May be this film has some flaws but while watching it I wasn't too distracted by that. Here we have one of the greatest directors alive (Steven Spielberg), a very big star (Tom Cruise) with a great ensemble (Max von Sydow, Colin Farrell, Peter Stormare, Samantha Morton, Tim Blake Nelson) around him, a good cinematography (Janusz Kaminski) and a nice score by John Williams all packed in a great story (based on the novel by Philip K. Dick) with perfect visual effects.

In the year 2054 murders can be predicted and stopped before they happen. If you were about to kill but stopped you are locked. Tom Cruise is one of the agents who stops those murders. Then he discovers the next murder they have to stop will be committed by himself.

I will not reveal more of the plot. The story itself is great. It is intelligent, but also exciting with great action scenes. The visuals are truly beautiful and perfectly support the sci-fi story. If you like action thrillers and you don't mind they are set in the future (with some futuristic gadgets) this is your film. 9/10.


The future, we are told, are what we make of it. Philip K. Dick did not want to take that chance, so he wrote many many many short stories about the future of man and where we, as a society, were headed. Blade Runner, Total Recall, Paycheck, Screamers, and Minority Report are all short stories written by Dick about the future that have been turned into a movie, and most have a less than enthusiastic view of where we are headed. In Minority Report, we see the effects of predicting the future to the point of crimes are prevented by arresting murderers before they kill. If that does not appear logical, there is a quick little scene early in the movie that addresses those concerns, and on the surface makes sense. Tom Cruise plays the Washington, DC pre-crime chief, John Anderton, who runs the investigators who rely on 3 scientifically engineered beings who can see murders before they happen. The system, of course, raises civil liberty issues, but seems to work perfectly, that is until Anderton is fingered for a murder. The rest of the movie, Anderton tries to not only prove that he is innocent, but also that he was set up, possibly by an oily Department of Justice figure who is investigating Precrime before it goes national after an election, played by Colin Farrell. Directed by Steven Spielberg, Minority Report plays as both a "Whodunnit?" and a futuristic exercise of science fiction. Much time was spent on designing the Washington, DC of the 2050s, including cars that run on magnets, virtual reality stations, and much more throughout the film. The most interesting design is of the "sick sticks" used by cops to bring down criminals. The blueish tint given to the film also gives us a cold feeling, a future that is not as loving or as hospitable as the time we live in, another trait of a Dick story. A wonderful movie the works for both the crime buff and the science fiction fan.


This gets high marks for being an involving film that, despite a long length of almost two- and-a-half hours, keeps ones interest all the way. Being a Stephen Spielberg-directed film, it's no surprise that the photography is first-rate. This is nice-looking movie. Tom Cruise also was very good in here, not the obnoxious character he sometimes portrays (or did more often in his younger days.).

The film is a good mixture of action and suspense. Only the one chase scene was overdone with Rambo-like mentality of the good guys not getting hit when they should, and vice- versa.

The subject matter is interesting, too: what would do you (or the police) had very reliable information on crimes that were about to be committed, that you could prevent things from happening before they actually did?

I recognized two people in here who went on shortly thereafter to become recognizable in TV series: Kathryn Morris ("Cold Case") and Neal McDonough ("Boomtown"). Add Colin Farrell, Max Von Sydow, Samantha Morton and you have an interesting cast. I am of the opinion that this is one of Spielberg's underrated gems.


Steven Spielberg is a genius. So many great films he has directed. The Man who created "Jaws" "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindlers List" is back for more. In one of his best pictures yet.

It's 2054. A new method of crime prevention "pre-crime" allows the police to look into the future and see the horrific results of murder and rape as they unfold. After a quick introduction to this process, were straight into the big and bold; main man John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is accused of a future murder- to a man he's never heard of. So he's on the run, from a harsh detective (superbly played by Colin Farrell) as he uncovers some horrible truths and has to go back to the unwelcoming past.

Minority report is very good, but also very disturbing- the fact that this film was a PG-13 or a "12" in England is shocking. Parents, a note: if your child is under 12 at least I would strongly recommend you watch this film first. It's dark, compelling, and disturbing- particularly in a scene where he has to exchange his eyes for protection...

This is a fantastic film however that should be viewed and loved by everyone bold enough to come in its path. Never fail to believe: Spielberg has come up with yet another masterpiece.

Overall: ****/ out of ***** (4 and a half out of 5)


It's an open secret: the Oscar is jinxed. Spielberg's triumph with "Schindler's List" was followed by the longest hiatus of his career, which was broken with ... "Jurassic Park II", a lifeless sequel of the kind you'd once have sworn he'd never make - the single worst and most anonymous movie he's ever directed ("Hook" had its moments). His next two films were improvements (there was nowhere to go but up): the first anonymous but not bad ("Amistad"), the second bad but not anonymous ("Saving Private Ryan"), but they were both pompous gestures which appear to have been designed to win still more awards; and it wasn't until eight years after "Schindler's List" that the skilled director of old times re-appeared (with "A.I." in 2001).

But he's well and truly back now, and I'm happy. I've even learned to welcome it when he makes decisions which infuriate me, so long as he makes them with the right kind of self-assured arrogance. I didn't like the voice-over at the end (we didn't need to be told that stuff; we could have worked it out), or the way he caved in to the modern tendency to be needlessly revolting (at least he don't play his gross-out moments for cheap laughs), or even the style of photography (it's easy to manipulate us into thinking the future is a grim place, if you push-process the film until even the images which in the normal course of events would be luscious and rich, are grimy and desaturated - there are other ways of getting colourless images, as Spielberg well knows, and many of them are better). Yet, in the end, big deal. The story is a knockout, the action is taut, the future rich, dazzling and believable. Spielberg is to be particularly congratulated on how completely he has avoided the unimaginative dystopia of "Blade Runner". The future we see here is a MIX of dream and nightmare, so convincing a mix that we can't always tell them apart.

Here's a measure of how good the movie is: in an interview, Spielberg revealed that he completely misunderstood the issues which drive the stories - and there's simply no way of telling this from the finished product. Unless Spielberg was just opportunistically latching on to the hook forced on him by a dim-witted journalist, he THOUGHT the movie was about how much freedom we are willing to give up in exchange for safety (in order to prevent terrorist attacks, for instance). This is interpretation is strained. Three people (the precogs) do indeed give up their freedom in order that millions of other people may be safer, and yes, there is an issue here. When one of the Crime Prevention officer says, "It's best not to think of them as human", I was surprised to find myself nodding in agreement. The benefits of the system are so great that OF COURSE I'd rather not look too closely into the burden that must be borne by three - just three - individuals. Aside from the three unfortunate precogs, nobody is asked to give up any freedom at all. (Except, of course, the freedom to commit murder. But under the law we are already unfree to commit murder, and a good thing too.)

The interesting issues that DO fall naturally out of the story concern the futility of revenge. After people who would otherwise have committed murder are prevented from doing so, they're sent to prison anyway, presumably on the grounds that that's what they deserve - and no doubt it IS what they deserve. But it's clear enough that locking these people up, however much it may be in the interests of justice, serves no purpose. It's exacting revenge on criminals for the sake of exacting revenge - which is exactly what the U.S. justice system is committed to doing at the moment, which is why the future is a realistic one. (Apart from the precognition, that is.) Anderton's mistake is to believe in the value of revenge, and he's never more admirable than when he realises his mistake. (THAT was a great scene; it's a pity I can't tell you exactly why. Suffice it to say that when we think we know where the story's going, we may indeed know where the story's going - but Spielberg is only allowing us to see so much of what's coming up in order to obscure the rest of it.)

The final sign that Spielberg is again at his peak lies in the performances. They're all good. Tom Cruise's weakness as an actor is that he is only ever as good as his director, and the fact that he's so good here means that "Minority Report" was directed by the real Spielberg, the old Spielberg, the Spielberg with the same ability Charles Dickens had to make even his most grotesque creations, and even his LEAST grotesque, come to life.


Steven Spielberg is one of the few directors around today who can still manipulate an audience in one sense while dazzling and daring that same audience with storytelling and character skills fused with ingenious visual effects. Minority Report is a shining example of that, which also has the grace of having an intelligent concept to start with, which so many sci-fi films lack much less summer sci-fi films (look at MIB2 to see what I mean), and also better than average acting.

Cruise takes the lead role here as John Anderton, who leads, more or less, the agency of police that prevent all murders on the basis of predictions from three Pre-Cogs (one of them Samantha Morton who has the most important role of the three). The system is presumably perfect, until to the surprise of Anderton, he is seen to commit a murder and so starts his quest to try and find out if there is a flaw in thirty six hours. This could be the basis for average sci-fi fodder (Impostor, a film based on another Philip K. Dick story that came out earlier this year, is an point of that), yet Spielberg elevates a story and creates a unique atmosphere to coexist with his characters; by the time the film is HALF way through you'll be exhausted in entertainment.

Bottom line, this is the type of picture to see twice, first to get the feel and presence, and the second to clear up any misunderstandings in the plot (or maybe to avoid Scooby Doo and Windtalkers), since this is indeed one of the best pictures of the year and one of Spielberg's best recent pictures. Grade: A+ or A


The beginning of Minority Report engages the audience with mise en scene to establish a genre. The audience can easily see that the film is set in the future due to the bright lighting and a blue overlay colour. This implies cleanliness and a utopia. However due to the atmosphere created by the dark shadows and low saturation of the colours an implication is created that this futuristic world may not be a utopia but a dystopia. It gives a sense that without colour in the world there is no emotion and people actions are now based on what a machine says rather that acting on human instinct. In detective films in the present, the police station is often seen as a messy but friendly place with coffee mugs and paper everywhere. But in Minority Report the police station is empty; even the lights seem to dark and have no impact of the white surfaces. This may reflect Spielberg's views towards the future. That in fact the future may appear to be perfect but is actually the opposite.

This idea of Spielberg's ideology is a recurring theme throughout the film. Near the beginning of the film there is an advert to promote the use of the pore-cognatives to encourage the use of pore-crime nationwide. This suggests there will be no more suffering and everything will be right in America. However, there is a false sense of security throughout the film. The scene of the promotional advert leads straight into the complete opposite; of the hero 'John Anderton' running onto a dark alley looking to buy drugs; and buys them from a man who sold his eyeballs for money; which is a common thing to do in future the audience finds out. This is a clear message about the opposing views there may be in the film and not just those of Spielberg. In a way it reflects America in the present also. While many Americans enjoy the good life and are wealthy, just as many live in very poor conditions. These two extremes have been brought out into the open in the film.

The film may well have been designed to attract the male audience as it is usually men who are drawn in by crime and detective films. However due to the level of action and the originality of the idea teenagers and young adults would find this film enjoyable. This interplay of detective work and action is cleverly placed throughout the film. A general story is introduced about the pore-cognatives and the hero is introduced. This is a detective moment where the pore-cogs foresee a murder. An action scene then follows as Tom Cruise (John Anderton) goes to prevent the murder which involves coming out of a helicopter and busting into a house. This is the action sequence. The whole film is played out like this and I believe this is how Spielberg manages to have more that one target audience.

The film subtly hints that in the future the world will be over run by media and advertising. Where the adverts in the street actually refer to you by name and talk to you. Another idea of this entrapment is the eye recognition machines that track you where ever you are. This gives the implication that there is no freedom for the people of the future and that again like in the police station their lives are heavily influenced by machines and technology. This new idea of entrapment and inescapability adds to the imperfection of the future world which is presented to the audience.

It is only as the film progresses and the hero is forced into the underbelly of city life that this idea of entrapment continues to the next level. He needs to run from the police but due to the inescapable future he cannot hide. Therefore he himself is lead to have his eyes removed and have new ones put in, so that he has a way past the claustrophobic machines and devices. But the future has another trick up it's sleeve. The use of robotic spider like creature which are designed to penetrate any home of place of holding. They then climb up you and scan you retina; which is much like a finger print, in that everyone has their own unique pattern, representing their individuality. So once again the idea of the future being like a prison that you cannot escape is brought around.

In the end the designer of pore-crime Lamar Burgess turns out to be the villain. So the very man who was promoting the perfect-ness of the future turned out to be fake. Which is the final say in the idea that the future is misinterpreted and although appears to be all wonderful with problems is in fact the opposite. A place where poor people or people who have committed crimes, sell their eye balls as a means of escape from the world they live in.


This is a brilliant Sci-Fi/Thriller, that really leaves you thinking, with an outstanding story and an incredible performance from Tom Cruise!. All the characters are wonderful and very likable, and it keeps you guessing throughout, plus Tom Cruise is simply incredible in this!. This is a movie that requires a lot of concentration, because it's one of those films you have to pay strict attention too, and the plot is seriously awesome, plus one of my favorite moments in the film is when Cruise chases his own eyeballs!. This is up there with one of Spielberg's best films and believe me he has done a lot of brilliant movies, and This is one of Cruise's finest performances,plus it's full of awesome twists and turns so don't blink!. It's extremely well made and written, and for once I agree with Roger Ebert's review!, plus you will really root for Cruise's character throughout. I loved those little mechanical spiders, and I thought that ending was just wicked! plus while i'm not a huge fan of Colin Farrell he did a fantastic job here and really impressed me!.

Max Von Sydow was also excellent, and the special effects are simply stunning, plus the chase sequences are awesome as well!. I saw this a couple years ago and was unimpressed, however after upon 2nd viewing, I must say It deserves it's praise, so if you didn't care for it the 1st time, give it a second viewing, you may change your opinion.This should honestly be in the top 250 in my opinion, and there are some fantastic creepy moment as well, plus I loved the depressing atmosphere it had at times, and This is almost like The Fugitive except it's set in the future, plus It also has some very funny scenes in it as well. Cruise had excellent chemistry with Samantha Morton, and I especially loved the dialog, plus some scenes really had me on the edge of my seat!. This is a brilliant Sci-Fi/thriller that really leaves you thinking, with an outstanding story and an incredible performance from Tom Cruise, and if you haven't seen it, Do so immediately, you shouldn't regret it.

The Direction is spectacular!. Steven Spielberg does a spectacular job here with amazing camera work, fantastic angles, awesome use of blue,excellent lighting,great slow mo shots, and plenty of other uncanny shots as well, plus he kept the film at an extremely engrossing pace.

The Acting is incredible!. Tom Cruise is amazing as always and is incredible here, he gives one of his finest performances, is extremely likable , blew me away in his emotional scenes, had great chemistry with Samantha Morton,as always had lots of charisma, and has really matured as an actor, and if you don't think he can act watch this movie! (Cruise Rules!!!!!!!). Max Von Sydow is excellent here in his role, he brought tons of class, was especially good at the end, and had some awesome scenes with Cruise!, I loved him. Colin Farrell is fantastic here, I am not a big fan, but he certainly was good here, he held his own against Cruise, and really gave a good show I liked him a lot. Samantha Morton is awesome as the creepy psychic chick, she gave a great show, and had very good chemistry with Cruise. Lois Smith is good in her scene as The Doc I liked her. Neal McDonough is good as Fletch I just wished they gave him more to do. Kathryn Morris is good as Cruise's wife I really liked her. Rest of the cast do fine.

Overall Go see it immediately!. ***** out of 5


John Anderton (Tom Cruise), chief of the service of precrime in Wanshington, tries to prove his innocence against a system which has indicated him as a future murderer.

In Order to give life to a rather pessimistic universe, from the American writer Philip K. Dick, Steven Spielberg had the courage to create the darkest movie of his career (so far at least), which touches important ethical dilemmas about the types of protection of the human being, beating the crime, respect for the individual freedom and the responsibilities of the citizens and the law.

Pioneering and deeply prophetical representation of a dark future , with Tom Cruise in one of his darkest and most demanding interpretations of his career.

I believe there are similarities with Davis' The fugitive. At least after a while you feel the same agony about the hero.


The human race has always been obsessed by the future, which is probably one distinctive trait that makes it human and takes it out of animality. Humanity has to plan its future in order to survive, hence it has to predict its future needs. But humanity remains an animal race in many ways, including of course its survival instinct. So crime is part of the picture, what we call crime in our human ethics. But this is nothing but the individual survival instinct that goes against the collective survival instinct. Then the collectivity, human society decides to consider the individual survival instinct as being a crime and as deserving punishment. It is, and has been, tempting to predict what and which individuals will become criminals in order to prevent that crime. It was for instance suggested under President Nixon to preventively take away into reform schools all the kids, aged six or seven, that had the « typical criminal » psychology before they realized their destiny which was considered as inescapable and necessarily criminal. This approach was essentially behavioral. Then another appeared, essentially genetic this time and some still believe that the DNA of any individual contains its destiny that is absolutely inescapable. So let us put away those who have the « crime » genes. Steven Spielberg deals with this dilemma but based this time on a modern embodiment of the seers of old. Three people have been transformed by some genetic manipulation into seers of the future and their predictions are considered as absolutely infallible since they always seem to agree. Then the criminals are arrested before they commit their crime and put away. The effect is the disappearance of crime from Washington D.C. in just a few years. But Steven Spielberg goes further and demonstrates that there are several flaws in this theory. First the three seers don't always agree and there might be a minority report from one of them that is over-ruled by the two others and not communicated to the precrime police. Then this precrime police is a private enterprise and it was necessary to prove its efficiency to get the business. Little by little it appears that the founder of this technology manipulated it in order to prove his theory by arresting someone who was supposed to kill a woman just before he did. That one was paid by the inventor who then afterward committed himself the very crime exactly the way it was supposed to happen which enabled this second crime to be understood by technicians as a simple echo of the first one that was prevented and to be disregarded. The death of the woman only became a missing person. That is the flaw of the film : why didn't anyone investigate this « disappearance » ? But then he also had to trick his own associate, the main detective of this precrime police. He does that by getting the latter's son killed in such a way that the crime will remain unsolved. But this enables the boss to nourish in his associate a desire to know who killed his son. This associate's coming around to that knowledge will make him become a criminal and thus he will be neutralized and put away but after the crime is committed for reasons that are not clear. But a few facts were brought together and sorted out by this cop's wife and then she manages to get her husband free, which sounds quite iffy, and this triggers a full process of truth discovery and public broadcasting. The end is yours to discover. But this approach, with marvelous special effects and beautiful action, seems to overkill the point it wants to make : The future is inescapable and predictable, and yet the future can be tampered with and manipulated. The first principle is excessive and even wrong. The second is probably true. But both together are just absurd because contradictory. The point is then disproved by this very contradiction. But it is a great film nevertheless that reveals this question of the future and its possible prediction is essential to man and humanity.

Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University of Paris Dauphine & University of Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne


Movies are only effective if they involve the viewer; we can't enjoy someone's story if we don't care about what happens to them. In general, the best way to do this (at least for a mainstream movie) is to present a strong story. Based on the short story by Philip K. Dick, "Minority Report" is a tense thriller that poses a number of intriguing ethical questions.

Welcome to the era of PreCrime: a world without murder. Three special people, known as the PreCogs, are about to predict murders before they happen. Chief John Anderton (Tom Cruise) works for the PreCrime division, and is passionate that it works. But when the PreCogs predict that he is going to commit a murder, Anderton has to find out why before he is caught.

If you could see into the future, does that mean that what you saw is really going to happen? Can someone change their mind at the last minute? Is it right to arrest someone for a crime that they were going to commit, but hadn't done it yet? These questions lie at the heart of "Minority Report," and fortunately they are not mentioned then disregarded; the whole storyline revolves around answering them.

Despite his bizarre off-screen antics, Tom Cruise is a good actor. This is certainly one of his best performances. Anderton is a man who uses this opportunity to battle personal demons, although it only partly works. He is deeply troubled by his past, and that conflict makes Anderton an almost tragic figure. Cruise plays the part perfectly, and we never stop rooting for him. Colin Farrell is effective in his breakout role as Danny Witwer, the agent from the Judicial System who begins snooping around PreCrime, perhaps to take over John's job. Max von Sydow brings a deep note of class to the film as PreCrime's director, and John's mentor, Lamar Burgess. It's an effective performance, and for a man who could easily play an elderly man, von Sydow is certainly an arresting figure. Samantha Morton has the most difficult part as Agatha, one of the PreCogs. She's bizarre, acting as if she's on some sort of a drug. But Morton allows us to peek beneath to see her lucidity. Kathryn Morris, the always wonderful Lois Smith, and Mike Binder are good in bit parts, while Tim Blake Nelson and Peter Stormare steal scenes in terrifically loopy performances.

This is Steven Spielberg's best film since "Saving Private Ryan." He keeps the pace up, and shows us that he's still a director, and not just a name on a marquee. Spielberg has a vivid imagination and brings everything to life. This is a science fiction film, but it is grounded in reality enough that it is plausible that everything that happens in this film could be real in the near future. The film is well-paced and put together; it's a complex plot, and deals with some serious ethical questions, but it's never confusing. Special note goes to his music selection. Spielberg mixes some classical music into the film very effectively, and the soundtrack by John Williams represents some of his best work.

The only problem I have with the film is that in one scene, it breaks the rules the film functions by for its own convenience. That being said, most people won't notice (or care).

Note: while the action sequences are pretty standard stuff (albeit well-shot and choreographed), the flashbacks of murders are pretty graphic. This really pushes the boundaries of PG-13.


I watched it when it hit video stores shelves and I regret for not watching it on the theaters.

By far, it was the most complex and interesting sci-fi/action packed flick from 2002.

I did have my doubts towards it because Tom Cruise starred on it. You know, by the time of it's release, he got really weird.

But in my opinion, this is his best performance by far. But he's not alone, he's joined by the always powerful Max Von Sydow who delivers a fantastic performance. I don't get used to watch his as a villain.

The complex plot was really interesting, filled with crime, spectacular f/x, mysterious characters, and extraordinary action sequences.

Every single minute caught my attention and although I can't really remember most of the specific details or sub-plots; I can say without fear of being wrong that this is a spectacular sci-fi/action flick in all the sense of the word.


Recap: John Anderton is the chief officer at Pre Cog DC, a department that with the aid of three clairvoyant humans stop and arrest murderers before they have their crime. As a result of this, murders are virtually extinct in the capital, and the system is now beginning to go nationwide. Before this, the FBI want to investigate the system and sends agent Danny Witwer. Witwer and Anderton come at odds from the beginning and it turns catastrophically worse when the Pre Cogs see a now rare premeditated murder, where the perpetrator is John Anderton. Now he is a fugitive and need to find out why he will murder a man he has never met.

Comments: Another of these high budget, special effects filled blockbusters based on a Philip K Dick novel. And in my mind his novels need a high budget and it need to be packed with special effects. Because Minority Report, like many of Dick's novel, is set in the future and is highly speculative in both science and fantasy. To visualize these ideas that you need a lot of CGI.

But those ideas, those effects are what make Minority Report entertaining. And it is very entertaining. It manages to balance this immense load of special effects with just an immense philosophical question. It all goes down to if there is free will or not. Are we able to really choose for ourselves, or are we just imagining that we can but are ultimately controlled by "fate". For Anderton, and hence for us, this question is really put to the edge. Is he able to avoid committing the crime, and the police, or is he destined for a fate worse than death. To find that out Anderton takes us on a wild, entertaining ride.

Basically, when you sit down to watch this movie you have a choice, well if you believe in that. You can either just lean back and enjoy the ride, or you can be active and ponder the philosophical question the is the foundation of the movie. Or, and this is what make this movie special, you can actually do both.

As a bonus you have a few cameos and a small but hilarious (at least for us Swedes) role for Peter Stormare.

A movie to really enjoy, both when you watch it and afterwards when it almost is inevitable to think about it.

8/10


Minority Report is a fine example of well told science fiction. The Sci-Fi genre has often been ridiculed because of the great number of hacks that have infested it, but fortunately there are often refreshingly intelligent and well-related stories like this one is.

It deals with some time travel paradoxes, which is always a strong cornerstone that provides an enormous amount of creative license for the writer. This movie taps those resources with ingenuity and vision, and takes the viewer to a futuristic world where a crime is punished before it's committed. This unique premise gives the writer room to explore social issues and implications of this practice. Certainly a metaphor for our current justice system is hidden just below the surface.

As far as plain entertainment value goes, it delivers here also. The action never stops, the plot unfolds with precision, and innovative camera shots are utilized for both stark and surreal imagery.

The only beef here is a weakness in the casting. Most of the cast are up to their roles, well enough to make the hackting of Tom Cruise less of a distraction than it might have been, considering he plays the lead. It seems in most of his movies, the director makes sure to have accomplished actors to counter balance the Cruiser's dramatic shortcomings. He has almost become invisible in his own movies, which can only be a good thing for the movie makers and audience.

In spite of the poor lead actor, this is an outstanding film. Highly recommended.


This film is an intelligent sci-fi murder mystery with a twist... we know who the victim is, we know who the killer is but neither we nor the killer have the faintest idea why the killing will take place. Set in a future where the future can be seen by three "pre-cogs" murder is a thing of the past as the would be killers are arrested before they can commit their crimes. One day the head of this police department has terrifying shock when the pre-cogs tell him there is going to be a murder and he will be the killer.

From then on the hunter becomes the hunted as Chief John Anderton must run from his own officers to determine why he is destined to kill a stranger before they can incarcerate him. He is never fully sure who he can and can't trust and only has thirty six hours to find out if his destiny is truly written.

The acting is pretty good with Tom Cruise being believable as the fugitive police officer, however the best performance comes from Samantha Morton in the role of Agatha; the pre-cog who Anderton turns to for help and who in turn seeks his help in solving an old case. Steven Spielberg did a fin job directing this. Using just the right amount of special effects he never lets the story be overshadowed by explosions and excessive CGI. When I first watched it I wasn't too sure about the washed out colours used in every scene apart from the few flashbacks it the more of the film I saw the more I thought they suited the tone of the film. If you are a fan of slightly dystopian science fiction I'd certainly recommend this.


How many movies have you seen that allows you to think about it for days? The first time you'll See this, I can guarantee that you will want to watch it again, because you won't have figured it all out. It's brilliantly directed and acted, with a magnificent set design. The holes are insignificant, and will get you thinking about it days and days afterwards. There is nothing negative about this masterpiece, and is really the reason why we go to the movies these days.For something inventive and amazing- see minority report, as it is a rare film. It gets you thinking, as most movies today fail to do, and yet becomes a modern day classic with its ideas


Minority Report, I would say, is one of the best science fiction films to be released over the past twenty-five years, and that is certainly no small feat given some of the competing films released over that time-span. Minority Report obviously had a lot of effort put into it by both the filmmakers and its actors and the result is a brilliant thriller. In the past decade I would call it Spielberg's best, ranking among his other great thrillers, 'Raiders of the Lost Ark', and 'Jaws'.

The movies is based on a short story by the late sci-fi master Philip K. Dick (Blade Runner, Total Recall, A Scanner Darkly) and it ranks up with Blade Runner as the greatest adaptations of his work. John Anderton (Tom Cruise) is the Chief of the Pre-Crime division in the District of Columbia. What exactly is his job? To use the unusual psychic abilities of three beings  known as "Pre-Cogs"- it is his job to analyze future crime scenes and prevent murder from happening. For ten years this system works without a flaw and they are close to taking the program national, only there's one problemJohn's name has been called for the future-murder of Leo Crow a man he has never once before met. On the run Anderton must evade the highly controlled security of the future United States capital all while trying to prove his innocence, and in so doing unraveling the secrets of the system- secrets that would destroy everything the organization has worked so hard to achieve.

What really makes this movie stand out is not the visual effects (though, they certainly are amazing), but it is the human aspect of this film that makes it a memorable experience for the audience. The film manages to cater to all human emotions contained within the plot, from the fear of loss, obsession, greed, fear, insecurity, and many more. All the characters are found to be believable, as none of them come across as being cardboard, as so many other action films do.

Tom Cruise pulls a very believable performance and I consider this one of the best of his "Average Joe" performances. By this I mean like in 'War of the Worlds' he doesn't come across as being a superhero, as he was in the 'Mission Impossible' franchise. He is perfectly believable as a sad soul who only wishes to make up for his past mistakes and punish the criminals of the world. Haunted by tragedy of the past we can't help but sympathize for his loss, because we can believe him. This isn't a straight-forward "tragic" character, such as Kurt Russell's Colonel O'Neil in 'Stargate' (1994). John Anderton is suffering, but he hides it well, going on with his job. In fact his loss is his drive in his work, so naturally he can't believe it when the system turns against him. It's the compelling characters and performances from the actors that make the difference between a good movie and a great movie. Special effects have nothing to do with the quality of the human element of the story (sorry, Michael Bay).

The special effects of this film are amazing, providing a believable, yet still fascinating view of the future. Unlike visions presented in Blade Runner, and to a certain degree Total Recall, this is a very clean, well kept design for the future. All the buildings shine and all vehicles appear to be in tip-top condition, but like those other Dick based films the underlying structure of society is as corrupt as ever. How the effect crew for this film was skipped over by the Academy I will never understand, because even two years after I first saw the film many of the visuals remain stuck in my mind.

You should not miss Minority Report, because in my opinion it is one of the best films ever made, let alone one of the best science fiction films ever made. For a thrilling, emotional, and mentally stimulating movie experience I can't recommend Minority Report strongly enough to give the film credit, for it goes above and beyond what so many other films have done. So, if you want excitement and brain stimulating ideas forget the garbage of the current theater's films, such as "Transformers," and do yourself a favor: forget that an action movie is not supposed to be dominated by pure special effects and action, go out, buy a copy of Minority Report, put it in your DVD player, sit down, and enjoy a non-stop thrill ride of a movie.


Minority Report is one of the best sci-fi/action film that I have seen in a while, it is in the same vein as Blade Runner.

The story is a very interesting one. In the future, they can predict murders before they happen (who will be the murderer and who the victim) but as the film proves it doesn't matter how perfect the system looks, it still has flaws and can be used unscrupulously by someone with a bad agenda which happens in the case of John Cruise's character John Anderton. He lost his son and he believes in the system and even enforces it but it isn't till it is used against him that he realises it is not a perfect system.

The special effects are amazing and the action really does have you on the edge of your seat. I like that the film is very unpredictable, you really don't know how it will end especially when Anderton is faced with the man he thinks took his son and you wonder if he will really kill the man. Also, you wonder how Anderton will get out of the situation when everything is against him and you are really left wondering right up to the end of the film how it will be resolved and how Max Von Sydow (Lemar) will be brought to justice, I really enjoyed the twist at the end.


Steven Spielberg is without doubt one of the greatest film directors the world has ever seen. Sure, his films may always be blatantly mainstream, but that doesn't mean he can't be considered a great director. When you take into consideration the films that he's made, you can't help but respect Spielberg for his achievements and talent. Not only is there clear artistic merit in each one of his movies  indicative of his experience and skill  but each movie is exceedingly entertaining, catering for all audiences and hence making each one a hit with the general populace.

Spielberg has the infallible ability to combine mainstream with art when it comes to the medium of film, and this is the one quality which distinguishes him from other directors; and as mentioned above, it's also the reason why his movies are so popular and why he is so highly regarded as a director. Twenty years after he first started out as a totally unknown figure, Spielberg entered the new millennium as one of the most influential figures in history, and continues to make top-notch movies with his winning formula  Minority Report continues this streak.

Spielberg returns to the genre of science-fiction (after the 1990's saw no films of the like coming from him) with Minority Report. It's perhaps the most intelligent sci-fi movie of the decade in fact, and it adapts the same principle that all of Spielberg's movies operate on. There's the artistic and technical side of the movie  the brilliant screenplay, the outstanding visuals, the powerful themes  and the entertainment factor  dozens of chase sequences, futuristic weapons and the like  and as a result we get a highly original movie, and one that also boasts the high IQ of the Pre-Cogs.

Who are the Pre-Cogs? They're psychic beings who have can foresee the future. It's the year 2054, and the United States government has set up a department called PreCrime, which utilises these Pre-Cogs to predict murders before they even happen, hence their name. The names, victims and times of the murders are provided by the Pre-Cogs to the PreCrime agents, and they intervene and prevent these murders before they actually occur. As a result, the homicide rate drops to 0%, and PreCrime becomes the most groundbreaking government action in United States history.

In Minority Report, Tom Cruise shows he is an ideal lead in an action film, and here he plays one of PreCrime's agents, John Anderton. He's as good as ever as he dodges futuristic weapons (including a 'sick-stick' which makes one vomit on cue, incapacitating targets in the weirdest way), jumps on the roofs of moving cars and sets out to clear his name. The story is that the Pre-Cogs have named his as the next person to commit a murder, and in four days he'll murder a man he doesn't even know. Naturally, as it's part of PreCrime's duty to apprehend murderers before they even murder, Anderton is immediately made a fugitive, and he goes on the run. Speaking of fugitives, Minority Report is like the 90's film The Fugitive, except set over 50 years in the future with a newer, classier plot, and off course with a totally different look.

Minority Report has a totally unique visual style. Shots were overlit and colours were desaturated in the post-production process, resulting in predominantly blue shading in some scenes, noticeable brightness in others and even a high-contrast film noir in select scenes. On top of this is perhaps some of the finest art and set decoration I've ever seen. The film imagines Washington D.C. 50 years from now, and that very prediction of our lifestyle is ambitious indeed; cars which drive themselves, home appliances which operate on voice command, holograms and highways which even run vertically  the most wild and imaginative concepts are placed together into one single movie, and even though it eventually builds to disappointing level of cynicism and implausibility, it's still wonderful to look at and experience. Suspension of disbelief comes into full swing in Minority Report  as do all of Spielberg's movies  and is what makes the movie so, so entertaining.

The 140 minutes zoom by in a flash as John fights for survival and at the same time fights to clear his name, and his journey of endurance eventually turns into a test of redemption and revenge as the film's revelations unfold to the audience. Minority Report is heavy-laden with the aforesaid themes, and make the movie a visceral and thought-provoking experience, on top of the high enjoyment level we are subjected to. The only problem with Minority Report is that there are so many themes, ideas and concepts that the film offers that it becomes a chore to sit through; on top of this are the film's revelations, which are both extremely satisfying and extremely confusing at the same time. The screenplay is unexpectedly complex, up to the point where it takes a while to figure out why someone's doing that, or why something happened. Thankfully, it's a fault that's easily overcome, and fails to undermine the film's superiority substantially.

Minority Report is definitely not Steven Spielberg's best film, or even one of his best movies; that said it's far off from being one of his worst films either. It's a fine film to add to his CV and a fine film in itself; Minority Report is the most intelligent science-fiction film of the 2000's, and its ability to be artistically beautiful coincides with its ability to entertain and enthral without any conflict or imperfections. This is what makes Minority Report so successful and so good, and is what makes the movie worth checking out, not the film's synopsis as one would normally do. Do yourself a favour, and see the film for its art and intelligence for a change.

8.5/10


The reviews of this film are reminiscent of those of Waking Life - an even more putrid mess of garbage than this one. All of them admiringly describe the emperor Spielberg's clothes. But he's naked. It's not so much that the film is hopelessly confused and illogical; even really good ones, like Groundhog, don't hold up (logically, that is) under close scrutiny, and virtually none of Hitchkock's greats make real sense. The difference is that the good ones work; the bad ones just confuse and strike you as phony while you're watching them. One of the most annoying aspects of this film is the incessant product plugs, particularly those of Gap, which will not even be around in 2054. So if you really don't like this, don't feel that you're somehow deficient in sensibility. Just realize that the reviewers are a herd and that you don't have to admire the threads of a naked jerk.


***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** Getting the introductions out of the way, it is 2054 in Washington D.C. and Tom Cruise plays, John Anderton, a Precrime enforcement detective who heads up a crack team specializing in preventing murders before they occur, also arresting criminals before they kill. Out of the loop, the cops come calling in the form of Colin Farrell's character, Detective Witwer who backs Anderton into a corner, seizing control of the experimental operation and taking control of Precrime's affairs. Through the minds of three precognitive and abnormally gifted youths who, when asleep, dream only of murder in technologically projected second sight, Anderton sees his own criminal fate and sets out to alter his unknown predestination.

Estranged from his wife and a father struggling to cope with the disappearance of his son, Anderton seeks a temporary high in the dark world of illegal street drugs but when his murderous number comes down the pipe, both the law and Precrime chart a course for his apprehension before he kills. In a highly advanced and technologically sound society, Anderton goes on the run in search of the truth behind the world's most advanced crime unit and a precognitive flaw in its design know as a "Minority Report."

After seeing the trailers, I immediately thought A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) meets Mission Impossible and, for the most part, that's exactly what it is. However, it's much more the former rather than latter. Although I'm still spinning from the theatrical experience, I essentially see Minority Report as an extension of Spielberg's previous Kubrick inspired interpretation. Visually interchangeable with both worlds in its visual presentation, Minority Report most definitely shares the same headspace as A.I... which isn't a bad thing at all. Based on a short story by acclaimed science fiction writer Philip K. Dick, the underlying subtext is equally complex as the film looms heavy in theme, tackling such debatable issues as divinity versus science, the right to life, God's will, man's innate feeling of superiority, and our preoccupation with technology.

Visually, Minority Report is awesome. Although this similarity may seem strange, it's very much a case of the future catching up with the past, as Steven Spielberg is most certainly the Tiger Woods of filmmaking. You'd tend to think people get soft as they grow older but with regard to Spielberg's last two films, the director continues to, not only, challenge himself with complex subject matter but also reinvent himself as a director at the same time. Hell, amid the dazzling imagery and computer-generated eye-candy, Spielberg even takes to a few-held shots, jumping back into the days of Guerilla filmmaking to set the appropriate tone.

Set fifty-two years ahead of us in 2054, the seamless blend of CGI used to create the future Washington is staggering and strikingly impressive. Unlike many preceding and recent science fiction films, Minority Report is a unique identity all to its own. In creating such an invigorating visual world, as previously mentioned, Spielberg's vision is very similar to A.I. in both structure and spacecraft, but the limitations of the film's 21st Century setting only helps to demystify the unknown, making society much more familiar while also giving the audience an identifiable future to look into. All cityscapes and highway sequences are both astonishing and highly innovative, somehow proving to push the envelope of the science fiction genre itself.

Much to my surprise and Spielberg's credit, the film sticks religiously (no symbolic reference intended) to Anderton's immediate world, which of course is filled with a lot of cool eye candy and technologically advanced gadgetry. A very creative look at what the future may have in store for us, society is ripe with eye identification scanners and interactive advertising (which is very cool). including song and dance cereal box characters that look a lot like those Mini-Wheat guys. A hot topic especially in the last decade, holographic imagery comes to life, preserving Anderton's family memories in transparent 3-D files. To say the least, Spielberg has crafted a very dark but believable future with a grounded sense of realism that's not too far fetched given some of today's strides in modern advancement.

Having proven himself to be more than just a pretty face with performances in Jerry Maguire and Magnolia, Tom Cruise is rock solid in the role of Precrime specialist, John Anderton. One of the more appealing aspects of the film is seeing Cruise jump into the skin of a tortured drug addicted cop on the run. certainly a nice break from the safe confines of superstar status. Although Cruise maximizes the role's potential, unfortunately, he's also bound by the film's pacing. In certain scenes when sympathetic emotional intent is clear, the film's fast paced storyline doesn't give Cruise time enough to shine, or the audience occasion to feel his pain. In addition to momentum, the story also suffers from certain logical loopholes with regard to the entire concept of "Precrime," leaving many unanswered questions when reflecting back on the plot, which could be interpreted as justification for such a fast paced adrenaline ride.

Spoiler Alert

My main problem with Minority Report is the the film, at least the idea of it, should have never happened. We've run into this problem before with movies such as Terminator 2 and Back to the Future. Here's the problem; Anderton would have never went to kill Crowe had he not seen it in the Precrime room. But the Precogs show it to him as if he had planned it. That's another thing; the precogs only give an ample amount of time to catch these `murderers' when there is premeditation. In the opening scene, we are explained that when there is no premeditation, there is little time to stop there murders from happening. Assuming that Anderton didn't see his crime, and also assuming that Anderton was thrust into a position where he was face to face with Crowe, there would have been no premeditation. My problem is, again, Anderton would have never went to find (and kill) Crowe had he not seen it happen. So it would have never happened therefore never been shown to him. As much as I enjoyed Minority Report, the film left me bruised with a few bumps on the head after my theater chair also served as an ejection seat which, at times, launched me out of the movie to the roof, then back again. Believe me, too much exposition hurts. However, with a supporting cast that includes the great Max von Sydow as Precrime Director Burgess, Colin Farrell, Steve Harris from ABC's The Practice, Tim Blake Nelson, Samantha Morton and a slew of highly recognizable cameos, Minority Report isn't soft in the acting department.

At times, Minority Report also upholds a level of class and orchestral dignity as Anderton also serves as a visual conductor to John Williams' haunting, mysterious and heart pounding score via visual precognition. With famed cinematographer Janusz Kaminski working his magic, Minority Report's presentation is second to none in visual appearance. From this reviewer's perspective, Minority Report represents a new benchmark in the science fiction genre in subject matter and visual appeal. I admire the places Spielberg is willing to explore as a director. Sure, he could make "E.T. 2" but instead, he chooses to take on challenging films such as this. Simply put, Minority Report is an impressive visual extravaganza that takes the mind on a cerebral action packed ride into the future.


Anyone who liked this movie was trying way too hard. This movie isn't science fiction it is impossible. The product placement was terrible and sad, which went right along with the story line. I do not know what Steven's problem is about ending movies like A.I. for instance but this movie ran on like a marathon. I could not belive the part where they said these precogs were just crack babies in the future, that could see the future. Please if you want to spend 10 bucks that bad throw it out the window or maybe rent "Magnolia", Vanilla Sky" and A.I. After seeing those three you may never be in the mood to see another movie again.


Expecting a sophisticated take on a Philip Dick story from Steven Spielberg is like expecting a gourmet meal at McDonalds.

Spielberg proves he's completely inadequate to take on the nuances and depth of the source material with his flash-but-no-substance approach. Tom Cruise ably proves he's an incredibly weak actor who has no range or depth.

The script is pretty good and could have been made into a fabulous film in the hands of a capable director like Soderbergh. But as it stands, it's utterly mediocre and derivative and, most important, astoundingly forgettable with the sub-par talents of Cruise and Spielberg.


The fact that this movie is by Steven Spielberg was unknown to me. After this monstrosity, I will make sure that I never see another one of Spielberg's works. This latest movie is no different from his history of sappy idiocies.


It is sad when critics reach the point where the name of the director automatically insures a positive review. Genius that he is or was, the last 2 films are by any standard poor. Here again despite the appeal of Cruise, is a movie that lacks any cohesion, sensitivity, vision, or logic. There is no "minority report". Rather there is an echo. There is no sympathetic character, only a world devoid of any redeeming characteristics. Craft maybe high but the story is totally lacking. Why is Spielberg so fascinated by the loss of children? How do you justify motivations covering 6 years? Why do the plots have to be transparent? Why does the movie drag on? Watch it without the thought that this was done by the same man who gave us Jaws, ET, Indie etc. Even the best directors often run dry, Kubrick for one. Here is another.


Although I'm sure I'll be in the "minority" here, I found this film extremely unsatisfying. CGI abounds (money has obviously been spent) but the plot holes and under-developed characters left me flat. Also, where was the suspense? The denouement was predictable. In the end, the "look" of the film was the only thing that held my interest. Two out of five stars.


Why is it every time I see a Spielberg movie, I always leave the theater feeling as if I have just been manipulated? This movie is no exception. Everything about this movie (the music, the script, the photography, the editing) serves the purpose of making sure I share Spielberg's viewpoint about the movie's rather contrived situation. I especially resent this type of emotional manipulation when it tries to make a greater statement about our present day criminal justice system through questionable comparisons. The movie's premise is an interesting one and I think we would all agree that constitutional rights need to be protected but, at the end of the day, this movie is just another sappy, preachy Spielberg movie. (And why is it everyone in the future has a hovercraft? Even more importantly, when do I get my own hovercraft?)


Unlike the extremely camp exercise in bad taste that is 'Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS' , Gestapo's Last Orgy is a more unflinching look at the atrocities committed in a Nazi concentration camp, shot in a quasi-serious style. With its harrowing scenes of sexual abuse and violent death and torture, it is easy to understand why this movie might be considered more shocking than other similarly themed flicks from the same era; but is delivering a rawer and nastier (but still very exploitative) movie any more distasteful or disrespectful than making light of the subject matter?

In my opinion, all Nazisploitation movies are treading on dodgy ground and if you're going to use such a touchy subject to make a film that is designed to titillate and disgust, then you might as well go the whole hog. Director Cesare Canevari certainly thinks so; with Gestapo's Last Orgy, he delivers an often sickening piece of no holds barred cinema that should satisfy most fans of extreme movie-making.

Daniela Poggi plays Lise Cohen, a beautiful young Jewish woman being held in a Nazi 'love camp'. Believing that she is responsible for the death of her family, she has lost the will to live and offers no resistance when tortured by evil Commandant Conrad von Starker (Adriano Micantoni). Frustrated by the lack of emotion shown by the woman, Conrad makes Lise his special project and tells her that she will learn to love life once she has experienced real fear.

When a friendly doctor discovers that Lise was not actually to blame for the death of her loved ones, he tells her, thus restoring her will to live and, in turn, her fear of death. In order to survive, she must now pretend that von Starker has succeeded in breaking her, and become his lover...

With scenes of mass extermination, violent rape, and general lack of respect for human life, Canevari's sick flick is certainly disturbing; although not packed with the the wall-to-wall gore that one might expect, the sheer nastiness of some moments make this one hard to stomach at times. When the head honchos at the camp tuck into a meal made from 'unborn Jew', or douse a woman in Cognac and set her on fire, it's not necessarily the visuals that will make you gag, but the idea being portrayed.

Occasionally the pace of the movie lulls and sometimes Canevari sees fit to get rather pretentious with his direction, but, on the whole, the film is a decent enough watch for those seeking some sleaze. And although I imagine the makers never intended to provide any laughs, I defy anyone to not giggle at the moment when Lise is suspended above flesh-eating rats (actually rather disinterested gerbils) or the 'sex' scene between Lise and the doctor, which consists of several minutes of them rolling around together naked, but never actually seeming to bother with any serious boning!

6.5 out of 10 (rounded up to 7 for IMDb).


The cats who made this movie are burning in hell for eternity. And God bless their li'l hearts for producing a film so stunningly offensive that even I was forced to say, "That's just mean." I have seen a half dozen or so of these "Naziploitation" flicks but this bad boy takes the cream of the cake of the crop. If you have never been entertained by Naziploitation before, let me clue you in--this movie is all about the JEWS. Say the word JEW a few times to get yourself used to it. You will be hearing the word JEW used in some pretty crazy-ass dialogue if you watch this film. This is such a great movie.

The Nazis here are completely inhuman in this concentration camp sexploitation mutant. The first scene that told me that this was going to be a white-knuckle thrill ride is one where a roomful of naked German troops are shown some weird sexually violent scheisse films and then are loosed on a number of nude Jewish women to violate. Then there's the girl who is thrown in with the dogs. Then a bunch of other Jewish girls are picked out for torture and sexual slavery, including our heroine Lise. Then there's the Nazi dinner party where they eat Jews. "Much tenderer than veal!" grins the sicko prison camp commandant Starker. One guy even holds his meat-laden fork in the air and admires it--"There's nothing better than a pot roast of unborn Jew!"

Then there's the flambée scene--let me talk about this for a little bit. First off, when the notion of burning a naked women alive and eating her hits Starker, he is absolutely beaming. He starts everyone sweeping the dishes off the banquet table so's they can fire up the old gal. The attendants of the Nazi dinner pour cognac on the naked girl and the creepiest-looking of them lights up and drops a match with his hands all aquiver. The Nazis watch the girl burn out and you can see in their faces that they are drunk with power and reveling in their sadistic glory. And then we see them all bloated and trashed on the floor with the charred remains of their feast on the table.

And that scene is only halfway through the movie--there is a bunch more off-the-wall shenanigans to go till the end! This flick really delivers, man. Beyond the sheer jaw-dropping brazenness of it, it is actually a very well-made film that could succeed even without the pervasive rape and other horrific visuals. Take that as a recommendation. 10 outta 10.


The Gestapo's Last Orgy concerns an unlikely romance between a Nazi death camp commandant and a Jewish female prisoner, Lise Cohen. Shortly after the war they rendezvous at the dilapidated remains of the concentration camp they met. From here, the story is told in flashback. We discover that the camp was used to incarcerate Jewish women. These women were subsequently subjected to all manner of sexual degradation, torture and death. Lise refuses to be broken by her Nazi oppressors and, subsequently, becomes the object of the camp commandant's obsession. This leads to her being treated in increasingly degrading ways. But the commandant's obsession also offers her hope of salvation.

As an example of the Naziploitation sub-genre, The Gestapo's Last Orgy is a more hard-edged entry than the very silly SS Experiment Camp. Unlike the latter film, there is more of an attempt at authenticity. The victims are clearly referred to as Jews and the treatment meted out to the women is often very disturbing. That is not to say that the film is a convincing depiction of events in a Nazi death camp - it is pretty ridiculous a lot of the time. However, there is a definite mean-spiritedness about this exploitation movie. The women seem to be constantly undressed. There is a great deal of sexual assault, humiliation and torture. The victims are hung naked from chains, fed to dobermans, drowned in quicklime - you name it. This, of course, all sounds extremely lurid and nasty. And it is. But the film isn't terribly well-made, so it isn't quite as shocking as it sounds. The crazy dubbing does not help matters either. Nevertheless, I would be very surprised if this film finds itself released uncut on DVD in the UK. With it's combination of sex and violence, this is one of the infamous 'video nasties' that would still pose some problems to UK censors. So, if that is enough of a recommendation for you then go for it.


The beautiful blonde (Daniela Poggi) is sent to a concentration camp for female Jews to be sexually used by the German soldiers. She is not afraid of dying, since she believes she provoked the death of her family in a ghetto. Commandant Conrad von Starker (Marc Loud) feels challenged by her behavior and decides to torture her, making she faces the horror of death. Later, she becomes her sexual slave of along the period of war. In the post-war, they meet each other, with this meeting ending in a tragic way. This type of 'exploitation movie' recalls `Ilsa, She Wolf of the SS', with a shallow drama which recalls `The Night Porter' and violence like `Salo, or The 120 Days of Sodom'. At least, Daniela Poggi, who works naked along all the movie, has a beautiful body and the violence is limited, therefore it is watchable. I do not like this genre, but there are movies worse than `L' Ultima orgia del III Reich'. My vote is four. <br /><br />Title (Brazil): `As Condenadas' (`The Condemned')


I've read some reviews of this film and I think they are missing something. OK! This is a nazisploitation flick - there's a concentration camp for Jewish women (for coincidence, most of them young and pretty), there is a scene in which a woman is thrown to the dogs for feeding them; in another one young girls are standing side by side waiting to be raped by German soldiers; and there's also a sadomasochistic relationship between Commandant Starker and a woman officer and so on..... But beyond these attractions, "L'Ultima Orgia del III Reich" is about a love relationship between Commandant Starker and a Jewish girl, Lise. It is a love relationship born first from fear - the omnipresent death surrounding and threatening everything had succeeded in drowning hate in a lake of numbness - Lise had hardened herself into indifference and Starker's violence stirs something in her. A dark love affair ensues, and nonetheless it is in some ways a truer depiction of love than the one that is usually given by the average film, where everything is clean and white.

Commandant Starker had made everything he could to break Lise (she had even been tied upside down, her head near a floor crowded with mice). But he had noticed he couldn't make her lose her mind.

And then Lise she seduces Starker. They start a love relationship, fed by opportunism, hate, fear and luxury and driven by power and death. There's a moment in which Starker says to Lise: "I showed you death, now you can start to really live".

But this a a doomed relationship - born in a concentration camp, fed by fear and numbness, aroused by death and violence and corroded by hate and quiet despair. It is an interesting story. Try to leave your prejudices at the door and you may be surprised.


If it's a bad film you're after, then I recommend seeing anything from the abysmal Nazisploitation sub-genre, as unless I'm missing something; they're all terrible! Never has there been a film type so moronic and redundant, and The Gestapo's Last Orgy doesn't do anything to make me reconsider that notion. I suppose in fairness; it has to be said that this isn't as bad as the completely crap SS Experiment Camp, but it really isn't too far off. My only reason for bothering with this film is because of the fact that it was a part of the DPP's Video Nasty list back in the eighties, and I'm pleased to say that now I've seen three of the four Nazisploitation flicks on the list, I only have one left to go (the almost certainly mind numbing Love Camp 7). The Gestapo's Last Orgy is slightly more epic than most of the rest of the sub-genre, but that's not a good thing as it only means that it's even more boring. The plot has something to do with a prisoner of war whom various sick Nazi's see fit to experiment on, only for her to start playing her own game with them...or something. The storyline is too meandering to be satisfying, and most of the film is caught up in showing how sick the Nazi's were - like we need a film to show us that! I'm a big fan of cult cinema, and almost all the sub-genres have some decent films among them - that is, except Nazisploitation. Overall, I have to say that unless you're working your way through the Video Nasty list - this is one to avoid!


This show was more influential than most shows of its genre on TV. In many ways, it was the predecessor to the current CSI and CSI: Miami, with its emphasis on science and the forensic approach. In fact, many of the episodes dealt with forensic methods which were just coming into being in the 70's, and for the first time let the audience of the series see these new techniques and research, including the build-up of a skeletal face to what the person could have looked like, looking for evidence of where a person has been by looking at the residue on a person's shoes and other forensic methods we take for granted nowadays.

What's even more interesting is that many of the topics of these episodes, some 25 years old, show a great amount of relevance even now. Such things as airplane safety, epidemics, political influence, riots, runaways and child pornography, post traumatic stress disorder as a result of a war experience, migrant workers, crash diets, child abuse, and much, much more.

This show was and is a great forerunner to many other shows over the past twenty-five years. In many ways, the current resurgence in shows about forensic science can be attributed to this show. Not only the commercial successes of CSI and CSI:Miami, but shows like "Forensic Files," "Cold Case Files" and other such shows. With the amount of technology which we presently have available to us now, it's amazing that a lot of it has only been available since Quincy debuted on television, less than 25 years ago.


I miss those days when quincy was shown at TV here in Norway. The show was just pure magic. On one side Quincy was the relenteless detective/coroner who gave everything on the job. On the other side he also liked to shoot the breeze, drink, chase woman and have fun. That's what it is all about. The 70's were a dream considering TV series. Just think about cannon, Kojak and Quincy. JUST GREAT. Quincy is "old school, funny and a delight to watch. The style of the 70's seems so much more relaxed and cool compared to that of today.Recommended for everybody that's tired of all the crap shown to day. The 70's rule and Quincy is number one!


It has struck me that despite the implausible pairing of Quincy with much younger women, the clashes with the management and the police, this show covered some pretty controversial topics for a 30 year old mainstream show:- * Teenage alcoholism * Elder abuse * Mental health issues * Legislation for lief jackets on plains * Drunk driving *Public health issues such as food contamination/pollution Yes it can be cheesy but I still find many of them watchable and find the range of issues covered impressive for the times. I also think it's quite cool that Mark was actually a technician not an actor who is now a leading DNA expert!


I absolutely loved this series about a coroner's experiences, and have tried in recent years to find a TV replacement, all to no avail. Cold Case Files is bearable (but no Quincy) while CSI is both dark & stark and far too graphic. No opportunity is lost to display blood and guts, generally at the expense of character and plot. Why people view this as entertainment befuddles me. Crossing Jordan is yet another dark tale and generally as concerned with Jordan's sex life as with crime investigation.

By contrast, Quincy is very engaging but also optimistic. Yes, Quincy has his 'relationships' with beautiful young women, but they are portrayed light heartedly, with humour and minimal focus. Jack Klugman is brilliant in the role of the smart & tough, kind hearted & principled, grumpy but charismatic coroner. He is always the underdog's champion, indignant at the crimes & cover ups of the wealthy and influential, and not hesitant to ruffle a few feathers. Quincy is always professional but also personally engaged in the victim's plight. Each episode sees him ferreting out some new case of foul play, aided by his faithful Oriental lab cohort, Sam, engagingly played by Robert Ito. The pair enjoy a touching friendship.

The series gave us a glimpse into the forensic techniques and research of that era. (These may have improved during the intervening decades but alas, the TV series portraying them have not.) Also, many issues equally relevant today were explored, including child abuse, fad diets, alcoholism, child pornography, and so forth. Who cares whether aspects of the show are predictable or whether it is particularly realistic? I for one remain a great fan of the series. As I see it, all the forensic dramas of today pale by comparison.


Created by Glen A.Larson and Lou Shaw Quincy is the all about the daily life of the Coroners office in Los Angeles.

It revolves around the Coroner Dr.R.Quincy(Jack Klugman)and how each week he does an autopsy which will lead him somehow to take on a particular hot topic at the time.His list of one man wars include alcoholism,mugging,punks,Vietnam vets,gangs,medical insurance as well as diseases and murders.

Quincys aided in his work by his loyal assistant and friend Sam Fujiyama(Robert Ito),his long suffering,fair and hardworking boss Dr.Robert Astin(John S.Ragin),tough Police Lt.Frank Monaghan,his partner Sgt Brill(Joseph Roman)and owner of the groups favorite restaurant Danny's,Danny Tovo(Val Bisoglio).

I've been watching this as it's rerun here on ITV3 and am really getting into it.It's CSI before CSI and in my opinion better because it's a very human series not all about hi tech equipment and explosions.Plus every episode is about something important like cancer treatment,abuse,alcoholism etc and tackles the subjects head on.The autopsy scenes are good as well because you don't see the bodies you just see the top half of Quincy and Sam and get Quincys description of what's happening.I think that's great because what you imagine can be ten times worse than what your shown in graphic detail.

Jack Klugmans excellent as the coroner with an axe to grind and there's fine support from John S.Ragin and Robert Ito.It always makes me laugh though when instead of just doing autopsies he'll investigate and solve the case the detectives never solve it and I think in one episode Monaghan says Quincy should get a Police pension for all the detective work he does.A slice of classic TV with memorable stories and characters Quincy is well worth a watch.


I think Quincy was great when it first aired but is reflective of the "Shake 'n Bake" formula of TV in the '70s and early '80s. It did bring the science of criminal forensics to public attention so I am sure there are people working in that field today because of Quincy.

An episode or two might be tolerable for most people, but beyond that the repetition will wear almost anyone down.

I think I would pay real money if for once his boss Asten, Lt. Monahan and everyone else would believe Quincy when he finds something out of the ordinary.

Something like,"Gee Quincy, you were right about all of the last 75 deaths you investigated when I didn't believe you despite considering you my friend. Since your record is pretty flawless and I can trust you, let's go get the murderer." I would love to see that just once...once!


I have enjoyed Quincy for years--both when it first came on TV and in the years following its wide-spread syndication. Despite enjoying the show very much, I must, however, admit that the show was very formulaic and predictable. In 90% of the episodes, they stuck to a very well-established plot outline:

1. There is a death and it's assumed that it was by natural causes. In most of these cases, it's actually murder.

2. To Dr. Quincy, the case "just doesn't seem right" and he won't close the case--wanting to take more time with the autopsy or do some investigating on his own.

3. His boss, Dr. Asten, argues with Quincy to just wrap it all up due to either time constraints or pressure from outside sources. In essence, Asten is a bureaucratic weenie and Quincy a crusader for truth.

4. Quincy's friend, Lt. Monahan, wants to close the case because he KNOWS that it either wasn't a murder or he's blaming some innocent guy for the crime. Oddly, despite the Los Angeles Police Department being one of the largest ones in the world, somehow Monahan is almost always on the case--he's apparently a very, very busy guy--as is Quincy!

5. In the end, Quincy is vindicated. Yet, despite this, by the time they do the next episode, they once again begin this same process!

So why, despite the predictability of the show did I and so many others like it? Well, perhaps it was because although you knew what to expect in general, the shows were very creative in how they thought out the murders. Also, in a few cases, there weren't murders but the show managed to bring up excellent public health issues. Plus, over the years, the show evolved into a likable cast. Heck, after a while, you even grew to like Asten--especially since he mellowed and was less of a paper-pushing bureaucrat in later episodes.

Excellent writing, a likable cast and great imagination, this show has stood up well over time.


Quincy ME brought us the fascinating world of Forensic Pathology and yes, even crime scene investigation 30 years before we would be flooded with analogous programs. However, Jack Klugman seemed to be able to pull it off without lavish and superfluous special effects seen all too much in the modern era. Instead, Quincy was disciplined in the drama of the storyline, and the science that was involved. Perhaps the Television of today has doubts about their actual content and dialog, that vacuous imagery has been made a cornerstone, rather than window dressing.

Not to mention, Jack Klugman is just a terrific performer. Proving here, just as he has done his entire career that range is not a problem for the actor. We laughed out laud with him in the "Odd Couple", and here we piece together a victims death, along with Sam ,Lt. Monahan, and Astin. As always with Quincy, you are in for a good does of education too.

However, towards the later seasons, it seemed that the show became too preachy with its public service tone. I remember being a bit annoyed as certain episodes resembled after school specials, rather than the medical/ crime drama I became addicted too. It would have been a better choice for Quincy to stick with Pathology, and dish out the social commentary's in much smaller portions.

In any case, no matter what metric is used to measure Quincy with its crowded (how many CSI's do we need?) modern counterparts, I believe Dr Quincy emerges the most believable and cognitive of the group.


I first saw Quincy just under ten years ago when they showed it on BBC1 in the afternoons. My first memory was of the cops fainting when Quincy shows them the autopsy in the credits. To be honest my favourite character altered between Sam and Astin but I like the cast as a whole, the Danny-Quincy banter (always trying to get that recipe) that dynamic storyline and what have you. I always enjoyed how Quince solved complex cases, although he dealt with the dead it was similar to House or CSI probably more CSI. One episode springs to mind when they search for a boy who's been hidden underground in the desert, they search everywhere and it's by finding a rare flower that starts them off and finding the boy. Quincy dealt with issues as relevant today as they were in the 70's and 80's. Our treatment of people of different race, sex and religion. Quincy was someone who genuinely cared and played excellently by Jack Klugman.

Of course, let's not forget that 'funky' soundtrack!


Jack Klugman did a brilliant job as a Los Angeles County Coroner on the show. "Quincy, M.E." dealt with the most specific issues of its time during the seven years on NBC Television. It was not an ordinary show as most people would realize in the entertainment world. The show dealt with serious issues like rape, corruption, driving under the influence, mental illness, wife beatings, gun violence, child pornography, indifference, coercion, drug usage, governmental bureaucracy, and child exploitation. Garry Walberg's role as Lieutenant Monahan -- to say the least -- was just as credible in dealing with suspicious deaths to some degree. A show like this was heavily underrated during the 1970's and 1980's. The only problem: not many shows could match the intelligence of "Quincy, M.E." ... let alone its credibility. Need I Say More!!


Yes it's awful. BUT It's so bad it's good !! Like not being able to take your eyes off a car wreck. It's good for some retro yukking. I'd recommend it to EVERYONE !!! We especially enjoy Quince getting mad in every episode. If that were real like no one would want to work with him. He a raving maniac. But that's what makes him so lovable. Maybe more like tough love. Yeah that's it tough love. I'll tell you whats tough. Trying to write ten lines about Quincy. This is crazy. This is cruel. Quince is getting back at me right. Not only must I suffer through his show but I must suffer writing about his show !! I MUST repeat myself. I'm going nuts !! Repeat. Yes it's awful. BUT It's so bad it's good !! Like not being able to take your eyes off a car wreck. It's good for some retro yukking. I'd recommend it to EVERYONE !!! We especially enjoy Quince getting mad in every episode. If that were real like no one would want to work with him. He a raving maniac. But that's what makes him so lovable. Maybe more like tough love. Yeah that's it tough love. I'll tell you whats tough. Trying to write ten lines about Quincy. This is crazy. This is cruel. Quince is getting back at me right. Not only must I suffer through his show but I must suffer writing about his show !!


This is the American version of the French Taxi films and it suffers in comparison.

I'm not kidding when I say that this a remake of the three French films since although the film is mainly a poor remake of the the first film, it lifts sequences from the second and third films.

Its a mess, a real mess. I'm a huge huge fan of the French films, and for me there was no real point in my seeing this since anything that worked came from the originals.

Why did they bother? They changed the sex of the lead (though the Queen is excellent), combined others and rewrote the cops mother to the point of stupidness. They lost any sense of timing and connection...they should have started from the ground up.

Its not the painfully awful film that some reviews made it out to be, but it is a waste of time. If you can find the originals and watch those. That should take you the better part of 5 hours and in the end you will not feel as though you've wasted your life.

3 out of 10.


My God. Having watched all of the three french prequels I have to say I was a bit skeptical right from the start, but this is pure madness. Being able to shred such a great movie as "Taxi" into this horrible excuse for a film is beyond me. There are no humor, no story, no acting and no action. It lacks everything you want from this types of films. I have to say that if you were able to see the whole movie in 5 minutes, it wouldn't be worth the time. If you're thinking of seeing this movie and haven't seen the french one, please, do yourself a favor. See the original.

And if any of your friends claims that this movie is worth seeing, he or she is not. Believe in me.


And just to make sure you get it right, i'll repeat myself: Watch the french original! It's so much better, starting from the cast (Queen Latifah is so miscast, it hurts), straight to the story/humor (it's just not right)!

The best scene (to at least have one good comment about the title) is a scene involving Jennifer Esposito and Gisele Bündchen, which had a sort of "tension" to it, that was funny and sexy at the same time! Funnily (or maybe not so funny) enough, with the cast here, you'd be excused to think that it would be more often like that. But it's neither funny nor sexy ... and I'm not talking at the same time, at all! Except the one scene ... but that doesn't save the movie, which just is too long and has nothing going for it! It's a shame, because Jimmy Fallon can be funny, but here he's just annoying!


Slick, flashy film, a semi-remake of Luc Besson's "Taxi" from 1998, here Americanized as an urban action-comedy. Queen Latifah plays smart-mouthed cabbie with a souped-up vehicle in New York City who inadvertently partners with stumble bum cop Jimmy Fallon to crack a major crime case. Film should have relied more on Latifah's natural sass and less on Fallon's white-bread, dim-witted act (race is a constant punchline in the script, and Fallon is just there as Exhibit A). Jennifer Esposito is wonderful as a no-nonsense police lieutenant, Ann-Margret is a stitch as Fallon's tippling mother, and John Sierros (Broadway actor shamefully credited as 'Fat Cop') shines as a bamboozled police officer, but what happened to Queen Latifah? She gets a few good cracks in, but there's no character here for her to play; she sticks to her sarcastic persona and puts everyone down, but her role is depressingly one-dimensional. Comedy has a fast pace, impressive cinematography (although the swooping crane shots in traffic get repetitive) and some good car chases, but the screenplay needed an overhaul. ** from ****


When he loses his driver's license, an inept police officer (Jimmy Fallon) must rely on the reckless driving skills of a taxi driver who would prefer to drive race cars (Queen Latifah) to help him stop a gang of beautiful Brazilian bank robbers.

The premise sounds like one of those film that are really stupid yet still kind of funny. However, it didn't really work out like that. The film wasn't a complete dud it just wasn't very funny. I wasn't surprised this film didn't do so well in theaters. The previews were weak and a lot of people don't like Jimmy Fallon. I only saw it because of Queen Latifah. Unfortunately, she couldn't save the movie. The film was just too childish and unoriginal. There were a few funny lines yet nothing that really made me laugh a lot. It starts off well but then it starts to drag and it feels a lot longer than 97 minutes. I even had low expectations because the critics murdered the movie but it was not very funny.

Queen Latifah is easily the best thing about Taxi. She has a lot of charisma and she makes the film watchable. Jimmy Fallon was okay, nothing special. Sometimes he tried too hard to be funny though. For his first movie, he sure made a poor choice. He could have a successful movie career, he just needs to make better choices. Gisele Bundchen is very beautiful and she did a good job but her role didn't exactly call for a lot of acting talent. The direction was uneven and Tim Story isn't a very good director. Also, the chemistry between Latifah and Fallon just wasn't there and they didn't seem right for each other. This comedy just suffered from a weak script and weak direction. It ended up being a below average comedy and it wasn't worth watching in theaters. In the end, if you're interested in watching Taxi wait for video. Rating 4/10


Avoid this film at all costs! This is just a very very cheap remake of the french movie by the same name. Being a big fan of that Taxi, I was intrigued to see what the Yanks had done with it. Watching it was painful, the only reason I watched till the end was to see how low they were going to go with this film.

Queen Latifa's performance is the only redeeming aspect of this film, who does her best with an unoriginal, crass and cheap script. The best scenes are direct rip-offs of the original film and Jimmy Fallon is wasted on a one dimensional ridiculous character.

Go see the original french film and give this one as wide a berth as you can!


TAXI is the American remake of the quirky 1998 Luc Besson comedy. While the core of the film is still oriented around fast cars, hot chicks and zany humour, the film's light-hearted French comedic ambiance has been replaced with a dirtier, more strident, and somewhat more serious American action-comedy feel, which, although it tries hard, doesn't quite translate as it should. Queen Latifah leads as Belle Williams, a taxi driver who runs a souped-up Ford around the meaner streets of the city. Jimmy Fallon plays the unco New York cop who lands in her cab one day in pursuit of a bunch of foxy Brazilian bank robbers. Together, they muddle through car-crashes, shoot-outs and weirdly-decorated apartments to bring crooks to justice. While the plot sounds like a good premise for a decent comedy, the film is sorely lacking in script composition. The one-liners are crap, the jokes feel forced, and the script, which alternates between taking itself too seriously and sheer stupidity, does no justice whatsoever to the energetic and talented cast. A major disappointment from what looked to be a brilliant film. Someone should remake it in six more years - with a little more skill, I hope.


Unfortunately, this was a film that looked better in the trailers when the film was being promoted, prior to its commercial release. We just caught with it thanks to a borrowed DVD and we are so happy we didn't have to pay to watch this "masterpiece".

The film, directed by Tim Story, is a rip off. It is loosely based on much better French comedies created by Luc Besson. This one here gives credit to Ben Garant as its writer.

"Taxi" is an exercise in how not to make movies. The casting of Jimmy Fallon for the main role was a poor judgment by whoever decided to give the comedian this plum job; he is not even funny! The opening sequence involving the undercover operation where Washburn fakes to be a Cuban mafioso, shows that Mr. Fallon needs to reconsider future appearances in films.

Queen Latifah, a charismatic performer, is handicapped having to act next to an inane actor that ruins some of her best moments in the movie. Ann Margaret must have been feeling desperate when she agreed to appear in this film as the lush mother of Washburn, but on second thought, it makes perfect sense that with a son like him, drinking is the only way this woman can go through life.

Watch it at your own risk!


Like Roger Ebert once stated about a movie, I'll use his words to state this one: (This movie)isn't even the bottom of the barrel, it doesn't even scrape the bottom of barrel. It doesn't even deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as barrels. When you have a movie where Queen Latifah is the most experienced actor in the film, you know you are in trouble.The debut appearances of Giselle and Jimmy were awful. They did not get into character and made no connection between the the audience and the movie. It surprised me that such amateur actors in the movie business (jimmy is quite good in Saturday night live) were given such large roles. Also, the whole plot was ludicrous. Brazilian supermodels robbing a bank? In New York? Yeah, right. BS. Still wanna watch this movie? Watch it at your own risk!


YES! This movie is a re-make of an original french movie Taxi, in case you didn't know and a pretty bad one. If you are too lazy to read subtitles, well then I guess you are better off with this us trashy version. If you are not, then get the original from 1998 with Samy Naceri and Peugeot. It is sooo much better.

The problem here is that for some reason, the bank gang just had to be a bunch of out of control Russian models. Yes! Beacouse that is going to happen! This movie is just an inch from these evil mafia walking around naked, it is hardly believable at all.

Plus, I am sorry, but Queen Latifah is not really convincing as a racer person and in to the car kind of a person.

Sorry, folks, I say you could just put less money into dubbing the original, than throwing them away for a poor try-out. I am NOT saying all this just because I am from Europe.


The first couple minutes is not bad, though unconvincing. After that the movie sinks to cliché. Who would have thought a taxi with a super charger? Who would have thought of a mouthy taxi driver? Who would have thought of an inept police officer? Who could believe a police officer so inept that he could not drive a car out of a parking space without hitting both the car in front and behind him? What a surprise it was when the airbags, that deploy instantly in the event of a crash, deployed several seconds after the crash! No one ever thought of that before. I do not know why there is a minimum of ten lines required for this review. I ran out of things to say several lines ago and now I am just typing to fill the required minimum. Am I there yet? Not yet. I am only on my ninth line. When I finish this line I will stop typing. I do not know if I have to fin=ll the entire tenth line or not. I am going to take a chance that I only have to get to the tenth line, not fill it. WAIT! WAIT A MINUTE! II filled it! Hazzah!


I'm tempted to just write "This movie sucks" and then go see the original again, but that wouldn't be very helpful to you guys. Here's why this movie sucks.

To sum up the movie, I steal from oshram-3 (One of the other comments) "The plot of Taxi follows Detective Washburn (Jimmy Fallon, making his debut as a movie lead) and bike-messenger-turned-cab-driver Belle (Queen Latifah) as they inadvertently get tangled up with one another and have to figure out who is ripping off a series of Manhattan banks and try to catch them. Rounding out the cast (no pun intended) are Jennifer Esposito (you might remember her from Spin City) as Washburn's lieutenant, Marta, and supermodel Gisele Bundchen as the head hot chick."

Luc Besson's action-comedy Taxi(1998) was a great movie, mostly due to decent acting, funny characters and social/cultural references. In this American remake, all that is gone.

The characters in themselves are severely less intricate than in Besson's original, and maybe the best of them all is gone. I am, of course, talking about the utterly insane police captain. Then again, of course the Americans would leave him out, since he's a parody of every single angry police chief in American movies. All that's left is Queen Latifah driving a taxi, and a cop that's just pathetic, and doesn't have that likable quality Frédéric Diefenthal had in the french version.

Also, the political correctness really shines through the gaps in this film. Every single strong character is a woman. The only guy in the entire core group of the movie is the awkward cop/disguise artist. The movie has been carefully constructed so it doesn't lash out at any particular groups in society, and by doing that, you lose the edge.

I see this movie as a blatant attempt to salvage careers and make some money on the fact that Americans don't like subtitles. It's also a classic example of what happens when you let lawyers and politically correct groups scare you out of doing things right.


This is truly one of those remakes that never should have been made. Queen L.'s role is totally unbelievable (I mean do you see her doing back-flips on a mountainbike across NYC?!). The original is copied in a very bad way and the translation from Marseille, FR to NYC could have been way better.

In the original, the key role is a believable guy who. You'd think they picked him right off the street and put him on the set (which they did). The tuning of her taxi is really bad and again an unbelievably bad copy of the original in which the leading actor had enough street cred to do these kind of things.

As stated in the title, the only good thing about this movie is seeing Gisele Bundchen driving a BMW 760.


I don't know why people should watch this film when it even doesn't take its cues from the original. The original film works because it had all the ingredients to make it great: Class, Sass, and a whole lot of...well you get the idea. But the point stands. I'm not sure either the director, writers, etc etc realized what was at hand when they made this, but they clearly kicked themselves in the butt for this one. Queen Latifah has proved herself to be a fairly good actress, but one has to wonder why she was cast in this? Instead of giving her character witty and smart dialog, it's replaced with potentially insulting racial epithets. So this is their idea of "hip and coolness". I digress. I think the fact that Hollywood's idea of what it thinks the audience wants to see, clearly undermines the bottom line of the moviegoers intelligence. And that speaks volumes about what passes for entertainment these days.


I gave it a 10 because so many people gave it 1.

I just don't believe it. Come on, if it's not a remake of a French movie, people won't be so picky. Or maybe they just hate their favorite being remade? I got the opposite view, if one movie is good, I'd like to see it again with a total different direct and casts.

Girls (except the lead character) are hot, though they could be hotter to get it a R rate.

Car chases are decent. The airport race in the beginning and the beemers got Trapped on a bridge under construction in the end are fair acknowledgements to the 1998 movie.

Jimmy Fallon is seldom seen on big screen, but in this movie he's just hilarious. I'd like to see him in more comedies.


I didn't go into this movie with high expectations, and they were pretty much met. After being really pleased with Queen Latifah's performance in Chicago, I was really disappointed with 'Bringing Down the House'.

This movie was just the same regurgitated claptrap as the aforementioned BDtH. Sassy black woman shows uptight white loser how to live. The plot was laughable, to say the least. I chuckled once in this movie, and that's it.

I got this as a free rental, and even then, I felt ripped off.

2/10, and I'm being generous.