It's great to read the range of critical feedback about Minority Report (Jason's plot holes, Michael's bad marketing, peter's empty plot, and jane's hilarious open letter to the bad technology planners). I tend to agree with just about everything I've seen there, even though I thought it was a pretty good movie. I wondered what brought about the criticism; what would compel people to take a movie apart bit by bit? Then I remembered the reviews I heard before I saw the film. Roger Ebert is someone I respect and he was giving it some of the highest praise I've heard about a film all year. It seems like the collective webloggers, if you can lump them together like that, are basically calling bullshit on the film's high overall rating among critics. The movie was heralded as something akin to Bladerunner or 2001 when it's maybe a Gattaca at best. It's a pretty good film but nothing stellar, and it has plenty of holes in the story that keep it from being much better.
I wonder if the high praise the film garnered was simply due to the lackluster movie year so far, especially this summer's onslaught of tired, hyped films.