Some spoilers here, as the subject line suggested.

The time and society that the movie takes place in has rather unrealisic (maybe) technology, very much of it in the form of images. Partly this is remarkably convenient for the medium of film to show, but it was also plainly made to make one wonder about commercialism in the future. Everything moved. The advertisements along the street, the newspapers, the clothing-model pictures in stores, and even obnoxious cereal box characters would all move and respond. Advertisments especially identified the people walking by and customized their messages to each as he passed. The movie's main character paid them no mind, as he was accustomed to tuning them out just as we entirely disregard used car salesmen's claims the moment flag-waving screaming bald men appear on the television screen.

One obvious problem, as the movie suggested, was the total absence of privacy when in public places. When in public, we expect people to see and hear ourselves and everyone else. We don't care that much. With interactive advertisements lining the street, though, added to that a watcher can learn your name and likes and dislikes with ease. Would the prevailing attitude also change, so that this information was also tuned out? It seems to me that it goes too far. I've just realized, writing this, that I have no concept of what a right to privacy entails, or why we would have one. I can't say then what is and is not too far, except by feeling.

The other non-problem is the store the character entered. It had no visible human employees. The video model who greeted the customers at the foyer, instead, was the ideal of all salespeople. She was beautiful, spunky, friendly, courteous, and knowledgeable. She remembered the last purchases of everyone who entered, and checked up on them. This is cool. If implemented at Wal-Mart, the company would have to change its name. Except, I think it is unwise to teach people to respond to a mere machine as they normally would with a human.

Oh, and as long as I'm sounding more philosophical than is necessary, there is the story's main metaphysical dilemma. I agree with Mr. Anderton, as he thought beforehand. The problem, remember, was in the human interpretation of the Pre-Crime system, not in the system itself.

As for other technology, those spiders have to be at least as intelligent as a human being. They searched unpredictable territory, they accomodated all sorts of obstacles, they cooperated, and they apparently intuited (regarding the bubble).

> The movie has some logical flaws (it'd be tough for a movie with this subject matter to be completely flaw-free, though) but in total it's a rocking-good movie that I heartily recommend to any SF fan.

The biggest flaw is a real puzzle, but it is a testament to a well constructed story that the problem doesn't hurt it any.

> Best part of the movie, though, is that I didn't even once notice that Tom Cruise was the lead actor.

My favorite part, no holds barred, was the fun with the eyes. The surgery was DISGUSTING. My favorite scenes tie between the hallway chase and the surprise his wife gives the crazy organist.

Ga"I'd pay for a ticket again just to see the hallway chase."be