that other guy's thoughts

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
1	2	3	4	5	6	7
8	9	10	11	12	13	14
15	16	17	18	19	20	21
22	23	24	25	26	27	28
29	30	31

August 08, 2003

1 year late is still to early

not done with the next 20 things on my list, sorry you'll all have to wait another day

I tend to think of myself as a fan of cinema, and a fairly good judge of quality. So imagine my surprise when I just saw our good friend Steven Spielberg�s year-old "summer blockbuster" from last year. Yes, I'm talking about Minority Report. Old Stevie normally puts out good stuff, and he's been known to drop the hammer, smack you in the face with brilliance, bend you over, and make you say, "please sir, may I have another." Minority Report on the other hand, is total crap.

If you make a futuristic sci-fi thriller, you sure as hell better be able to suspend the disbelief of your audience. And since it's futuristic sci-fi, your audience is generally made of smarter guys who are logical technology freaks. We have a pretty good handle on what technology will and won't be possible within our life times. So don't B.S. us Steve-o! If you want to construct a massively new super-structure for D.C. go ahead. Put all the automatic massive scale retinal identifiers you want, engineer vertical highways to moon, think jet packs are cool? Give them to everybody! But don't you even dare to think you can pass of this utopian ideal off on me by dating in 2054. 2154 maybe, but there is no way on god's green earth that any of that comes even close to existence 51 years from now. The sheer technological logistics make it all impossible.

It'll be 2 more Jaws and another Saving Private Ryan before I forgive you.

Posted by Kyle at 03:56 PM | Category: Reality Cheque

Comments

So, let me get this straight: you're passing off the entire movie simply because it's not set at the proper year? Keep in mind, the actual year where everything takes place is not influential.

But there is probably more to your decision. And I'd like to know what, since I happen to be a fan of the film (to an extent, that is).

Posted by: Greg at August 8, 2003 10:26 PM

The date & time of a movie is essential to the cinematic foundation of any story, and I have no problem dismissing a film if it's foundation is grossly flawed. There were other issues with the script and directoral style (way way way to Tom Cruise centered). Though I'm very picky in my discription of good cinema.

I can understand why some people would like it, but it is definatly not a good quality movie.

Posted by: Kyle at August 9, 2003 04:13 AM

Well, I suppose it was good for a mainstream movie. And was _EXCELLENT_ compared to A.I.

Personally, I am fond of the work of Spike Jonze, Ang Lee (only counting "Crouching Tiger..." and "The Wedding"), and generally independent fare. If you can, see "Adaptation."

Posted by: Greg at August 9, 2003 10:14 PM

A.I. really sucked. I was beyond disapointed... it was almost funny what a retarted turn the movie took. Anyway, about Minority Report. I thought the movie was cool but at the same time I thought that it didn't make a lot of sense. How can the guy frame Tom Cruise into committing an act by seeing it in the future? The only reason that Cruise goes there is because he sees himself in the future... therefore, how can he be framed into doing it? Does that make sense? Luke said I'm too analytical and should just forget about that little detail and just enjoy the movie.

Posted by: Sarah at August 10, 2003 12:53 AM

AI did blow, but was still more believable.

I saw "Adaptation" in theaters, and damn, that's a good movie. But I also have a big soft spot for well scripted monologues. Include some witty banter, even with ones self, and I'll like the movie.

I have a vice for wit. (hence this website's sub-title)

Posted by: Kyle at August 10, 2003 05:21 AM