This is what Sci-fi is all about...

Rating: 10/10 (10 August 2003)

There's an overabundence of abuse of this here and quite frankly, the only reason I'm not shocked is because opinions are like...oh, well, you get the picture...
There is no doubt Spielberg is a talented filmmaker and though a lot of people dog him, Cruise is a pretty darn talented actor. Want to rate him against other leading men today, all you have to do is take a look at one emotionless Keanu Reeves performance or Ben Affleck (though I think Affleck is better than Reeves) and then try to put them into Cruise' shoes in "Born on the Fourth of July" or Minority report and think for a minute. Not a chance.
So what is it, fault Spielberg because he didn't satisfy your vision of whatever tripe you had in your head or Cruise, because he's flying the Jet you've only known in fantasy? People love to hate and show contempt when the majority of us have no foundation upon which to stand other than "I liked it," or "I didn't." Reviewers like "tedg," who apparently seem to be professors, still have only cinematic license to critique based on formulaic visions for what is, should be and how they might have changed it etc. etc.
While the majority of films for example are supposed to stick to non-filmmaker Syd Field's three act recommendation, some of the better works through time follow their own conventions and paths, not those set out before writers by non artists, who have never made more than the crap in their drawers.
Of course this is all garbage ultimately too, since the analysis of another's art, commercial or otherwise is simply opinion. Though it's nice for guys like Spielberg to consider the audience and commercially succeed, as well as being a requirement for continued work in this field (unless you fully finance everything you do), I think he probably wants to do movies he will like, regardless of what others think. Of course that's just my opinion. With opportunity to satisfy himself as well as others, and make lots and lots of money, well that can't be all that bad.

So why do I bother reviewing myself, one might ask? Because credit should sometimes be given where credit is due. As a big fan of Science Fiction or Fantasy, there is so little worthy of praise and a greater tendency toward cheese than in the Troma horror "classics." Just the sheer magnitude of a work does not make it worthy or watchable, and people seem to expect a better movie for the money, for example "Waterworld," which at its time was perhaps the most expensive work ever done, and never lived up to expectations...versus "Cube," done on a comparative shoe string with unknowns and a truly interesting story.
Minority Report on its hand is both ambitious and lived up to my expectations. For this reason, I choose to critique the critics rather than film. Many more labels of trash are accompanied by no explanation than are those praiseworthy.
Lest I go on...I am typing here simply because I had not before and it's hardly worth missing a warm meal to gripe for or against this amidst the masses.
Definitely some interesting "aspects" here. Of course who goes to the movies to examine "aspects?" I go to be entertained and I loved this flick. Good job Gollywood!