example, his bright white light scenes or occasional cryptic references such as “in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king”??
As an enthusiast of science fiction film and literature, I am getting a little bit wary of Spielberg’s attempts. After reading Ebert’s exuberant review of this film I walked into the cinema with high expectations–and walked out sorely disappointed. This film appeared to be little more than a “whodunit” set half a century into the future. There were some cool visuals, some interesting cars and gadgets, a few nice action scenes, and a couple of predictable twists. So far all fairly good execution, and pretty decent art direction to keep us interested. The problem is there is little to think about or question, which, considering this film is inspired by a Dick story, is pretty outrageous. Pre-crime and all that are sci-fi gimmicks that serve as vehicles, but nothing is really addressed and they remain mere technology; issues concerning civil liberties are not exactly explored in spite of the ample opportunities; and there are so many logical/plot holes and inconsistencies that it is impossible to treat some of the available material seriously.
A variation of the tired, old, “Grandfather Paradox” is the crux of this film, except that in this case rather than the hero going time-travelling, it is information that does so. It’s annoying enough when Star Trek goes down temporal paradox avenue with little regard for logic, but to see it on a sloppy effort by supposedly one of the luminaries of science fiction in film is really quite disappointing. Much better treatments of this paradox may be found in Heinlein’s short story All You Zombies and the incredibly imaginative film Donnie Darko. And, to a lesser extent in Dick’s original Minority Report as well, which was altered substantially in the adaptation.
OK, it was unfair to expect another Blade Runner, but at least a Total Recall? The latter had enough action scenes to keep even Schwarzenegger happy, yet the fundamental reality-twisting nature of Dick’s fiction easily shines through all the guns, explosions, and quick resolutions all the way to the end (is the “Blue Sky on Mars” real or just a memory tape?).
I recently saw The Impostor, which was an attempt to bring one of Dick’s earlier stories to life. The production looked pretty threadbare and obviously needed better management, while the plot was interesting enough but predictable. In spite of the poor production Dick’s imagination was evident in the film, particularly in the ending (which was certainly not phenomenal, but was interestingly Dickian in shift and scope).
Minority Report on the other hand was pretty flat throughout, and the twists that were present were all of a “whodunit” nature (I watched Gosford Park just the day before!). I must say it was appealing and fun as a detective story, but in terms of science fiction I thought this film contributed as much as Spielberg’s earlier effort A.I. did: nothing whatsoever of importance.
I spotted a glimmer of a possibility that there may be an alternate ending, but thinking more about it I don’t believe there is enough evidence to support the hypothesis–and even if there were, I wonder if Blade Runner and Total Recall don’t do a better job of it, not to mention Donnie Darko, Vanilla Sky, or Mulholland Drive (to name a few recent mind-bender films not officially inspired by Dick). In my opinion there is no solid support for an alternate ending, but if anyone thinks differently I would love to discuss the matter.
I was annoyed at the myriad inconsistencies present in this film. Normally it is not good form to nitpick, but there seems so much material that is just asking to be ripped apart that I wonder if Spielberg shouldn’t just give up on these ambitious titles and stick to what he’s good at. Frankly more Indiana Jones flicks wouldn’t hurt, and would allow more talented and imaginative directors to handle this kind of project.
One thing I truly did appreciate in the film was the portrayal of targeted marketing in the future. It’s starting to happen now through e-mail and mobile phones, so I enjoyed Spielberg’s vision of what it could be like half a century down the road. That was a really nice touch, and even more incentive to get back at those fucking spammers before things REALLY get out of hand.
Finally, what the heck is it with Ebert’s reviews? He gushed so much over Minority Report that I became convinced to go see it even after I had already seen that piece of cagal, A.I., a movie that was enough to make me swear off Spielberg’s science fiction forever. Ebert was pretty enthusiastic about A.I. too, and claimed that the “miscalculation” in that movie was asking the audience to invest emotionally in a character that was a machine.
Ebert, the miscalculation in A.I. was the whole freaking film. This was the Edward Scissorhands of the new millennium, minus the amusing Burtonesque touch and plus undetermined tonnage of condescension and long, dead moments. Based on his last two films as director, I’m wondering if Spielberg is past his sell-by date. Kubrick supposedly wrestled with A.I. for fifteen years before Spielberg took up the project and cranked out that crap, and Minority Report is a story by the inimitable Philip K. Dick: yet I could detect nothing of Kubrick in A.I., and in Minority Report precious little remained of Dick.
This message posted from the point of view of someone who has just perceived two items of great potential (A.I. and Minority Report) ruined by the same person in a short time.