Commentary - Really, I meant for this post to be just a comment and not a post of its own. However, due to the limitations of our comments system, I have opted to post my response here.

I think it's very interesting that even though you found the movie to be a "bore" and dissent from the critics that you still gave it a B+. I don't think that our reactions were all that different, I would only give it a slightly higher grade of A-. As you mention in your final thought, the difference comes in our expectations. I wholeheartedly agree that it wasn't a masterpiece, but the fact that a high-profile, big-budget, typical Hollywood summer blockbuster could also be thought-provoking is what led me to call it my favorite movie of the summer, so far.

However, I do disagree that the bleak neon wastelands of A.I. represent a more coherent sense of a future aesthetic. That movie contrasted staid, safe, modern suburban communities with the seedy, colorful world of the mechanical with no middle ground to be seen. I don't think that the audience necessarily needed to be shown the details of how new, futuristic high-rises surrounding DC mesh with the existing historic buildings, because, in a sense, it's an experience we live every day. There are glassy new towers that surround the city while portions of Georgetown remain crowded with the facades of grand old buildings. But I certainly see your point that Spielberg didn't show us the integration between the two. The sprawl can be viewed at the official website.

You ask the question "Is this treatment believable?" about the pre-cogs living in goo. I think it is believable, in that we are supposed to think that they are being exploited, treated as though they were not human, in order to conduct this experiment. They were well cared for, to a degree, but clearly, as shown at the end of the movie, these three drug-addict babies had the capacity for a more "normal" life. Also, you raise the issue of Anderton's wife's explanation for their breakup. I think that grief, increasing isolation, and drug taking constitute a believable reason for the breakup.

And, as with A.I. many of the explanations for why things exist in the movie can be found on the Web. I think that the details of the Pre-Crime referendum wasn't something that really needed to be explored within the context of the film. (And how very Californian to think that the idea of citizens creating law would go nationwide).

Finally, while I don't buy it myself, let me defend the screenwriter on the notion of why no one seems to be objecting to the invasion of civil liberties with the Department of Pre-Crime. It is oft-repeated in the film's dialogue that we are six years into the experiment and not a single murder has occurred in the District. I believe that the "six year" figure is reiterated because the audience is supposed to just assume that the legal challenges have come and gone during that period.