Cool News
The first review of MINORITY REPORT!
Hey folks, Harry here with a review of the unfinished film... MINORITY REPORT. Anonymous here has been with us before, but must be kept secret and safe. He doesn't go into immense spoilers, but there is a bit of alluding to things that might affect the way you would watch the film in a negative light and really he's saying this is quite a good film. Very different for Spielberg. Without further ado, here ya go... Read at your own risk and realize, this isn't a finished film and is subject to changes.
The other day I was milling about, minding my own business, when a
co-worker of mine grabbed my arm and pulled me quickly inside his office,
shutting the door. He whispered that he had clearance to a big summer movie
for a few hours and was going to screen it for himself and a few others
around lunchtime. Before I could even ask which movie it was he was out the
door and down the hall, my mind already whirring as to what film it could
be.
When lunchtime came around and the lights were dimmed I sat nervously
waiting, thinking that at any moment someone powerful, perhaps even the
police, would storm into the room and disrupt our private party. Little did
I know how correct that prediction would be.
Just like a Pre-cog's calculation, soon after start-time I heard a small
scratching at the door. A scratching that was rough at first but then grew
quieter, lighter. At first I ignored the sound but when it ceased to stop I
turned to see what it was. However being in a dark room made it difficult
to see if anything was actually trying to open the door. But as my eyes
began to adjust I peered harder and saw that something was pushing from the
outside, the door clicking from the pressure. This was followed by a sudden
silence.
Then suddenly I saw that whatever it was that was trying to break
inside wasn't coming THROUGH the door... but UNDERNEATH the door! My heart
began to race. Slowly and quietly, I could barely make out four
insect-like, wiry legs beginning to spring up from the crack separating the
door from the floor. I turned to my co-worker and his friends to see if any
of them had noticed what was happening but they were all too caught up in
the flash of the film. I looked back and as the legs began to pull through
they drug a round and thin silvery body out behind them, which upon making
it completely from under the door inflated into a full-bodied sphere. It
was then that I knew what this mysterious creature was. Before I could even
inhale to scream out that Spyders were leaking inside there was a deafening
crash of glass and our room was quickly invaded by what seemed like
hundreds of policemen from D.C.'s Pre-Crime unit. One cop, the captain,
slammed my co-worker to the ground after sticking his knee into his chest
and began to read out his rights, right to remain silent, right to an
attorney, that anything you say can and will be used against you... My
co-worker gasped for breath as the captain clicked an arched device called
a Halo on my co-worker's forehead while the other cops took the rest out in
hovercrafts after scanning their eyes with small handheld devices. I myself
lay shriveled up in the corner hugging my knees to my chest and whimpering
as the crew quickly swept over the room, ignoring me, and was gone before I
even knew what had happened.
Ok... yeah, so it didn't happen... pat yourself on the back you guessed it. You
even guessed that none of it was true after, like, the fourth line... but
hey, I still got to see MINORITY REPORT. And in relaying to you what I saw
I will try to remain fairly spoiler-free.
After reading the shooting script months ago (dated "Early", 2001, by Scott
Frank, in at around 170 pages), I was eager to tell someone about what I
had read. But since I was in no position to press my opinion of the FILM of
MINORITY REPORT, I waited until my soul was quenched by visuals rather than
words to express my true feelings of the work. Because it is a film after
all. And a film directed by Steven Spielberg and starring Tom Cruise at that.
MINORITY REPORT begins like most Spielberg films do, with a high-octane,
edge-of-your-seat sequence that grabs a hold of the audience's collar and
shakes the hell out of them. Actually this is the sequence that you've
probably already seen from the first trailer in which John Anderton
(Cruise, doing the same old "cool" schtick he does in every film, but
that's why we love em) arrests Howard Marks (Arye Gross, that guy who left
that old TV show "Ellen") for the future murder of his wife and another
man. Marks has no idea what they are talking about. And the film takes off
from there.
First of all, and let's make this clear: MINORITY REPORT is tons, tons,
TONS, better than AI. But then I don't even like AI. I just... don't. I feel
bad for tearing it up so in my review awhile back.
And second, it's not the best Spielberg film ever made. After the screening
my buddy turned to me and said that if you would have asked him who
directed that picture he wouldn't have said Steven Spielberg. But with
Spielberg constantly in post-production on one film (now MINORITY REPORT),
production on another film (CATCH ME IF YOU CAN), and pre-production on his
next project (something before INDY) I don't know if we are allowed to
expect perfection. Heck, at the chance to get two of his films in one year
you won't find me complaining. Ultimately MINORITY REPORT is not
jaw-dropping amazing, but it's plenty fun. And a great way to start off a
new season of filmmaking.
I think that MINORITY REPORT would have been more promising had it been
released a few years ago. What I enjoyed about the film is that it's a new
side of Spielberg that I don't think we have really seen. It's much
twistier than anything he's ever done before. Not even ET coming back to
life is as surprising as some of the turns MINORITY REPORT takes. But such
surprises seem to have lost their shock recently. Since THE SIXTH SENSE (a
very normal film with a huge ending), Hollywood has been churning out films
that sort of glide along and then try to knock you out with a fantastic
slug to the face at the end. MINORITY REPORT is certainly no glider due to
its futuristic setting, quick pacing and sweet visuals, but had it emerged
before this recent run of mediocre films it might have been seen as less of
a predecessor. Today/s audiences have been almost conditioned to sit back
and wait for the twists, checking their watches until the movie irons
itself out. Yet by keeping me on my toes I found MINORITY REPORT to be more
enjoyable.
The film is also fresh and original in much of its futuristic devices and
techniques. Large screens (as seen on the second trailer) handle billions
of visual files and can be accessed at the swipe of a hand via virtual
reality. The Pre-Crime cops also use batons called "sick-sticks" that
produce an unattractive fluid when thrust into one's gut. It's also
interesting to see how our future will be affected commercially, with a
never before seen Lexus that looks like it's driving backward and new ways
to be greeted upon entering the Gap (you know, other than the classic,
"Welcome to the Gap, can I sell you some crap?")
The dialogue is also smart at times. When John first finds out that he is
going to be accused of a murder one of his assistants looks to him and says
something to the effect of: "John... I like ya‚ you haven't hurt me before...
so I'll give you two minutes before I hit the alarm." Then the chase is on.
And of course there's that kick-ass slogan, "Everybody runs".
Besides some useless humor at a yoga class, continuity errors during a
jet-pack chase scene, and a weak
you-can-totally-tell-these-guys-are-actors-and-not-stuntmen fight in a
Lexus manufacturing plant, there are few slap-your-forehead and wince
moments. Which is a good thing because after the beating Spielberg took for
making AI too soupy, MINORITY REPORT is definitely more gritty at times.
There is a gory murder with scissors as seen through the virtual screens,
Anderton has no family and uses drugs, there is a (albeit tame) sex scene,
and some seedy underground creeps that don't know the first thing about
modern medicine (one played eerily well by Peter Storemare, the Russian
astronaut in ARMAGEDDEON).
All in all, I don't know exactly where to rank this film in the hierarchy
of Spielberg's filmography but I will be very excited to see it again upon
its release in June. For those of you who are looking for an entertaining
popcorn summer blockbuster then sleep well knowing that you have at least
one coming your way.
Til our next meeting...
You've known me before, but this time I remain
-ANONYMOUS
PS - for those of you wondering how Williams‚ score is I can only say this:
it was very metallic and quick, with a lot of drums. Can‚t remember much
else -- too busy listening to that fantabulous Episode 2 score --
-
+ Expand All
-
Good stuff. I liked Anon's comparisons with the Sixth Sense and how Hollywood, in it's eternal quest to squeeze every drop of orginialty and usefulness of every good idea until it is as trite and played as everyting else out in movie land(wow, a new formula to use and abuse...) oh well. I think the movie will be enjoyable, but I'm not really excied about it. Speilberg could do no wrong for so long (save 1941) but now it seems like he's lost his edge or relevance. I hold out hope for Indy 4.
-
I must see this movie NOW! C'mon, Fox, I won't tell anyone...
-
There's just something about that guy that I can't quite put my finger on...but he makes me fidget with nervousness...
BTE..this doesn't change the fact that I DO want to see this flick... -
With all the sequels and comic book adaptations, its great to see something original coming out this Summer. Looking forward to this one more than the over-discussed Episode 2, Spider Man, LOTR, YAWN...
-
Looks like a good remake of Logan's Run. Can I sell you some poop? teehee
-
I like the way Spielberg is going. I loved AI, and Minority Report looks like a nice follow-up to it. Spielberg seems to have a creepy sci-fi fetish bug crawling up his butt in his later years, and it's nice to see. Those silver spider thingies look damn cool...
-
...after the reviewer said he didn't like AI. Sorry, but there's gotta be SOME common ground for the review to be relevant. Yes, AI was flawed, but it was still the most intense and interesting movie of 2001 (with FotR being the best IMHO). I'm definitely looking forward to Minority Report even if I don't expect it to be on the same level as AI.
-
Or Micheal Jackson. The ending of AI left me feeling dirty. Like I had just witnessed a molestation. "Little Stevie wants to sleep with mommy". Creepy.
-
The reviewer mentioned that he'd read the Scott Frank early 2001 draft - was this before or after Jon Cohen's input? I would assume it's *after*, BICBW. Anyone know for sure?
-
Apr 07, 2002 5:10:35 PM CDT
You didn't like A.I? To hell with you and all your opinions!
by devilish-d
your joking if you think im reading anything by somebody that didn't adore that movie...no..wait... *ACK*
-
I not like Tom Cruise. He creepy little saiyantologist. BONGO SAYS DIE!!!
-
From the ad it seems this could be the one to watch, oh I hope!! I guess it isn't gonna be as exciting as Total Recall, but hopefully it'll have a little of the adrenaline!!
Good review by the way!! -
I really hope Spielberg gets this one right, AI, against what I thought it would be, was a mint film, just got it on DVD on the off chance, I figured Jude Law is pretty good what the hell. I also rate Tom Cruise, always does a good job, just saw Magnolia, and he is incredible in it.
Also agree with The Woodpecker except I always liked 1941, it will become a classic mark my words. -
Is it just me, or does this film sound like a followup to BLADE RUNNER? Not that there's anything wrong with that....
-
By the way, saw an extended preview of this on TV at about 1 in the morning late last week. Didn't look bad. Didn't look great. It just reinforces that Spielberg is clearly beyond his great-movie-making years. The business with the 3-D virtual pages being turned by Tom Cruise (or was that Tom Crooze, his stand-in?) was certainly eye-catching. The fall-from-a-great height sequence looked straight out of THE FIFTH ELEMENT. Hey, they can't all be PLANET OF THE VAMPIRES! Just nice to know it's a sci-fi film for theatrical release, of which there are very few made anymore.
-
I'm strolling down for the talk back to this review and I see such idiotic bull like "Die Tom Cruise Die!", or even dumber stuff like "I Wouldn't Leave My Kids Alone With Spielberg". What the hell is wrong with you people?. How stupid can you be?. You don't say anything about these guys but you sure say a hell of a lot about yourselves. It is so pathetic. What a freakin embarrasment to society. Get lost.
-
Now that AI is out on video, I am pleased to see people renting it and returning it with disgusted looks on their faces. They're wondering why they wasted their money and time on such a massive piece of shit. I wondered the same thing as I left the theatre --- worst movie, ever. Worst.
-
Okay, I don't talk back, if ever. But when I do, it's usually to complain about some boneheaded review--a review that is completely and utterly deviod of any wit, intellegence, or verve, such as the one above (AI "soupy"? Tom Cruise is lovable? Since when? The movie COCKTAIL? He's too narcissistic to be lovable. That's why VANILLA SKY is quite successful at times: the movie works as a critique on Cruise's narcissism. Because, without his looks, there's really nothing much left)
Anyomous's review of MINORITY REPORT is, well, vague at best. He enjoyed the movie, but is it any good? Because, as we all can testify, a bad movie can be just as enjoyable as a good one. I enjoy the movie MERMAIDS, even though it's quite maudlin and drowns within the confines of its own tepid narration, it's still fun to watch. (call me an idiot, or whatever) I just want to know (in detail) how the visual style in MINORITY REPORT deviates from other works by Spielberg, how the performances fare, if it's a disappointment or not a disappointment. I mean, I hate vague reviews. I can tell the reviewer was entertained, but I kind of wanted more, since I've been looking foward to this movie for almost two years now. I'm also a huge Spielberg fan (although HOOK, THE LOST WORLD, and THE COLOR PURPLE are mediocre at best, and AMISTAD is only pretty good). I know this is the first documented opinion of MINORITY REPORT, and I'm sure there will be plenty more barreling through the information superhighway within the next couple of months. I'm just hungry for more information, that's all. -
Spielberg this and Spielberg that, but Anonymous seems to be utterly unaware that the most important creative force behind the vision of the film is the author of the novella upon which it's based (and apparently with reasonable faithfulness). This is the fifth Phil Dick story to hit the screen (although all the PKD references in Cronenberg and Terry Gilliam films probably should count for one more, and DARK STAR is in places almost libelously derivative), and what *I* really want to know is how it compares to the others.
-
I can see people not liking A.I. (it is flawed, I agree)...but to HATE it? There's absolutely no validity at all with the incredibly negative reviews I've read; reviews that completely revile the movie as if it was some sort of evil abomination that must be destroyed. Although I loved A.I., mixed reviews of the movie (those that neither love or hate it) I respect far more than the ones that are clueless and close-minded, and just plain mean and condescending. An example of a great, mixed review, read Charles Taylor's review of A.I. in Salon magazine. It is far more insightful than most positive reviews of the film. I don't agree with most of what he writes on AI, but it's too intellegent to dismiss.
-
I can see people not liking A.I. (it is flawed, I agree)...but to HATE it? There's absolutely no validity at all with the incredibly negative reviews I've read; reviews that completely revile the movie as if it was some sort of evil abomination that must be destroyed. Although I loved A.I., mixed reviews of the movie (those that neither love or hate it) I respect far more than the ones that are clueless and close-minded, and just plain mean and condescending. An example of a great, mixed review, read Charles Taylor's review of A.I. in Salon magazine. It is far more insightful than most positive reviews of the film. I don't agree with most of what he writes on AI, but it's too intellegent to dismiss.
-
In the totalitarian future L. Ron Hubbard will be cloned and his Scientology enforcers will arrest anybody who has not yet decided to become a Scientologist. You've been warned. They will be able to read your thoughts and if there's any negativity within your empty noggin you will be arrested and executed for not loving the cult of Scientology.
-
Phillip K. Dick's "Minority Report" is only about 60 pages long. You can do it. No more AI talk.
-
Wow, you say that people hate A.I.! How shocking and daring to hear, it's like hearing people say modern-day cartoons bite and are nothing more than merchandising schams...like the cartoons of the 80's weren't ? I admit I'm no admirer nor major hater of A.I. but it does amuse me how a movie that pretty much got panned at large by the general public has achieved a cult following due to some of the AICN members. As for Minority Report, it looks like to be Spielberg doing an Indy film again and I'm hoping it's good but at the same time, man it just feels like Spielberg trying to be Mr. Hip and Mr. Matrix, trying to fit into the new cool film outlook. That's not a bad thing but for me it's part of Spielberg's problem. He became famous for being the audience's director of pop and now he's changed yes but so has the audience's definition of what pop is. As for 1941, I'm a fan of it, it's a under-appreciated effort wonderful directing and sense of visual, music humor that I'm glad has a cult following.
-
...when peter stormare is referred to as the russian astronaut from armageddon rather than the psychopathic hitman from fargo. maladroit 5/14
-
Spielberg directing Cruise? Total moneymaker. Steven could shoot Tom drinking coffee for 3 hours, people would still watch. Some would even debate the movie's 'classic' status. This just seems like the moneymaker Spielberg needs as he ploughs cash into Dreamworks. Hey, what else would make money? A DiCaprio flim! Let's do that. I'm not saying that these films will be bad, just that they are primarily for cash. They'll need to be entertaining to make some money, but not THAT entertaining. I miss Spielberg doing JAWS with 3 character actors, not huge stars, so ya never know who'll die.
-
Apr 07, 2002 9:36:39 PM CDT
Peter stormare should not be referenced as being from Armageddon
by jrcash
-
This looks like the movie for the summer. As for 'A.I.', just let it go man. Lots of people liked it and it's gaining more converts since it hit video. If it didn't work for you then just move on, but don't act like it's universally acknowledged that 'A.I.' sucked. It wasn't for you, it was for us.
-
Since the "general public" made movies such as ARMAGEDDON, HOME ALONE, FOOTLOOSE, TOP GUN, TOMB RAIDER, MUMMY RETURNS, etc, etc. huge hits, I think it's nice to know that most of them hated A.I. Believe it or not, movie critics, (a lot of them, anyway), gave the movie a positive review. The New York Times named it movie of the year, and so did Andrew Sarris of the New York Observer, and Michael Willmington of the Chicago Tribune. Newsweek placed it in the top five of the year. Reputable critics. Good writers. The movie even got a fresh rating from Rotten Tomatoes (72% from the "Cream of the Crop" section...)
Didn't the "general public" also make SNOW DOGS a hit? -
Apr 07, 2002 10:30:49 PM CDT
Critics liking certain movies do not make those certain movies a
by milktoast
And most reviews for A.I. were very mixed. I can only think the positive leaning for most critics was out of willingness to give the idea of a Speilberg/Kubrick "collaboration" the benefit of the doubt. As in, Kubrick related movies are always initially panned before becoming considered masterworks, so "hey, I'll hedge my bets here a little." Teddy gave an excellent performance...I'd like to see more of him in other roles (just kidding). Seriously, other than Teddy and the special effects and the film's look the movie wasn't worth much to me. Some movies are bad but not boring. Some are pure quality but boring. This one was bad and boring. A real disappointment.
On the other hand, I'm looking forward to Minority Report. Cruise is a true movie star...in the best senses. Makes interesting choices and takes interesting risks. This doesn't look like a Speilberg movie to me. Given his recent work, that can only be a good thing. -
But I liked the film. It made me uncomfortable, and a movie has to have a certain element in it to provoke such a feeling. In fact, most of the people I talked to about said the same thing about it and either liked or disliked it based on that. I was a little disappointed with the ending, thinking that Speilberg took the easy way out after taking us so far, but that did not kill the film for me. I have high hopes for Minority Report, and I think this is a great year for film lovers.
-
Apr 08, 2002 12:39:51 AM CDT
Okay, some people like AI and some don't. The kind opposite
by lenny nero
Man. Opinions, fuckers. I'm not happy when someone disagrees with me, but if they have a justified reason to think the opposite of your opinion, then they are entitled to it. However (and i used this example on AICN chat last night), if they didn't like ALMOST FAMOUS because they weren't happy that the band used William throughout the film, they are morons and deserve to be called as such.
-
The Sixth Sense - This "surprise" ending is about as surprising as the outcome of the typical Darwin Awards escapade, and just as shocking a revelation to idiots drooling into popcorn in theaters worldwide. The sad part is, most of you twits can vote in your respective countries.
-
"Lay off me I'm STARVING"
Good ol' Farley... -
the only thing I find interesting about Tom (Rosie's beard... and maybe the other way around?)Cruise is how heavily controlled his "real life" is fed to the public. How every interview he does is carefully orchestrated. Tom Cruise's greatest performance so far has been his reaction at the end of his first Letterman interview in 11 years. "What? That's it? Man, that was easy!!" You got, for the first time ever, a real reaction out of him... genuine shock that Letterman didn't make one single bead of "oh-I-don't-want-to-talk-about-this" sweat fall from his head was the only "real" emotion I've ever seen from this guy. His movies are usually over-ambitious vanity projects, made successful mostly due to his role in modern day entertainment as the "Enigma-who-is-really-just-a-regular-Joe-Lunchpail" star. Not that I hate the guy... I'm just looking for something less calculated out of him... just for a change.
For a change, I'll take the other great "Enigma/Joe Lunchpail" vehicle for the summer and watch "Spider-Man".
-
I loved A.I. I thought it was a flawed masterpiece. Sure there's things I could nitpick but it was so incredibly well made and so incredibly ambitions (easily the most ambitious Sci-fi film since Blade Runner)I could forgive some of it's flaws. However I actually LOVED the end. I don't get why everyone hates it and wants it to end in the water. If it ended there it wouldn't be a fairy tale. However after Spielberg messed with E. T. needlessly and now he's going to have Tom Cruise do a gratuitous sex scene not to mention have some blood and gore in what's just a fun action film, well... I was hoping Spielberg would stick to PG-13 movies for his mainstream outings and leave the blood and gore as well as the sex and nudity to serious films that require one or all of them like Saving Private Ryan, Shindler's List and Amistad. I'm not a prude or anything, I just think gratuitous blood and gore & sex and nudity are the biggest problems with action films today. It's like "I can't come up with a clever story and unique action so I'll just throw lots of blood, nudity and sex and the fanboys will eat this shit up!" Personally I thought Spielberg was above that kind of crap. "Raiders of the Lost Ark" is the greatest action film ever and it's a PG movie (ok today it would be PG-13 but still). In all three Indy flicks Indy got laid but they didn't show it because they didn't need to. Showing it just slows down the film and makes it cheesy. It's a big reason I never watch the Lethal Weapon movies. I don't want to see Mel Gibson's ass again and again (and he's such a devout Catholic *rolls eyes*). I also don't see why he had to do this film with Cruise. There's 12 year olds who could kick his ass. Hard to see him as a hero in an action film. Spielberg should have got Russell Crowe or Denzel Washington.
-
Apr 08, 2002 5:50:32 AM CDT
Do we have to keep talking about thr movie with the two letter t
by alpha
I will never get those hours back ... I just cant understand how anybody likes it. I'm sorry but its just an awful awful film (and I love O'conner, Osment, Spielberg and Kubrick). As for Minority Report ... yawn ... lets guess Tom plays a cocky self obsessed jerk with a semi charming manner ... been there seen that.
-
Good lord, people. Looking forward to Minority Report (somewhat), but man, another "robotic spider/bug" thing? What's up with that? Are all executives just thinking: "People think robots are creepy. People think bugs and especially spiders are creepy. Ergo, robotic spiders are the ultimate in movie creepiness!" Not saying this isn't sometimes true, but it's getting a tad boring now. ***Milktoast: Cruise "takes interesting risks". Sorry, but gotta agree more with ZSmooth on this one, Cruise's roles are pretty calculated and not very risky. I will say that Cruise (dislike him though I do) has done some interesting films. I think he makes interesting choices rather on the film maker and the film, rather than the roles he plays, which are always the same: idealistic young guy who gets jaded by what he experiences, or annoying yuppie who learns something about life through his experiences (or sometimes a combination of these two). Every goddamn role is like this: Risky Business, Top Gun, Cocktail, Born on the Fourth of July, Rainman, The Color of Money, The Firm, Eyes Wide Shut, Vanilla Sky, Jerry McGuire... sheesh! Now he's going more for the straight "action hero" part (MI & MI2 spring to mind), but these tend to be crap. Tom, just stick to the yuppies and you'll be fine. Still, Minority Report might overcome the action role curse, since Tom's character is a bit of a yuppie cop, so there. ***Oh, and stop with the AI thread. It wasn't perfect, but it certainly wasn't "the worst movie ever". Hello?! Freddie Got Fingered, Armageddon, Tomb Raider, Dungeons and Dragons and dozens of straight-to-video piles of crap deserve that title way more than AI. ***And though PKD is a fascinating writer who has some absolutely great ideas, his writing doesn't conform well to film, so the comments that his story is the cornerstone of making this movie great are a bit lost. If Blade Runner had followed Dick's original story more closely, it would've been crap! So would Total Recall. Great stories, but take a hell of a lot of changes to be even bearable on screen, let alone good. ***And people keep mentioning The Matrix or Logan's Run when talking about the film. My suggestion: Alfred Bester's The Demolished Man. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it! (and I don't mean literally, so don't roll up your Bester books and try to stuff them into pipes...)
-
I don
-
and the review doesn`t improve this state...
-
Apr 08, 2002 10:06:00 AM CDT
Um, Indy didn't get laid in Raiders OR Temple Of Doom.
by osmosis jones
And I seriously doubt that this will be a hard-"R" film.
-
Apr 08, 2002 10:23:41 AM CDT
harry!!! well it`S a lil bit off topic and ya won`t read it anyw
by drjones
yesterday you were mentioned the first time in one of the best german newspapers(it`s one of the best but the journalists of the feuilleton have no idea of movies). however...the wrote that the internet selfproducer(it is very hard to translate this) HARRY KNOWLES had again
claimed to have seen attack of the clones. tststs... -
OK, let's settle this. First off, let me explain people's hatred for A.I. First time i saw it, i was dissapointed in the lost potential of the film. Then i saw the DVD and liked it a little more, but the last 5 minutes practically ruined the entire movie, and i can see why people would hate the movie because of it. I did a "Phantom Edit" on A.I. All i did was end the movie *SPOLIER ALERT* after the ferris wheel pins David underneath the water *END SPOILER* The movie is about 20 times better. See, when a movie is so very good throughout the first 2/3rds, and the last third is so awful that it is able to destroy the solid foundation, then yes, i do understand the pure hatred. Speilberg could have made a haunting, tragic film. Instead he gave the protagonist what he wanted, as Speilberg always does. Speilberg seems unable to do a movie where the protagonist ends up anything but happy/fulfilled/complete. That is the great tragedy of A.I. The fact that cute little boys, even robots get their wish. And the fact is, David was not a likeable character. He looked cute, but had this obsessive, even sinister behavior pattern. So when he gets what he wants, through the most bizzare of circumstances, it seems rather cheap and empty. And yes, after my first screening of A.I., the last 15 minutes did practically ruin the entire movie for me. I can now appreciate everything in the movie except for the last five minutes. A flawed movie with moments of greatness. IT just goes to show you, Speilberg can't do edgy material. He's pure mainstream, and anything edgy is beyond his directoral grasp.
As for the end of Sixth Sense, i didn't see it coming, and i don't feel like a moron for not knowing. It was a well crafted film. ANd of course, there's always some dumbass who shouts "I knew that was gonna happen", and makes themselves feel very proud bragging to their friends the next night talking about how very smart they are. To you sir, i say "congratulations". It must be amazing to harness such power, to be able to know the endings of movies before they happen. But please sir, only use your power for good, i beg of you.... Jackass... -
Grrr I hate having to get into this debate again, but this notion that Spielberg "happied" up the end of A.I. is just false. He filmed Kubrick's intended ending, and the movie makes NO sense without it. The idea that the movie could end 2/3rds through and be "better" is ludicrous when you consider that it would make nearly two hours of carefully developed foreshadowing completely useless! I suppose 2001 could end before the final act, too, and be better understood by those who need a happy, logical movie experience, but it wouldn't be the same movie, and wouldn't be regarded as a work of sci-fi genuis. A.I. is a fairy tale, a retelling of Pinnochio, narrated by an advanced mecha thousands of years after the destruction of man, the "creators". David is special because he was actually built by, and actually TOUCHED the creators. Without the final act, none of the build-up makes sense -- Jude Law's comments about "in the end, all that will be left are mecha", the first appearance of David (in advanced-mecha view), the blue fairy journey, none of it has any POINT without Kubrick/Spielbergs final act! (Oh, and by the way, I don't really find the last act terribly "happy", anyway -- it's quite dark and disturbing when you think about it...)
-
I mean, the biggest thing on my mind about this film is how un-Spielbergian it looks, which I don't consider a bad or good thing really--just odd. I mean, Steven's trying new things, that can't be bad, but I'm surprised at how...mundane this film looks. I don't mean it looks bad, I just don't see what drew Spielberg to it. It seems like any ordinary action-movie director could have done this. Didn't Spielberg satisfy his action-movie needs with Indiana Jones? Is the film more thought-provoking than Indiana Jones ever claimed to be? Is that difference enough to explain why Spielberg felt he had to make this film? This review doesn't answer these wonderings. But to be fair, even if it did, I'd still go see the movie for myself.
-
Hmmmm, not the one i was watching. The mechas were freindly, the way it was shot was soft, David gets his day with his mother and gets to feel loved. Not sure where the disturbing aspect comes in. I agree with you on the forshadowing bit, yes, seeing that mechas one day were all thats left was important, but the movie still seems far more rewarding by NOT giving David what he wants. Whether it was Kubrik's original intent or not, it still sucks. If anything, A.I. seemd to be about the conflicts between the artificial and the real, with David as some sort of "missing link" between the two, and by giving him what he wants, you humanize David which takes away from the fact that David is not real, and his psychotically obsessive quest deserves nothing more than failure. Thus proving that love is empty. I mean, the ending now has that "love conquers all" sort of mentality.
As to an edited ending, couldn't you have David under the water as the ending, then show the advanced mechas unearthing David from the ice as the last shot, thus having an ambiguous ending which keeps the forshadowing but still leaves out the sap? -
Apr 08, 2002 12:28:49 PM CDT
So...did they digitally remove the guns in this movie? 'Caus
by superhero
Just keep an eye out for the re-mastered Saving Private Ryan edition 20 years from now where they have all the soldiers throwing flowers at each other as they storm the beaches of Normandy because y'know, 20 years later Steven will realise that the violence was too excessive...you know it's true...
-
The Gap of the Future? Spielberg is the biggest product placement whore in movie history (he basically started the trend in E.T.). Does he really need to sell advertising space in his movies to drum up funding? He owns the bank, for Chrissakes! I just don't understand this guy. He's become more businessman than artist.
-
Whether one likes the film or not, it is simply too soon to write it off as an artistic failure. Some movies take a while to sink in on the popular consciousness. Example: In 1982, Warner Bros. released a big budget sci-fi film based on a well regarded novel and directed by a visionary filmmaker hot off his first big commercial 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.
-
Your comment goes directly to the heart of the matter. Those who think Spielberg hijacked Aldis' &Kubrick's story and tacked on his own "happy" ending are simply misinformed. My own feelings re: "A.I." are still somewhat ambivilant, but I suspect Kubrick would have been pleased with the final result. Certainly he would have been pleased by the ongoing controversy...
-
Hardly. While the film changed the way films look, it certainly didn't tell a very interesting or engaging story. I'd concede by calling it a visual masterpiece, but to claim the film as a whole is a masterpiece due solely to it's visual pinache, i say thee nay.
-
Could somebody please explain this concept to me. How can something be a masterpiece if its flawed? A masterpiece is supposed to be just that, a MASTER PIECE, the greatest work of art an artist can possibly achieve. Therefore there can't be a flawed masterpiece because a masterpiece isn't flawed.
-
Well, this guy's credibility took a serious nosedive when he considered Peter Stormare's most notable role to be the cosmonaut in Armegeddon. Go him!
-
I think it's fair to say that any film which single-handedly "changes the way films look" qualifies as a masterpiece. As for the story being uninteresting, we must agree to disagree. Similar arguements have been made with regard to "2001" ("It looks great but the story sucks"), but it hasn't stopped that film from going down in history as one of the cinema's greatest achievements. Ridley Scott may not be in the same league as Stanley Kubrick (who is?) but he is, or at least was, a master filmmaker -- and for my money "Blade Runner" is his masterpiece.
-
I dont think Blade Runner is seen as a masterpiece by anyone outside of the sci-fi community while i believe 2001 is pretty much loved and heralded by genre fans and mainstream critics alike. I think most of the credit for Blade Runner goes to the Art Director, Cinematographer, and Director of Photography, as well as the Production Designer. And masterpieces, in my opinion, are reserved for films that contain more than just astounding visuals. You said it yourself, clunky dialogue and a cardboard performance from Ford. If you want a "masterpiece", look at something like Brazil. Unapreciated in it's own time, but a marvel of visuals and storytelling and regarded today as a masterpiece.
-
Apr 08, 2002 3:56:37 PM CDT
DonnieDarko, it is not people looking into the future, but three
by lenny nero
So therefore, it is not a continuity problem, but instead has a spiritual connotation. It makes perfect sense, at least in this sense.
-
In a day and age where the majority of box office blockbusters are sci-fi/ fantasy films, the -
You know I just don't get the hatred towards the man. His public image? Yeah, it's a little strange. I don't like Scientology either, but I don't see you people tearing up 'Pulp Fiction' or 'Cape Fear' or 'South Park' or 'The Simpsons'. And I could really give a damn about his sexuality. All that really matters is that he's a good actor, not the world's greatest but always solid and more versatile than most 'movie stars'. He's been in a few mediocre movies but he's also been in 'Risky Business', 'Top Gun', 'The Color of Money', 'Rainman', 'Born on the Fourth of July', 'Interview with the Vampire', 'Mission: Impossible 1', 'Eyes Wide Shut', 'Magnolia' and 'Vanilla Sky'. Doesn't that get him any respect? Who's been in more cool movie than that?
-
Who cares what this 'anonymous' wanker thinks of A.I.? I don't. As flawed as A.I. was I still thought it was one of the best films of last year. I'm expecting Minority Report to be a good film.. I didn't even read this review--I'll wait until the summer and make my own mind.
-
I just want to say that my off-color remarks at the beginning of this thread were unwarranted to a large degree & apologize if anyone was offended. I shouldn't post when I'm hungover. That being said, some interesting points have been made here about AI, but I would like to offer a more well thought out explaination as to why the film didn't completley work for me. The bottom line is that I felt the film was inconsistent in tone; it begins like Kubrick, goes to an ET like chase/ set piece, then off to neon Robin williams world, then fairy tale NY underwater to bizzare Oedipal tinged ending. I couldn't get a real feel for the "world" it was set in because every setting was so drastically different, there seemed to be no theme which connected them. Also, I felt no emotional connection to the David character & didn't care if he got what he wanted or not. this was surprising to me, since Spielberg is such a master manipulator in this dept. Blade Runner, in my opinion, did not suffer from these problems & touched upon many of the same themes, therfor I get more out of it. For the record, I do feel AI has some intrinsic value as a film, & for the most part enjoy the civil discussion it evokes.
-
Apr 08, 2002 8:50:16 PM CDT
Ocho: you're not alone if you were taken aback by the film&#
by carson dyle
I felt the same way on my first viewing, and yet... the film stayed with me. To call the experience "haunting" would be a fairly accurate description -- which is why I felt compelled to take a another look when "A.I." was released on DVD. And while I still have issues with some of Spielberg's choices (not to mention some of the performances), I found David's journey to be much more emotionally accessible upon a second viewing -- this no doubt due to the fact that I no longer had any preconceived notions about what that journey would (or should) be. Is "A.I." frustrating at times? Yes. Does it confound our expectations of what a Spielberg/ Kubrick collaboration should yield? Perhaps. Is it one of the most interesting, ambitious, thought-provoking and, yes, "haunting" science fiction films ever made? Without a doubt. If it wasn't, we wouldn't still be discussing it.
-
Apr 08, 2002 9:17:36 PM CDT
JRCASH AND WALRUS CAN KISS MY ASS!! ARMAGEDDON ROCKS!!
by miami'scanadian
You two losers are so stuck in your evergreen forest of life that includes X-Files, drinking milk straight up on friday nights, jerking off to Rosie O' Donelll you forget 'Armageddon' was to entertain, not a 'Schindlers List' type film of metoroids. You're either both meatboy fratheads or goobers but either way you're both snobs who need to hit beach and drink until you're hammed out of jelly tree!
-
While in complete agreement that AI is significant piece of filmmaking, I hesitate to call it a masterpiece. The film seems incomplete and disjointed in several respects; the ending, the dramatic shift in tone from act to act, numerous plot holes, etc. I suspect why the film attracts such loathing by some is the perceived potential they sensed of how much better the finished product could have been. While I was compelled by AI, I must also concur. AI could have been one of the defining works of Spielberg
-
Dude, you got issues. It sems you have a fixation on penises and semen. I suggest counselling is in order to bring out the closeted homosexuality. I think you should go watch 'Armageddon' again. It was well directed and it was meant as fun you goof. I know you're trying to defend your boyfriend's but this is a new century, people don't care if you're gay anymore. I hope you get the help you need. I'm here to listen.
-
That only makes it more strange!! Arresting people for murder because psychics say they MIGHT murder someone in the future?
My point is that if the future is not solid, there is noway of knowing what will change what etc. If they arrest him, sure he won -
I can just tell.....Come on Harry, fess up.
-
that's the whole point. I'm hoping that the movie will, as Tom Cruise's character wonders why he is being chased by the nasty police, ponder whether accusing and sentencing people for crimes they are just thinking about committing or that might possibly happen in the future is in any way justice. PKD and others have dealt with slightly more existential and philosophical ponderings like that, so here's hoping the movie does too. Then again, we could just get a brainless actioner that looks good a la MI:2...
-
too bad The Matrix arrived like 4 years ago.
-
too bad The Matrix arrived like 4 years ago.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 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!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 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 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts