Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

New A.I. Trailer - Mysterious, Haunting, Beautiful, Simple and Perfect!!!

Hey folks, Harry here... Ya know... sometimes you see a trailer that simply remembers how it is done. How to perfectly entice you into the theater... How to tickle your fancy into saying, "I'm There". The new theatrical trailer for A.I. is simply perfection. As perfect as any trailer could ever be. I still know nothing about the film thank god.... I still am completely vague about what I'm going to finally see.... AND, there is just one... ONE.... Classic image from the film that just gets me in the most magical sense.... I'm there. I'm so there. I'm there with bells on and clutching my chest hoping to fall in love. I want this movie to sweep me away. And I want Spielberg and Williams and that little Hayley Joel Osment kid to tap the stake into my heart.... I'm ready to fall in love with this film. It feels like something magic is coming.

Hey Harry,

sorry to bombard you with 3 posts in one day, but I was cruising by, and low and behold, within seconds, they had up the latest trailer for A.I.


The trailer is very vague, much like the first, however, we are treated to some spectacular graphic design work, like the text floating around rectangular black boxes in the first teaser. There are two very vague screen clips you will see.

WARNING: I am going to give a spoiler to one of the clips down below, concerning a visual effect sequence. I suggest seeing the trailer, or not going any further, if you want the mystery to remain so.












In Clip #1, David is seen at a doorway, and a little teddy bear seemingly walks up to him. This is not some ghost, nor is it demonic. This is "Teddy." Teddy was a fixture for Daniel in Brian Aldiss' story "Super Toys Last All Summer Long," the basis of A.I. Daniel could communicate with Teddy, as could Daniel's mother, and possibly the father, though you don't read of such a thing in the short story. In the story, Daniel discusses with Teddy how he can tell his mom that he loves her, as it is not as easy for him as it is for us.







This trailer is very moving, and it is as emotional, and beautiful as the first one. As an animation/art student, the A.I. trailers are artful yet make you want to see more. Well, I'll stop talking so we can view the next step in evolution.



Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • April 9, 2001, 7:43 p.m. CST

    Haley: (hushed whisper) "I see dead teddys"...

    by Regis Travolta

    This kid from the Sixth Sense, he's not gonna see dead robots and dead androids this time around is he? I sure hope not because I don't think Bruce Willis is in this here movie thingy.

  • April 9, 2001, 7:46 p.m. CST

    can't wait

    by DigitalJustice

    I am so fucking jazzed to see this film. At first i was adamantly against it, because I thought kubrick and spielberg's directorial styles are so different and would lash, but I am renewed.

  • April 9, 2001, 7:57 p.m. CST

    Interesting....Maybe Spielberg has found his way again....

    by Capt.Cameltoe

    After Saving Private Ryan I have been really gettin nervous for ol' Steve. Mr. Williams too. What I've heard for Harry Potter sounds uninspired and rather...Williamsish (not a bad thing, but I just dont see it as being one of the great scores of our time). This renews my hope though. Stick to those good scripts gentlemen. When you put these two together on something with real potential...well let's just say Indy 4 isn't far away.

  • April 9, 2001, 8:03 p.m. CST

    "He's a Smaalll Wondderr..."

    by SnapT

    I think Tiffany Brisette should sue! Or pick up a couch and throw it at Spielberg as he's trying to vacuum under it. *** Fun Fun Comic Strip: ***

  • April 9, 2001, 8:19 p.m. CST

    Looks nice, but old news

    by tbrosz

    This concept has been beaten to death in science fiction. "Is Data A Real Person?" "Does the Robot Have A Soul?" "I'm Afraid, Dave..." Clue number one: any robot that can ask the question "do I have a soul?" has one. Heck, I just figured it out: This is Bradbury's "Electric Grandmother" backwards, a kid that is always a kid and can never die. I don't know if this is covered in the movie, but if you could make dogs, cats, and parakeets like that (remember "Blade Runner?") it would make you billions and the animals wouldn't be walking around asking inconvenient existential questions.

  • April 9, 2001, 8:22 p.m. CST

    Robots in Disguise

    by Planet Zac

    The Transformer Mach Alert appears on the AI website. really weird because he's a Japanese character and never seen in the US. well technically he's being brough over in July as a new version of Prowl, but its weird. you can find him on the robots page with the chatbot...

  • April 9, 2001, 8:56 p.m. CST

    I'm all choked up...

    by Son Of Batboy

    WITH VOMIT!!!!!!! This trailer has as much subtlety as an Oprah flick. Who helped write this Deepak Chopra? Guess Steve hasn't gotten over that whole inner child fixation. I expect to see lots of slow dolly shots closing in on faces filled with wonder. Think I'll need an insulin shot after seeing this.

  • April 9, 2001, 9:24 p.m. CST

    am i a nerd for noticing...

    by slouch

    ok, under the credits they show it has "SENTIENT MACHINE THERAPIST Jeanine Salla"---whats up with that, yo?

  • April 9, 2001, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Am i the only one that noticed...

    by gary2012

    ...that there is absolutely no mention of Kubrick in the credits? I mean, even though this might not be the same film Kubrick would have made, without Kubricks years of prep work on this film there would be no A.I. That at least deserves some sort of credit. Maybe a dedication in the actual film? Otherwise, it looks like it might be a good film. I still can't help but imagine whatthis film might have become under Kubricks control. I think it would have had all time classic potential.

  • April 9, 2001, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Kubrick Credit

    by Darth Melkor

    in the credits it says "A Stanley Kubrick Production" I just double checked.

  • April 9, 2001, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Dig the music.

    by Nocturnaloner

    This could be a total schmaltz-fest, or something amazing.

  • April 9, 2001, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Hook II

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    The signs are all there. Spielburg has been sucking directing kids since E.T. Jude Law is BOX OFFICE POISON (not his fault, he just is). During the marketing blitz before the release, that damn song is going to drive everybody to hang themselves. Play it Forward or whatever that sappy Spacey/Osmond/Mad About You chick movie was BOMBED. It's a tired story line (a robot/puppet/toy than wants to be real). Speilberg wants to reclaim that E.T. magic, but it's just not going to happen. America is more jaded now, sappy crap doesn't fly unless it has Julia Roberts, Tom Hanks, or Meg Ryan in it. At least it will draw the kiddie porn crowd.

  • April 9, 2001, 10:07 p.m. CST


    by aquariusboy

  • April 9, 2001, 10:08 p.m. CST

    Good Teaser, Bad Trailer

    by Dr. Najib

    As far as trailers go, this was pretty disapointing. They have to show SOMETHING to qualify as a decent preview. I guess Spielberg expects people to flock to the theaters based only on pretentiousness and his name.

  • April 9, 2001, 10:09 p.m. CST

    We need a song from User ID Indeed here pronto!

    by Bari Umenema

    Something to the tune of "Lucy in the Sky, with Diamonds", maybe "Alien Invaders, with Artificial Intelligence"... Take it away Mr. User ID Indeed! He's so good at these...

  • April 9, 2001, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Or worse yet... TOYS

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    I still laugh my ass off when I think about the sappy scene with the toy robot bear trying to help his injured mate with the SAD music playing. Who knows, maybe the second half of the movie with be a Bride of Frankenstein robot-style ending with leggy Sex-Bots galore. MMMMM.... Kattie Holmes-Bot.

  • April 9, 2001, 10:16 p.m. CST


    by The Pardoner

    I'm suprised - being more obsessed with Kubrick than your everage bear, I thought I'd be genuinely annoyed by this. Strangely enough, it just bores me. Maybe it's because I recently caught part of Saving Private Ryan on video, but the only feeling I can associate with Spielberg or his movies is indifferent fatigue. --- Side note: Ingmar Bergman's VARGTIMMEN and THE SHINING make a really neat horror double-bill, provided your audience is fairly clever. That, and consecutive screenings of LAWRENCE OF ARABIA and APOCALYPSE NOW really put the zap on your head... --- Radix malorum est cupiditas.

  • April 9, 2001, 10:17 p.m. CST

    as usual

    by jamie sonil

    kids on talkback trashing a movie they haven't seen before, as if they know how a movie (or even a trailer for that matter) is made. I'm fully convinced this place is full of jealous losers whose only outlet of anger against all that doesn't work in their favor is AICN talkback. It would be interesting to hear what they can say when they're not in front of the computer. When somebody say "the trailer sucks", "he's a hack", "shit", and all that seemingly enraged kind of language directed either to a movie, actor, trailer, etc., all that AICN breeds, you know very well the opposite is true.

  • April 9, 2001, 10:24 p.m. CST

    HAHA, jamie sonil wants to see the gay robo-boy movie!

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    Repressed and bitter are we?

  • April 9, 2001, 10:35 p.m. CST

    Sentient Machine Therapist

    by Toonimator

    ...perhaps Jeaninne Salla is the lady that created/works with the robot Kizmet? I've heard the radio show about it... it's a robot that responds to light, dark, has shown responses similar to emotions... if it's the one I'm thinking of, it looks like a skinned Furby if a Furby had shoulders underneath, but is much more advanced than Furby. I think they compared the intellect to a baby about 18 months. So, perhaps they consulted her. Or I could be completely mistaken and that's not her name at all, and the person on the film gave footrubs to the teddy bear.

  • April 9, 2001, 10:42 p.m. CST

    DARYL and the AI logo...

    by Toonimator

    I remember the movie D.A.R.Y.L. but I doubt this really compares. Despite the acronym containing the word "robot", the movie was very vague on it, all I remember actually admitting to his unique origins was a chip in his brain, that's all. The impression i had was he was a kid taken at birth(?) and implanted with the chip & raised according to the government or facility or whatever's plans, and at the end he wrecked an SR-71 Blackbird and ejected and was thought dead, but came out just fine. As for AI's logo, I never noticed the lighting on the "I", marking Osmont's sleeves & such, and it looks like they squeezed the "A" a bit.. the cutouts used to match the "I" perfectly, but now are too narrow. Just a minor quibble from an artistic POV. Anyhoo... looks to be interesting, despite the superficial retread plot.

  • April 9, 2001, 10:45 p.m. CST


    by csk360

    I don't know but I think ther flick is probably gonna suck. I read the short story years ago and could see why Kubrick wanted to do it.Persionaly I would of liked either David Fincher or The Watchowski

  • April 9, 2001, 11:30 p.m. CST

    A.I. will be great because I know...

    by evil clown

    I hate spielberg because he's cheesy and relies on sentimental feelings, but I've read the detailed outline of Kubrick's final A.I. script.It was the best plot I've ever read. I know spielberg had it rewritten to be less serious (damn spielberg), but if he kept the main plot points, it will be amazing. It is not E.T., but rather "the next step in evolution" as the trailer states.I will not spoil anything, as I regret having read it.

  • April 9, 2001, 11:35 p.m. CST


    by MOSDEF

    That was one of the best trailers I've ever seen. I thought the first one perfect and I was afraid they would ruin the second one, but it's even better. Wow, a big summer flick that I actually don't know the enitre plot ! Speilberg has done it again, cementing his position as the greatest filmmaker of our time (Yes I said you cynical Speilberg one director alive today who has a more impressive filmography).

  • April 9, 2001, 11:44 p.m. CST

    This Trailer Sucks

    by Mr. Stevens78

    I'm sorry Harry, but I think this trailer sucks. I mean I'm looking forward to seeing this film, but this is a terrible first impression of the film. I hope something better comes out in the next couple of weeks, because the only thing that sounds good right now about the film is the John Williams score.

  • April 9, 2001, 11:46 p.m. CST

    Remember "Dolls"?

    by otis von zipper

    That movie has a moment where a teddy bear comes to life and mauls someone. The clip reminded me of that. So, Spielberg has done Peter Pan (yeesh) and now is doing Pinnochio (meh). The Kubrick name keeps me interested.

  • April 9, 2001, 11:48 p.m. CST

    I see.. organic people.. they're everywhere!

    by Mikuji

  • April 9, 2001, 11:55 p.m. CST

    Little Red Riding Hood

    by HiddenDragon

    Ever since that little bitch in the red coat ran through the streets of WWII Germany, and caught Liam Neeson's wandering eye, I knew Spielberg was full of crap. A black and white film ain't black n' white Co-cheese if you add color for "dramatic effect!" The trailer for AI looks good, however, and it could raise Steve back to the level of somewhat respectable filmmaker.

  • April 9, 2001, 11:56 p.m. CST

    Filmography...And a challenge...

    by MOSDEF

    Sugarland Express (very good) DUEL (VERY GOOD) Jaws (classic) Close Encounters (classic) 1941 (stinker) Raiders of the Lost Ark (classic) E.T. (classic) Temple of Doom (good fun) Color Purple (classic, the defining film for MOST african americans including myself) Empire of the Sun (noble failure) Always (fair) Jurassic Park (very fun) Schindler's List (classic) The Lost World (fun) Amistad (noble failure) Saving Private Ryan (near classic)... Now I challenge anyone one to name ONE modern filmmaker that can match this filmography, Just one I challenge you! And don't give this crap about Speilberg being "manipulative" and "too sentimental" get a clue! ALL movies are manipulative!!! thats the main point of cinema! And to the guy who said A.I. should have been directed by the Warshowski's or David Fincher because their closer to Kubrick's sensibility PUHLEEEZE, do you even know Kubrick's work? No one is close to Kubrick's sensibilty. The Warshowski's and Fincher are good directors but they've yet to distinguish themselves as having a unique vision that will be studied for years to come (although Fincher came damn close with Fight Club) And I submit that Speilberg is a better filmmaker than kubrick. All of the greats filmmakers (John Ford, Akira Kurosawa, David Lean, Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppolla and THE greatest Alfred HitchcocK) balance art with mass appeal, anyone can relate to their films, they're universal, and thats the edge Speilberg has over Kubrick, Kubrick tends to alienate the audience, which is fine but the perfect filmmaker balances art with commerciallism because film is ultimately "Popular Entertainment" no matter how you cut it.

  • April 10, 2001, 12:01 a.m. CST

    Filmography...And a challenge...

    by MOSDEF

    Sugarland Express (very good) DUEL (VERY GOOD) Jaws (classic) Close Encounters (classic) 1941 (stinker) Raiders of the Lost Ark (classic) E.T. (classic) Temple of Doom (good fun) Color Purple (classic, the defining film for MOST african americans including myself) Empire of the Sun (noble failure) Always (fair) Jurassic Park (very fun) Schindler's List (classic) The Lost World (fun) Amistad (noble failure) Saving Private Ryan (near classic)... Now I challenge anyone one to name ONE modern filmmaker that can match this filmography, Just one I challenge you! And don't give this crap about Speilberg being "manipulative" and "too sentimental" get a clue! ALL movies are manipulative!!! thats the main point of cinema! And to the guy who said A.I. should have been directed by the Warshowski's or David Fincher because their closer to Kubrick's sensibility PUHLEEEZE, do you even know Kubrick's work? No one is close to Kubrick's sensibilty. The Warshowski's and Fincher are good directors but they've yet to distinguish themselves as having a unique vision that will be studied for years to come (although Fincher came damn close with Fight Club) And I submit that Speilberg is a better filmmaker than kubrick. All of the greats filmmakers (John Ford, Akira Kurosawa, David Lean, Martin Scorsese, Francis Coppolla and THE greatest Alfred HitchcocK) balance art with mass appeal, anyone can relate to their films, they're universal, and thats the edge Speilberg has over Kubrick, Kubrick tends to alienate the audience, which is fine but the perfect filmmaker balances art with commerciallism because film is ultimately "Popular Entertainment" no matter how you cut it.

  • April 10, 2001, 12:16 a.m. CST

    Jaded people

    by saupie

    Trailer not showing enough? Jesus, I'm sick of trailers showing all the money shots of a movie before I even get there. It's bad enough that all the media shows cover the extra bits of movies, you have to try and shield yourself from finding out 90% of a movie before you even get there. Yeah, this movie won't be a "fun, popcorn" movie. It will be something different. How awefull

  • April 10, 2001, 12:44 a.m. CST

    AI will suck.

    by Xphile69

    E.T. sucked and so will this. Spielberg should stick with action/adventure, not lame-ass family Disney-esque movies. Make Indy IV !

  • April 10, 2001, 12:52 a.m. CST

    Not Impressed, at all!

    by Grimace

    Spielberg is a fine director, but not every film he's made has been worthwhile. "E.T.","Hook", "Always", "The Lost World", and "Saving Private Ryan" are really nothing special. And before anybody "busts a nut", "Platoon" was/is THE definitive war film. Hell, even Full Metal Jacket, despite a very weak second-half, is a better movie. Spielberg does make mainstream films, there's no denying that fact. Kubrick, on the other hand, was a better director, but most of his films are flawed. Not because he pandered to the LCD, but because his finished product never stayed on the same course as his ambitious visions. Take "A Clockwork Orange", most would say "2001" is the better movie, but it's not. It drags on forever, and the ending is ultimately unsatisfying. You've been on a journey, but haven't really gone anywhere. "A Clockwork Orange", on the other hand, is a commentary on the state of humanity. It may have seemed silly originally, but as we move forward in this century, we move towards that nightmare becoming more real than ever. To sum up, Spielberg goes to 10, but Kubrick goes to 11. Of course, that's just my opinion, You might be wrong.

  • April 10, 2001, 1:06 a.m. CST

    not even good enough to wipe the shit out of my ass

    by billybobhoyle

    What the hell was that!!! OMB that was the crappiest shit i've ever seen. DING! ding DING!!! WTF!!! Trailers are suppose to make u want to watch the movie but this really sucks. It was even fit to wipe the shit out of my ass. I hope they come out with a better one soon because so far i crossed it off my want to see list. Piece of shit wasted my time.

  • April 10, 2001, 1:14 a.m. CST

    What a bunch of lugnuts

    by heywood jablomie

    People at AICN ragging on Spielberg, and this beautiful trailer in particular, either a) have no clue how movies are made or b) are talentless embittered hacks who ought to be working for Full Moon. These talkbacks seem to be jerkoff opportunities for every film geek who feels entitled to be a Tarantino-sized rock god, but isn't. GET A LIFE, YOU PITIFUL GEEKS!

  • April 10, 2001, 1:24 a.m. CST

    re: mosdef

    by Sixdoublefive321

    There's a notable omission from your list of Spielberg's flicks: "Hook." And "Hook" kind of throws off the balance of your check-sheet a little. Make no mistake, I'm a huge fan of Spielberg's (and would actually rate "Empire of the Sun" a little higher than you did) and here's why: he was the first director that, back when I was a young fetal film fan, I was able to identify and say, "He makes movies that I like"; and his style was the first style I was able to look at and connect to other movies I saw. And I bet a lot of film-geeks that have come up in the last 20 or 25 years are the same way. And they may not all still like him, but they probably did once, when it was important; he's the epitome of a "gateway director," he leads to harder stuff. But in answer to your question about a modern director with a track record in Spielberg's league... first I'd say Kubrick; Spike Lee (even when his movies don't completely work, at least he's taking chances and trying some shit... and I think the opening credits for "He Got Game" should precipitate his nomination for sainthood); the Coen Brothers (same deal as Spike, although trade "Game" for "Miller's Crossing"); Woody Allen (hey, anybody who wants to complain about him damn sure ain't making a movie every year and if they do, they'd be lucky to have his hit/miss ratio) and I think Michael Mann and Soderbergh will get there. What was my point? Oh, yeah, "Hook" sucks. But that's kind of like saying he's dressed great but I hate his socks.

  • April 10, 2001, 1:27 a.m. CST

    Where is your heart?

    by DarthWhite

    After reading through these comments, I was very sad and disappointed in my fellow movie lovers. When did we become so damn cynical? At what point did we stop allowing ourselves to be moved by movies? All I heard from those not impressed with the trailer was how sugar filled and unoriginal this movie will be. First off, anyone who liked, say, the Matrix or Star Wars or really film has no business saying things like unoriginal the concept of this movie is. Telling a story is all about the execution of the idea. Every story has been told again and again. The only thing that changes is the text, not the subtext. So of course this concept will spring up numerous recollections of other films. As for the Spielburg's inner child and penchant for being sentimental. That is nothing new. Your are a fan of his work or you are not. I am looking foward to this film very much. He hasn't done something like this for a long time. And as much as I love Spielburg's mature vision, I am eager to see him return to the movies I fell in love with. The ones that made me a film lover. You either agree with me or you do not. All I ask is that you express real critisims of the trailer, and not this "Spielburg is a hack" BS. If you honestly belive that, back it up. Give a true opinion other that "he sucks." You have brains, people. Use em'.

  • April 10, 2001, 1:37 a.m. CST


    by otis von zipper

    Almost echoing SixDoubleFive...You left out a couple of films. 1) Last Crusade - a pale imitation of Raiders. I'd rather see the simply disappointing follow up Temple of Doom again. 2) Hook- in a word; terrible. I would also have to put Always in the terrible category. You make several good intelligent points especially about filmmakers and their accessability, but then you state that Spielberg is a better filmmaker than Kubrick AND critisize someone else AND claim they know nothing about Kubrick. If you don't appreciate Kubrick's work, then any good director would be better. If you do appreciate his work how could you make such a statement? I love some of Spielberg's movies, but after ET his work has been spotty, uneven, derivative, pandering and at best hit and miss. Sure Shindler's List was powerful, but it too suffered from Spielberg's hamfisted touch (it's worst problem was the lack of depth given to any Jewish character beyond Ben Kingsley). Kubrick's movies may not appeal to everyone, but he never made anything as rank as Spielberg's weakest offerings, or as derivative as Last Crusade and Lost World. Living directors who are as strong as Spielberg? Admittedly, there aren't many (I'm sure I'll leave out someone): Ang Lee, Martin Scorsese, Woody Allen, Atom Egoyan, Spike Lee, John Sayles, Terry Gilliam, and two of my favorites, the Coen Bros. and Tim Burton. Each has had a miss or two, but their work continues to impress. Ford and Hitch were great filmmakers who appealled to the masses, but they were great filmmakers first and foremost. Spielberg has earned his place in the Hall of Fame, but if you remove his half dozen genuine classics from his filmography, you're looking at a simple above average director.

  • April 10, 2001, 1:52 a.m. CST

    plus, there's the "kick the can" segment in "twilight zone: the

    by Sixdoublefive321

    ... which I forgot to mention and which I think embodies everything that people who rag on the guy rag on him for. Again, I dig the guy, but I think if you want to analyze a filmmaker EVERYTHING has to be in front of you. You can sometimes learn more from the mistakes they make than you can from their artistic successes (the filmmakers themselves should, too, otherwise they generally make sequels that degrade the originals).

  • April 10, 2001, 1:55 a.m. CST


    by Domi'sInnerChild

    Remember, De Palma, Coppola, and Carpenter had spotless records at one point. Anyway, what's with the angry posters who are so disgusting with the thought of people expressing displeasure with films, trailors, scripts, etc.? Isn't that the point of Talk Backs? To give your opinion, whether it's positive or negative. You know, opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one, just some are bigger than others.

  • April 10, 2001, 2:02 a.m. CST

    As for the trailor

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    Just in my opinion. I was sort of on the fence with this movie. The teaser did nothing for me and this totally turned me off. In my case, it didn't work at all and I feel I'm part of the target audience (married guy in his 20's with a wife that likes sappy movies). Right now, I want to avoid this thing like one of those Man Show movies you wouldn't get caught dead watching. It's not even that I hate sappy movies, Hell I'll admit I welled up during "Maaaaaaa, Maaaaaa" in Babe. These rumors of the story actually being outstanding and not just a rehash of little wooden boy had better be true or I'll work late the entire month and a half AI is in release to avoid seeing it.

  • April 10, 2001, 2:05 a.m. CST


    by MOSDEF

    Thanks for pointing out the ones I missed...Last Crusade was fun and Hook was misguided...But I think Lost World is slightly underrated, it's a REAL MONSTER movie like it or not, I saw as a homage to movies like THEM! and John Williams score was excellent. And it proved that Spielberg DOES have a mean streak. but don't get me wrong... I absolutely adore Kubricks Work!!! 2001 is one of the most powerful films ever made, and and how could any self respecting film geek not love A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and DR STRANGELOVE...but I also acknowledge that Kubrick appeals more to "Film Junkies" like us but don't get me wrong I think his work is brilliant (especially the VERY underrated BARRY LYNDON). But he has made some bad films (The Shining, Eyes Wide Shut, The last half of Full Metal Jacket was a letdown) And I could just kick myself for not mentioning Spike Lee. But Spielberg ranks higher for me because he's mastered the the juggling act between art and pop entertainment. I just think its unfair to call him a Hack, which he clearly is not. But you're right about Atom Egoyan (The Sweet Hereafter was just plain profound), Terry Gilliam, Spike Lee, amd Scorsese. The jury is still out on Ang Lee, the Ice Storm was great Ride With Devil was slight dissappointment and Crouching Tiger was a excellent (I haven't seen his early chinese films), But i never "got" Woody Allen's movies. P.S. it's nice to have REAL film discussion on this site, nice break from arguing about whether the green goblin's suit is cool or not.

  • April 10, 2001, 2:16 a.m. CST

    Oh FUCK QUICKTIME!! God damn it Harry can't you ever have a trai

    by Troublemaker2000

    Shitty Quicktime: first of all it's poor quality, second of all I can never get it to load on my system here. Just once can't we have a CHOICE of formats in which to play these multimedia goodies? Every other site on the web that shows short films offers three different formats to choose from but not AICN! Quicktime only. Why do you do this Harry? You are limiting your audience terribly.

  • April 10, 2001, 2:39 a.m. CST

    Uh... Hitchcock?

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    Orson Wells, John Huston, Akira Kurosawa, Joel Schumacher... come on there are other filmakers with similar track records as Spielberg. He just made more money.

  • April 10, 2001, 3:03 a.m. CST

    I dunno, this could be good, or it could be Spielberg's return t

    by Rhinoceros

  • April 10, 2001, 3:17 a.m. CST

    A.I. (TRAILER)

    by FRANZ

    I thoroughly agree with you, Harry Knowles. The A.I. trailer is everything cinema ought to be. There's hope. And your feelings about it gave me, as a newcomer to AICN, a true insight into your character. We need a dozen films like A.I. every year to balance the trendy negativity postured by so many on your site. Thank you.

  • April 10, 2001, 4 a.m. CST

    Joel Schumacher?!?!?!?!?!?!?

    by Celedhring

    Man, Am I dislexic or has someone hinted that Joel Schumacher has a *good* track record?!?!?!?! And bringing his name along Orson Welles and Kurosawa?!?! That's an insult to those great filmmakers. St. Elmo's Fire, That stupid young vampires flick, Batman Forever, Batman and Robin, 8mm, Flawless don't make for a Spielberg-level career, methinks. I would save Falling Down and Tigerland, which are interesting films, although both very flawed. But if those are supposed to be the HIGHLIGHTS of your career...

  • April 10, 2001, 4:12 a.m. CST

    That was obviously a joke

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    I was just wondering if anybody was reading my posts

  • April 10, 2001, 4:34 a.m. CST

    I don

    by Matt

    everybody who saw this lil

  • April 10, 2001, 4:54 a.m. CST

    that trailer...

    by Brendon

    really is rather bad. Ah well. I knew it would be. But I hoped it wouldn't be quite so lumpen. So forced. Artless, craftless, limp. As film-making exercises go, AI is going to show itself up rather blatantly, I expect. Poor Stanley. First, Eyes Wide Shut, and now this.

  • April 10, 2001, 4:58 a.m. CST

    WoW! Simply... beautiful! Fantastic! SPIELBERG LIVES!

    by Professor_X

    FUCKING GREAT! AI trailer is as beautiful as the remarkable touch of that extraterrestrial! We have here the ET of 21st Century!

  • April 10, 2001, 4:59 a.m. CST


    by Brendon

    cirrus socrates particle decibel hurricane dolphin tulip ah man. That's POETRY. can I tap a stake into Spielberg's heart? If he fucking well has one.... Ah. Of course he does. It's the BRAIN he's missing.

  • April 10, 2001, 5:07 a.m. CST


    by Celedhring

    Man, you should be more careful. Things like that can make you a lot of enemies... (I almost had a heart-attack when I read it)

  • April 10, 2001, 5:30 a.m. CST

    John Williams Does It Again...?

    by Jim Lad

    The music sounds excellent. very haunting indeed........

  • April 10, 2001, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Spielberg's carreer

    by Lethal Waffle

    Let me add my opinion on Spielberg.. I join those of you who are positive about him... I think also Spielberg is certainly one of the best directors ever... although ironically he's not my favourite as I prefer directors with "an edge" (Fincher, Burton, Coen, Tarantino... directors who take risks and have a non-mainstream universe). For me Spielberg never take risk (except JAWS) and his universe is "too nice" for me (kids, love, etc...). Still he's one of the best because as some of you wrote he's probably the best to link art to entertainment... For me JURASSIC PARK deserved to be more violent and bloody, still done by another director it would never have been such a big success... JP was a real "society event" and kids love it... it allowed dinosaurs to be popular again (ask any Natural History Museum the good Spielberg did to them)... and to be able to be appealing to everyone WITHOUT being just commercial is a real talent and Spielberg is the only one to have it today... But you have to see further that the director, he's also a really talented producer, not even talking about a studio "builder"... as I said his universe was "too nice", still he managed to produce a classic like GREMLINS... so I too praise the man... Concerning A.I. unfortunately, I have to admit I am not that excited about the film... it seems again "too nice"... although beautiful to watch... usually I hate films that star a kid (6th Sense being an exception)... so I am curious... I'll be there on opening day anyway, but I doubt it will be my summer's favourite...

  • April 10, 2001, 6:19 a.m. CST

    I'd just like to say that Quicktime 5 sux ass.

    by Sith Lord Jesus

    It cratered on me twice when I tried downloading the vid. Granted, it's 5 so it's a beta, and I *am* running this on a 98 box, but still. . .Windows Media Player, OTOH? Flawless. Gee, I wonder why. As for the trailer: *Sniff.* Beautiful. I will BE THERE at opening weekend, and bring a lot of tissues.

  • April 10, 2001, 6:44 a.m. CST

    NO JOKE : Have you notice the Dead people behind Joel and the ma

    by SwissBen

    If you look well at the trailer, the moment Joel looks behind the mask, through the holes you can see a bunch of dead kids on the stairs (left eye of mask) and on a desk (right eye). This scares the hell out of me. SwissBen

  • April 10, 2001, 7:15 a.m. CST

    Spielberg discography

    by Hud

    MosDef, some would even add "Poltergeist" to Spielberg's credits. (Reportedly, Spielberg repaired Tobe Hooper's work on the film, and there is much in the family drama of the film to make this report plausible.) Myself, I prefer my robots/androids to be sinister, not spaniel-like, so I will probably pass on "A.I.," but I think you defended Spielberg admirably, if a little too ardently. His record balances a handful of masterpieces against far too many works of cloying sentiment, the kind of movies Michael Jackson would make. Spielberg doesn't seem to have adult concerns as a filmmaker, and fair or not, this has to count against him in any overarching consideration of his movies. Most disappointing to me is that his idealization of childhood hasn't really evolved in 20 years, though childhood certainly has. It's fair to say an actual child would make a more sophisticated movie about childhood than Spielberg would.

  • April 10, 2001, 7:38 a.m. CST

    Nice, but I like the first one more.

    by Lenny Nero

    It had a better elegance to it. This one was a tad creepy.

  • April 10, 2001, 7:59 a.m. CST

    D*A*R*Y*L*L* Rules!!!!!

    by Mel Garga

    Any movie that mixes David St. Hubbins, Garp's wife, a Danny Bonaducci look-alike named Turtle, and the little shit from the Neverending Story has got to be awesome. What's more, any movie that reminds me of that is well worth seeing. I can't wait for this Osment kid to hit puberty and get ugly so that we may find some relief from his over-emotional acting. It worked once in Sixth Sense but don't push us you little bastard! Pay it Forward was horrible, especially the incredibly sappy, chick-flick pandering ending.

  • April 10, 2001, 8 a.m. CST


    by abcdefz

    In one of J.D. Salinger's stories, a character defines sentimentality as "loving something more than God does." Not a bad definition. There's also a difference between sentiment and sentimentality: sentiment shows us something about being human while sentimentality curdles humanity to try to jerk our strings. So, funny enough, I find E.T. a masterwork of sentiment and Private Ryan spoiled by sentimentality. Here's hoping A.I. is one of the former.

  • April 10, 2001, 8:16 a.m. CST

    Toonimator, Im glad you noticed...


    The stretched A too. Personally I hate that freaking logo. I like the transition as the boy exits the "a" but the damn letter just looks strained and contrived. I mean whey the hell did'nt they just dot the "i" by giving him a ballon?? It just seems like a hollywood marketing dork came up with that one. Kubrick would eat his hat if he saw that logo!

  • April 10, 2001, 8:26 a.m. CST

    The Irony is...

    by Lobanhaki

    That neither Haley, nor Spielberg are what could be called manipulative. Both know when to let the points be expressed, and when, ultimately to shut up and just let the audience get it. Nearly half the trailer is filled with nothing but white, the code words, and ultimately just the blunt voice of William Hurt, and the expectant voice of whoever it is playing Haley's mother,speaking those significant but meaningless words. Then we get Haley's voice, and about the only thing he does is move stiffly and look ahead. Even then, this is enough for the cynics to cry "manipulative!". All Spielberg and Osment are doing is setting up tension through meaningful and cryptic means, and then handing it off to you. In other words, they have a knack for making you manipulate yourself, and not getting in the way by trying to do that themselves. A further irony is that people actually think Kubrick was going to direct this. It was always going to be directed by Spielberg. Kubrick was developing it for him. They were indeed together on this, and I think Spielberg has good instincts on this. I think some people in this talkback just don't like work that is romantic (in the philosophical way, not the genre way.) and which openly appeals to emotions instead of sticking to cold rationality or irrationality.

  • April 10, 2001, 8:29 a.m. CST

    His love is real....

    by castaway

    as much as i like the little stuff in life like talking about the green goblin suit, i have to agree, it's about time we here on the aicn talkback had a REAL discussion on film thanks in part to this little sweeping sci-fi epic (masterpiece hopefully) from the shrewd and, dare I say? visionary mind behind some of the best films normal everyday people who go to the films for a good time and don't necessarily give a flying piece of hog shit about the art of filmmaking can like (no, scratch that, love). before i continue i have to say please quit knocking eyes wide shut. you people out there who traverse the internet everyday will be talking about that film 20 years from now, i can guaran-fucking-tee it. second of all, one of you knocked full moon entertainment....pardon me for being a noble disciple of the koran of puppet master but please don't knock that little b-rated studio. true it may not have the self-referential substance and campy fun that troma has but, dammit, they do try to make some fairly decent (okay, fun) flicks and, while special effects may have de-evolved since their little deal with paramount pictures fell through, they probably give consideration to budding young scriptwriters who normally wouldn't make it past the front door in the rest of hollywood. Back to a.i., i probably should not be posting but i have not seen this new trailer yet, but i am salivating over it (damn i wanted to go see along came a spider this weekend)to some of the people that say this is creepy, it may not have occurred to you that maybe this is what senor spielbergo intended. the environment for the trailer may have been tailor-made to seem to "artificial" and too overtly sterilized, kind of the unintentional way bicentennial man was creepy in certain scenes (why the fuck did i rent that film, i'll never know, i just hope ai ain't "bicentennial boy") Spielberg is also PURPOSEFULLY making this film mysterious in nature because he felt it was more stan"the man" Kubrick's little dystopian(sp)opus (i mean bloody hell, he has even admitted to replicating some of kubrick's famous shooting techniques, even though ai will be uniquely his own work) although i am disappointed to learn of how he has supposedly changed the ending in some way to make it more sacchirine (sp) but this just leads me to hope that there will be an alternate ending on the DVD or a more detailed ending like the special edition of close encounters. plus i would like to gamble on many of you people out there went out and saw eyes wide shut based on the fact that all of its damn trailers were nothing more than a random collection of images made to go together with a chris isaak song, huh?) Please give this film half a fucking chance people, i know it is not regular hollywood bullshit albeit fun and guilty pleasure flavor filled popcorn fare like planet of the apes or jason X (WHOA talk about your guilty pleasures) but frankly if all you haters can't deal with the fact that mr. haley android osment ain't tearing people apart like its nobody's business, THEN STAY THE FUCK AWAY. go home and make your own version of a sequel to Virus and cast yo mama as the jaimie lee curtis character when june 29th rolls around. transmission set to end soon, this is castaway, gettin' high and in the mood on some mechanical methaphetamines signing off p.s.- now to go impale some people(correction, fanboy scum who can't accept new ideas) on a goblin glider of my own for dissing the theatrical might of Spidey.

  • April 10, 2001, 8:36 a.m. CST

    to return to other matters

    by castaway

    hats off to abcdefz and lobanhaki(sp) for hitting nails on the head and making good points baron vonflapjack, don't despair, the light at the end of the tunnel may be you, you'll get through it, you have the power and resiliency, it is ingrained into the consciousness of every human being on God's green earth, even the realistically challenged like our good future friend David Swinton.

  • April 10, 2001, 8:45 a.m. CST

    A.I.: Electric Boogadie

    by B'lo Average

    Bruce Campbell should play the robot kid and The ROCK should play the bear. That right there is the formula for box office gold.

  • April 10, 2001, 8:49 a.m. CST


    by bswise

    Yeah to all you self-hating Spielberg haters out there, who are all

  • April 10, 2001, 9:50 a.m. CST

    bswise perfectly captures people who rave about Spielberg.

    by The Pardoner

    "Quit thinkin

  • April 10, 2001, 10:07 a.m. CST


    by Kyle.Reese

    I'm no major film buff (even though I'm about to start university in a film course), but in my opinion Jimmy Cameron is the greatest director of our fair planet. He has got a drive and vision that I think goes light-years beyond Mr Spielberg. Cameron writes, directs, edits and does almost every other task available. He's a real autuer... The trouble with Spielberg is that he doesn't give his audience room to think freely. He's far too straight-forward and obvious, especially with sentimentality. I wouldn't be surprised if in the end of A.I, the poor robot boy will die and all his friends will weep just as the credits come up.

  • April 10, 2001, 10:25 a.m. CST

    in fact, Jamie's very much correct...

    by mdi6a

    especially when those who responded to his post are all but one.... :)

  • April 10, 2001, 10:31 a.m. CST

    What are you talking about, Mosdef?

    by Billy Talent

    Calling Spielberg the worlds greatest film maker is like calling Stephen King the worlds greatest author. It simply ain't so! Yes, they're both talented, they're both fantastically popular, and at their best they do what they do very well. But they are, essentially, gifted hacks. Kubrick was an original artist who made entirely distinctive,fascinating, completely inimitable and endlessly imitated works of art. Spielberg's films are clearly pieced together from parts of other film makers - including Kubrick's - work. A Kubrick is instantly recognizable as Kubrick, which is why Stephen King prefers Rob Reiner or Frank Darabont. In the end, what's the difference between a new Spielberg film and a new Ron Howard film? Hopefully Ol' Moneybags will bring a little something extra to A.I., a film I do desperately want to see and which I really hope I can like. In response to your challenge, since Kubrick's demise Scorsese is clearly the most accomplished working American film maker, with Altman a possible second. The Coens are up there. And, although it's been more than twenty years since he made a decent film, Coppola has four damn fine movies to his credit. These are innovators. Spielberg's films make the big bucks because they are familiar and comfortable. All films manipulate; Spielberg's do so with a particular transparency. Saving Private Ryan tells you how to feel. Full Metal Jacket and Dr Strangelove don't.

  • April 10, 2001, 10:34 a.m. CST

    I don't think it's new John Williams music in the trailer...

    by Ambrose Chappell

    Isn't it from Krzysztof Kieslowski's Color Trilogy (specifically from the film "Blue")? Now, I could be wrong, and if I am, may a thousand hungry talkback demons fillet my soul and serve it to Harry as a McAmbrose burger with cheese.

  • April 10, 2001, 10:41 a.m. CST

    And while we're on the subject...

    by Billy Talent

    As far as balancing art and mass appeal, Kubrick was uniquely succesful as an art film maker whose art films made buckets of money. Not quite Spielberg dollars, but we've all seen his films, and even if you haven't you've seen bits of them in commercials and on the Simpsons and in Spielberg movies.

  • April 10, 2001, 10:49 a.m. CST

    wow MATTUN.. you're a real a**hole...

    by keisereela

    Jamie Sonil had a legit observation,.. in fact, his post only echos previous complaints here. man, you're a sad case mane.

  • April 10, 2001, 10:55 a.m. CST

    wow MATTUN.. you're a real a**hole...

    by keisereela

    Jamie Sonil had a legit observation,.. in fact, his post only echos previous complaints're a sad case case boy.... i have made some friends here, and like Celedhring said, you don't want to make enemies here. trust me, we've seen this happen before... hey, we all know the difference between an insult and opinion right.

  • April 10, 2001, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Something I would like cleared up

    by otis von zipper

    Someone please clear something up for me. At what point did Kubrick hand this project over to Spielberg? First time I heard Spielberg's name attached to this project was AFTER Kubrick died. Never prior. I also remember reading about AI as his next film after Full Metal Jacket, but couldn't find a method of creating a robot boy to his liking, so he moved onto Eyes Wide Shut (which I agree will increase in appreciation as the years go by). And I have no knowledge of Kubrick ever handing a project over to another filmmaker before. Also, someone please please please reassure me this will not be another Bicentennial Man. P.S. I agree the trailer is done nicely.

  • April 10, 2001, 11 a.m. CST

    And that damned John Williams music

    by Billy Talent

    No Strauss or Lygetti or Wendy Carlos for our boy Steven. I hope that God is a wrathful, Old Testament type (with the fire and the brimstone and a hail of frogs) and I hope that He and Stanley have some really cool plans for what to do to Spielberg if he screws this up. And normally Full Moon Movies rock, but I recently saw one called 'Sideshow' that was easily one of the worst films I've ever seen, although I kind of liked it anyways. And I really do hope that A.I. is good. It does seem like they're really downplaying the Kubrick connection though. Spielberg has made some lame films, as well as some good ones; this one could be unforgivable.

  • However, I also do think mattun is a moron.

  • April 10, 2001, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Excellent trailer!

    by Pips Orcille

    For once, this is a trailer that doesn't spoil the movie. I like what Spielberg is doing here. It shows so little and keeps you curious.

  • April 10, 2001, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Kubrick vs. Spielberg

    by Darth Tenor

    I think that Spielberg might be a director of the calibre of Kubrick, Kurosawa, and the like if he wasn't so drawn to mushy sentimentality. The concept (as I understand it) of AI is quintessential Kubrick; that is to say, a story of the dehumanization of people. However, would Kubrick ever say "His love is real. But he is not."? I don't think so. This propensity for cheap manipulation is what separates Spielberg from Kubrick and company.

  • April 10, 2001, 11:49 a.m. CST

    I liked it.

    by superninja

    The narraration seemed a bit heavy handed, but I loved the shot of him stepping up to the mask. Almost reminded me of...Kubrick. Let's hope this isn't another exercise in over sentimentality. I don't think that kind of approach is suited to this theme. GREAT MUSIC!

  • April 10, 2001, 12:23 p.m. CST


    by bclough55

    Kubrick vs. Spielberg is an argument I would handily give to Kubrick, my favorite director of all time. Arguments: classic films like 2001, Clockwork, Strangelove, Lyndon, Shining, and then damn good films like Metal, Eyes (tired of the bashing, the movie is great), Spartacus, and Paths of Glory. Spielberg on other hand should not be marginalized as he has three masterpieces to his name, in no particular order, Jaws, Raiders, and Schindler. Also a handful of other great films by him I appreciate are Amistad (underrated), Ryan, JP, Always, etc... Current directors alive that can rival if not eclipse Spielberg are Scorsese, Gilliam, Coens, Allen (more his writing than direction), Soderbergh, Mann, etc... Point is look at the director of a film to see if it'll be any good, not the actors...

  • April 10, 2001, 12:25 p.m. CST

    nobody can like both Elvis and the Beatles equally

    by Sixdoublefive321

    It cracks me up how so many talk-backers seem to want to boil Spielberg and Kubrick down to one or two facets of their styles: Spielberg is "mushy, sentimental, makes kid's movies." Kubrick is "cold, distant, he alienates the audience." Well, the truth is, they're both great. I may not like every single frame of every movie either one of them did, but I like enough frames to feel that they, arguably and in their own way, rock the house. And think about this: Spielberg may have aimed a lot of his movies toward younger audiences, but it's largely because of him and "Temple of Doom" that we now have a PG-13 rating, that was the straw that broke the MPAA's back. And Kubrick, at one point, was in talks with Julia Roberts to be in "A.I." (I dunno which role but imagine the talk backs that would've produced). We've got a lot of spare time in this life (otherwise, none of us would be wasting it on talk-backs) so there should plenty of room for both Spielberg and Kubrick... and Hitchcock and the Coens and David Lynch and Scorsese and Peckinpah and anybody else that makes great movies. Would I rather see Kubrick's version of A.I.? Damn straight! but I'd also rather see his version of "Napoleon" and I know neither one are gonna happen.

  • April 10, 2001, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Dr Floyd

    by MOSDEF

    C'mon your not seriously trying to say that Spielberg is on Ron Howard's level...And about the sentimentality thing...where does it come from? Spielberg has a subversive mean streak (Raiders, Jaws, Lost World, Poltergeist) and besides all that he knows how to shoot a beautiful film...visually. The Coen Brothers, Fincher, Tim Burton have yet to make a film that tops Spielbergs BEST films (E.T., Close Encounters, Schindler's List, The Color Purple)and YES I do agree that Kubrick is on par with him, but for me Spielberg slightly edges out Kubrick. Why do people rail on Spielberg for being overly sentimental? Schindler's List was remarkably restrained almost to the point of being a documentary, Raiders and Lost World where seriously subversive and mean in a fun sort of way...Out of all the art films I've seen and loved Raiders has the most PROFOUND yes PROFOUND endings in film history...How many filmmakers (besides P.T. Anderson) have the balls to end a film with an act of GOD! So Spielberg has made the BEST action movie ever made (Raiders) The best children's film ever made (E.T.) ONE of the best sci fi films ever made (Close Encounters) THE Second Best film about the African American expierience (The Color Purple, Do the Right thing being the first) The Best MONSTER movie ever made (JAWS!) and one the best films ever made period (SCHINDLER'S LIST) What else is he to do? What will it take to get your respect? He's the master of POP entertainment on the screen.

  • April 10, 2001, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Sixdoublefive is RIGHT!!!

    by MOSDEF

    I forgot to mention that Spielberg is responsible for the PG-13 rating...The infamous beating heart scene from Temple of Doom! But both Kubrick and Spielberg are GREAT! I'm excited to see a collaboration of the two.

  • April 10, 2001, 12:35 p.m. CST

    RE: Mace Windex

    by Kyle.Reese

    Finally there's someone out there who has the same view on Pearl Harbour as myself. It is basically attempting to re-make the Titanic success. Big grand finale, lots of tragedy, lots of effects and being promoted on how big it is. Except the difference between the films is that with Titanic Cameron had passion towards what he was doing. He researched, wrote and directed. He even went to the actual wreck. Pearl Harbour is just an obvious manufactured spin on the magic of Titanic. Bay, you will never be Cameron so quit trying!... Oh, and since this is a A.I talk back, I'll just add that while we critise this movie, it doesn't change the fact that we're all gonna see it, and Spielberg will be even richer (har-de-har-har).

  • April 10, 2001, 12:47 p.m. CST

    not that it matters...

    by Toonimator

    ...but I'm retracting my supposition that the logo's been changed and squeezed so the "I" boy can't fit into the "A" boy-cutout. There's a bit of a cast shadow on both letters, same basic color as the letters, so the A looks narrower on the inside, the I looks thicker. A quick cut-and-paste revealed they do still match... anyways... we now return you to your regularly scheduled Spielberg/Kubrick debates

  • April 10, 2001, 12:51 p.m. CST

    what makes this trailer seem and feel so cool

    by FlickGuy18

    what makes this trailer seem and feel so cool is not just the use of white fades and simple design. it's the music. the music, like the layout, is extremely simple, yet the tune that is played is very powerful. the tone and sound of each note, combined with the background hum as it builds really adds to the trailer immensely. it is what made the first teaser feel so interesting and cool. think about it - if there was no music, or it was just typical music performed by an orchestra, it wouldnt feel the same. music can have more of an effect on movies then most think. many of the scenes of, oh say, gladiator are really hieghtened by the powerful score. the mystical feel of crouching tiger was heightened by the slow, thoughtful cello and strings... thats all.

  • April 10, 2001, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Kubrick and Spielberg in the AFI

    by Boba_Fett

    I figure I might as well mention that Spielberg has 5 films (Jaws,Schindler's List, Raiders Of The Lost Ark, E.T., Close Encounters Of The Third Kind) in the AFI top 100 list (a very respectable organization that actually knows good film, unlike some....*cough* Oscars *cough*), whilst Kubrick only has 3 (2001: A Space Odyssey, Dr. Strangelove, A Clockwork Orange).

  • April 10, 2001, 1:20 p.m. CST

    Spielberg fans I ask you

    by otis von zipper

    Something about Spielberg has bugged me for some time, and I'm curious how others feel. Many of his films are great to excellent, some not so good, as everyone has been going over and over and over. But one particular film has left a sour taste in my mouth with regards to the man. Close Encounters. I saw it when it was released and truly loved it. A few years later a "Special Edition" was released that included new footage and different edits. This new Special Edition was a vastly inferior film to the original, and ever since it has become THE definitive version of the movie. It still is good, but the changes made were all changes for the worse. The fact that Spielberg chose to do this and exchange this version for the original, well, irritates me. It's his movie to do with as he pleases, I'm just really sorry he decided to do this, and it's caused me to be skeptical of him as a quality filmmaker. Beyond that, there's no doubt that he IS the most artistically valid filmmaker of mass appeal, Cameron being a rather distant second mainly because he's about 12 films behind. It would be nice though to be able to dump the qualifier "with mass appeal", but then he suffers compared to many other directors working today on a strictly artistic level.

  • April 10, 2001, 2:04 p.m. CST

    New trailer oddity

    by poogle

    I actually kinda liked it. Not at all what I thought it was going to be though. I played it in slow motion to see the dead kids in the background, but I'll bet they're just supposed to be more androids.....also in slow motion I got an extra long look at those terrible looking tick marks in the "summer 2001" bit. I think I'm starting to catch on, and they're not just some artists TERRIBLE sense of style. Has anyone else seen them?

  • April 10, 2001, 2:10 p.m. CST

    your sure best picture contender

    by cifra2

    Despite my feelings of blandy Spielberg coming back with another sentimental stuff, I think this is obvious Oscar-calibre. Ya know, Stanley Kubrick's dreamed story, directed by King-of-Hollywood-two-academy-award-winner-most-grossing-director-of-all-time, with child sensation Osment, with the excellent Jude Law... Let's count: A.I., Pearl Harbour, Lord of the Rings... two more, please, and the five contenders for best picture would be served.

  • April 10, 2001, 2:33 p.m. CST

    The Oscars 2002

    by Stosslova

    add Captain Corelli and Harry Potter to your three, Cifra, and that's the big five.

  • April 10, 2001, 2:43 p.m. CST

    harry potter?

    by cifra2

    Well, you maybe right, I agree with the Cage-Cruz flick by John Madden... but Harry Potter... I've seen only part of the trailer (I live in Spain) and my sense is that its Oscar chances are a big NO: if Home Alone didn't score a best picture nod (Thanks, God) this one will score minor nominations. The fifth will be an underdog, this year's surprise, this year's "Full Monty", "Babe", "Pulp Fiction"... you know what I mean.

  • April 10, 2001, 3:05 p.m. CST

    back to the kubrick vs. spielberg debate

    by cifra2

    Well, here goes my point of view. Both are masters. Both had directed horrible films. Kubrick directed the boring, boring and boring "Barry Lyndon", but I like every other film he directed. Spielberg directed "Hook", "Amistad" (which only had the delight of Anna Paquin as Queen Isabel II of Spain, my country) and the not-so-good-but-far-from-bad "Always" and "1.941" (which anyway I find funny enough to see it again and again), but, hey "Nobody's perfect"... even Mr. Hitchcock didn't direct the shower scene in "Psycho", it was Saul Bass who created it. Mmmm. Just one more thing, for the curious, I live 75 km. from Orson Welles grave in Ronda (M

  • April 10, 2001, 3:31 p.m. CST

    WOOOHAAAA!!!! Let's all attack Mattun!!!!

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    Wow, I crack a joke at 2am and everybody gets up at arms. Did I take a shot at a girl or something? The whole "echoes other talkbackers" thing was the reason I was a little cranky. There's been a lot of bitching about "how dares anyone make a negative comment about the trailor of a movie they haven't seen (especially if it's about something I like)". I'm sorry if I offended anybody.

  • April 10, 2001, 4 p.m. CST

    mattun... not offended at all

    by cifra2

    But you REALLY think "Babe" is sappy? Well, if you don't see that it is an "Animal Farm" for kids and for the non-communist (the pig surviving it destiny by finding a new kind of job instead of making a revolution). It is one of the better movies of the nineties, 'cause it works with kids, but it is an adult film. It was robbed at the Academy Awards, but I suggest Mel Gibson to combine forces with George Miller and produce "Babeheart", the story of a scottish pig who leads the animal farm to a revoution against the english - gay - farmer and will end betrayed by a mad cow. Sure Oscar, isn't it? ;)

  • April 10, 2001, 4:01 p.m. CST

    HOLY MOLEY thank god i have a cable modem

    by Stimpson J Cat

  • April 10, 2001, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Why have I been mispelling trailer for the past 24 hours?

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    I think I wrote it trailor like 10 times. That what I get for working until 4am last night.

  • April 10, 2001, 4:26 p.m. CST

    I take back the sappy Babe comment

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    It just was the first family movie that came to mind.

  • April 10, 2001, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Appropriate Tribute

    by Tad Spaceghost

    Kubrik's work, all of it, was without a doubt, AI. I say this meaning all of his films were the elements that make up this still yet to be fully realized development or evolution into the future. We're still not there Kubrik, but we're getting closer each day. This trailer, wisely orchestrated, feels Kubrick. The visual, the sound, the emotion. It is Kubrick's film, he just got his best friend to shine it up a little, and who else knows how to make a dramatic story shine other than Speilberg.

  • April 10, 2001, 5:04 p.m. CST

    Various ramblings....

    by Fitzy Funk

    First off, why do people begin their posts with immature and irrelevant thoughts about what DVD's they are waiting for "in the mail." This isn't the place for it, especially if it's dreck like Charlie's Angel's, and this isn't the place for a comment like mine either, so I'll stop that there. Next, someone mentioned Speilberg vs. Kubrick in terms of the AFI list and seemed to be convinced that it was authoritative. It's not...the Oscar's aren't either. Kubrick, regardless of your opinion of him, is one of the few truly great personal artists working within the medium of film in the past 50 years (he's right up there with Hitch in that timespan). Speilberg's movies on the list were all good (Close Encounters wasn't that good, but I digress..), but look at the Kubrick films that didn't make the list: Paths of Glory, The Killing, Lolita, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut. Take a look at the list of Speilberg films that didn't make the cut. Two words: quality control. Someone also mentioned that Speilberg was a better director because he has made films in all different genres. Once again, not true. Where's his noir, gritty crime thriller, murder suspense story, pure action flik, romantic comedy, etc.? No director can be expected to make a film in every single genre imaginable, and both Speilberg and Kubrick, no matter which genre they dabble in, eventually make a film their own through certain repeated techniques. After all, why do you think we're having this debate? I think the guy who said Speilberg is "gateway" and likened Kubrick to the "harder" stuff hit the conclusion of this debate right on the money. Great directors, different reasons.

  • April 10, 2001, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Sure, Bari! Lessee... song... "A,I.".... gaaasp!!!

    by user id indeed!

    I know! Ahem. AAAA. IIIII.... don't get all sad. (duh duh duh duh duh) Take your Te-DDYYYY, and go to New Yo-oh-ork (dun duh duh duh) Aw, dammit (dum), it's now an undersea place. So pick up the pa-ace, and go see rock shows. (Duh dum dummm) AAAA IIIIIII, you look all down. (dum dum duh dum dum) Maybe iiit's cuuuz, you hang with Jude La-a-aww (duh dum dum dum) He's creepy, and his hair looks pretty odd (dum dum) so no Oscar no-od, cuz look at Bjo-ooork. A-A I-I-IIIII, get flesh and blooood (duh duh dum duh dum), stay outta sex bars, stick with your robot buds (dum duh dum dum) Show the world, that Spielberg's stiiill got some kick, and won't short-stiiiick, the Late Greaaat KUUUBRICK, KUBRICK, KUBRICK, KUBRICK, KUBRICK, KUBRICK, AAAAAAAHHHH! PLIIING, PLIIING PLIIING, PLING PLING PLING PLING! BEEP-BEEP BEEP PLING! AAAAA IIIIII (oh, Haley, HAAAALEY, Haley Haley Haley!) PLIIING, PLING PLING, PLING PLING PLING PLING! PLing pling pling pliiing, AAAA IIII (slowly fades out, with creepy lil' eyes staying in focus. Then zombie monkeys fight out and David grow super robot laser cannons! Woo!) There ya go, Bari Umenema. Enjoy! That Teddy wants me to choose Ultra-Snuggly Snuggle! Awww! This has been a Moment with A Real User ID Indeed! Wait... Gigalo Joe... GI Joe... Supertoys... I... ummm... UUUHHHH... (head explodes).

  • April 10, 2001, 6:13 p.m. CST


    by IronRabbit

    "Spielberg has earned his place in the Hall of Fame, but if you remove his half dozen genuine classics from his filmography, you're looking at a simple above average director." AHAHAHAHAHAHA Talkbackers cheer me up. Thats great. If you don't count the movies where he demonstrated true mastery of film, then he isn't really a master. Ahahahahaha. Honestly, I like where this movie is going. I think Spielberg is great but he kinda beats you over the head with his point. Thats okay though. At least he has something to say. Many movies have nothing to say.

  • April 10, 2001, 6:20 p.m. CST

    And the jury's still out

    by NathanSloan

    This one could be really good or it could be a crapfest. The teaser gave me chills, but I'm still uncertain about the trailer. The entire robot-wants-to-be-human thing *is* overdone, but a theme as broad as that can have many twists and turns. It doesn't really matter how much one "thing" is "done." EVERYTHING has been done already. We just have to wait and see if Spielberg can still work his old magic. But that leaves me with one doubt: it may be a sap-fest. I hope and pray this one handles things Truthfully. It seems like the celluloid could be dripping with oversentimentality, but I'm with Harry on this one: I want to walk into the theatre and fall in love with this movie. Oh yeah, whomever said that America is jaded now and that sappiness doesn't work anymore: please. Sappiness never worked. Granted, this looks like it could be incredibly sappy. But don't mistake simplicity for sappiness. Because it might just be simplicity and not the enemy of all that is rational: sap.

  • April 10, 2001, 6:27 p.m. CST


    by HeywoodFloyd

    "Schindler's List was remarkably restrained almost to the point of being a documentary,"? you've lost your mind. wait a minute, maybe i've lost my mind. you're talking about the holocaust movie with the little girl in the red coat schindler's list directed by steven spielberg, aren't you? is that what you thought was remarkably restrained?

  • April 10, 2001, 6:53 p.m. CST

    That Haley Kid looks creepy. Sort of like if you took Richie Cun

    by Brooklyn Bred

    Oh by the way Bicentenial Brat looks like bullshit!

  • April 10, 2001, 7:06 p.m. CST

    And the Teddy Bear whispers in your ear at night...

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    "You must kill mommy and daddy."

  • April 10, 2001, 7:27 p.m. CST

    I will reveal a secret - at least partially.

    by Marconelly

    As it seems like noone did notice the secret in the trailer (except for the NEO guy), I'll reveal it now. Do a search for words "Jeanine Salla Sentient" on Google. Jeanine is credited as a "Sentient Machine Therapist" in the trailer. You'll be quite surprised by what you'll find. Don't forget to do a Whois on the site you'll find.

  • April 10, 2001, 7:56 p.m. CST

    just doesn't do it for me.

    by ar42

    So far, neither of the two AI trailers have made me interested in seeing the film at all. If anything, they've turned me off by, as several people have pointed out, trying desperately to engage my sense of "child-like wonder." I am perfectly capable of feeling child-like wonder, but when someone is trying desperately to make me do so, I just feel insulted. I still have hopes for the movie, but I have a feeling all I'll be able to think about is how much better it would have been with Kubrick directing.

  • April 10, 2001, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Various sites from trailer

    by Integra got that from obvious reference on the first site. which lead to this: These set up the backstory nicely. Very Asimov influenced. Theres probably many more.

  • April 10, 2001, 10:21 p.m. CST

    Wow, it seems that not only does Star Wars bring out the worst i

    by Ambrose Chappell

    Interesting, but not very amusing.

  • April 10, 2001, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Wait a sec ... Kubrick worked on this puppy for ten years and do

    by AssEyes

    Holy shit.

  • April 10, 2001, 11:38 p.m. CST

    Stan N Steve

    by The Garthim

    Ok, Steven Speilburg can not have become as famous as he has if he sucks. Also, it was public knowledge that Stanley was in close contact with Stevie during the last months of his life. He knew at the end of filming Eyes Wide Shut that he couldn't make AI. He hand chose Steven. Will it suck? I know I am not psychic so I will not throw out that prediction. I do know that the boy who can act, the boy who should have playe young Anikan Skywalker (had the timing been right), Hailey J should put an interesting spin on things. And so WHAT if you think the story is trite. The art of aking a movie is to present a story in such a way that it moves the audience. How many times have we heard of the coming of age story or the guy who loses a girl, or the backstabing friend(s)? But that doesn't stop new ones from being made.If it did, we would have stopped telling stories with Shakespear! Let's just let this ride and alow Steven to show his skills again. We will never know what Stanley's version will be. Let's see how it turns out.

  • April 10, 2001, 11:54 p.m. CST

    spielberg is that hackiest hack who ever hacked

    by Coopcooper

    just kidding. to me, it seems, that his thing is the whole sentimental tug at your heartstrings kinda movie. usually mixed with some awe and wonder and such. and occaisionally he just makes thrilling adventures and horrible blunders. i accept that as "his thing." and he's good at it. i mean, it usually isn't until after he's gotten you all misty eyed or filled your heart with unadulterated patriotism or instilled a sense of childlike wonder that you say, "wait a minute, that was manipulative! now that i've gotten ahold of my jaded cynicism i can say that that was jingoistic/manipulative/ sentimental emptiness designed to..." and so on. at least that's my reaction. now, as far as AI is concerned, i was skeptical with the first teaser. it was kinda cool, but...honestly i can't remember the first one very well. lots of white with some blurry child-thing floating around. whatever. anyway, i had read a lot about Kubrick's preparation, having saved a lot of the articles appearing in the New Yorker around the time of his death. there was some pretty interesting stuff in there. at the time, i was quite dissapointed that the movie would never be made. then i remembered reading that he and speilberg talked about it a lot and he would have wanted senior speilbergo to do it anyway. or something. now this leads me to the new trailer thing. i thought it was fucking cool. it gave me chills. the teddy bear was creepy, as was the scene where he looked through his own face and his creepy blue eyes glowed brightly of the creepy white void. i think its funny how people are complaining that these trailers aren't showing much of anything. because we all know how much we hate trailers that give away the whole movie (Cast Away). besides, i'm sure there will be another trailer that shows a little more to spark a little more interest. i, for one, am excited to see these trailers showing so little but enough to keep me interested, so when i finally go see the fucking thing i can actually experiance it without knowing what to expect. oh yeah, to the guy who was wondering why Kubrick doesn't get story/screenplay credit: well, for one, the story credit goes to whoever wrote the short story from which it was based, and two, Kubrick never wrote a word of any of his movies. Kubrick was a fucking genius, an idea man, if you will, with a brain so wildly creative that he couldn't possibley sit down and write it out. he would have writers live with him at his house and start spouting off all these ideas and leave it to the writer to put it into words. after which he would review it and tear it to shreds and make the person rewrite it with x number of changes and revisions. personally, i think its better that Kubrick gets only a producer credit. that way, if it ends up sucking, they haven't thrown his name all over it. can you imagine the review? "the sentimental, one star piece of trash AI, directed by steven spielberg and the spirit of stanley kubrick, proved that the late filmmaker should have left spielberg alone and stuck to rolling over in his grave..." basically, i really like what i'm seeing so far, and from what i know of the story, it could be very interesting, and very cool. it could even be a fucking masterpiece. but at this point i have an open mind to it, and have yet to set any expectations from it. my interest level will basically be made or broken with the rating. if its 'R' rated i'll expect Kubrickian subject matter, and a film that should be thought provoking and interesting if not a complete masterpiece that i'll think about and discuss for weeks afterward (not that its a sure thing, but its what i'll expect going in). if its 'PG-13', i'll expect it to be more toward Spielberg territory, and surely my heart will swell with childlike wonder as awe is inspired from within and tears stream down my cheeks until i'm on my way home and say, "damn spielberg, that manipulative bastard," and start counting the ways i was played like a harp, then bitterly think about how great Kubrick's version would have been, and how his memory has been disgraced (again, may not be the case, but that's what i'll expect). come to think of it, i'm really putting a lot of weight on the rating. oh well, i've decided to stop rambling.

  • April 11, 2001, 12:16 a.m. CST

    All the hatred

    by Domi'sInnerChild

    There's really been a lot of pissed off feelings on the talk backs lately. Hell, I've drawn a lot of the fire. Pretty much every time I've taken a pot shot at somebody who was whinning so loud I had to turns my speakers down, I get cussed out by five posts from other people. It's like everybody just wants to flame once the talk backs start to die down. You know, whatever, I've brought it on myself by being a prick. But I find it kind of annoying that it's not the person I initially jabbed that suddenly has a post with Shithead written 10 times describing me, but some weird guy I've never seen a post from who would rather write insults than actually post a relavent message. LOOK AT ME!!! LOOK AT ME!!! YOU'RE MOMMA'S SO FAT....

  • April 11, 2001, 12:50 a.m. CST

    creepy teddy bears haunt my waking dreams

    by Coopcooper

    Coop, a strapping young writer age 18-24, sits in front of the blank void of synthetic on screen "paper" that he plans to "write" his great american novel in. currently, writers-block plagues the tortured artist type. suddenly, he catches the long blunt-limbed shadow of Teddy, the isolated nearly insane young man's only friend. Teddy approaches slowly; its fuzzy, stump-like appendages waddling in a cartoonish, almost drunken way(rendered somewhat unsettling by the mechanical precision of the motion). its head turns awkwardly from side to side and its red eyes, glowing irradescently, seem to stare at him constantly despite the fact that they never move. Coop looks at Teddy out of the corner of his eye, trying to remember what ever compelled him to buy such an unsettling and creepy thing. then he remembered that he never actually bought it, it was a christmas present from when he was a little boy. only then it didn't talk or move or anything. in fact, it was in a box under the steps for the last 10 years. Coop trys to shake away the feeling of dread that clutches his spine. his heart almost stops as the glowing red eyes lock with his. he hears a voice: "hello, Coop. remember me? why don't you play with me any more? i could barely breathe in that box surrounded by the corpses of forgotten toys." the voice was that of a child, only each word came out stilted and unnatural. "Jesus Christ," Coop blurted out, without thinking, at the sheer creepiness of whole situation. the voice again permeated from the small bear, red eyes aglow. "i'm not your savior. please don't crucify me. i just want your love and a hug." the small bear waddled over to Coop in its awkwardly calculated way, and feebly attemted to hug Coop's leg. "fuck this," exclaimed Coop as he grabbed the bear by the head, its arms and legs flailing madly. the voice returned: "you're hurting my brains." "there is no god," Coop replied in disgust at the scene playing out before him. he opened up the microwave and shoved the bear inside, slamming shut the door before setting it on high. the voice again, only this time warped: "i love you." Coop watched in astonishment as the creepy little bear melted from the inside out and was startled when the hellfire red eyes exploded against the window. Coop walked away in disbelief. he took out his trusty fifth of Jack Daniels and started drinking. he wouldn't sleep for three days. one week later he was found dead, surrounded by a platoon of 12 inch GIJOE dolls who proceeded to dismember and bury his corpse.***** this random piece of free association writing was brought to you by Coop Cooper. he is fully aware of the inconsistency of the tense in which the story is told, as well as how bad said story sucks. the author wholeheartedly apologizes to any and all who have read this.

  • April 11, 2001, 1:19 a.m. CST

    MOSDEF, and a bunch of other comments.

    by Coopcooper

    first of all, i just get a kick out of MOSDEF. this isn't meant as an attack and i'm not out to offend the person here (although i might), but Raiders is subversive? brutal yes, but not subversive. i really don't think its trying to undermine, overthrow, or corrupt anything or anyone. and one more thing, its kind of silly to propose such a "challenge". i mean, film, as with all art, is a subjective thing. everyone has their opinions. while its fun to argue back and forth from time to time, just for the sake of it, really, because you can't fault someone for their opinion. you can only disagree. and discuss your arguement. blah blah blah i'm going to stop talking like Mister Rogers now. sorry about that. oh, and about the whole "all films are manipulative" arguement: yes, that's true, the same as all actors just pretend, but whether or not you notice it, or are distracted by it plays a key role in ones appreciation for a film. which, again, isn't to say that if one person notices it and their perception of the film is tainted by it, then everyone should in turn feel the same way. "to each, his own," you know? everybody's different. blah blah blah. what's happened to me? i'm turning into the talkback equivalent of an after school special...fuck all of you ugly bastards! i'm an elitist! my opinions are superior to all of yours! your dull and feeble minds pale in comparison to my staggering intellect! fuck you!...ahhh, now i feel much better. and if anyone takes that seriously i extend my deepest sympathy for your inability to take a joke (however unfunny it may be).

  • April 11, 2001, 2:03 a.m. CST

    urge to kill...rising..

    by thatgreenjesus

    Am i the only person who wants to take this kid out back and go crazy with a shovel? From the first minute i even saw the damn trailer to sixth sense, i knew i want to gut punch him, and gut punch him bad. I refer to him as mini-shatner, seeing as how he OVERACTS EVERYTHING. EVERYTHING. (Say it with me this time!) EVERYTHING. I want to stomp his head until my feet are covered in brains. Bah, screw A.I., bring on Re-animator 3! WOO! EVERYTHING!

  • April 11, 2001, 2:14 a.m. CST

    re: cifra2 and "barry lyndon"

    by Sixdoublefive321

    You make some great points but... calling "barry lyndon" 'boring, boring and boring' is, in my opinion, to completely misjudge and misrepresent the film. i, too, avoided "BL" for a long time -- because i don't like "costume dramas," because i mistrusted Ryan O'Neil's casting, because i was daunted by the length of the film. coupled with what i'd heard what other people say about it, i discounted the movie for a long time. Then one snowy day, for no reason i can pinpoint, it came on HBO and the mood caught me and i started watching it and i got sucked in. For three frickin hours. You have to be in the right mood for this movie (as is the case with particular operas or jazz compositions or lengthy novels) but if you are, it is not boring at all. Granted, it moves at a deliberate pace but, hey, what director are we talking about? It's got a big story to tell. And if you get to the duel between Barry and his... "familial nemesis," you will not be bored. It's a scene and a pay-off well worth waiting three hours for. If you have seen the whole movie and, um, you really were bored... then I don't mean to sound like a preacher. But for anybody else who hasn't seen this movie and thinks it sucks? Give it a shot one lazy day, you may be surprised. It's not "Transformers -- The Movie" but it's funnier and more exciting that i expected.

  • April 11, 2001, 4:15 a.m. CST


    by csk360

    You think Spielberg is closer to style to Kubrick then Fincher or the watchowski's? LMAO! Kubrick is the direct counterpart of Kubrick in every way possable. Nore did I say Fincer and the Watchowski's are in the same leagues but they do share some similarties to Kubrick. Far more ever thne Spielberg and his warm, loving, famley orientated way of making movies. all of witch neither Kubrick, Fincher or the Watchowski's never have. It's also obviouse that you don't know a thing about the origins of the movie or why I would of picked any of those three guys over Spielberg. Did you even read the fucking short story or any Of Brian Aldiss work? Of course not, you have better things to do like mouthing off to the world like the armchair film critic that you are. I also noticed that you didn't make a comment on Cunningham obviously because you don't know who the he is either. Eitherway in the end I really don't give a shit what you have to say now or in the future. Anyway, for the rest of you take a look at the official Brian Aldiss web site as it probably has so far the best coverage on the development of AI i've seen yet, including some good stuff about working with Kubrick.

  • April 11, 2001, 4:16 a.m. CST


    by csk360

    You think Spielberg is closer to style to Kubrick then Fincher or the watchowski's? LMAO! Kubrick is the direct counterpart of Kubrick in every way possable. Nore did I say Fincer and the Watchowski's are in the same leagues but they do share some similarties to Kubrick. Far more ever then Spielberg and his warm, loving, famley orientated way of making movies. all of witch neither Kubrick, Fincher or the Watchowski's never have. It's also obviouse that you don't know a thing about the origins of the movie or why I would of picked any of those three guys over Spielberg. Did you even read the fucking short story or any Of Brian Aldiss work? Of course not, you have better things to do like mouthing off to the world like the armchair film critic that you are. I also noticed that you didn't make a comment on Cunningham obviously because you don't know who the he is either. Eitherway in the end I really don't give a shit what you have to say now or in the future. Anyway, for the rest of you take a look at the official Brian Aldiss web site as it probably has so far the best coverage on the development of AI i've seen yet, including some good stuff about working with Kubrick.

  • April 11, 2001, 4:18 a.m. CST


    by csk360

    You think Spielberg is closer to style to Kubrick then Fincher or the watchowski's? LMAO! Kubrick is the direct counterpart of Kubrick in every way possable. Nore did I say Fincher and the Watchowski's are in the same leagues but they do share some similarties to Kubrick. Far more ever then Spielberg and his warm, loving, famley orientated way of making movies. all of witch neither Kubrick, Fincher or the Watchowski's never have. It's also obviouse that you don't know a thing about the origins of the movie or why I would of picked any of those three guys over Spielberg. Did you even read the f*cking short story or any Of Brian Aldiss work? Of course not, you have better things to do like mouthing off to the world like the armchair film critic that you are. I also noticed that you didn't make a comment on Cunningham obviously because you don't know who the he is either. Eitherway in the end I really don't give a s*it what you have to say now or in the future. Anyway, for the rest of you take a look at the official Brian Aldiss web site as it probably has so far the best coverage on the development of AI i've seen yet, including some good stuff about working with Kubrick.

  • April 11, 2001, 4:33 a.m. CST


    by csk360

    You think Spielberg is closer in style to Kubrick then Fincher or the watchowski's? LMAO! Kubrick is the direct counterpart of Spielberg and everything he stands as a filmaker. Nore did I say Fincher or Watchowski's are in the same leagues as Kubrick but they do share and imbrase simler indeas far more ever then Spielberg with his warm, loving, famley orientated way of making movies. all of which neither Kubrick, Fincher or the Watchowski's never have. It's also obviouse that you don't know a thing about the origins of the movie or why I would of picked any of those three guys over Spielberg. Did you even read the f*cking short story or any Of Brian Aldiss work? Of course not, you have better things to do like mouthing off to the world like the armchair film critic that you are. I also noticed that you didn't make a comment on Cunningham obviously because you don't know who the he is either. Eitherway in the end I really don't give a s*it what you have to say now or in the future. Anyway, for the rest of you take a look at the official Brian Aldiss web site as it probably has so far the best coverage on the development of AI i've seen yet, including some good stuff about working with Kubrick.

  • April 11, 2001, 9:56 a.m. CST

    barry lindon maybe a nice film, but...

    by cifra2

    it lacks of good timing, sixdoublenine... I saw it only once, a few years ago and it made me sick to see how the actors took too much delay between a question and an answer... it could have been slightly better if Kubrick had chosen to make it go a little bit faster. Nice costumes, good performances and excellent cinematography sometimes don't compensate for a three hour run that needed only two hours to tell the same story. Other examples? "Dances with wolves", "The thin red line"... However, "The Green Mile" or "JFK" didn't seem to me long at all. Some other examples: "The Matrix" (needs to cut about 15 minutes), "Magnolia" (accurate), "Spartacus" (accurate), "The Godfather I, II & III" (accurate), "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" (cut 20 minutes, please)... and so on.

  • April 11, 2001, 10:33 a.m. CST


    by stitch

    Yuck!!! The music, the slow motion images, the white, that kid. Does Spielberg work for HERSHEY because that thing was beyond SYRUPY!?!? I need to cleanse myself...

  • April 11, 2001, 11:41 a.m. CST

    just one last thing about "barry lyndon" (and other long movies)

    by Sixdoublefive321

    Here's something I read just the other day that deals with the pacing of the : "I have found this to be one of the most emotional films I have ever seen. Kubrick's... audacity was to insist on slowness in order to recreate the pace of life and the ritualized behavior of the time." I guess he means "before TV." That was from Martin Scorsese and while that don't exactly make it the gospel, it's a convincing case from a guy who knows a thing or two about movies and pacing. Can I use another pompous quote I read recently? It's pretty interesting, it was in Pauline Kael's review of "The Godfather": "When one considers the different rates at which people read, it's miraculous that films can ever solve the problem of a pace at which audiences can 'read' a film together." She concludes that a "hack director" solves this problem by making only a few points and making those points so emphatically that no one could miss them. Now, with regards to the other movies you mentioned: "Magnolia," it's a big fat wacky mess and that's part of its charm... but I couldn't help wondering what it would've been like if PTA had run up against a studio boss who had said, "Hey, Speedo, you're gonna have to cut it down to two hours so we can make a little frickin' money off it. And that's final." I'm not in favor of studios limiting their artists with demands to cater to the audience, but I do sometimes believe that restrictions can force them to a clarity that they don't always get when they have final cut.

  • April 11, 2001, 12:40 p.m. CST

    re sixdoublefive321

    by cifra2

    hello again. Interesting what you post. But I keep on thinking the same. I don't need Scorsese or anyone explaining why this movie is slow, it just stroke me as boring and it doesn't mean that I think it is a bad movie. Ryan O'Neal never had such a good performance, and I can understand the movie pacing... I make short films in video (one has played in a local festival here in Spain) and what most disturbes me is to find the right pacing, the right mood. Never bore the audience, the rythim may be slow, but you should never bore the audience. "The Shinning" doesn't bore me... and it is very slow, even more than "Barry Lyndon". It is the same problem that I see with "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon": battles that goes too long and dialogues that sometimes go endless... it is not a bad film, but it doesn't deserve to be a classic, just a minor good film in a master's filmography. Don't be upset for this, it is just my point of view.

  • April 11, 2001, 1:04 p.m. CST

    it's a small world after all

    by Sixdoublefive321

    No, cifra2, I'm not upset at all. In fact, I just enjoy seeing how forums like this can start off talking about a trailer for "A.I." and then evolve over the course of a day or two into a pretty interesting discussion about Kubrick versus Spielberg, the length and pacing of "Barry Lyndon," the supposed-sap factor of "Babe," etc, etc.... Cool stuff. My last words? "I dig movies!" No, wait, let me think. "I'm on drugs!"

  • April 11, 2001, 2:07 p.m. CST

    re sixdoublefive321 (again)

    by cifra2

    Ha ha ha... Good point. OK, I agree. That's why I like forums, too.

  • April 11, 2001, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Very good trailer indeed. Can trailers make you cry? Well, thi

    by Smugbug

    'nuff said.

  • April 11, 2001, 6:14 p.m. CST


    by Lunarnaut

    My friend crewed on AI. Here's some bits he gave me. This is all true. 1. Jude Law is a gigglo robot. He changes his hair color by passing his hand over his face. 2. Brendan Gleeson is a robot hater. He organizes "Flesh fairs" where people vote (a la Ancient Rome) how the robots should be destroyed. He said it is some intense stuff for a kid-friendly film. 3. The robots are controlled by the "Bulls". These are played by bodybuilders (including women) who are reportedly enormous. 4. The metal band Ministry was on set for a week playing a robot band. The guitarist had camera on his guitar that projected his face onto the body of his guitar in real time.