I hardly consider that as a conclusive statement that Sean is dead. I have "wade" through most of the script and can't find anything conclusive. My task is made harder by the fact that the script version has been heavily altered from the book version. Call me crazy but what I'm trying to find out is the actual story running in the minds of the original writer, Philip K. Dick, or the script writers, Scott Frank and Jon Cohen.
And if possible what were the latter two thinking of by putting in lines like: "He's in high school. He likes to run. Like his father. He runs the two mile and the long relay. He's twenty-three, at a University. He makes love to a pretty girl named Claire. He asks her to be his wife. He calls here and tells Lara who cries Across the University. And in the stadium where John watches This is the best explanation I can find -- And it hints that even Philip Dick wasn't all that convinced of the outcome.
And I quote: "Dick's stories typically focus on the fragile nature of what is "real" and the construction of personal identity. His stories often become surreal fantasies as the main characters slowly discover that their everyday world is actually an illusion constructed by powerful external entities such as in Ubik , vast political conspiracies, or simply from the vicissitudes of an unreliable narrator.
The ground is liable to shift under your feet. A protagonist may find himself living out another person's dream, or he may enter a drug-induced state that actually makes better sense than the real world, or he may cross into a different universe completely.
In this way, the time-paths overlap, and the future of one is able to affect the past of another. It is in this way that the story weaves a complicated web of crossing time paths and makes a linear journey for Anderton harder to identify. It is the theory of multiple-futures which allows the precogs of precrime to be of benefit, because if only one time-path existed, the predictions of the precogs would be worthless, since no possibility would exist of altering the future.
Wow, Philip would have loved the Matrix. OK, so Sean is dead, at least that's what I think Philip had in mind. Given that there are alternatives as predicted by the Precogs, Agatha's vision still makes no sense. Once a path is chosen, the alternative future ends and does not carry on from there. American movies are in the midst of a transition period.
Some directors place their trust in technology. Spielberg, who is a master of technology, trusts only story and character, and then uses everything else as a workman uses his tools. He makes "Minority Report" with the new technology; other directors seem to be trying to make their movies from it.
This film is such a virtuoso high-wire act, daring so much, achieving it with such grace and skill. Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from until his death in In , he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism. Tom Cruise as John Anderton. Samantha Morton as Agatha. Max von Sydow as Director Burgess. Colin Farrell as Danny Witwer.
Tim Blake Nelson as Gideon. Reviews Minority Report. Roger Ebert June 21, Now streaming on:. Powered by JustWatch. Now playing. Freeland Tomris Laffly. American Night Simon Abrams. Film Credits. Dick and Steven Spielberg, both fairly important thinkers in that area of expertise at least in some circles. Deconstructing that vision can be worthwhile and rewarding. As for holes in the plot, I let most of the little stuff go, but the big hole that Adam opened and Todd effectively closed deserved some attention.
The paradox of time travel stems from this same paradox: the incompatibility of traveling between present and future. So if you know the future, you are going to interfere with it. But did you know the future to start with? Also, in the original book, androids infiltrated the police force. The doubt still lingers, especially after the Unicorn scenes, whether Deckard is Nexus-6 also. Jason, good point. It seems like Triumph the Insult Dog will appear in this thread any momment.
Re: Nexus-6 No. During his briefing, Bryant tells Deckard that six replicants escaped from the colonies and that one of them was killed by a security system in the Tyrell Pyramid. Who is the sixth replicant? There are quite a few spectacular theories circulating, but the truth is not very dramatic. An actress named Stacy Nelkin was chosen for the part. Forget the von Sydow problem.
Is Spielberg and Scott Frank suggesting that the precogs can stop senators, generals and presidents from signing orders for death squads and similarly shady military movements? That seems to be a very inefficient way for a government to be set up. After all, what government could possibly function without blood on its hands?
But not only does the Department of Precrime represent a world in which the general populace is happy to give up everything, but it is one in which, quite possibly, the military is above questioning, more so than our present. Aside from the underground, where are the dissenters? What has happened to them? Whether planned or not, this was the creepy element that stayed with me weeks after seeing the film.
The only real hint we have of the future political climate comes from a von Sydow line when he says that no one listens to his generation. The film is quite casual in exploring this relation between politics and privacy, yet it says more than any left-wing lunatic possibly could about certain sociological abdications.
I have a question: Toward the end of the movie we see a scene of Lamar finding Lively and donning his black coat and goggle helmet with the apparent intent of killing her.
Before he kills her, the police come and take Lamar away. Yet Lively is clearly killed earlier in the movie, and there is no indication except the above-mentioned scene that she might be alive. I must have missed something? What was it? Can someone enlighten me? Thank you. I just saw the film today, and the same flaw in the movie Adam came up with bothered me. Yes John, you missed something. As soon as they left, Lamar dressed like the original killer and murdered Lively. I hope I made sense.
But overall, I thought it was a good movie. Except, um, Burgess supposedly started this whole plan because Anderton found out about Ann Lively. Sorry if this question has already been addressed. I only read about 3 quarters of the posts. The surgeon eluded to getting back at John, but never did anything to him.
I kept expecting the plot to twist around the premise that the surgeon gave John the eyes of another criminal that had come to him for the very same reason John did….
Did I miss something? And that ending. I supposed that would be the kind of thing that would be first on the cutting room floor. The lack of networking between the computers bothered me too. Yet, the pre-cogs could only visualise murders within the DC area. Why would he go to such lengths when he could have simply lured her oustide of the DC area and then killed her with no chance of discovery.
Otherwise, why kill her at all? Why not just pump her so full of drugs that you fry her brain- as she was a recovering junkie, no-one would be suspicious. This is neither here nor there at this point, but did anyone notice the Cameron Diaz cameo? U were right, but I just wanted to expand on it. I think the movie would have been correct IF there was no precog in the Pre-Crime viewscreens.
Bear in mind, John can only be made to kill Crow if he had seen the illusions of the Precog. Otherwise lamar cannot frame John. No part in the show illustrates any communication between lamar and the female Precog and so she and lamar cannot be in cahoot.
Maybe someone may beg to differ? I suppose somehow in the vertical blank interupt of the precog video stream the ASCII names of the perp and victim are encoded, properly spelled, of course.
Handy, otherwise, what would be etched on the wooden balls? Odd that in the future no one wears a cellphone that can be located within a few meters. Guess that technology got worse instead of better. And if murder had been practically eliminated in D. The moment a gun was pointed at someone, the target would be eyeing the skies, waiting for precrime to come in. Pulling a gun on somebody IS laughed off. Remember in the elevator?
If not, why did John shoot Leo? I got the impression he was just being used by Lamar, hence the planted photos. He was just being used by Lamar. Small struggle, gun accidentally goes off, Crow flies through the window. The Justice guy laughed off the gun, until he heard the alarms, that is true. Perhaps it all depends on your faith in pre-crime I guess. Another ignored issue is what precisely are the rights of the precogs? Do they get paid? Good dental plan.
As it turns out, Anderton sees the images, and that starts him thinking about the murder well ahead of the actual crime. Plus, to go further off topic, having the pre-crime unit look like the Mousetrap game was annoying.
The real problem is that Tom Cruise is a stupid movie star, and half the scenes in the movie are about how much people worship Tom Cruise — like when he throws off his helmet before charging into the house. Nosuch - the life of the precogs made me think of the life or lack thereof of the 74 or 72 vigins who await certain martyrs in the afterworld.
What the hell kind of life is that? Lolling around the firmament until some zelot comes along to pop your cherry. At least with pre-crime, you get a hot tub. A couple of possible solutions to minor problems: 1. True, this could be an inconsistency. Until you remember that Pre-Crime only deal with murder, and not serious wounding. Holding a gun on someone is not always a threat of death.
Another inconsistency. Unless you think about those things as all being intimately involved with the details of the murder Anderton is about to commit. The pre-cogs can see all the details of the build-up to these crimes, so that should include anything that affects the perpetrator. When I saw the film last night I was initially impressed with the story. However even if I ignore the numerous plot holes I was still completely irritated by the ending. Just as I had started to get involved enough in the story to accept the vision of the future - the inplausably complicated ending just ruined it.
I came out of the cinema laughing! Would minority report be as engaging, or thought provoking, if it suggested the world it does without flaw or scope to question? Or to point and laugh, even? I mean, it hinges on telekenesis. Would movies work if they were entirely watertight? Or would they become paintings? I think Spielberg knew what he was doing. As for Tom Cruise, however…. But, something interesting is being overlooked unless I missed the post.
Everyone seems to view the precogs as just simple machines that only report the future as absolute truth. They forget that Agatha is a human being with an agenda… she seeks justice for the murder of her mother. It is her intervention with Anderton that puts everything into motion. They just reported only so much of the event so that it seemed like a premeditated murder. What I can gather from all of this is that Agatha was manipulating the characters in the story to serve her own ends.
Anderton is the unwitting hero who is being swayed by the prophecies of the oracle references to Oedipus Rex are very relevant and the machinations of those in power. Which puts a different slant on most of the movie. Without meaning to be pedantic - a few comments above, AJ says that minority report hinges on telekinesis. Did AJ mean telepathy? Not to go way off topic but seeing the links to dictionary.
Did public outcry or lack of interest kill it? The notion is that he paid someone to kill the woman, all along intending to actually do the murder himself after the other person got caught. Does this make any sense? Well, one thing really bothers me at the end of the movie. They stop the pre-crime program because the killers could, at the last minute, decide to change their fate and not kill the victim.
But pre-crime is all about prevention and certainly the program proved to be able to prevent crimes. They could save thousands of lives every year, whether the criminal would have killed or not. The only thing is that the killers would not be charged with murders they would have committed, but they would be charged with attenuating circumstances that they might have killed.
They would get away with much smaller charges, but at the very least a lot of people would not get killed. As well as all the usual metaphysical and temporal problems this film has another hole. The halo system seems very unjust. That sounds like an execution to me. I thought about exactely the same flaw. For me it is such a huge hole in the story and they are many others that it makes the whole movie less than enjoyable.
I discussed it with my wife as we left the theater and she disagreed with me, but I have sinced convinced her! This all seems rather interesting. But I assume precognitive predictions are presented as unvoluntary in the film..
More interesting is the question of whether precognition is reflexive, i. But there is another interpretation open to us here, which might help to explain the nature of a minority report itself. Thus they must each be predicting the other two precogs making the predicition in question so as to create a sure majority in the future of the prediction. But, as such, the future they are predicting must always be a future in which a minority report is possible for they cannot foresee their own predictions.
And in fact, whenever a minority report is issued in the situation in question, it follows from the above that what is being predicted cannot be the real future although the real future may be next to indistinguishable from it.
For suppose P1 and P2 predict that X i. Then P1 for example will be predicting that P2 and P3 will predict X, which is not the case. Thus, at least in the reflexive case, there is a clear link between a prediction being made by a mere majority i. Somehow this seemed interesting to me, anyway. If I were a pre-cog, I would avoid such troubles and buy lottery.
0コメント