Cool News
Want To See The Kick-Ass New MINORITY REPORT Trailer'!'
Hey, everyone. "Moriarty" here with some Rumblings From The Lab.
It's official. I'm excited as hell about this movie. I've been sitting on some big stories about this one for a while, waiting for the right time, and having seen this trailer, I can't be quiet any longer. I'm going to be working up a big preview piece on the film very soon, and hope to be bringing you some real goodies when I do.
In the meantime, check out this e-mail:
Harry,
DreamWorks SKG Fansite received the second full trailer from an undisclosed email address few hours ago. But a little while ago, Yahoo premiered the trailer at exactly the same time. That was a close one.
Nevertheless the version on yahoo is in small resolution and streaming.
You can download 320x240 version which is downloadable RIGHT HERE!!
Enjoy
JawadIt's not the world's greatest quality, but it's watchable, and I've seen it several times now, drinking in the world. I think it looks very different than A.I., something I wasn't sure he'd be able to pull off. That film was a fable, though, and this is more of a SF/action piece, so it's nice that he's gone after a look that's more like (as Spielberg himself put it) "THE FRENCH CONNECTION directed by Fellini."
Is it summer yet? Is it? Is it? Please?!
"Moriarty" out.
-
+ Expand All
-
can this man do no wrong?...
-
Looks cool, lets hope this is Mr.Spielbergs come back ah!
-
after billy wilders death, i needed a kick in the ass
-
Mar 29, 2002 9:07:11 AM CST
They stole the font from the Mortal Kombat 3 arcade game!!
by theboomcamel
But never the less, the movie looks cool. This should be a great summer.
-
WOW! This looks great! June 21st right? One more movie I'm looking forward to! Time can never go by quick enough! But hey, waiting is part of the game, right?! The Big guys are back! After AI and TPM disappointements, looks like Lucas and Spielberg pulled it off damn fine this time! It's great being a geek! ;oP
-
So I had no idea what was going on. BTW, y'know what I heard about that Tom Cruise? I heard he was gay! sk
-
Damn, I hate having such a slow internet connection. I've been downloading for thirty minutes now, and I'm still waiting. I agree with Kubrick101, it's going to have a hard time beating A.I in terms of quality, but I would place CE3K, E.T, Raiders, and Schindlers List ahead of it as Spielberg-masterpieces. But I guess I'm too much of a fan to be objective about trailers and such. By the way... The Maltese Falcon directed by Fellini? Sounds like a strange movie...
-
I thought A.I. was brilliant. People need to look at movies more in depth. I have figured out the movie and I wish other people would too. EOTS was also very underrated. I enjoyed it.
MR WILL KICK ASS THIS SUMMER! -
Mar 29, 2002 9:58:24 AM CST
can we stop hearing about AI already? some of us would like to
by minderbinder
-
A.I. was a great film and way underrated. The American mass audience is moronic. Movies like ID4 reach the top 10 in sales where films like Eyes Wide Shut are spit on and called trash. My co-workers hated Memento just because it ran backwards, and they are not use to it. Minority report looks great. What a year for films and movies.
-
Why are people still talking about A.I. ? Why not, after all, a cult following has grown around the film (surprisingly since it was more or less damned to hell by the higher-ups on AICN) and they want to bring out their support for a film they felt has gotten unfair treatment. Plus, don't worry about it. Minority Report looks like to be Spielberg's best Spielberg rollercoaster ride film since he did Indy 3. The trailer has got me excited that Spielberg has finally decided to be a pure commercialist instead of the serious artist he's tried to be (which everybody has hated me for being so) so naturally you'll find yourself admist the praise of people who support this film over A.I. (as for that film myself, I'm in the minority on it neither liking it nor damning it).
But hey, what do I know ? I thought the 1st 13th Annual Fancy Anvil Awards were a better show than the Oscars were. Not just for the cartoons but for that unlike say the Oscars, I'd actually watch the Fancy Anvil Awards again...which I did.
-
Hmm, the hunter becoming the hunted. For some reason I can't stop thinking of Logan's Run every time I think of this movie. All that diliked A.I will find no solace in this. The film is just Speilberg, how oviously hasn't gotten the Sci-Fi outta his system yet. Though this time there isn't even Stan to help. I personally enjoyed A.I. I thought it was great eye candy. And as far a story, it had it's up's and down's. Though Francis O'Conor made it all worth while. I will see this movie, though saying this I also saw Rollerball. I think it will fall short of A.I. which is very sad. Though also I should add I don't really care for Stevo. Hmm, I don't even know why I bothered trying to add to this talkback, I've really got nothing to say. :::If ignorant's is bliss, then you must surly be in Nirvana:::
-
Flonzy, I couldn't agree with you more. A.I. is fucking brilliant. Hard to watch because it's so sad, but great to watch becuase it's that damn good. You could see the scenes where Spielberg was channeling Kubrick. Can you believe that Tomb Raider(one of the worst films I've ever seen) made more at the box office than A.I.? That's a scary indication of the stupidity of this country. Thank God we got films by Spielberg, Lucas, Scrocese and Fincher coming out this year.--------Kramer, FRNECH CONNECTION was directed by William Friedkin, the man who directed THE EXORCIST. Talk about two masterpieces. Wonder why he hasn't come close to that level of excellence since then. This looks like a GREAT year for films.
-
Steven Spielberg finally knows how to make his movies cool! I can't wait!
-
Jon Cohen is one of the two writers listed for screenplay duty on Minority Report. I'd like to make a plug for some of his other work: two novels (there are 3 but I've only read 2). The first was "Max Lakeman and the Beautiful Stranger." The second was "The Man in the Window." They fall into the magical-realist/humor category, so are nothing at all like MR, but they're good.
-
so cold and fake, just like the light in A.I (which was a great movie). But Spielberg is still the best.
-
Mar 29, 2002 11:13:33 AM CST
Isn't it fairly obvious that Cruise&Spielberg are doing thei
by deputydoofus
I haven't gotten a chance to watch this teaser yet, but the first teaser felt incredibly influenced by the Wachowski's epic. The electronic things climbing up trailers in the trailer were similar to the electronic parasites in the Matrix. The color palette is similar to that of the dark actual world. The overall plotline seems to be similar to the first film (an entire society knows everything about the main character's thoughts and is trying to capture and destroy him). I don't know, it just seems obvious to me that this is the first post-Matrix sci-fi flick that might actually live up to the promise of its premise and be as entertaining as The Matrix itself...By the way, A.I. was one of my favorite films of last year, even though I thought aspects of "The Flesh Fair" and the ending were pretty lame. My favorite scene of last year was the scene where we saw the futuristic androids and saw the Blue Fairy shatter, so I can't say I entirely hated the end. Overall, extremely thoughtful and moving. I think it should still be mentioned by any talkbacker who feels it wrongfully got the shaft. It's just a damn fine film.
-
But I don't believe in giving money to the Church of Scientology, which is exactly what you do every time you pay to see a Tom Cruise film.
-
Mar 29, 2002 11:23:20 AM CST
Minority Report looks great and A.I. was touched with brilliance
by viola123
There are moments in "A.I." that I have such admiration for and when I watch the movie, I do feel regret that it ended in the way that it did. I always say that had it ended otherwise, it would have been hailed from every mountaintop. The most frustrating thing about "A.I." is how close it came to being brilliant. So close. I thought it was a wonderful movie, but there are just parts that make me wince, only because I know that they take a little away from what could have been. But that being said, I did enjoy it very much and believe it better than what it's reputation has become. As for "Minority Report" -- my gosh!
-
it depends on everybody`s own charakter if he/she likes AI or not. ok...some people (NOT GEEKS) are not able too go deeper in a movie. for me..well i liked AI too but if someone didn`t it doesn`t have to mean that he is the just a guy of a mass audience. AND FLONZY!!! i`m from germany and here and some other countries AI was a flop as well.
i think that after all his movies he made in the past decade steven was just in the mood for a action flick -
I meant The French Connection, not The Maltese Falcon. I confused it with another Spielberg-quote, where he said the movie was a cross between The Maltese Falcon and Raiders, "with a little madness". Anyway, saw the teaser, and even though the scene of Cruise jumping from vehicle to vehicle looked kind of crappy, the movie looked intense. As for A.I, I think, because of the cult of admirers around it, we should break tradition on AICN and have a couple of reviews for the movie even though it isn't new. I would certainly appreciate a fresh discussion of the movie that has meant the most to me in the last year, flawed as it is.
-
But of course they're making a cross-platform "Minority Report" game, so there you go. I see more of "The Fugitive" here, not "A.I.". But I don't think that this'll be a film for everyone. But for those Tom Clancy-readin', Tiger Woods envyin', elastic-waist wearing middle aged 'I-secretly-have-a-bigger crush-on-Tom-than-Rosie-did' starchy white guys, this probably will be the first film to coax them out of the house and into that blasted, mallrat-infested, overpriced, apathetic but bangable minx-staffed, way-too-LOUD cineplex. Remember, colors equal "Dumb", but cold blues and grays equal "smart" and on a more latent level, "sexually repressed". Actually, I want to see this badly, but I'm having some fun with the aforementioned 'easy target' group. And the big McWeeny says he's "sitting on some big stories" and he's "trapped in the Panic Room." Too easy, too easy....
-
Mar 29, 2002 12:21:17 PM CST
A.I. Was Brilliant; Empire of the Sun Likewise A Great Film
by nocureforfools
personally i'm with those who loved A.I. Of course, it was clunky in parts, many due to the fact that the subject matter and subtext was all Kubrick -- a reclusive misanthrope who not only sees the glass as half empty, but then smashes the glass in your face. a man who saw the cold, harsh, brutal truth of the world and the selfishness, shallowness and cruelness of humans. Spielberg, on the other hand, is an optimist. he believes in the innate goodness of humanity. considering this, i'm surprised just how dark the film actually is, and was pleasently surprised how well Spielberg handled the material while also remaining true to his own sensibilities. watching the film gave me a new respect for Spielberg. I think it is a shame that so many people completely missed the point of A.I. -- it's not about robots who love, it's about how humans are incapable of it, of they are selfish, self-serving monsters and how a machine is actually more "real" because it cannot lie, it is not selfish, it merely wishes to fulfil it's program. David being a machine in the sad, sorry and incredibly depressing situation of being programmed to want something he could never, ever have... except, of course, in manufactured dreams... anyways, i think one of the reasons people switched off is that it wasn't the touchy feely good time adventure story of stuff like E.T. moreover, A.I. wasn't a summer movie by any stretch of the imagination. it should have been released int he winter. these things matter more than one would expect. but, for the most part, people don't want to brood and be depressed in the summer, they want to run around with aliens and blow up Death Stars, not muse on the hollowness of the human heart and the coldness of an unfeeling, cruel world. that's deep winter thoughts. anyways...
-
Empire of the Sun is potentially one of the most underrated films of the last 20 years. An amazing film that hit so many high marks, yet went unnoticed by just about everybody.
As for Minority Report, forget Episode 2, Two Towers, Spiderman, and all that other shit. This is the real deal, this is the film to be watching this year. Script is great, talent is top notch, and if executed properly could end up having legions of fans akin to the aforementioned "fanboy films" -
Mar 29, 2002 12:38:03 PM CST
Timbenzendrine: Your right about Tom Cruise and scientology
by spanishpantlones
I'd be much more pumped about MR if the world's most recognizable and commercial star wasn't in it.Why the fuck did they cast him in this? He is so bland and annoying-that wimpy voice and telegraphed, trade marked smile. I hate his F-ing movies! I lost any patience for TC ever since that 2 hour beer commercial vanity project piece of shit "Days of Thunder". And now he wants to be an action star? Tom Cruise, badass? GTFOOH! And Tom,stay the fuck away from the Oscars you self-important mini bitch! Scientology is a money grubbing cult for idiots-I have had some personal experience with a close friend who was hooked on Scientology; it's such a scam! and those people are really into money and collect guns like militias. I refuse to contribute to the "church" too. I'll catch MR on HBO next year-I gotta get something outa cable besides OZ and Ho's in the city.
-
i haven't seen the trailer yet, but if this film bears ANY resemblance to the script i read a while back, it is gonna suck a fat one. sorry to break it to you, but this film is one giant chase scene. (although for some, i suppose that's all they really want)
aren't people tired of seeing this recycled, over-marketed bullshit? i suppose not, seeing as how something like "resident evil" has already made tens of millions of dollars. gimme a fucking break. -
Was A.I. a perfect film? No. Was it a good film? Indeed it was. I've watched it about three times since I purchased the DVD and introduced it to several friends who thoroughly enjoyed it. Much like Dark City, I feel that A.I. suffers from what I call the "Blade Runner" Syndrome. What that means is, a film is released that both bombs at the box office and is not well-received by critics. However, a cult following develops and keeps the film alive, and in time said film is looked at in a new light. Time will tell with A.I. As for the topic at hand, I will most definitely be seeing Minority Report this summer. This the one I am waiting for (I admit that I want to see Attack of the Clones, but I was burned once and am going to be very cautious this time around).
-
...was a visionary masterpiece, CRAFTED by a director at the very top of his game. I've had this argument with so many people - if you didn't like the ending, YOU DIDN'T GET THE MOVIE. Simple as that. As someone rightfully pointed out above, what type of lowest common denominator moron embodies the vast majority of America's filmgoers when TOMB RAIDER makes more than A.I. ???Actually, thats the best 'Americans as filmgoers are morons' argument yet - I used to use 'Imspector Gadget - $105 Million at the B.O - Iron Giant $30-odd. (One of the top three animated films ever made, imho). I rest my case.
-
a little too drawn out. You see, why do you have to divide even those of us who admire "A.I."? Just because I don't care for the ending, just because I wish it was a little shorter, just because I thought it would have ended perfectly with David sitting in his pod with Teddie, just staring at the Blue Fairy forever, that's not to say that I didn't get the ending that was. I just didn't care for it, seeing what could have been BE and then not be within seconds. That's my frustration with "A.I." but my real problem is when people who love it say that the ending is perfect and anyone who doesn't think so isn't thinking hard enough. Sorry, but I did, and I think what was hammered home in the last fifteen minutes could have been achieved in a more subtle way. When the camera pulled away from David and Teddie in their pod, tears were in my eyes, and then I heard the voice-over say, "2000 years passed" and we got 15 more minutes of film I personally didn't need in order to understand.
-
Because it always turns into variations on "Well, you people just aren't smart enough to like AI..." Here's a clue: some people "got" AI yet still didn't like it.
-
deputydoofus
Just like to chime in on your Matrix statements. A The Matrix wasn't the first to use those kind of color pallets. B The Matrix is just a rip of Existence. -
Mar 29, 2002 1:29:16 PM CST
Oh please, I loved AI, but you don't have to swallow too muc
by silver_joo
Sorry, but you can love this movie, feel the emotion and yet still criticise the structure. It is a flawed masterpiece, like Apocalypse Now. Certain sequences worked, others did not, and it did not hit its message home as efficiently as it could have. I admire Spielberg for trying something different, but Minority Report is business as usual, and will be a comfortable success.
-
I did. I'm just glad to see Max Von Sydow in what looks to be a big movie. He is the poop.
-
Holy Shit! I think the film looks AMAZING!
The consept is intriguing, the visuals are stellar, action seems breathtaking and it's SPIELBERG making his first big scifi-acion extravaganza film ever... Definitely looks like a winner. And since it's based on a book by Philip K. Dick, one can expect it to have some depth as well along with all the eye-candy... I can't wait. I'm a big fan of science fiction, so this just became my most anticipated film of the year along with TTT.
-
I think it's universally agreed that AI is a pretty dark and sad film. But Ask yourself why Spielberg felt it had to garner a PG-13 rating--Don't fool yourself into believing that there was no attempt at commercializing the film for the masses. Personally, I think there are some brilliant patches in the film but, AS A FILM, it's a mess. There are pacing problems all over the place (which winds up destroying the mood again and again) and no movie should ever end with 15 minutes of exposition unless it's a discourse on theology or a gab-fest along the lines of "My Dinner With Andre".
-
Mar 29, 2002 1:58:26 PM CST
Anyone who claims that he "got" the ending of A.I is wrong in a
by virkku
Because there is no definite answer what it is all about. It's open for interpretation. Anyway, here is my take on the ending... It's a bit incoherently formatted, because I copied and pasted it from several posts in another thread: * * * I'm really not sure what happened in the third act. Sure, the highly advanced A.I's could clone the mother with the DNA from her hair and they could use the memories to David to re-create her personality. But I didn't buy the bullshit about her real memories living forever in the space-continuum and other pseudo-scientific mumbo-jumbo. In my opinion the A.I's lied to David; they didn't bring her mother back, only a clone version of her to say the important words to David. They knew that after that David could find an inner peace, even if he would never see his mother again. Basicly they organized him a faked therapy session to help him get rid of his inner demons. * * *
I agree that it was not a happy ending, more like a bittersweet one. I have to say that the ending intrigues me, I don't really "get it". What was the point to it? Are we supposed to believe that David's real mother really loves him in the end? Or is it a fake illusion created by the A.I? Or is David simply dreaming? And what is David going to do after his mother sleeps away? I don't understand the moral of the story, if there was one. I would have preffered an ending, where David learns to accept that his mother will never love him, and he simply has to move on. I mean there are millions of REAL children in the world, whose mothers have never loved them, no matter how much they wanted her to. It's human to move on and find someone else to love. David became increasingly human over the course of the film, he was never programmed to dream and hate, but he learned to do both. In fact by the end of the film the most inhuman thing in David seemed to be his almost monstrous, everlasting, passionate love towards his mother. It was touching in a sense, but I don't think any human under those circumstances would still be devoted only to receiving the love of his mother who had already been dead 2000 years. * * * I think that the teardrop in the end might enoforce my theory: David's meeting with his mother in the end was just an illusion created by the A.I. Why? Because David can't cry. He is unlikely to have any device in his eyes that allows him to cry. He never cries before in the film, no matter how painful and horrible things happen to him (like when he is dumped to the woods by his mother). But since it was an illusion he can do anything he wants. The A.I's are finally releasing David from his inner demons. He is just a kid and doesn't realize the hoax, he thinks that his mother finally DID love him, even if she will die at the following night. But she finally gave her love to David and he can continue his life without the pain that has been eating him. The A.I's created Mom by using the memories of David and made "her" do certain things in order to make David happy. But they didn't want the hoax to continue forever, so they gave her back only for one day. That was enough for David. He didn't need to be with her mother forever, he just wanted his mother to love him, just once. * * * In this sense the ending IS happy, even if a bittersweet one. -
Sooner or later everybody runs, and Steven Spielberg is no exception. The similarities between the two stories are obvious: Policeman in a totalitarian future falls prey to the very system he once championed and must "run" in order to survive. The climax of each story hangs on whether or not the hero will commit a murder (in "Logan" the potential victim is love interest Jessica; in "Minority" it's... well, I don't want to spoil it for you -- but trust me, the similarities are marked). Personally, I'm excited by the prospect of a Spielbergian sci-fi chase thriller... or at least intrigued by the possibilities.
-
This one was originaly posted by GEORGE: So David is underwater praying to the Blue Fairy. As the camera zooms out and Robin Williams voice is saying 'forever and ever and ever' im thinking this is the end and before i start to think how i feel about it Williams continues with '2000 years later...'. Ok so you all know this.
Now the A.I. (i actually thought they were aliens but i need a second viewing to actually understand they are not. I know they are not coz it is revealed in Empire) are searching for any possible factors that may lead them to thei history that they might have missed out and they find David. David's batter or mechanism has expired a long long time ago but the A.I. have a power to recharge and they do so with David who after a few spasms starts working again.
Now i stress i have to see this movie again to get everything coz i forgot what the A.I. told one another. Anyway they gather aruond David and join hands to see Davids memory. Obviously the A.I. have special powers. NOw they recharge him again and David starts to spasm. What i think is that they stopped him working and took his memory with them to this new place (all the stuff, David himself, the house, Teddy, Monica, Blue Fairy: are all part of Davids memory). The A.I. formed an image of the Blue Fairy before she broke down and in this artificial world she is alive. DIdnt that srtike you as odd people? That the Blue Fairy is a real thing? So then we know what happens.
Thinking of something else that strikes me odd is the fact that David cried! Mechas dont cry. They dont sleep, eat, piss, shit nothing. How do you account for this? Well maybe the A.I. dont know that their anncestors like |David didnt cry so they just gave him that feautre (i dont think so) but maybe, maybe baring in mind that this is David's memory we're talking about he always wanted to become a real boy. So he did. He felt like crying and he did. This is a place that what you feel you show no matter what you are. This place doesnt exist and neither did it in the movie. It is a (drum-roll please) ARTIFICIALY INTELLIGENT world.
What else strikes me odd is the colors of the first part of the ending. It didnt look real did it?
So is the ending happy? NO!
Is the ending a Spielberg-ending? NO!
Is it a Kubrick one? YES! YES! YES!
Why is it a Kubrick one? Because I might be wrong and there are so so many views about the ending. Exactly like 2001: A Space Odyssey. * * * And this one was originally posted by KMAN: there is one important fact all of you have forgotton about as far as what the moral of the story is. Remember, in the beginning, when Willian Hurts character was proposing the idea of creating a mecca that could love, only one student question his motives. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should create an AI. That's playing GOD.
The movie allows us the inside feelings of being a GOD. The after effects. And the movie grows from there. A lot of us ponder the idea that there is no GOD, and they often live without remorse. Even suicide. When the boy realized that he was "not special" and that he was just one of a long inventory, he tried to end his life. There was a creator, and he was playing with his life and "emotions" is what he felt. (proof being the long scene of him just staring into thin air, pondering his own importance.)
Towards the end of the underwater scene, was just a symbolism of our own enduring sence of importance and acceptance and even love. After he had tried to end it all, he still had faith, just like us as a whole. I also felt that the movie should have ended there but I understand the importance of it now.
If the creatures at the end weren't aliens and were actually a form of an advance AI, then the ending was necessary. They were looking for a quality of "life" that, maybe, they, as a "rac", have lost. Just as we are as a people, we are lost in what's really important. Love is endurant, and with love, anythings possible. * * * Cool theories both, and they show how the film is open to interpretation...
-
Mar 29, 2002 2:03:40 PM CST
Are people complete morons or do they forget you can right click
by kampbell-kid
The quality isn't great, but it's better than a crowded busy link thats down every time. Cool trailer... Steven hasn't had a good thrilling film since the first JP film. :)
-
although it is not the only layer of meaning, context or subtext, A.I. is very much about the selfishness of the human heart. it is not the only thing that the film explores, but it is one of the key elements to understanding the film. yes, of course, it was also a dissection of the fairy tale structure. actually, many of Kubrick films follow the fairy tale structure, in very dark and strangely realistic terms (to quote Gigolo Joe: "try fairy tale and flat fact" -- clearly Spielberg understood and appreciated Kubrick's work, even if he did work from a different point of view). Eyes Wide Shut, for instance, is very much a fairy tale "hero's" journey as well as an examination of the subjectivity of truth, the hollowness of marriage and the deeper coldness of the human heart. but, then again, that only scrapes the surface. of course, being a dissection of the fairy tale structure and meaning, A.I. is also chock full of Fruedian/Oedipal stuff. it is also about child abuse/neglect. it is also about the emptiness of the upper middle class lifestyle. it is also about how people use objects and other people to fill the hollowness in their hearts. and again, this is only some of the issues it addresses. i won't even pretend i have cracked the entire code, but i definately have some of it. i have read it correctly. one of the most telling quotes in the film comes from Gigolo Joe, which goes something like, "she does not love you, she can not love you, she loves what you do for her..." i believe this not only reflects the reasons why a human would buy a mecha child, but reflects, on a deeper level, the real reason why people attempt any form of emotional connection with another being in the first place -- to fill a need within themselves, to fill the hollowness in their hearts. a very dark, but very true sentiment. but, hey, the truth hurts. another piece to the puzzle that i haven't figured out yet is the use of the Strauss' Waltz from Der Rosenkavelier. apparently Kubrick was adamant about it being used in the film. i did some research and, apparently, critical opinion holds that Strauss composed this waltz as a parody of the waltz form. the waltz appearing, in the conext of the opera's narrative, at a time before the waltz was created. very interestng. what did he mean by this? was the film meant to be both a perfect example and satire of the modern sci-fi fairy tale as presented by the likes of Lucas and Spielberg? (who was a great friend of his, of course) also: kubrick 101, while i don't doubt that you are an intelligent individual, don't disagree with another's analysis and then not offer a counter analysis. it makes you seem silly and pretentious.
-
There seemed to be an interesting sub-text running in the film. In my opinion the robots were more evolved emotionally than people thought them to be. David learned to hate and dream on his own. But also Gigolo Joe seemed to express feelings that could have not been programmed to him. He was a sex-robot programmed to be a lover and a prostitute. So why does he grow affection to a small kid? Why does he want to protect him? Joe doesn't believe that the blue fairy exists and he asks David to be with him instead, he can take care of the kid. It could only hurt his work as a prostitute, so it's very unlikely that he was programmed to want to adopt orphan robo-kids. It seems that he simply LIKES David and want's a friend, maybe even feels fatherly feelings.
Teddy also seems too complex emotionally to be programmed that way. There is a scene where he is forced to choose between Marvin and David. It seems obvious that he wants to go to David because he LIKES david more, but knows he can't because he knows he is supposed to go to Marvin because Marvin is the real boy, where as David is just a toy like Teddy. So he runs after mum instead, because he can't choose either of the kids.
So the point is that the mechas seem to develop their own emotions that were not supposed to be there. It's a very similar theme to Blade Runner, where the replicants also developed feelings on their own and became as human as humans. -
'A.I.' was probably my favorite movie from last year. I've seen it five times, and the ending is the best part. Tom Cruise has also appeared in three of my favorite films of recent years - 'Vanilla Sky', 'Magnolia' and of course 'Eyes Wide Shut'. 'Spiderman' and 'Star Wars' should both be good, but I think 'Minority Report' will be the best of the summer. Spielberg's simply a better director than Lucas, Raimi, Jackson et al, and 'MR' could be his best action adventure movie since 'Raiders'. And it looks a lot more 'Blade Runner' than 'Matrix'.
-
clearly, you have nothing to say. just insults that fall flat, meaingnless, empty. put your money where your mouth is and back up what you say. or is it that you have no real thoughts on the film? clearly you are capable of posting links though. did you even read what i wrote? probably not. you clearly read the last line though and you are comfortable with that. since you are the, i suppose, professor of Kubrick 101, why not enligten us with your own analysis. your own keen insight into the work of this filmaker. or, instead of actually spending time thinking about the film or reading it, as it were, you could simply post a link to the Dreamworks website. whichever you feel proves your voluminous knowlege into the mind of Mr. Kubrick.
-
Ok I saw the Minority Report trailer directed by Speilberg and starring Tom Cruise and this is what I saw that reminded me of The Matrix.
Minority Report:
Tom holding someone while being shot up a tube with fire at their feet.
The Matrix:
Neo holding Trinity while being shot up an elevator shaft with fire at their feet.
Minority Report:
Tom jumping from a building and catching someone in mid-air.
The Matrix:
Neo jumping from a helocopter and catching Morphious in mid-air who is jumping from a building.
Minority Report:
Tom bursts out of a tub of water and confronts robots.
The Matrix:
Neo bursts out of a chamber of gel and confronts a robot.
Minority Report:
Tom is accosted by a large machnical arm that is going for his face.
The Matrix:
Neo is accosted by a large machnical arm that is going for his neck. -
Thank God.
-
Mar 29, 2002 2:51:49 PM CST
Almost every movie made has at least a little in it from some ot
by mithrildave
There are only so many different stories to tell, and different variations to those stories. That's why the video store is able to split all the thousands of movies up into these little neat catagories. Of course you can look at the highlights of any given sci-fi movie in a trailer and see similarities to other films. Hell, a trailer's whole purpose is to sell a movie, so they are going to try to remind you of other movies you liked to get your butt into a seat. None of us have seen MR so how does anyone now if it is anything like The Matrix, or Logan;s Run for that matter? Perhaps there are only surface similarites, and the actual finished product is nothing like its predecessors in tone or subject? And even if it is, who cares? I'd rather get another good movie that is similar to other of my favorite movies than more mediocre crap that insults my intelligence. (AI at the very least made us think and discuss, and how many movies can truly claim that anymore?)
-
A.I. is filled with haunting images and thought provoking ideas -- some of which came to life on the screen more successfuly than others. Whatever one's opinion of the end result, it is a testement to the film's unique (if at times fuzzy) vision that we're still debating it's flaws and merits with such passion and conviction. Some eight months after its release I still can't decide if I love A.I. or hate it, but I certainly can't dismiss it.
-
I think an important part of A.Is concept is that the narrator and the advanced mecha have the same voice. I think the entire movie is a fairytale for robots, a story they tell each other in order to understand themselves and their origins. At the end of the movie, we see an excavation of creatures from the past that may provide them with an understanding of their own purpose. They worship their creators, human beings, like humans worship whoever we believe created us (Gigolo Joe: "The people who made us are always looking for the people who made them"). The cybertrtonics logo is shaped like a crusifix, and Dr. Hobby is the creator. He even makes a god-analogy about himself. David is the son, and I don't think it's an accident that David is "dead" for 2000 years and ressurected. The future mecha's create an artificial world for David so they can study his emotional reactions, as he is their link to humanity. Since they have religion, science, fairytales, and wish for David's happiness, robot-kind has achieved it's humanity. And the scientific gobbledigook that the Ben Kingsley-mecha tells David is not logical, but a mythologisation of the robots' reference points, which is suitable to a fairytale. But of course I may be wrong...
-
HAHAAAHAHHAH I love that... If A.I. sucks, it does so in a really interesting wayve that
heheheh -
I never meant to imply the similarities between Logan's Run and Minority Report were a bad thing. Hell, I liked Logan's Run (especially the book), and will be delighted if Spielberg manages to deliver on the promise of Scott Frank's M.P. adaptation (yeah, I've read it). Spielberg isn't the first to cull stylistic and/or thematic "inspiration" from previous genre efforts, and he won't be the last. Hell, it's why they invented the word genre.
-
Sorry, my mistake. Many people seem to act as if any similarites are sell-outs or rip-offs. (What I'm really bothered by is the AOTC/LOTR fighting. Why can't we just be excited for both? The more genre films the better IMHO.)
-
I have posted these comments somewhere on this site before, but I'd like to include them here and reaffirm this collective recognition that A.I. wasn't a bad film. My interpretation of the ending, which is similar to many others', is that the creatures of the future wanted to learn more about their human ancestors but really had no power to bring back humans. They could bring back David, however, and they wanted to fool David into thinking that they could bring back his mother. They created a temporary simulation of Monica (and used sci-fi babble to bs their explanation of the temporary aspect) derived from David's imagination, and they wanted to observe David interact with it, hoping to catch a glimpse of humanity at work. The simulated Monica obeys David's subconscious wishes, including saying the coveted words "I love you David," because it was designed that way, both to appease David and to observe his thought process regarding a human being. John Williams from the DVD remarked that David, having lived his lifelong dream, closes his eyes in a symbolic gesture of death. To me, David was human in the sense that he wouldn't give up his quest, no matter how hopeless it was, and at the same time knew when to let go and die. To me, biology is nothing more than the study of the most complex machines in existence. The film is awe-inspiring in suggesting that we humans, biological beings, can create or stimulate the creation of machines of comparable or even greater complexity. It is appropriate that the film, whether intentional or not, elicits a mixed reaction regarding David, a machine complex enough to suggest human intelligence and yet not entirely of a human nature. As others have pointed out, the ending is ironic in several ways and these touches, whether intentional or not, are endearing. However, I think the film should have showed more what it's like to live in a world of 'mechas.' The film should have shown how and why it made sense to use them in the context of the changing world (eg. global warming catastrophe). David is special only in that he becomes the sole representative of his human heritage when he is rediscovered at the end. But meanwhile he should have shared the screen with many other 'mechas' and humans, so that audiences can ponder their opinions of a.i.'s role in society.
-
Mar 29, 2002 3:44:31 PM CST
Minority Report is going to rock! AI is a great film. Kubrick101
by expfcwintergreen
kubrick 101 and some of the others above are completely right... If you didn't like AI, you just didn't get it. When I saw that movie got inside my head and I still can't stop from thinking about it from time to time.
-
If you didn't like the ending, you didn't get the movie. Completely different than not liking the movie at all. As so many here and elsewhere have pointed out, we liked the movie. I do very much. There is a lot about the film that I love. So much of it I recall with fondness and admiration. However, I didn't like the way it ended to which kubrick 101 declares is not possible if one likes the film. They must go hand in hand. I don't think so. There is nothing absolute about liking something. There is nothing absolute about that ending. Look at all the great interpretations we have just in this thread and this is supposed to be about "Minority Report." But you see, "A.I." was successful in moving us, in getting us to think. The fact that others wish to deny us this is beyond me. Why can't I wish that it ended differently? The entire tale was a distorted fairy tale to begin with. David had a distorted view of "Pinocchio." Is it little wonder that I don't wish for a happy ending. I don't need one. The ending I found profound was David never making that connection to the Blue Fairy, but so determined is he in his belief, he would die believing it. The ending to me wasn't so much about David, which the entire rest of the story seemed to be, but more about the artificial intelligence wanting to know about the past. Now if David represents that past, if he serves as the link to humanity, then I suppose he gets his wish after all. If that's his wish. As someone pointed out, he only wished to be human so that Monica would love him, believing that the two were connected. And so, do you see what I'm saying. The ending is like five million things at once and however thought-provoking it is, I think it's unnecessary. I think the true tragedy is David being victim to his own dreams. If he died in that pod with only Teddy with him, how tragic is that?! He was disillusioned into thinking that he had to be human and that dream cost him his life. I think that's an incredible ending, but no, we had to travel 2000 years into the future...
-
I have no problem with the meaning/ending of "A.I." I-N T-H-E-O-R-Y. And I'm not saying it's a bad film. I refuse to call it a great film, however, but I digress...What I'm saying is I personally thought the execution of the ending was piss-poor in terms of storytelling. It could've been shown more instead of explained (and/or explained away depending on how you look at it). Again, I'm not criticizing the message/theme/story. I just had/have some issues with the MANNER in which it was presented.
-
Mar 29, 2002 4:03:34 PM CST
Please, please, please, let me get what I want this time . . .
by erichg
I watched the E.T Special Edition two weeks ago. So much had been written about how the new CGI effects ruin the movie - well, needless to say, somewhere in the back of my mind I was a nervous soul. Still, I went to the theater with an open mind. What a relief. The CGI is relatively subtle, the new effects don't drastically alter the film's tone or the characters' personalities, the re-stored deleted scene is harmless (yet, fun) and the digital score sounded great. Furthermore, the film showcases how exceptional Steven Speilberg is when on top of his game. The way he uses backdrop (in this case, suburbia) to establish mood is outstanding. Speilberg's skillful delivery of a story essentially about a little boy (haunted by the divorce of his parents) reaching out for a friend is heart-rendering. The movie contains big laughs, heart-pounding suspense and warmth. Never do any one of these varied elements overshadow the other. No, every aspect of the film is in perfect harmony. After viewing E.T, I was in awe of Speilberg's talents all over again. I felt like I did when I was a child. Back then, this director was putting out Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, E.T (not mention putting his mark all over Poltergeist)ostensibly back-to-back-to-back . . . I can recall being charged-up every time I saw three simple words, "Steven Speilberg Presents." After the likes of Hook, Jurrasic Park 2, The wrap-around story in Saving Private Ryan, the last third of A.I, etc . . . I lost enthusiasm for Speilberg's work. However, the thrill is back, baby. If Minority Report is good, no filmgoer in the history of filmgoing will be more juiced than I. It's as though Speilberg has the potential to bring out the 10-year-old in me. Man, I'm hoping for the best. I wouldn't mind being a kid again.
-
Just because a movie has interesting themes or is thought provoking doesn't make it a great movie. And even a great story can be ruined by being told poorly. AI had moments of brilliance and great potential, but they were lost in the storytelling. Understanding the themes/symbolism/etc is fine, but characters, dialogue and plot are important as well. Watching movies requires a sense of aesthetics as well as intelligence - not liking a movie doesn't necessarily imply a lack of either.
-
Lostoptimist (and a few other before) is on the money. The ending of A.I is bad, not because of the message it conveys or the fact that it attempts to tie-up narrative threads. No, the finale is a let-down because it is a drawn-out conclusion oozing with overt sentimentality. It feels too far removed from the proceeding storyline in both time (2000 years in the future?) and tone. For about 2/3's of the way A.I is one of the best movies of the year . . . It has a darkly rich atmosphere. Suddenly, for the last 1/3 we get the before-mentioned ending. Furthermore, the closing portion of the movie is as subtle as a nail being driven through my skull. Speilberg goes out of his way to explain every last point, in great detail, for seemingly endless stretches . . . Like his audience is nothing more than a bunch of third-graders suffering from A.D.D . . . A great film exists on its own terms. The audience must rise to its level. In the end, A.I panders to filmgoers and treats them with a level of condescension. For this reason, the film's conclusion is not strong. Ultimately, A.I suffers because of it.
-
now that the film is starting to settle in with people. I don't blame anyone who didn't like it, but I personally find it to be a very moving and original film.
-
Come on, people, seriously. First of all, the Watchowskis have a very comic-book visual style (which is fantastic) that resembles nothing in either of the trailers. The frames awash with light are very Speilberg and the colors here seem more predominately grey, where Matrix used blue (real world) and green (matrix). And second, the short story of Minority Report was written in 1954 (and then put in a short story collection in the 80s), so any similarities with the basic story and Matrix are coincidental. Saying "the world is after him" isn't specific to either story. Hey, I loved Matrix as much as anyone, but don't be so quick to label this a rip-off simply because it's sci-fi/action and has a mindbending premise. And if you still contest the spidery things are ripping off the parasitic bugs in Matrix... fine, bark all day long about it, but maye you should see the movie. BTW, the short story collection (Vol 4, The Minority Report) is several other great stories in it. A few lame ones, too, but as a whole a good purchase. Especially considering they were all written in the 50s and 60s.
-
The last time I checked, every story the man wrote was a moral acid trip. BLADE RUNNER ruled, only thanks to GOD, aka Ridley Scott. The book is...jumbled, to say the least. While he is a talented writer, portraying a Dick novel on screen (like this new spielberg film) is something that takes a shitload of talent to do. Can Spielberg do it? I hope so. But I doubt it. Oh, and if anyone from southern California is interested...Spielberg just got done filming part of his new project, "Catch me if you Can" with Leo Di and Tom Hanks, at the Ontario International Airport. How cool is that? Very.
Peace out. -
For someone who champions free thinking and the hope that we all look deep for meaning, why do you dismiss anyone who doesn't like the ending? Why? Do we not have valid points? If you ignore what we have to say, then what is the point? You are as grounded in your opinion, as we are in ours. However, reading through this thread, I see that only you and a few others have not been open to interpretation. You simply wish for us to agree that the ending is magnificent and although open to many interpretations, the one unifying aspect of all solid, well-thought interpretations, is that they ultimately like it. No way. I don't like to have things explained to me bit by bit. Indeed, literature, stories, art is left up to the person doing the perceiving, but that's the beauty of it. Let me have my own opinion. Please do not hammer it into me, which is what I feel "A.I." does in the end, and it seems so wholly disconnected to the rest of the film. I don't like it that it's "oh and by the way, 2000 years into the future." I wanted it to maintain a dark mood. I wanted it to be that David's quest to be human was impossible. With me wanting this, is it not surprising that I found the ending unnecessary? Like I said earlier, there is way too much going on and it seemed like, while the ending tried to tie up loose ends, it also introduced new themes. Why? It lost its focus at the end and to me, it seemed clumsy. That is -- TO ME! I am not telling you, you must like what I have to say. But I would think you would extend that same courtesy to those of us who DO like the movie, but have problems with it nevertheless. You said that to not like the ending, we didn't get the movie, and that we showed our stupidity. Well, I think that absolute devotion, as you seem to have, that is blind to flaws and unyielding to the admission that problems can sometimes highlight that which is brilliant, is very much what you accuse us of being.
-
...1964's WHO THE HELL AM I? and 1969's novella I THINK I KNOW I'M ME (which oddly enough prophesized the murder of John Lennon, being about a nutjob who isn't sure if he's a Beatle or not but really likes "Strawberry Fields Forever"). Both deal with the theme of identity and reality and what they are and who gives a shit. This theme is also a big part of Dick's 1959 novel I'VE GOTTA BE WHO?
-
Could this be your last AI post on ANY non-AI thread? Please? Pretty please? If you really want to talk about AI so much, there ARE plenty of other on topic places to do so.
-
Your a pompous asshole but your lat staement was dead on about people who straddle the fence. I hated A.I. I hate Movies with kids as the star or focus. I hate movies about the supposed future made by pessimistic people. I went to see this flick mainly for Spielberg and came out thinking that not only will I never see another of his sappy crappy movies again but that It confermed my earlier assesment of Kubrick.That he was a fucked up person.
-
my predictioon
-
So, every movie is either a total work of genius or a wretched piece of garbage? Kubrick101 is not correct. I agree, that on a scale of 1 to 10 a film should never rate a 5. I go into every film with a 5 roughly being my starting point. Each film either gains momentum or succumbs to flaws. So, yes - a movie is either good or bad. However, there are varying degrees in regard to both classifications. When it comes to A.I - the movie peaked at a 9 or 10. Still, a bumpy (see my earlier post) last third dropped the flick to a 6 or 7 (personally, I settled on a 7). How can anyone possibly view the world in absolute terms? I've found that there exists a hazy shade of gray. That's reality. Looking at things (in this case, movies - still the discussion applies to most anything) in a rigidly-defined manner hints at closed-mindedness. Acting in this manner stifles the free exchange of dialogue. Also, it denies the individual the opportunity to broaden their own horizons. Hey, I have strong opinions. But I am willing to listen to what others have to say. When I'm in disagreement with someone else, I don't see that as an invitation to become nasty or spiteful. Instead, I try to stay on point. As long as someone illustrates their perspective in a logical way (Don't give me things like: "I liked the movie because it was good.") everything is cool. Saying everyone is entitled to a thoughtful and informed opinion is fine . . . Qualifying this idea with the notion that said opinion must either exist on one extreme side of the critical spectrum or must be in line with my own ideology smacks of hypocrisy.
-
So, every movie is either a total work of genius or a wretched piece of garbage? Kubrick101 is not correct. I agree, that on a scale of 1 to 10 a film should never rate a 5. I go into every film with a 5 roughly being my starting point. Each film either gains momentum or succumbs to flaws. So, yes - a movie is either good or bad. However, there are varying degrees in regard to both classifications. When it comes to A.I - the movie peaked at a 9 or 10. Still, a bumpy (see my earlier post) last third dropped the flick to a 6 or 7 (personally, I settled on a 7). How can anyone possibly view the world in absolute terms? I've found that there exists a hazy shade of gray. That's reality. Looking at things (in this case, movies - still the discussion applies to most anything) in a rigidly-defined manner hints at closed-mindedness. Acting in this manner stifles the free exchange of dialogue. Also, it denies the individual the opportunity to broaden their own horizons. Hey, I have strong opinions. But I am willing to listen to what others have to say. When I'm in disagreement with someone else, I don't see that as an invitation to become nasty or spiteful. Instead, I try to stay on point. As long as someone illustrates their perspective in a logical way (Don't give me things like: "I liked the movie because it was good.") everything is cool. Saying everyone is entitled to a thoughtful and informed opinion is fine . . . Qualifying this idea with the notion that said opinion must either exist on one extreme side of the critical spectrum or must be in line with my own ideology smacks of hypocrisy.
-
So, every movie is either a total work of genius or a wretched piece of garbage? Kubrick101 is not correct. I agree, that on a scale of 1 to 10 a film should never rate a 5. I go into every film with a 5 roughly being my starting point. Each film either gains momentum or succumbs to flaws. So, yes - a movie is either good or bad. However, there are varying degrees in regard to both classifications. When it comes to A.I - the movie peaked at a 9 or 10. Still, a bumpy (see my earlier post) last third dropped the flick to a 6 or 7 (personally, I settled on a 7). How can anyone possibly view the world in absolute terms? I've found that there exists a hazy shade of gray. That's reality. Looking at things (in this case, movies - still the discussion applies to most anything) in a rigidly-defined manner hints at closed-mindedness. Acting in this manner stifles the free exchange of dialogue. Also, it denies the individual the opportunity to broaden their own horizons. Hey, I have strong opinions. But I am willing to listen to what others have to say. When I'm in disagreement with someone else, I don't see that as an invitation to become nasty or spiteful. Instead, I try to stay on point. As long as someone illustrates their perspective in a logical way (Don't give me things like: "I liked the movie because it was good.") everything is cool. Saying everyone is entitled to a thoughtful and informed opinion is fine . . . Qualifying this idea with the notion that said opinion must either exist on one extreme side of the critical spectrum or must be in line with my own ideology smacks of hypocrisy.
-
So, every movie is either a total work of genius or a wretched piece of garbage? Kubrick101 is not correct. I agree, that on a scale of 1 to 10 a film should never rate a 5. I go into every film with a 5 roughly being my starting point. Each film either gains momentum or succumbs to flaws. So, yes - a movie is either good or bad. However, there are varying degrees in regard to both classifications. When it comes to A.I - the movie peaked at a 9 or 10. Still, a bumpy (see my earlier post) last third dropped the flick to a 6 or 7 (personally, I settled on a 7). How can anyone possibly view the world in absolute terms? I've found that there exists a hazy shade of gray. That's reality. Looking at things (in this case, movies - still the discussion applies to most anything) in a rigidly-defined manner hints at closed-mindedness. Acting in this manner stifles the free exchange of dialogue. Also, it denies the individual the opportunity to broaden their own horizons. Hey, I have strong opinions. But I am willing to listen to what others have to say. When I'm in disagreement with someone else, I don't see that as an invitation to become nasty or spiteful. Instead, I try to stay on point. As long as someone illustrates their perspective in a logical way (Don't give me things like: "I liked the movie because it was good.") everything is cool. Saying everyone is entitled to a thoughtful and informed opinion is fine . . . Qualifying this idea with the notion that said opinion must either exist on one extreme side of the critical spectrum or must be in line with my own ideology smacks of hypocrisy.
-
I have about four copies of the same post in a row . . . Sorry. I don't know what went wrong. Anyway, this is in regard to a number of posts located throughout. Again, my apologies to everyone for the redundancy.
-
The Tron like motorcycle chase? Straight out of ET and didnt work for me. The Flesh Fair? Obvious set piece and not in keeping with the more realistic tone of the film.(& featuring Ministry. Ooooh, how futuristic! they were cool 5 years ago for fucks sake!) The robots were excellent, however. And who could forget Robin William's Jar Jar like movie wrecking cameo? Do you mean to tell me there was no better way to handle that character/plot point? I agree with all those who say it merits discussion & if you love it, thats cool. But you need not be an idiot to find plenty wrong with it.
-
Im just happy to see that the A.I. respect is starting to drip down after so many months of hopeless bashing and raving. By the way, the good news about it all is that the A.I. DVD's selling well, and like every Kubrick film, it seems to have found its audience in the video store, and not the theater. btw, i admit, at first viewing, i wanted to kick Spielberg's ass for that contrived ending...but having watched it over and over on DVD, you know what? I've slowly fallen in love with it. EVen though I still wish Ben Kingsley would shut his mouth a few times in those last 15 minutes, all the subtext and "truth" behind what happens in those moments has become clear, and it's finally come to work in my mind. Anybody wanna ask why, I'll be off watching what seems to be Spielberg's second foray into much darker waters. Revolution is my name.
-
Mar 29, 2002 7:28:02 PM CST
Minderbinder: Interesting themes and thought provoking material
by carson dyle
The truth is, it is simply too soon issue a final verdict on A.I. Some films take a while to sink in on the popular consciousness. For example... in the summer of 1982, Warner Bros. released a big budget sci-fi film based on a well regarded novel and directed by a talented filmmaker hot off his first big success. The film was roundly panned by critics and audiences alike, both of whom complained of clunky dialogue, a lackluster performance by the leading man, and a slow, frequently confusing plotline.
-
Mar 29, 2002 7:31:11 PM CST
Minderbinder: Interesting themes and thought provoking material
by carson dyle
The truth is, it is simply too soon issue a final verdict on A.I. Some films take a while to sink in on the popular consciousness. For example... in the summer of 1982, Warner Bros. released a big budget sci-fi film based on a well regarded novel and directed by a talented filmmaker hot off his first big success. The film was roundly panned by critics and audiences alike, both of whom complained of clunky dialogue, a lackluster performance by the leading man, and a slow, frequently confusing plotline. -
Mar 29, 2002 7:39:51 PM CST
Minderbinder: Interesting themes and thought provoking material
by carson dyle
The truth is, it is simply too soon issue a final verdict on A.I. Some films take a while to sink in on the popular consciousness. For example... in the summer of 1982, Warner Bros. released a big budget sci-fi film based on a well regarded novel and directed by a talented filmmaker hot off his first big success. The film was roundly panned by critics and audiences alike, both of whom complained of clunky dialogue, a lackluster performance by the leading man, and a slow, frequently confusing plotline.
-
Why can't all talk backers be as level headed as Carson? Well, I guess it wouldn't be as interesting. At any rate, does anyone know who does the score for this movie? I think music could play a huge role in the atmosphere of this film. I'm praying that it is a cyber punk thriller more than anything else; maybe Vangelis even did the soundtrack, eh?
-
Mar 29, 2002 9:12:03 PM CST
Hey, a Tom Cruise movie I might actually be willing to watch
by jettison
When does this open??
-
I cringe when I hear people talk about a filmmaker redeeming himself with a movie or something like that. It's such a marketing centric sort of way of looking at things, and I believe that marketing-centric descriptions of artistic works like movies often grossly oversimplify and misrepresent what's really going on in people's minds when they watch the movies. Spielberg needs no redemption from AI. Love it or Hate it, those who did see the film, and who left preconceptions about Spielberg and Kubrick at the door, tended to enjoy it. I think some misguided people have associated Spielberg's name with sappy sweetness, because of ET. They looked at this film as if Spielberg's results were the result of some dishonest manipulation. A pity, really. I grew up with no such illusions. To me, when I was younger, the name Spielberg meant more in the way of scariness than sappiness. I remember his name always being on movies that had an edge of dangerous mystery to them. Gremlins, Back To The Future, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, The Indiana Jones movies. I haven't seen much in the way of any movie, save Hook, that can really be said to qualify as sappy and forced.
I guess this generation, confronted with a nerdy filmmaker, has to take potshots at the masculinity of his films, to claim that they are weak, overly emotional, manipulative. The people who claim this, ironically enough watch relatively plotless, melodramatic, cynically marketed and produced material. -
Mar 29, 2002 9:55:25 PM CST
is A.I. great? YES. Is A.I. brilliant? YES. Does the ending suck
by a goonie
everyone else is talking about A.I., so why can't i? i've said it before, i'll say it again. I LOVED AND STILL LOVE A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. it is Spielberg's greatest achievement as a director. his direction of the actors, the framing of the shots, the pacing, the SCOPE of the picture. it's all damn near perfect. and believe me when i say this: i have spent more time analyzing and picking apart that ending than almost everyone on this board combined. i know there are a few others out there, who like me, have really put a lot of work into this. i member a post a while back by a talkbacker whose name has slipped from my memory who wrote a VERY DETAILED, VERY INSIGHTFUL post on the A.I. ending. so i'm not alone here. but we are part of a minority. A.I. really is brilliant. it is a great movie. it has a knock-out performance by Haley Joel, a great script by none other than Steven Spielberg himself, and a beautiful melding of the minds and imaginations of two of the greatest directors of all time. oh, and did i mention Kaminski rocks?
-
That's music from the 13th warrior by jerry goldsmith. I think someone was asking. Good stuff though, and the movie itself was alot better than people give it credit for. Oh, an my two cents on AI. CRAP! Had potential until i saw those wolf motorcycles.
-
which was actually The Matrix 2. Dang everything is influenced by The Matrix, and Tom Cruise isn't one hiding his jealousy on Keanu Reeves' high kicks in the movie. Remember his oh so ridiculous high kicking short legs in Mission Impossible 2? :)
-
which was actually The Matrix 2. Dang everything is influenced by The Matrix, and Tom Cruise isn't one hiding his jealousy on Keanu Reeves' high kicks in the movie. Remember his oh so ridiculous high kicking short legs in Mission Impossible 2? :)
-
I just dont buy Tom Cruise as an action star I guess.
-
That two towers trailer kicks ass, talking about that! Gollum rocks!
My only complaint, Treebeard seems kinda fake, judging by the single second that he appears in the trailer. -
Philip K. Dick, the late sci-fi author who brought us "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?" (aka 'Blade Runner'), rips off Joel Silver and the Wachowski Bros.?!?
Sorta like Tolkien riping off Lucas. (sigh) Anyways...
I've seen EVERY Spielberg film and I loved them ALL (except fro 'Hook', which I found miserable)! I have absolutely no doubt that Spielberg will rock 'n' roll with 'Minority Report'. Lucas will 12-guage all competition with 'Clones'!!!
After paying $10 bucks to stay awake during LOTR, I'll just wait for "Lord of the Onion Rings: The Two Bowels" to come out on Blockbuster DVD.
Peace out to 'Blade II', "Spider-Man' and "MIB2"!!! -
i think first and foremost, it was a fairy tale for AI's - told to AI's. Seconds, it's about how imhuman humans can be. Third, it's about the power of love, if you take these points together, mix it up, you get AI pretty much. the previous post about the 2000 years was very insightful as well as the narrator's voice being the same through-out the movie. i thought the same thing when i got out of the theatre. my feelings were mixed thought, the ending was unsatisfying but it was not a bad ending. it just made me feel sad. if AI was ended at the underwater scene, it would have been a differnt movie, actually shallower, it would have been just a linear story about un-requeted motherly love. which is not bad in itself and it would probably make more money as well as be more acceptable to most movie goers cause the movied ended. But the way it did end changes the entire tone of the movie with a lot of mixed signals. hence, such furious debates and following about this flix. in movies such as this one, i don't think anything is left to chance. literally, every frame can have some hidden meanings. this movie is similar to BR and more complex too, with so many scenes open to interpretation, which i am sure will make AI be the next cult classic. the more you watch it, the more you get out of it. let's meet up in 10 years and revisit this movie.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
btw...what is up with people using F words so much here and in the skin world, are folk's vocabulary so small that the only word that comes up to express any emotion is always the f work? you can do a test on yourself, can you go thru a day when you don't use the f word to decribe anything? if not, i guess, it's a testament to how small your vocab. is- not that a small vocab is necessary a bad thing. -
So, David finds his fairy after 2000 years and fulfils his program by being able to "love" his mother and have her reciprocate. Being programmed to love unconditionally is proven superior to making the choice to love. If David had just waited for 50 years and then had the visit with his mother in the nursing home it would have been just as meaningful, as long as she still "loved" him. David goes through trials that would drive a human to the brink, experiences anger and sorrow but still he never really learns anything other than the basic love that he's programmed for. It's all just a bump in the road on his way to the Blue Fairy and after it all he is rewarded with a good day. Teriffic.
You can read whatever you want into A.I. but it's hard to truly appreciate a movie that simply repulsed me. I don't trust Speilberg any more.
-
That was a great fucking trailer if I ever saw one! This movie's gonna rock beyond all belief!
-
Mar 30, 2002 11:56:57 AM CST
Some thoughts on all this stuff... and a reading recommendation.
by sk909
This looks pretty good. Anyone ever read the science fiction short story Private Eye, by Louis Padgett? In that story, detectives have a system where they can see anything anywhere up to fifty years into the past and it's used to convict criminals. Awesome the way the tables are turned not once but twice. Read it and you'll know what I mean. I'm not sure if it's in print anymore, but if you can get 'Isaac Asimov presents The Great SF Stories, volume 11(1949)' go for it, it's in there. That book is filled with great stuff. Some of it is kind of dated, but fun nonetheless. The story Private: Keep Out is in there and that's a good one too. *** Minority Report looks good, I just wish they'd put some other colors into the palette. I hope the future doesn't look like that! Tom Cruise has been good before, and he gets a bad rap. The Color of Money is one of my favorite Scorsese films, and he is excellent in it. Admittedly, that was probably helped along by a great director and Paul Newman. However, he does try to work with the best directors and choose decent scripts so get off the guy's back. He's made FAR more intelligent choices than the likes of Harrison Ford, John Travolta, Brad Pitt, and even George Clooney. I guess the problem is that so many people would rather see one of those four actors in the parts Tom Cruise gets rather than the crap they wind up in. But you have to admit, he's on the ball as far as getting to work with great directors on the best scripts out there. The only problem I had with the trailer was those pods with spindly legs that get him in the bathtub. They DO look WAY too much like something from The Matrix. I don't care when Dick wrote this story, many people have not read it and they're going to compare it to The Matrix in its tone and visual style. My other problem was with that scene of Cruise hopping from flying car to flying car. The angle made it look like something out of a video game, exactly like that shot in the AOTC trailer where Natalie Portman is dodging the giant stomping machine arms. Whatever anyone says, though, I think it's awesome that Spielberg is going back to his sci-fi roots and he's even rummaging up good material to boot. Say what you will about A.I.(I thought it was ok, still think HAL and the Terminator represent the epitome of the problems inherent with producing AI), it was the most daring thing Spielberg has ever done and it showed he's not resting on his laurels. Which is more than I can say for Coppola(though it might not be completely his fault), Lucas(it is completely his fault)DePalma(partially his fault), and even Scorsese to a certain extent, even though he's consistently better than Spielberg.
-
I get really sick of hearing that term. The Matrix was itself a rip-off of just about everything. A brilliant rip-off, but a rip-off nonetheless.
-
I cant believe the crap I am hearing. I thought this site was visited by smart people who had knowlege in film. But it seems every film that comes out is a Matrix rip off. You think Speilberg needs to rip off the Matrix? Get the hell out of dodge with that shit. I actually heard someone say that ripped off the Matrix because there is a shot of Tom Cruise moving upward towards the camera with flames behind him. You mean to tell me no other film before the Matrix used that shot? This is getting pathetic. All you geeks need to go out and rent some old John Woo and Jet Li flicks and see where the Matrix got all its ideas from and see it done a hundred times better.
-
Mar 31, 2002 1:58:33 AM CST
Wow, and here I thought the last 10 min. of A.I. SAVED the film.
by munchinsonton
Well, I'm not wrong, by the way. Munch!
-
Any information on whether Spielberg has another major online game in the works ?
The Microsoft crew reports working on a Top Secret game similar to The Beast for the A.I. movie. Is it for MR ???
See Yahoo Group named Cloudmakers for details of the arlier effort. Or www.cloudmakers.org .
-
I haven't like a single film of Speilberg's since Jaws, except maybe Schindler's List - and even that had flaws. His films have so shmaltzy, they do nothing for me. I wish I could erase A.I. from my memory banks.
-
Just a stupid BLANK page at Dreamworks. This is the URL I get linked over to: http://www.dreamworksfansite.com/minorityreport/ Bloody hell, it's not even at the Apple trailers page yet. Maybe Dreamworks doesn't like Netscape?
-
As a Spielberg fan, I'm very curious to see what he's doing this time around. The story, or rather the premise, isn't typical Spielberg material. In Stax's script review he called attention to how unlike Spielberg the whole thing felt, how much more it would have fit in the hands of Andrew B. Davis among other. Personally, I hope Steven pulls it off. This trailer makes the film look like a good old sci-fi action film. It looks like it could be the best action/suspence venture Cruise has made since the fist Mission: Impossible. I don't like the monochromatic look though. This sterile blue lighting thing is usually a James Cameron signature(well, not that sterile). Finally, I hope the film makes more sense than the trailers do. If I hadn't read on the Net what the premise is, I'm not sure I'd know from these trailers alone.
-
anyone know where I can download the trailer..instead of it being bloody imbedded??? I missed all the bootleg mpegs etc and now am close to homicide..
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts