Cool News
2 A.I. Reviews... 1 w/spoilers and 1 with out... labeled for your pleasure...
Hey folks, Harry here.... well here they come... Most likely we will begin to receive reviews for A.I. fairly consistently from here on out. By all means if you've seen it, please write in... When writing an A.I. review if you will please segment your review into Non-Spoiler and Spoiler areas, so that the readers can enjoy your opinion, without ruining or damaging their innocence that they may wish to preserve in advance of seeing the film, I'd be most appreciative. It sounds like Spielberg did it. OH JOY!
Hey Abe Froman here:
Saw AI last night, ill keep it brief.
If you don't like Kubrick, you will have problems. The final third is so Kubricesque you wonder if the guy is dead or working at dreamworks.
The SFX are insane, NYC's skyline is the best look Ive seen in ... You will not be let down by the aesthetic of this movie for one frame. Kaminski does it one more time. Again, the Kubrick Milieu...
Jude Law, Frances O'Connor and the Haley are all outstanding (frances most of all, well Jude too).
You will conncect with the story if you sympathize with Haley's journey (as its told from his POV except the into of Jude and some scientists)as a robot programmed to believe he is/can be a boy, otherwise you will watch as a participant, like I did, and enjoy the film for its statement and not its heartstrings. Its 2hrs and 25 min, and thats just fine.
The ending, I feel should have continued. A missed note I think. You will know what I mean...And now from Mr Know is a look at A.I. In the second half of his review he does a plot synopsis which contains spoilers. HOWEVER, until you read SPOILER WARNING in big type... You will be ok!!!
Harry,
Here is the review I promised.
Just got back from Rouge City where I spent the last two and a half hours with David, Teddy, and Gigolo Joe. That's right I just saw the best movie of the summer A.I. So, far this summer has been a lot of big budget crap with all kinds of action, with a few exceptions. But all that will stop on June 29th, the day where I will go back to the theatre to see A.I. again. You know I'd even pay to see this movie, but I don't have to. Anyways, Speilberg again proves why he is one of the greatest directors around with this brilliant movie that comes at you from so many different angels. The performances are top notch, especially Osment, Gleeson, O'Connor, and Law. The special effects and and cinematography are great, and the story is outstanding. It is a perfect blend of Speilberg and Kubrick, I can't wait to see it again.
Now for those who can't wait two weeks, here a rough outline, beware the spoilers.
SPOILER WARNING SPOILER WARNING!!!
The story starts out with a group of scientists talking about the advances of robots, and that should take the next step and make a child robot who has the ability to love. Then they start a search of company employees who could fit the profile, and receive the first child. We then meet a couple who have a child, however their child is very ill and in cryostasis. The mother (O'Connor) is having a hard time accepting the fact that her child may die. In an attempt to console her suffering, her husband comes home with thier new "toy" (Osment). She is very resistant to the idea, and doesn't want to accept the child. However, David will remain a robot and not love until she recites in a specific order a string of seven words. Eventually, she starts to accept him and recites the words, irreversibly activating the love. Then she gives David a toy, Teddy, who acts more or less as a guide to Daivd. Then comes the first twist, Martin. Martin is the real son, who suddenly is cured and comes home. He treats David as a toy more than a brother, and makes David do things so his parents will get rid of him. Eventually, the parents start to see David as a danger to thier REAL son, and the mother unable to bring David back to be destroyed, brings him out to the woods and abandons him. Then we meet the real "Pimp-bot" Gigolo Joe (Law), who only purpose is to satisfy women. He gets into some trouble and takes off. David then encounters some other robots who are running from the "Flesh Fair". Just then the people from the flesh fair spot them and start chasing them, including David and Joe. Eventually they are caught and brought to a carnival type place. At this carnival called the flesh fair, anti-robot people, destroy robots through torturous means (ex. shooting them out of a canon into a spinning propellor blade) David and Joe escape and go insearch of the "blue Fairy" who David thinks has the abilty to turn him into a real boy and then his mother will love him again. They go and see the Doctor, the only one who has all the answers. He points them in the direction of the end of the world, otherwise known as Manhattan. That's first two acts, I'd say more but I can't give away the entire movie.
This is not a game, but it sure is a hell of a lot of fun.
-Dr. Know-
-
+ Expand All
-
And roll, too!
-
Aaaarrrrgghhh!!! I can't wait to see this movie!!!
-
The clever marketing campaign has raised expectations too high amongst geeks and fanboys. No film can be as good as the hype is suggesting. It will be great but I say: have low expectations and be pleasantly surprised. "It's not a game?" Er, I think you'll find that it *is* very much a game. Peace.
-
Jun 15, 2001 1:38:32 PM CDT
The SECOND I heard about this, I knew it was gonna be great.
by derubermax
-
But of course. I knew Ol' Steve would pull through. He always has, even in the "disappointments" that are 1941, Always and Hook. Hell, I liked all three. Control the hype, expect to see an interesting film and then put down your money and draw your own conclusions.
-
Hollywood will totally try to feed us the rest of its run-of-the-mill BS, but this is the film that will stand out from the hollywood tripe. You know what reviews I read? The ones in my local indie newspaper, you know...The Dallas Observer, The New Times, The . They always have crap reviewers who will exclaim, "Spielburg had no business directing this!!" Or "Spielburg takes a cue from Stanley Kubrick and turns what could have been, blah, blah, blah..." I hate those idiot reviewers! They said shrek was lousy!
-
Well it is Steven Spielberg, so it can't be awful beyond comprehension. And it is material from Stanley Kubrick so it has to be good. The TV spots suggest a cross between Blade Runner and Pinocchio so that's always good. Spielberg or Burton will rule the summer of 2001. Otherwise known as the Summer of Shit. And remember kids, I'm one of the good guys.
-
I hate Spielberg. He is the worst director... ever. Its a shame that he is going to ruin a brilliant Kubrick idea.
-
But I'm still sore over not seeing Minority Report sooner... On a side note, does anybody know the "secret address" (ooh! ahh!) for scifi's new Children of Dune series? mail me if you know!
-
Jun 15, 2001 2:17:15 PM CDT
Yo, Solstiss, geeks and fanboys aren't the only moviegoers out t
by wee willie
In fact we only make up a small percentage of the moviegoing audience. All the REAL people out there are going to see this thing in droves. Why? Two words. Steven Spielberg. As a film prof I had once said "Christ, that guy could get up at three in the morning stoned with a hangover and still direct well". Honestly, I think that anyone who slams Speilberg or calls him a hack is simply a person who knows NOTHING about cinema. (Excepting Jean Luc Godard, of course, but he's a genius, are you?)
-
I know from a reliable source that the second review is NOT a plant, the first one I'm sure isn't either. A movie that is this damn good doesn't need people to plant good reviews. However any critic that gives it less than an above average or higher, should be fired for being incompetent. It's not like it's a SONY movie.
-
I'm So there when A.I. comes out on the 29th...looks like this will be best movie of the summer if not the only good movie of the summer.I didn't read the spoilers though--I don't want a bit of this film spoiled before I see it!
-
First off, fuck all of you out there who think that this movie is going to suck. This isn't an over-hyped Star Wars movie, this is a movie which is combining two of the greatest directing talents OF ALL TIME. Spielberg and Kubrick. Wow, I never thought I would type those two names in the same sentence, let me type it again. Spielberg and Kubrick. OK, I think I'm alright.
Second, recently I have been reading that Spielberg has filmed not one but two endings to the film. One which is sad and one which is jolly. And on every talk back, people claim that Spielberg will sell out and give us the happy ending. That won't happen for two reasons. One, we are talking about Steven "Saving Private Ryan" Spielberg. I don't recall Spielberg sugar-coating "Saving", and do you know why? Because it is a subject which is very, very close to Spielberg's heart. Same thing with "Schindler's List". The reason, and I don't think I'm the only one here, is because of one man: Stanley Kubrick. These two were the best of friends, until Stan's death. Why, you ask, would this affect the outcome of A.I.? Because, true movie fans know that Spielberg didn't totally make this film just for the money, he did it to respect and honor his friend Stanley Kubrick. He wanted to make a film which Kubrick couldn't finish. He made a film which can be shown all around the world, so movie lovers and everyone else can fall in love with it. Obviously, we have a very special occasion on our hands, and on June 29th I will be waiting to see two of the greatest directors of all time combine their kick ass talents and blow us away.
-
Kubrick is one of the greats, no doubt about it. Spielberg is also one of the greats, depending on who you ask. The pure visceral thrills of Raiders Of The Lost Ark are unmatched, but the rest of his work has never matched the raw energy of his early stuff. Lately, I find his movies to be kind of manipulative. Saving Private Ryan is an aesthetic and stylistic achievement but lacks the emotional complexity of Full Metal Jacket. Meanwhile, Kubrick's final film was one of his most uncompromising (besides Terrible, Terrible Tom and the bogus digital edits at the end). What's my point? I hope that Spielberg grappled with the same complex themes Kubrick always did, while writing the screenplay, and had the courage to follow through on the ideas regardless of how messy they may be. Lately I can predict when I'm supposed to feel sad at the John Williams score swells (another reason I'm getting tired of Spielberg) in the third act. I want to see this movie, but I really want it to be worth my hard earned money. Alright, I'll get off my soapbox now.
-
[SNIP]I don't recall Spielberg sugar-coating "Saving", and do you know why? Because it is a subject which is very, very close to Spielberg's heart. Same thing with "Schindler's List".[SNIP] --- He didn't sugar-coat it - he used the Symbol of Saccharine: the American flag. Watch how he plasters it all over the place, the only splash of colour in a scene, or otherwise the only thing in the shot. --- Spielberg's only virtue (by which I mean "essential energy", not "good quality") is PITY. All his movies reek of it, dripping off their characters as they try to find their way out from under his mountains of marmalade. However, this gives me one TINY hope for AI - that it may put pity to USE, rather than simply revelling in it. There is a chance that Spielberg may have had his head turned just enough to allow one of his characters (the robot) to exploit pity for its own ends, and present them as such, rather than trying to reef pity from the viewer for the sake of the robot. One can only dream... Radix malorum est cupiditas.
-
First off I
-
This movie looks fucking great...and now that they say the ending is "Kubricky"..man...I
-
A.I. is going to SAVE summer cinima as we know it. No longer will people be content to hurl down Hollywood's swill once they see the beauty and mastery of filmmaking that is A.I.... OK I'm dreaming... Stupid is as stupid does so there will always be wankers shelling out for crap like PH, Burton's POTA and The Mummy but at least there's some hope for us film purist who few film as an art form not a mere time waster.
-
the last line SHOULD have read: "but at least there's some hope for us film purists who view film as an art form not a mere time waster."
-
Combining the sensibilities of a 1950s robot with the flair of a 70s street pimp. Old Conan reference. Aside from that, it will be a pleasure to get a new Kubrick movie from beyond the grave. I'm looking forward to it.
-
Was that by any chance directed for me and my "really short" "never repetitive" talkbacks by any chance? (hehee)
-
It's gonna be great. I really can't wait to see how this thing turns out. There have been so few really good non-foreign films released this year, but I have the distinct feeling that Speilberg and The Kube won't let me down. Ah, science fiction bliss; carry me away on thy cybernetic wings.. .
-
Are you kidding??? Did any of you bother to read the Kubrick treatment of this film that was posted on the net?? David bringing his mother Bloody-Marys, working as a slave in Tin city until his demise......Then take a look at the technicolour monstrosity that was THE FLESH FAIR!!...Oh scary! Read the short story that the film is based on people. It's supposed to be bleak and sad. Not sentimental and overly emotional. Yeah, well anyway you'll see what I mean when you see this schmaltzy techno-mess on June 29.
-
If you click on a previous review, one sends you to an Italian site, La Republica.it.
Anywho, it's in Italian, and if you link to it from Systran's web
translator, you'll read a description of the film that matches the spoiler version,
albeit with some pretty funny syntax errors. These reviews appear to be to a press preview screening hosted by Jan Harlan. -
i know steve is great and magical and all that, but is he kubrik? can he really create a dark tale like kubrik could? i'm not saying he's bad, i'm just saying, there is only one kubrik, and it's doubtful if spieldberg could pull of the same dark magic he could with only a 100 page synopsis to go on.
-
No matter how good or not good it is, it is NOT in any way shape or form a Kubrick film. Let's just get one thing clear. Kubrick was an artist. Spielberg is an entertainer. Kubrick was an intellect. Spielberg is a showman. Kubrick wanted people who watched his movies to experience them and draw their own conclusions. Spielberg (and his accomplice John Williams) beats his audience over the head with what he wants them to feel. They could not be more different. AI may be the best movie of the year for all I know, but I want to vomit every time I see some idiot pontificate about Kubrick's "involvement."
-
..and quit assuming you know how he would have wanted this film to be made.
you've said that "..kubrick was an intellect."
so quit assuming he was a dumbass and trust his judgment. he had personal conversations with mister spielberg, saw spielberg's movies, and probably nkew quite clearly what qualitys, techniques, attitudes, and "showman"ship speilberg would bring to the script. it seems to me that kubrick likely wanted those qualities and asked spielberg aboard for those reasons...otherwise why not film it himself? i'm guessing spielberg put alot less of himself and his own style into this movie than kubrick intented.
but that's just a guess and i'll try my best to take this movie on it's own terms and not act like i'm a vigilant member of kubrick's mourning posse, pouring malt liquor on the sidewalk in glassy eyed rememberance, pumping a fist to my chest, throwing a peace sign in the air, looking quietly to heaven and saying "we got your back, holmes, don't worry". i don't think he is. -
There should be more talkbackers like you around this site.
-
Damn the person who invented spoilers, they're so tempting! They're like the Christmas presents hidden in the closet at the beginning of December! But this time I'm NOT going to read them. It will be hard, but until these reviews are gone, I'm going to restrain myself by thinking of Survivor: The Austrilian Outback and how one tabloid spoiler ruined the whole show for me. Well, let me tell you, that will not happen this time. This is too great a movie to have ruined, and Kubrick would roll over in his grave if it was. Wish me luck!
-
Read this. I got this link from Diogenes on Rotten Tomatoes; the article gives nice background on Kubrick's developement of AI and other stuff, incl Spielberg and Teddy Bears.
http://www.supersphere.com/Zinetropa/Article.html?ID=Cakewalk&NAME=robot
-
Jun 16, 2001 9:44:05 AM CDT
FingerLickinGood, you are wrong. I don't buy the deathbed beque
by asseyes
Kubrick consulted extensively with Spielberg after seeing Jurassic Park, but doesn't it speak volumes that AI didn't get made during that period, that instead Kubrick continued to develop his ideas even after their consultation ended? If Kubrick had wanted Spielberg to make AI, it would have already been made and released. So, why didn't it happen? Plus, I agree with whoever brought up the fact that Kubrick carefully developed this project for nearly twenty years, dying before he got the chance to make it, only to have Spielberg "fast track." Whatever movie is coming out, whether it's E.T. or Hook, it's not in any way shape or form a Kubrick film.
-
I'm paraphrasing here, man, but here's what you said, "this film will not resemble a Kubrick film in any way, shape or form." Okay, as much as I'd like to think Kubrick infallable, he is fallable. I got to see a little blip of A.I. last night on Jay Leno when he had Jude Law on. Maybe you did, too. Okay, there was minimal cutting to show the action from different directions. Most shitty filmmakers cut, cut, cut, cut, cut. Kubrick did not, and from what I've seen, Spielberg isn't either - for A.I. The big narrative in Kubrick's films are reminiscent of old B-movies: it's like being a third person - or seeing it from that position, instead of nowadays: fifty-two person narrative. It's collected and calm and what Kubrick tells you with the camera is beneficial to the story telling. You're probably gonna say you know that, but I doubt it. I'm not a film school student, so what I think is totally original to my character. Now, for the latter films of Kubrick's career, his narrative evolved; instead of having it from a third person perspective, it, too, became a 40-person perspective. Look at the bathroom scenes in FMJ, it's starting to lose the simplistic nature of Kubrick's work. However, it's still excellent, but it's evolved because technology evolves to allow more shots at different angles to be made. Older B-films, as I said, don't do a lot of cutting because of money and time, I presume. Now, as for the fucking scoring: oh, Lord. There's nothing wrong with Williams scoring the film. We won't know if he did a "bad" job until we see the fucking film. Jesus, kids; older films were scored a great deal - Williams scoring PALES in comparison to most films out of the 40's, 50's, 60's. Even Kubrick's films were scored, so what's the big deal. I've heard lots of interesting things about this A.I. film regarding scoring and different techniques Williams is using. But, again, this is Spielberg film. I think all of his fantasy/sci fi/adventure films were fucking great. And I know everyone on this site thinks the same way about at least three of his films. He's not a bad filmmaker. He has the sensibilities of older films with the technological advancements of new films. Kubrick, of course, is much better than Spielberg for different reasons and Spielberg's much better than Kubrick for different reasons. But, here's my point: obviously Kubrick thought of Spielberg as being a good director. So in a fit of ignorance and need for attention, you'll say Spielberg sucks. Well, you halfwit, you're insulting Kubrick when you say that - because Kubrick really thought a whole lot of Spielberg. If he didn't, then why would he pass the object of his affection to someone he has no respect for. So if Kubrick has faith in Spielberg, then you should, too. Kubrick knows more about films than anyone else on this site, so if he thinks Spielberg's films are up-to-par, then you saying Spielberg sucks is just your immature way of insulting your "favorite" director, Stanley Kubrick.
-
Jun 16, 2001 12:53:40 PM CDT
I'm not saying Spielberg sucks -- I AM SAYING THAT A.I. IS NOT A
by asseyes
I am getting so fucking sick of hearing people say that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to make this movie. If he had wanted Spielberg to make this movie, Spielberg would have made it five years ago when they were consulting. Interpreting that Spielberg making this film as in any way shape or form the final wishes of Kubrick or in any way shape or form a collaboration with Kubrick is DEAD WRONG and in my opinion completely negating the level of control and artistry that Kubrick put into every film he made. End of rant.
-
I didn't say it was going to be a Kubrick film! Hahahahahahahahaha! I only explained it'd most likely have the same artistic integrity as a Kubrick film. Jesus H. Christ. Just read my post. You made a remark, and I explained how your remark was short-sighted. Now, because you obviously forgot to read the post and read the first line and thought to yourself, "hey, that (racist) Red Army Chimp is calling me a fool," you go off on a totally different subject. I was only explaining the filmmaking technique because you said it wouldn't look like a Kubrick film in ANY way, shape or form. I just responded. It's closed - and you would have known that had you read the rest of my post!
-
Yes, Stanley Kubrick has made some films that were dark. Full Metal Jacket was dark with a dark humor to the ending (the Mickey Mouse club scene).
But guys, I see 2001 as uplifting, something about man expanding himself, becoming more.
Then up there, someone wrote that every Kubrick film had a score. If I recall correctly, 2001 was supposed to be scored by Pink Floyd (yes, Pink Floyd), but they couldn't deliver on time. So much for Kubrick "making movies at his on pace and on his own time." Since they couldn't complete it in time (it was released as a Pink Floyd album, the name of which eludes me), Kubrick went to the vault of classics. Go watch 2001. All the music is classical music. A perfect example of Kubrick making a movie not on his terms but in the context of time. Still, there was only one technical error in his depiction of space (silence in the vaccuum of space, etc) and that's when the official guy on the space transport drinks from a straw and the liquid goes back down the straw when he's through (wouldn't happen in zero grav).
As for Speilberg being "safe", and "tame"....Hmm, I guess the first 20 minutes of Ryan were tame to you guys, but 2 WWII vets I knew had to leave in the middle of it they were so emotional. And then there is the scene in "Jaws" where Quint is bitten in two and the blood spurts out of his mouth. Now I'm not as young and desensitized as some of you poseurs here, but in 1975, this was BAD SHIT. It was the era of violence when the blood was off screen. As for Schindler being schmaltzy...what about the Jewish architect having her brains blown out and her blood staining the snow red? Is that schmaltzy or sacharrine?
And sure, Jurassic Park was a little too schmaltzy for me. I enjoyed it anyway.
Whatever floats your boat fellas. The fact that the movie got made at all is a testament to Kubrick's desire to see it made.
The reviews have me pumped. Yeah there is Kubrick I dislike (The one with Cruise & Kidman...phew! don't even remember the name), and Speilberg I dislike (E.T.), but you have to take a director on the face of his whole career. As a recording artist I know some people like certain songs and hate other ones; but they still come to my shows. Good analogy: I hated the last 2 Rush albums but I love everything before. Does that mean I hate Rush? I wait to hear it first. Just like you should watch this first before shitting on it.
later -
Blue Fairies? Little robots that want to be Real Boys? Fleeing the flesh fairs?(Maybe the Land of the Boobies?)
Maybe Kubrick with a little Carlo Collodi thrown in.Read the original for an equally bizzare and non-Disneyesque tale of a young robot's journey through Hell to try and become human. -
Just a quick note: Anyone who caught
-
Al Jourgensen must be on crack....as opposed to herion for a change. What the hell was he thinking? Misfits face makeup? A friggin` Skeletor mask? If Al is trying to 'reinvigorate' Ministry, this is definetly NOT the way to do it.
-
Jun 18, 2001 7:37:43 PM CDT
Of course its not a Kubrick Film, Kubrick Films are Directed by
by maelice
But just because Kubrick didn't direct the movie does not discount that he WANTED Spielberg to do so. Kubrick had the genius to recognize that he couldn't make this movie. He recognized that the movie should be told in a certain way, with a certain style, and that his personal style was not it. Ok so Spielberg fast tracked it. That was the right thing to do, given more time it would have become more and more of a Spielberg film and less of a Kubrick film, when it is supposed to be a Spielberg/Kubrick film. I applaud Kubrick for recognizing his own shortcommings and I applaud Speilberg for respecting the spirit of collaboration by not allowing Kubrick's effect on the film to be washed away by time. Spielberg will never be Kubrick but at least he has class.
-
A schizophrenic masterwork.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- A hot redhead (not Harry) is set to play lead in Fede Alvarez's remake of EVIL DEAD! -- 170 total posts 170 posts
- The Friday Docback Spelunks 'The Caves Of Androzani'!! DOCTOR WHO Story #136, And More!! -- 103 total posts 86 posts
- Here Comes THE GODMOTHER! -- 74 total posts 74 posts
- Rest In Peace Ben Gazzara -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- UPDATED: Talkbacker Bob Orci tweets STAR TREK old set pics! -- 244 total posts 51 posts
- ABC Has Cast The Lead In Its Future Nuclear Nation Pilot!! And They’ve Chosen Wisely!! -- 44 total posts 44 posts
- RIDDICK Sequel Details Via A New Press Release!! -- 88 total posts 40 posts
- AWAKE, This Season’s Best Broadcast Pilot, Gets NBC’s Old ER Slot March 1!! THE FIRM To Burn Off On Saturdays!! -- 38 total posts 38 posts
- INSIDIOUS-ER? -- 120 total posts 31 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day is going on an overnight drunk and in 10 days it’s going to set out to find the shark that ate its friend and destroy it. -- 31 total posts 31 posts