Aug. 18, 2000, 3:07 a.m. CST
by Troy Barlow
Let's face the facts people. Ever since Spielberg hijacked this project from Kubrick's grave, hopes for the film have slowly slid down the shitter. Now Spielberg has entrusted Robin Williams to narrate the film? Robin Williams? What the fuck is up with that. Now I'm not opposed to the idea of a narrator in general, but surely Spielberg could have found someone better for the job than Robin "shit sack" Williams. Need I even mention 'Bicentenial Man,' a film vaguely similar to 'AI' in terms of concept.
Aug. 18, 2000, 3:14 a.m. CST
by Brian DePalma
His many collaborators said so during the BBC2 docu. about his life. I think myself that there is no one in the world more suited to it than Stevo.(If anyone suggests Fincher I will cry)
Aug. 18, 2000, 3:15 a.m. CST
Someones gotta say it: What the fuck?! I mean what the fuck?! I was behind Speilberg all the way until I heard this. ROBIN FUCKING WILLIAMS?!! Suddenly I've lost all interest in AI. Jesus.
Aug. 18, 2000, 3:18 a.m. CST
by Dinner Dog
What the hell? Robin Williams? Why can't he go back to his comedic roots and stop doing serious happy-crappy films. I love Kubrick and Spielberg ain't so bad but I'm starting to here some things that are giving me second thoughts about this film.
Aug. 18, 2000, 3:26 a.m. CST
Ok, I hope he can do it, and at least now we won't have to look at his annoying, smug "oh, its ok, I know it..." grin. The only good film he has been in since Awakenings was Good Will.
Aug. 18, 2000, 3:38 a.m. CST
by Mad Dog
Yea, thats right, Williams is an excellant choice I aren't gonna say he's ideal cos I ain't read the script like pretty much everyone else. He's done some shit and he's done some amazing work just cos the guy don't do films with a gun in each hand don't make his career choices suck. A lot of his work is aimed at those younger than you and me. His work in Good will was f*cking amazing and he deserved the praise he got. He has got a good voice and how do you know his friendly voice ain't god damn perfectly suited to the narration? Spielberg ain't bad? Whats with that? Although his sensibilities aren't quite as subtle and often his film tone is more general, overall he's everything Kubrick is as a director, you just have to see Jaws to realise the mad skills this guy wields anyone bustin on Speilberg doesn't truly have an understanding of the magic of film and even though he isn't my favourite director I can't possible see how anyone could critisize him. So leave the guy be, leave his casting decisions be and let Spielberg bring to the screen everything that Kubrick could not. Snootch.
Aug. 18, 2000, 3:47 a.m. CST
I'm sure Robin Williams is capable of narrating a story that is part drama, part whimsical fairy tale. Trust me, guys. Oh yeah,...what is the Harry animation supposed to be?
Aug. 18, 2000, 4:05 a.m. CST
As long as one doesn't have to see Williams doing his Olympic face contortions in order to convey emotion (usually sappy, or sappy-happy, it might be palatable. If the story is good enough, and the narration isn't too intrusive, we all might forget that it's Mork talking.
Aug. 18, 2000, 4:10 a.m. CST
Brilliant German Expressionist crime flick from Fritz Lang starring Peter Lorre as a child murderer who terrifies a city. Lorre whistles a well-known classical tune ("In The Hall of the Mountain King") while he compulsively stalks his prey, and at one point, the tune gives him away to a blind guy who heard him whistling it at a previous crime scene. If I recall correctly, the blind guy hastily scrawls an "M" (for murderer!) on his palm with chalk and pretends to bump into Lorre, secretly tagging him with the "M" on his back. Minutes later, every cop in the city's looking for a guy with an "M" on his coat. Bizarre and cool. Harry's animation is an homage to the scene where Lorre realizes he's been "marked". I might'a bungled a few of the details in the retelling, but that's the gist of it. Hell, just see the movie. You won't regret it.
Aug. 18, 2000, 4:17 a.m. CST
by Lazarus Long
I'm sure there's a bunch of other detractors who will be claiming "I told you so", but this is the icing on the cake. If this project didn't spell out Schmaltz to begin with, it's a forgone conclusion. Here's the pitch: "It's E.T. meets Pinocchio meets Bicentennial Man!" Look out folks, it just went from bad to worse. I loved Robin in Good Will Hunting, but the idea of Williams in any family-type film is a sure sign of cheese. *** As for you Spielberg neophytes, "If you can't appreciate the magic of film..." BLAH BLAH BLAH. You know, Bon Jovi knows how to play musical instruments competently, and they write catchy songs that the public likes. That doesn't say much. It ain't art. Don't try to put Spielberg on the pedestal of Fellini, Scorsese, or even a master technical genius like Hitchcock. It won't fly. Even his supporters know his limits. Spielberg directing does not necessarily equal good movie. A.I. sounds closer to Hook than any of his other work in the last ten years (which also featured the artistically-devoid The Lost World, and the preachy and weak Amistad), and that is NOT a good sign. Why are you people trying to stop Kubrick from rolling in his grave? Let him spin. It's an OUTRAGE!
Aug. 18, 2000, 4:28 a.m. CST
by Regis Travolta
And remember gang, "AI" stands for "Alien Invasion"! At least that's what the guards at Warners are instructed to tell the stupid clueless tourists...
Aug. 18, 2000, 4:32 a.m. CST
by Mad Dog
Spielberg should be recognised for the wonderful filmmaker that he is and void of pretentious efforts to make his film anything but entertaining. Speilberg - Kubrick both very different styles but both far, far and beyond 99% of filmmakers out there. To say Speilberg is not included with the already well reknowned in cinema is basically TOTAL ARSE!
Aug. 18, 2000, 5:58 a.m. CST
hasn't been funny since he stopped doing coke, and jumping around the stage doing standup like a retarded chimp. Now that was some funny stuff. Oh dear god... Hallie Eisenberg (the annoying girl from the Pepsi commercials) is gonna be in another movie. NO!!!!!
Aug. 18, 2000, 6:08 a.m. CST
by Joe Isuzu
Malcom McDowell, Jerry Springer...
Aug. 18, 2000, 6:10 a.m. CST
If Williams plays it downbeat and serious as Narrator the same way that Richard Dreyfuss did in Stand By Me then it'll work, if Spielberg allows Williams to fall into any of his usual schtick then it'll be painful beyond imagining. Here's hoping for the former rather than the latter to turn out to be true. ******************************************************************** This is JackBurton signing off, saying "is it hot in here or is it just me?"
Aug. 18, 2000, 7:01 a.m. CST
by Dr. Ludwig Meyer
Has everyone here forgotten what a fine dramatic talent Robin is? Don't you remember Dead Poets Society? Awakenings? Robin can do this. He's not always a clown. He scared the shit outta me in Dead Again, he moved me to tears in Awakenings. He's a damned fine actor. Shut up and give him a chance.
Aug. 18, 2000, 8:12 a.m. CST
Robin Williams, hu? Great choice, but Sean Connery is still alive.
Aug. 18, 2000, 8:32 a.m. CST
It's a dead mans legacy. Please don't screw it up, Steven, please...
Aug. 18, 2000, 8:46 a.m. CST
I agree - if Robin Williams plays it straight (and I mean STRAIGHT straight, not Patch Adams straight), he might make a good narrator, albeit a superfluous one, since I still consider this a Kubrick piece, of course, and Kubrick wouldn't have had a narrator. Much less that jackass. On the other hand, if he tries to play it *cute,* or if there's some kind of mongoloid twist at the end like "And that boy grew up to be me, and here I am today," I will personally dig Stanley out of his grave and use him to beat Spielberg and his entire entourage to death. Now, here's a thought: a list of good narrators, including some that have been mentioned before: James Earl Jones, Malcolm McDowell, Emma Thompson, Patrick Stewart, Ian McKellen, Vanessa Redgrave, John Culhane, Donald Sutherland, Holly Hunter, Abdullah the Butcher, Kevin Spacey, or me. Anyone want to give me a call? I'm good for the job.
Well, Robin Williams did do the narration on all those Olympics commercials on CNN ... anyway, he should be barred from having anything to do with this film. Get someone like Anthony Hopkins, or Alec Baldwin, if anyone. If anyone has seen SPAWN, one will realize how ineffectual and distracting and plain ridiculous a narrator is in a film. If anyone has seen THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION, one will realize how effective and enthralling a narrator is in a film. Just pick the right guy, Stevo; I'm behind ya. And what the fuck is wrong with you all that you worship Stanley Kubrick? What has that fat, pendantic prick done in modern cinema that we should cherish and appreciate for the end of time? 2001 was boring, not artistic. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE ... I don't even want to know what kind of fucked-up person you are to cherish a film like this. and EYES WIDE SHUT ... Jesus Herbert Christ, what the hell was that all about? Long, boring, lacking in any real content. Spielberg's credentials are much better, more valid, and he just has them. He will not ruin this movie. Even his worst are worth the price of admission. The MOST INFLUENTIAL FILMMAKER OF THE 20th CENTURY [(c) Time Magazine) will not fail in the making of this film. And just so all you fanboys don't become suicidal during release time ... do not hype the film. Check in with the news concerning the film on a Spielberg fansite like www.spielberg-dreamworks.com once a week or so if you must. Don't start with the fan artwork and making 4 thousand sites devoted to the film on which all the links lead to a page that says "under construction". Chances are, you'll appreciate the film a lot better. I doubt American Beauty would have enjoyed the success it had, both critically and commercially had it been hyped from a year before its release. So just sit back and relax.
Aug. 18, 2000, 8:53 a.m. CST
If only Stanley Kubrick had made Hook. Bring back the Care Bears the campaign starts here. Purity of Essence.
Aug. 18, 2000, 8:59 a.m. CST
SPIELBERG: I'm telling you, Stan, if you want to see this done RIGHT, you need a cute narrator, like Richard Dreyfuss in Krippendorf's Tribe or Robin Williams in Bicentennial Man! KUBRICK: Balls. I've barely just finished altering Eyes Wide Shut to suit their fickle wants. I'll be cold and dead before I let anyone do such a thing to my movie. SPIELBERG: Very well...
Aug. 18, 2000, 9:59 a.m. CST
I am curious, to all of you who hate both Speilberg & WIlliams, what the fuck do you like? It seems that you are all sucked into being nice movie-snobs where everything has to adhere to whatever bizarre rules you all agree on to try and raise your status or whatever you want to call it. Speilberg sucks b/c of Jaws & Close Encounters(which I don't even like that much) & ET (which I know you all loved when you saw it as a kid) & Color Purple(suck it Spike) & Jurrasic Park & Schindler & many others. Sorry that they were not done on a budget of half a mil or by a cult director or from a comic book. Shut the fuck up and just wait for the flick. I suggest you don't see it though b/c you will just bitch about it no matter how good it might be.
Aug. 18, 2000, 10:28 a.m. CST
Robin Williams as Narrator in AI, has the possibility to be good. To see what Williams can do, as a non disney vocal talent, Look to a NPR series that ran a few years back, (and may still be running) called RABBIT EARS RADIO...It was sponsored by Williams, Mel Gibson, Meg Ryan, and other hollywood bigname types. It was children's stories, classic fables. The episode I am thinking of was a classic Russian fable, involving the strongest man in the world, and a bunch of other stuff. Williams had the opportunity to do all the voices (as do all the readers on the show) and the narration. This gave Williams a forum to at the same time go nuts, as we all know he can, and stay reserved and normal, as we all forget he can. The first thing I think of when i think of Robin Williams is his trademark hyperactive "freakout" humor, I have to hope that the narration will be more reminicent of his work in GOOD WILL HUNTING, AWAKENINGS, or DEAD POETS SOCIETY. Remember that Robin?? I do...he's pretty good. Yeah, he makes some very silly and weak sauce disney kids flicks...But what else can you do that dosent involve running around, killing 3,927 people in a movie. oh, one more thing KUBRICK IS DEAD, HE WILL NEVER DO AI...FOR ALL WE KNOW HE WOULDNT HAVE GOTTEN AI DONE IF HE WASNT DEAD.... and as someone above said, he is on camera as saying that if he couldnt do AI, Speilberg should...I'm giving it a chance, because we all know that when AI does come out, there will be a whole shit pot of TRULY AWFUL movies for it to compete with... Dmann out...
Aug. 18, 2000, 10:29 a.m. CST
My sentiments couldn't have been echoed more exactly.
Aug. 18, 2000, 10:37 a.m. CST
And when I said that Kubrick wouldn't have had narration, I was thinking about 2001, a film that its detractors declare it sorely lacks but which, for those of us in the know, is all the richer for it. You're right, though, those movies had narrators and had them well. Voice-over is a thing that must be used very very delicately and which is grossly overused, most often to ill effect. To wit: "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments, he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life - anybody's life. My life." from Blade Runner. Gag. A Clockwork Orange, on the other hand, is a beautiful example of voice-over narration used beautifully. Goodfellas. Etc.
Aug. 18, 2000, 11:09 a.m. CST
Now I might be one of the few people who feel this way, but I loved The Adventures of Baron Munchausen. There Robin Williams played the King of the Moon and was unbilled. While the role was one of his outlandish ones, it was also one of his funniest. I think that giving him the freedom of no screen credit might bring something better out of the man. Who knows. But I have not completely given up hope....yet.
Aug. 18, 2000, 11:20 a.m. CST
by jeff bailey
Spielberg is maybe one of the only American directors left still working to actually be on the level of Stanley Kubrick, if not the only one (alright Scorsese too but Spielberg comes closest). But that being said, Spielberg's sensiblities and worldview are VERY diffresnt from Kubrick's. Can you already imagine the difference in tone now that Speilberg is on board another movie about a little boy? Just think if he'd directed Eyes Wide Shut to give you an idea. Granted Spielberg has ventured into some of the darkest places ever in his more recent films, especially Ryan but he always pulls back from where Kubrick would be content to leave us. Maybe Kubrick would have used Williams as a narrator but how it would go down would have been totally different. And while I will reserve judgement until I see it, I can't help think I'd rather have seen Kubrick's version.
Aug. 18, 2000, 11:27 a.m. CST
If Spielhack throws on a hoockey ending like he does in 99% of his movies, Im gonna be pissed.
Aug. 18, 2000, 11:37 a.m. CST
Anyone that doesn't have complete faith in Spielberg by now shouldnt even bother commenting on what he's doing with this film.
Aug. 18, 2000, 11:40 a.m. CST
So everyone should be like Usul... a kiss-ass fanboy!
Aug. 18, 2000, 11:41 a.m. CST
If Stanley is not calling the shots, then this will not be his film. Steven Spielberg is a sucessful director; but he isn't half the filmmaker Kubric dared to be. Kubric's films are very different in presentation and feel compared to Stevens'. I think it is great Spielberg is doing this; as a tribute. But thats all it is, so like Dim Brother said lets not call this Kubric's AI.
Aug. 18, 2000, 12:07 p.m. CST
by The Kid
BUT DON'T PUT THE SPOILER IN THE FUCKING HEADLINE!!!! Please. Yeah, I think it qualifies as a spoiler.
Aug. 18, 2000, 12:13 p.m. CST
by Klam Bake
To be honest I think the whole Idea of A.I. is a little tired. Hasn't this story been done to death? I'm sick of the robot/little wooden boy wants to be human concept. How about some fresh Sci Fi damnit! I guess I'll have to go read a book.
Aug. 18, 2000, 12:16 p.m. CST
by Lord Bullingdon
The Killing, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, Full Metal Jacket, and Napoleon each utilized the omniscient character. It bothers me that people see this as Spielberg "screwing up" when more likely he's adhering to Kubrick's vision for the film. If anything, Spielberg is going out on a limb by making HIS first film with a narrator; he often favors subjectivity over the thoughtful distance which Kubrick built into his scripts.
Aug. 18, 2000, 12:29 p.m. CST
by Reverend Dave
Was Kubrick a genius? Maybe, maybe not... but the point is he will never, ever direct another movie. STANLEY KUBRICK IS DEAD. His dead body is in the ground. Accept it and move on. The only choice we have for AI is Spielberg or no one. So stop bitching about what your fantasy-director would have done, because we'll never know, he will never make another movie. EVER. And BTW, do all you rabid Spielberg haters remember the Eyes Wide Shut talkback, where half of the opinions were reading "this movie sucked, Kubrick has lost is, he's just not talented, etc" And do you also realize that practically no one likes every Kubrick film together. Does anyone out there really love The Shining AND Eyes Wide Shut AND 2001 AND Barry Lyndon AND Clockwork Orange AND Full Metal Jacket? These are 6 very, very different films that have usually appealed to very separate peopole. Kubrick films have famously been the most divisive amongst film lovers (Yes, even more divisive than Episode 1). So even if Kubrick had made the whole damn movie himself, half of you would STILL probably be in Talkback saying how terrible it was and how lousy the rest of his films are. And one more thing, has it occurred to any of you that Kubricks usual directing style, sometimes unemotional, often deliberately distant, might have been INAPPROPRIATE for a movie which is all about a soulles construct discovering his humanity? Spielberg may be more suited to this project than Kubrick ever could've been. This message has been brought to you by Dave's Committee for Free Thought in Talkback. Vote Nader. Peace.
Aug. 18, 2000, 12:33 p.m. CST
by diareah pearlman
williams gave a brilliant performance on homocide:life on the street as a man who's wife gets shot while they are on vacation with their kids. Let it be known, the man has chops.
Aug. 18, 2000, 12:49 p.m. CST
Or is everyone getting stressed before this movie is even close to getting made? I mean, yeah, everyone has their expectations, but Williams is not THAT bad. In fact, he can be incredible sometimes. It's not like Speilberg hired Jenny McCarthy to narrate. We have seen Good Will Hunting. We have seen Awakenings. We have seen Dead Again. Whether we want to admit it or not, there is a possibility that the casting of Robin Williams has not ruined this production. Just because Sean Connery, James Earl Jones, or Anthony Hopkins aren't doing the narration, doesn't mean the movie is going to suck. Sorry if I offend your senses...I just don't feel impending doom for this production yet.
Aug. 18, 2000, 1 p.m. CST
Is the video Chris Cunningham did with Bjork called "All is full of Love". http://skam.com/cunningham/
Aug. 18, 2000, 1:24 p.m. CST
I don't care if they don't give the motherfucker credit he's still the same fucking idiot. This hairy freak hasn't made a good picture since popeye 25 or so years ago. Now I have nothing against Spielberg, he is really on a roll if you disregard everything he's done since JAWS... JAWS is a great fucking picture, I could watch it every week. So yes Spielberg is a-okay. There is one possibility that is worth considering that would make spielberg worthy of an Outlaw Award. What if he's gonna pull a kubrick, and force williams to drop out of all films for about 3-5 years while he's recording and re-recording his lines. Then when williams finally stops he hires some other lameass comedian like Jay Leno or the sound effects guy from Police Academy to do the actual narration for the movie. That would be pretty cool I think. Then I might go see it. thanks, Vern.
Aug. 18, 2000, 1:29 p.m. CST
If Kubrick has ONLY directed one film...Dr. Strangelove....he would still be remembered today as a great director. But in fact, he directed quite a few movies. He is one of the few film-makers where you can see a random shot from one of his films, and know who made it immediately. Visually, the Shining is one of the greatest movies made...ever... so put that in your pipe and smoke it buddy!! ;^)
Aug. 18, 2000, 1:43 p.m. CST
I think they should have just let the A.I. idea r.i.p. with Kubrick. I do not think he'd want spielberg or anyone else doing it. He was possessive that way. I don't really see him as the 'i just want my vision to be realized and i don't care who does it' type - more like 'i'm doing it my way because that's the only way it will be right'. Just because Spielberg may be of that first opinion, doesn't mean Kubrick was. Anyway, I mean, I never knew the man so what do i know. Anyway, Robin Williams. Yeah. That's not kewl. Even if you take the 'fairy tale' into account and think of it whimsically, think of Kubrick humor. Can you see Robin Williams playing any of the Peter Sellers roles in Strangelove? Can you see him as Johnny Clay in The Killing? Think of the narration in that movie. I don't think Williams could ever pull of the style in Kubrick movies. He can pull of Spielberg though. I actually really liked Hook and often refer to it as my fav Spiel film (i'm not a big fan of his really) so yeah he's a fine choice for Spielberg, but a bad choice for Kubrick. But Spielberg's a bad choice for Kubrick too so what does it even matter at this point.
Aug. 18, 2000, 1:49 p.m. CST
That's all I have to say....
Aug. 18, 2000, 1:50 p.m. CST
Just maybe - by virtue of this being Stanley's baby that Steve is raising per se, maybe - maybe Steve will find the balls he had when he was a younger maverick film maker, before he settled on schmaltz. Maybe the ghost of Stan talks to Steve in the bathroom like Elvis did to Christian Slater or like Obi Wan Kenobi (Use the 50mm lens Steve!) - and is telling him "Balls Steve! You've already made more money than any other film maker, you have carte blanch power, you can punch your own ticket, you don't need another blockbuster, you don't need the critics to love you - make the film the way you would have made it back when you didn't give fuck!" And his casting of Robin Williams is a feint to make us think we're getting a typical Spielberg movie and we're all going to see it anyway, thinking we're getting "ET's big day in the City" and halfway through, the movie's going to take some totally unforseeable left turn a'la the shower scene in Psycho and it's going to make us all drop loads in our pants and will be the greatest thing ever. And maybe I'll win the lottery and marry Catherine Zeta Jones next month after her highly publicized break up with Michael Douglas. Hey it's Hollywood, anything can happen!
Aug. 18, 2000, 2:04 p.m. CST
Spielberg is not going to "ruin" Stanley Kubrick's idea! Spielberg and Kubrick were very close friends. Kubrick discussed AI with Spielberg until his death. Steven Spielberg undoubtedly knows more about Kubrick's original vision than anyone else alive today--does anyone have any suggestions on who should direct? The only other option is not to make the movie! I'm sure Kubrick would have it no other way!
Aug. 18, 2000, 2:08 p.m. CST
by Stephen Dedalus
Robin Williams is an actor who works best against type, doing a good job in dramas such as AWAKENINGS, THE WORLD ACCORDING TO GARP, THE FISHER KING, GOOD WILL HUNTING, etc. All of his comedies in the past few years have sucked, and if you consider BICENTENNIAL MAN a drama (remember, it's sci-fi), then this COULD spell trouble. But if Williams is in the game to do narraration and NARRARATION ONLY, then this could still come through. Maybe...
Aug. 18, 2000, 2:47 p.m. CST
Not only does he have a great voice, it would be great to see him as one of the roumored Kubrick-actors Cameos in A.I. His voice overs kick ass, and so does his acting. Robin Williams? He's not going to try his funny (ok, funny is a stretch) voices, isn't he? What will Spielberg's next brilliant idea be? Have Robin Williams redubb every piece of dialoge of the characters? Spieberg, I should hope you regain sense before it's too late...don't do another turkey. Make Kubrick proud, and stop jerking around!
Aug. 18, 2000, 2:48 p.m. CST
Nooooooooooooooooooooooo.... time for a cold shower now.
Aug. 18, 2000, 2:58 p.m. CST
Grapevine here in Austin says Al Jourgensen, lead singer of Ministry, is in town working on the soundtrack or the music/score (?) for A.I. Can anyone confirm?
Aug. 18, 2000, 3:55 p.m. CST
Robin Williams and his wife in her underwear doing the narration.
Aug. 18, 2000, 4:13 p.m. CST
by Reverend Dave
 Just because myself and other people I know don't love every Kubrick film equally, doesn't mean I can't think for myself. I can't say every Kubrick movie has appealed to me equally. And I was just pointing out that many film critics, film geeks, and general moviegoers love certain Kubrick films and hate others. Spielberg may be an uneven director, but many people believe Kubrick is talented yet flawed as well.  You are absolutely right about us not being able to judge the movie yet. All these Spielberg haters are killing what they claim to love. Spielberg can do serious and intellectual work such as Close Encounters or Schindler's List, he can be as pain-staking and dedicated as Kubrick himself (witness the care he put into Saving Private Ryan) and he has a talent for visual planning as well. Spielberg was one of Kubrick's closest friends in "the business", and one of the few contemporary directors Kubrick respected as an artist. I'm reserving any judgement until the movie comes to the theaters, because only THAT is the finished product.  We have no production stills no script news, no early designs, no real casting news (a narrator doesn't make or break a film), and yet people are lining up to proclaim that it will suck.... X-Men anyone? This message has been brought to you by Reverend Dave's Committee for Sanity in Talkback. Vote Nader. Peace.
Aug. 18, 2000, 4:35 p.m. CST
Jesus Christ people, have a fuckin' heart. First off who knows what Mr. kubrick would have done, I mean how many people were shocked and disgusted when he chose Tom Cruise for Eyes, he always went agaist the grain and did it with gusto.Spielberg, even when he's not in top form, will alwats deliver a quality production, despite if you like his work or not I feel that spielberg loves movies and loves moaking them, that beneth it all he's still just a kid in a candy store except he can buy the store and complete the fantacy. and williamshas proven before that he can transcend his own boundries granted, he's done some stinkers, but he also did gmv and dps, at least see the film with an open mind, I mean, this could be realy fuckin' awsome.
Aug. 18, 2000, 5:48 p.m. CST
...Mako. And somewhere in the introduction the phrase "days of high adventure" must be included.
Aug. 18, 2000, 8:08 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
No, really. If this isn't a joke, it's scythe time. Robin Williams... overrated standup comedian and provider of some of the greatest bile-elevating performances ever put to film... is now the narrator of A.I. --- Am I the only fucking person alive who sees the tiniest bit of irony in the oft-quoted, unverified Kubrick line, "If there's anyone else I would want to do A.I., it's Steven." Everyone says, "Oh, gee, that must mean he had a lot of respect for Spielbergo." Hmmm... do you think Kubrick might be familiar with a neat little conceit called irony? Or its nasty cousin sarcasm? Now apply the lesson: Kubrick was so personally attached to the project (he spent what, 20 years, waiting for CGI to mature), that he cracks a little joke (which, like most of his, nearly no one gets) the only way he would give it up, is if someone utterly void of talent or imagination got ahold of it. Just a theory, and it makes me smile. --- This project will mature from its current "lump of shit" status, geminating into a full-size, rancid compost heap, rank with weeds and insects. I will see it. Once. And then I will vomit all over the theatre. And then I will run into the streets and begin hunting down anyone responsible for rendering the putrid mess I just watched for three hours. And then I will be able to sleep. --- Oh, and that Harry Head kicks ass... I love Fritz Lang.
Aug. 18, 2000, 8:08 p.m. CST
by Tin Snoman
There it is. You know why the future's all messed up in A.I.? Cause they used the neutron bomb. Eyes melt, skin explodes, ev-erybody dead...
Aug. 18, 2000, 8:23 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
Here is it: --- "Spielberg can do serious and intellectual work such as Close Encounters or Schindler's List, he can be as pain-staking and dedicated as Kubrick himself (witness the care he put into Saving Private Ryan)..." --- You poor little cloth-wrapped nothing... score yourself a Darwin Award (Since you like Jaws so much, try some Shark-loving) and get your DNA out of the pool. Close Encounters serious? Maybe, if you've got the sensibilities of a 6-year old. Intellectual? HAHAHAHA!!! Oh yeah, and Shindler's List was just pure brilliance. "Ooh, let's make a film where Nazis are the bad guys - it'll be groundbreaking! But wait, one of them has a heart of gold..." Spielberg is a sad, sad man. He makes films to entertain, but for me, they haven't even done that since I turned 12. He explores nothing. Challenges no-one but the most feeble-minded. Refuses to pick movies that aren't already overloaded with context, so that he can mask the fact that he can't handle subtext. --- You want to *like* his movies, fine. But when you start making comparisons to ANYONE, let alone Stanley Kubrick, then YOU open up the door for criticism. --- Radix malorum est cupiditas; and that goes doubly for you, my goode Parson.
Aug. 18, 2000, 9:14 p.m. CST
DOesn't anybody have a job out there?
Aug. 18, 2000, 10:14 p.m. CST
Kubrick and Spielberg were very close friends. Do you really think he would make an "ironic" or "sarcastic" comment slighting the merit of his good friend's craftsmanship as a filmmaker? Kubrick was so revered, he could make a jab at ANYBODY in the business that he didn't respect, and the film-buff collective would only applaud him for it. To my knowledge, he didn't waste his time talking smack about anyone. Would he decide to save this "backhanded compliment" for one of his compatriates, you think? Besides... I thought this whole argument had already been covered some time ago, back when the news of Spielberg's helming the film was announced. It was mentioned several times in the press that, while the public may see the two filmmakers as worlds apart in style, Kubrick wished for Spielberg to be the only substitute. The way I see it, we can either put our faith in his judgment, or we can consider it his biggest mistake, but either way, ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it. It's Steven's film. You don't like it, lump it. AND... I hate to point this out to you, but there's a reason why Stanley Kubrick was the film god that he was, and it's got a lot to do with knowing things and seeing things that someone like you doesn't or simply won't. There's a reason he picked Spielberg for AI and you never would. Basically, it's because HE was Stanley Kubrick. Whether or not that makes any sense to you, I can't make it simpler than that. I don't think you're stupid or anything; you're obviously rather intelligent. But perhaps you should simply trust Kubrick's decision and lay off of Spielberg. Let him run the ship, ok?
Aug. 18, 2000, 11:20 p.m. CST
I know not how many of you know this, but 2001 was originally supposed to feature an original score by Alex North, Kubrick's partner on SPARTACUS (as well as the writer of "Unchained Melody"). After North scored the first half of 2001, Kubrick dismissed him, tossed his score out (North never found this out until he saw the final film at its New York premiere--and he was devastated) and replaced it with all classical music. However, North's score has since been recorded by Jerry Goldsmith and the National Philharmonic Orchestra for Varese Sarabande, and is available thru Amazon.com. I think Kubrick fans would be very interested in it. On the topic of AI, if Kubrick said that he felt Spielberg was the only other director capable of handling the project than himself, why is everybody so angry over it? If Kubrick felt that his baby would be safe with Speilberg, then so be it. It was his project, and he knew what was best for it. As for Robin Williams, I have no problems with him narrating the film at all. The man is an incredibly versatile actor and is more than up to the challenge of a serious voice-over. Let's wait until some script or casting info leaks before busting on this film.
Aug. 19, 2000, 11:58 a.m. CST
love the repo man reference....keep them coming.
Aug. 19, 2000, 12:09 p.m. CST
Fucking hell ... do you really think that your "God" Kubrick would have engaged in negotiations with Spielberg for what was it, 10 years and NOT trusted him to bring about an excellent film? Guys, Kubrick handed him the project. That means that he wanted Spielberg to make HIS own film.
Aug. 19, 2000, 12:42 p.m. CST
How can you call yourself fans of film, knowledgeable fans of film at that, and discount a film based on the voice which will narrate it? Spielberg is a very casbable director who can handle many different styles. He's had his fuck ups in his career but then he's made a lot more than most big name directors. As for Williams, the man is a comic and has a wonderful command of his voice, which is what you need in a narrator. The film hasn't even begun to take shape yet and it's getting bashed already. None of you have any idea what the film is going to like. I'm not going to say it's going to be great, though I hope it will. Wait until you see the film, or at least until they begin fucking making it.
Aug. 19, 2000, 1:50 p.m. CST
When are we going to finally get to see a Popeye sequel? It has been 20 yrs., and Williams and Duvall are getting older everyday. There was too much left out of the first film; the sequel is GUARANTEED to be better because it would introduce the Seahag, Island of the Goons, Brutus (Bluto's half-brother and Seahag's son), Popeye's 3 nephew's, the weird alien creature, and Bernard the Vulture. Make it a slapstick musical like the first and Bingo! Where are you Mr. Altman??!!
Aug. 19, 2000, 2:51 p.m. CST
Steven Spielberg is a runaway genius when it comes to filmmaking. And though at one time one could accuse him of rank sentimentality, I have found that since Schindler's List, that sentimentality has been nearly absent. He is every bit as good a filmmaker as Hitchcock was. His approach is different from Scorsese's but I think if you asked Scorsese, he would consider Speilberg his equal (given his Catholic humility he'd probably call him superior). The only danger in him taking over Kubrick's project is in his being too in awe of Kubrick and apeing his style in order to be true to his memory. Now I will cite the following titles in Speilberg's defence. Jaws. Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Raiders of the Lost Ark. ET The Extra-Terrestrial(stop the macho posturing and note how great it is). Schindler's List. Saving Private Ryan. I rest my case.
Aug. 19, 2000, 3:08 p.m. CST
What?!!!!!? formula folm guy doing a thinker film guy movie! Uh-uh. No fucking way I'll watch that.
Aug. 19, 2000, 3:12 p.m. CST
I have said this before and I will say this again. Spielberg is a good director, but he is not a genious. He doesn't approach drama in any unusual ways, and frankly, I think he wouldn't surprise anyone above 9 years old with his movies. He is not nearly as brave as Kubrick dared to be. Kubrick had the courage to be different, and the talent and credibility to keep his different ways from blowing up on his face. I frankly believe that A.I. should be left unmade, it is unnecessary. I seriously doubt that Kubrick ever said Spielberg was the "right man" for A.I., it all sounds like an excuse made up by the studios to keep Kubrick fans from talking up. As for the examples of "great" films Spielberg has done, I have my own personal interpretation (not the definitive, because I am not arrogant enough to think I have the ultimate truth, like some people in this talkback) JAWS, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, are simply big budget glorified B-movies. E.T., Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan are only teary-eyed conventional dramas of a director that has some talent, no doubt about that, but doesn't have the guts to make a movie that dares to defy the way we see movies. On the other hand we have Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Barry Lyndon, Eyes Wide Shut, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, Full Metal Jacket, The Shinning, Lolita, etc. I rest MY case.
Aug. 19, 2000, 5:11 p.m. CST
I love it when there's a discussion like this. . . Spielberg vs. Kubrick. It's funny to watch the high-falutin film people come out of the woodwork, so ready to blindly attack ANYbody falling under the category of "the mainstream;" as though commercial success destroys all possibility for artistic merit in a person. "Spielberg CAN'T be a good filmmaker! His films are too. . . uh. . . easy to understand!" Granted, there is a LOT to be said for being fluent in the *language* of film. I will not argue that at all. But I don't think it can be said that directors like Spielberg, Jim Cameron, or George Lucas are any less capable of speaking that language as are Scorsese, Fincher, or Kubrick. I contend that the "mainstreamers" are every bit as knowledgeable as the "esoterics." I think the real difference between their directorial styles lies in the types of *stories* they tell. Think about it: Full Metal Jacket vs. Saving Private Ryan. Similar themes, different depictions. But can't it be said that SPR even went *beyond* FMJ in certain respects, at least in their visual styles? Yes, "Jacket" absolutely crossed certain boundaries back in '86 (or '87. When did it come out?) But I think "Ryan" pushed the envelope in ways FMJ hardly even approached. Simply stated, Spielberg and other "mainstream" directors like him deserve a lot more credit from all these people that so belligerently lambaste them because, in terms of visual film-language, they choose to speak in prose and not such confounding poetry. Yes, the prose is easier for Billy-Bob in Nebraska to follow, meaning the film is more likely to succeed financially than a "poetically" directed film. But so what? It does NOT automatically make the director a sellout or a hack. Now am I against this poetry? Not at ALL. But that's not the only way to express an idea and still be considered a master of the language.
Aug. 19, 2000, 6:02 p.m. CST
At least partially. Saving Private Ryan is different from Full Metal Jacket in so many ways --- Full Metal Jacket is a beautiful movie that strips the inner workings of the government in the vietnam era (and maybe still in our era), and how it manipulated concepts such as heroism to disguise cruelty. Full Metal Jacket was about the dehumanization of war, and the feelings of each of the soldiers, some of them thinking they were fighting for freedom, instead of supression. Full Metal Jacket is a masterpiece. Saving Private Ryan looked daring the first 20 minutes and then went downhill from there...it became a good guys vs. bad guys, esencially a good americans vs. bad nazis, a recurrent theme in Spielberg movies (Indiana Jones, anyone?) Full Metal Jacket was less cynical and much more thought-provoking...I agree, the diference between Scorsese, Kubrick, Spielberg, and Lucas is the type of stories they like to do...and I agree, poetry is not the only way to present an idea, but I think poetry is the way to present A.I., and I find it hard to believe than anyone who has actually read Super Toys Last All Summer Long (the short story in which A.I. is supposedly based on) would not agree that poetry is what we need. That's why I think that Spielberg is wrong for this project, and why A.I. shouldn't be made. Only Kubrick could have made it a masterpiece, why do any less? By the way, I think George Lucas is more innovative than Spielberg any day of the week. Including Phantom Menace.
Aug. 19, 2000, 6:32 p.m. CST
by The Pardoner
I can't think of any other way your perceptions would be so distorted. I never said I hated mainstream. Hell, I love "The Shawshank Redemption", and that's about as weepy and centimental (no, I did not misspell this word.. think about it) as movies get. My problem with Spielberg is twofold. First, I don't enjoy his movies. Haven't since I broke double digits in age. That's a totally baseless, simple assessment of his films on my part: I just don't like watching them. Any of them. My second problem, I'm happy to keep to myself. The problem I keep running into is that there are legions of cretinous, malnourished brains applauding Spielberg for being "challenging", "intellectual", and several other adjectives that they ought to use with greater reservation. --- Here's a simple quiz: Describe Gomer Pyle from FMJ. Just do it. Write down, in this forum, who you think he is and what he represents. You'll be wrong. FMJ *pushed* nothing: not envelopes, not sentiments, not morality, nothing. Kubrick didn't peddle platitudes. --- Next, to these people (verbal2000 and Lightstormer, mainly) who claim that Kubrick "picked Spielberg because he was the best one to do the film" (or however you phrased it) - screw your heads on. You on't know how or why Spielberg got this film. You assume everything. I don't know how he got it. I doubt anyone but him and a few of his lackeys really know. Maybe he bought it. Maybe Kubrick gave it to him as a joke (I love that.. heh heh heh). Maybe Kubrick was losing his mind, and either mistook Spielberg for someone else, or actually began to believe that the colossal hack could do it. Who knows? Don't claim to. --- Lastly, I'm going to use a bona fide Spielberg document to demonstrate something. On the "Eyes Wide Shut" DVD, there is a point in his interview at which Spielberg describes the night he found out Kubrick had died. After a brief commiseration, he screened, to a select few, a scene from Kubrick's "Paths of Glory". It was the scene in the French nightclub, where the German singer reduces a unit of French troops to tears. Spielberg turned to his audience and said, more or less, "This, for me, is Stanley Kubrick: ultimately, a man of deep caring and spirituality." And he completely missed the point. This German singer, at whose captivity and forced song the troops were leering at moments before, is a symbol of incredible depth. It reaches back to the German myth of Lorelei, the Siren on the cliffs of the Rhein. And it stretches forward in the film's time to the future, when the Germans would again beguile the French with pretty words and shows, and then crush them under tanks. This interview, for me, encapsulates Steven Spielberg's particular stupidity just about perfectly. --- Radix malorum est cupiditas.
Aug. 19, 2000, 9:20 p.m. CST
has not made a good film for years. Schindler's List was a special case. Unless a miracle happens, and appointing Robin to narrate does not seem to resemble a miracle, this movie will smell like Paris in July. Paris does not smell good in July. Expect schmultz. Expect man-child narration. Expect another mediocre film.
Aug. 19, 2000, 11:32 p.m. CST
First, before I launch my attack, I have to say "point taken" to Skywalker, A. He was actually the one that I had in mind when I was discussing the anti-mainstreamers, though, given his screen-name, I can't believe he holds no love for such directors. ;-) Kudos for a civil response, Skywalker. I wish I could reply to you point-by-point, but right now I'm rather unfocused by frenzy over this stuffed shirt named "Pardoner." Yeah, I said you were intelligent, Pard, but I wasn't trying to encourage your snotty stance and condescending attitude. I really didn't have you in mind when I was talking about people that hate mainstream directors. (Not that I'm saying Skywalker "hates" them either, but he just led me to a broader point to make.) At any rate, the problem I have with you, Pardoner, which I wanted to sidestep before in the interest of peaceful discussion, is the way you assume (yes, ASSUME) to be so "in the mind" of Stanley Kubrick. Yeah, you're a smart guy. Yeah, you have a very discriminating taste in films. . . but you, sir, are no Stanley Kubrick. In fact, only ONE guy WAS Stanley Kubrick, and he's not around anymore to give the definitive word on when he was "making a joke" or "being ironic." However, I'm sure he's verrrrry glad to know he's got someone like you around to clue us all into exactly what he was thinking his whole life. You know what? Maybe you are the "high-falutin" snob I had in mind. Perhaps you weren't so wrong to think I was talking about you. Except this goes beyond knowing more about films than other people; this is about you pretending to have a complete understanding of someone as eccentric and enigmatic as Stanley Kubrick. My advice: Give it up. Or at least try. You'll find there's a whole world of things of which you have no real concept, despite what you may tell yourself. Lightstormer OUT. (Sorry, folks. I have no pretentious Latin phrase to end on in order to impress you all with my *incredible* knowledge.)
Aug. 20, 2000, 1:43 a.m. CST
I thank you for being civil in your reply also, I know I might look pretty anti-mainstream, but I am counciouss that independent filmmaking needs mainstream filmmaking also, and I think that it is stupid to reject mainstream movies just because they are mainstream...I just think Lucas is very much into merchandising and stuff, but I still believe he is a very innovative and daring filmmaker, and definately the right man for Star Wars. He could have taken the easy way and made the Jedi wear long overcoats and ditch William's score for some electronic soundtrack, and added lots of slow-motion takes involving bullet speed technique (it worked for the shitfest known as the Matrix) but instead he went for his vision, which I enjoyed and respect. I don't consider him mainstream in that sense. But Kubrick is still my favorite director, and I simply think that this movie should not be made. But I am getting tired of repeating this, and probably everyone in this talkback is tired of reading it. So I suggest we agree to disagree, and help to bring back some sanity into this talkback. I am already fighting in the Harry Potter talkback, I don't see the need to fight here too.
Aug. 20, 2000, 10:16 a.m. CST
Spielberg will continue his schooling from his pal Marty with this use of V/O. It was first evident in S. List whereby he used slomos of intimate details when Liam Neeson's Schindler was observing the Nazi's at the niteclub and trying to get "in" with them. This is straight outta Raging Bull. Maybe the first VO lines in AI will be ape our fav gangster flick: CLOSE on Human Corpse in car trunk. Quick Dolly to C/U and FREEZE on Henry "Artificial Intelligence" Hill. Henry "AI:" "Ever since I was activated, I always wanted to be a Human..." Cut to Music: Tony Bennet's "I know I'd go from code to chaos!..." ROLL OPENING CREDITS... CUT TO: Young AI Looking out. ECU on eyes. AI: To me, being HUMAN was better than being President of the Terrel Corporation. In a neighborhood full of nobody-bots, Humans were SOMEBODIES. They did anything... They parked in front of fire hydrants and never got a reprogramming!... LATER... CLOSE on shiny shoes. AI's MOM "My god! You look like a Human! AI "See my shoes, mom? Aren't they great?..." LATER... AI: "One day. One day some of the robots from the neighborhood carried my mothers ciruitboards home from the computer store. You know why? It was outta respect!... LATER... JIMMY AI: Mad at ya? I'm not mad at ya. I'm proud of ya. You know why? YOUNG HENRY AI looks at JIMMY. JIMMY: Look at me. You got pinched. Every robot gets pinched. But you took it like a Version 2.0-- you kept your mouth shut and didn't say anything. They found no bugs in your programming and they don't know of any!... THEY walk out the Court Room doors. A CROWD OF AI's are waiting. "Hey there he is! Oh! You popped your SCSI! Hey! Congratulations! SONG: "Sometimes... I processsss... AI: "By the time I grew up into Version NT and the later 3000 Version-- we were trying to steal everything from IDYLWILD SPACEPORT...
Aug. 20, 2000, 11:21 a.m. CST
After all, the Cell was SOOOOO Kubrickesque in style. Seemed a bit like 2001 to me... Seriously though, Spielberg is the Man for this. Here's why... As a couple of Talkbackers arlready said, Kubrick collaborated with Spielberg all the way through pre-production on this (about 12 years or so, probably longer - one of you talkbackers will corect me, no doubt). These two guys were v. close and would talk over the phone for hours on end, discussing ideas and film. If anyone was obsessed with the finer details of style and means, Kubrick was he. And the only other long-established director working today with a real knowledge of how to PUT A FILM TOGETHER (don't mention Scorses) and an adept hand with technical films is Steve. I reckon this is gonna cause a lot of fuss when it comes out, so long in the making (from genesis to screen) and with the legacy of Kubrick heavily attached. I think one of the most interesting factors of this will be the actual finished product. Aside from the fact that i highly doubt whether Stan would ever have contracted Robin Williams, will Stevey Boy go for a Kubrick-esque austerity to it or will it be more of his patented Complex-Ideas-Illustrated-Through-Simple-Yet-Effective-Visual-Techniques kinda style? Look at the distance of the journey scene in Amistad if you wanna know what i mean... I'm intrigued and i think it will a must-see when it comes out, if not a classic. *Sackley*
Aug. 20, 2000, 12:04 p.m. CST
You have me interested in reading the short story the film will be based on. If you say filmic poetry is necessary so much to the point that Spielberg shouldn't do it and that is simply that, I must say I'm intrigued. So should I look for the short story iteself somewhere, or is it in a book with other short stories? And a note about Lucas: When I included him as one of the "mainstreamers" in my little rant, I was thinking about mentioning how the public typically sees him as one of the ultimate in that category, but ever since he began making films, he's always had a penchant for the abstract. Just look at THX. And if the feature film seemed "out there," just imagine the original student film he made. Definitely not the "linear narrative" one would expect, I'm sure. Lastly, although it seems an unlikely possibility, I really hope that you ultimately will appreciate, or even --yikes!-- *like* "AI." If for no other reason than that you won't feel let down by Kubrick's decision, or by Steven's execution of the film. I hope you will be happily surprised. --Lightstormer
Aug. 20, 2000, 12:18 p.m. CST
at http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.01/ffsupertoys_pr.html, it's called Super-Toys last all summer long... I actually own all of Lucas' films, THX is one of my favourites...
Aug. 21, 2000, 12:23 a.m. CST
Bicentennial Man 2? Dont be so stupid. You all have seen Spielberg films and loved some of them. And you will all se this one as well. Robin Williams may have made some bad films with other directors, everybody does. Bicentennial Man 2...please.
Aug. 21, 2000, 12:32 a.m. CST
by Monkey Lord
Idiocy. It seems strange to me that anyone can say a movie will suck because Robin Williams will be narrating it... Why is this? What line of reasoning leads to this conclusion? Did you people see Good Morning Vietnam? Did anyone see Good Will Hunting? Dead Poets Society? How quickly we forget...I mean, come on, people! These are some of the greatest movies around, and Robin Williams is one of the most characterful, methodic actors in Hollywood. Yes, lately, he's indulged himself with some sickningly sweet projects that don't appeal to those of us with a distaste for happy endings... but if that's his pleasure, then by God he deserves a little lattitude! Let hm do what he wants... he still belongs to that small circle of big-screen actors that really, really do make you 'believe' in the persona he plays. He becomes the part, and I love him for it. As for Speilberg... a pioneer and a genius, and his films ARE art in the purest sense. They have soul and they have heart, and that is what the media is SUPPOSED to be about. IF Williams is cast as the narrator, it's because he's meant for the role... blah blah blah...banter banter banter....
Aug. 21, 2000, 4:49 a.m. CST
ok. When I first heard this, I could just imagine Kubrick rolling over in his grave. BUT...if Spielberg directs it in very cold Kubrick fashion then Robin Williams could pull it off. As a dramatic actor he is great. If he tries to adlib and humor then this movie will be ruined. Oh and why is there narration anyway? Kubrick would just create a world and let us observe in silence or with music instead of us being spoonfed by a narrator.
Aug. 21, 2000, 5:14 a.m. CST
if you want big names to narrate a supposedly intelligent movie, why not go with someone is actually intelligent. jeff and steven have worked together before. he has a great voice and i enjoy listening to him speak. robin williams, on the other hand, i'd rather cut my throat and watch the blood slowly drain out, than listen to him do his schmaltzy cornball routine. he sucks, people, face it! he had his chance, but he blew it. he made one good movie: dead poets society. but, after that- whew. he ruined what dreams may come. all that beauty and you have to watch him tear it all up. he sucks. jakob the liar, patch adams, being human, father's day, flubber, bicentenial man, good will hunting (i know people like that one, but i don't know why), you name it- he's ruined it. he's so self righteous and condescending and corny. i hate this decision. i really hate it. i'm soory guys, but we live in a world of a million actors, surely there is one mr spielberg could have cast, that isn't chosen simply because they're famous. and, don't call me shirley.
Aug. 21, 2000, 2:19 p.m. CST
I'm surprised no one either slammed or praised Speilberg for Empire of the Sun, or did I just miss it in all the ranting?
Aug. 22, 2000, 11:09 a.m. CST
Three points: 1. As Lightstorm said, who really knows what Kubrick was thinking? He did cite Spielberg as a director, and that is what Spielberg is doing...Directing. 2. No matter what Spielberg decides, unless the movie comes out and sucks, I will have faith in Spielberg. I have never been disappointed by a Spielberg film, and although a couple years ago I would have said that about George Lucas, I stand by Steven. 3. Finally, on Robin Williams. I have seen lots of Williams movies, from Popeye to Father's Day to What Dreams May Come. Have any of you egotistical cinema elitists that keep commenting on his "one good performance" in Good Will Hunting or Dead Poets' Society ever seen Good Morning Vietnam. It was the first movie where Robin Williams had something resembling free rein. True, there are many hilarious scenes, but underneath, the movie is completely serious. Do you remember the bomb scene, the "unofficially dead" civilians, good old Sparky revealed as a Viet Cong spy. Just because a movie is funny does not detract from its power. And the same applies to an actor.
Aug. 22, 2000, 6:23 p.m. CST
by Skeptic Ogre
To all the id..., er, people prejudging this movie on the basis of one casting decision: I am so glad that summer is almost over and you'll all be back in grade school again.
Aug. 21, 2009, 4:09 p.m. CST