Cool News
Derek Flint and SF write two completely spoiler free reviews of A.I.!!!!!
Hey folks, Harry here... Here are two... COMPLETELY SPOILER FREE REVIEWS... the first comes from our man Derek Flint, who has reviewed many films on this site in the past.... and comes through here with the most extensive reaction to A.I. yet. The result... A review that gets me so incredibly jazzed for this film I don't think many will understand why... Flint is grappling with ideas, still swirling the film on his tongue, not sure if he likes the ending or not, unsure if it is that perfect Spielberg note... a bit confused at times... But consumately held by the film. Entranced from beginning to end. THIS IS KUBRICK. In the excellent Jan Harlan documentary that is part of the new Kubrick Box Set, Woody Allen talks about seeing 2001 when it came out and thinking it was an extreme disappointment. He saw it again that year... and was still disappointed. 2 years goes by and he gives it another shot and suddenly for the first time in his life, he realized that the movie was dealing with issues that 2 years prior he was not ready to comprehend... that the movie was ahead of himself. But that upon that viewing he finally saw the film as being the masterpiece that it was.... From the sound of Derek's review... it seems he's in a similar struggle... will you? Will I? Will we pan the film... or give it so-so reviews now, only to see it two years down the road and realize that we were not where Kubrick and Spielberg were... this year, last year, 5 years, 9 years ago? Could be.... But it is that potential... that question that thrills me to the core. Here's Derek Flint and SF.... both wrote COMPLETELY SPOILER FREE REVIEWS!!!!
Hey Harry, one of your favorite spies infiltrated a press junket screening of
Steven Spielberg's "A.I."
Apparently, the journalists and critics have been sworn to secrecy as far as
their opinions until closer to the actual opening of the film ... but I have
no oath to uphold, so I'll share my thoughts without ruining the experience
for anyone.
I'd say the film played well for those who were in attendance, although there
was no applause at the end which may have been keeping in line with Stanley
Kubrick films over the ones Spielberg usually fosters.
It was clear that the viewers respected this movie, even those who didn't
openly embrace "A.I." acknowledged that this is clearly not the usual summer
fare, nor the typical Spielberg fable. I was able to overhear many comments
attesting to this afterwards, including a prominent reviewer from one of the
trades who will clearly be giving the film an unequivocal four star rave. He
seemed to imply that this was the best thing Spielberg has ever done. (For
me, that remains "Close Encounters.")
Spielberg is well known for his ability to manipulate emotions, occasionally
drifting into the undesirable effect of treacle. For those who worried that
the trailers and ad lines for "A.I." looked like they were leaning far too
much on the sentimental side that we've come to expect from a child themed
Spielberg flick, rest assured ... this film is in keeping with Kubrick's
rather phlegmatic storytelling.
It is often muted and chilly. It doesn't feature the "A.E." of "Always" and
"Hook," which I'd dubbed "Artificial Emotion."
Although the story will no doubt be recounted by other reviews, justly
warning you of spoilers, it doesn't feel right telling much detail
surrounding the plot of "A.I." because I found the movie entirely
unpredictable at every turn (that includes the time frame of the story and
the way it travels forward).
Considering the movies we'll be forced to endure this summer, that alone is
reason to recommend it.
However, my biggest issue has to do with the script for "A.I." and in
particular the third act and resolution ... or rather, lack of it.
The term unsatisfying comes to mind, but I'm forced to wonder if that comes
from my expectation of Spielberg's influence over this story. I would have
preferred to have a Spielberg ending rather than what I witnessed, even if it
were keeping within the late S.K.'s wishes.
Many have said that "A.I." merely looks like a futuristic "Pinocchio" tale,
and I was quite taken aback how literally that analogy is made throughout the
film using the actual story itself. It felt far too obvious to have
"Pinocchio" so constantly prevalent, and I wonder whether Kubrick himself
would have pounded the point home as blatantly as done here. Personally, I
think not.
Haley Joel Osment's haunted quality is used to excellent effect, but I never
felt that any of the other characters were given enough screen time for my
satisfaction. Jude Law as a "Mecha" who services women as a galactic gigolo
is a fascinating presence, but there's not enough of him and I wasn't happy
with his character's eventual disappearance in the plot.
Frances O' Connor and the stunning Ashley Scott also make strong impressions
as performers, but their characters are not serviced by this story. In
keeping with the tradition of Kubrick's visions ... ideas are often the true
stars.
I'm still thinking about "A.I." and wish to see it again, and I suppose
that's enough to label it a success.
For the first time in a Steven Spielberg & John Williams collaboration, the
music didn't overtly call attention to itself.
Spielberg tried to channel a great filmmaker before, aping David Lean in the
misguided "Empire of the Sun." In that film, visuals dominated and
overwhelmed a narrative that got lost somewhere within the storyboarding.
That is not the case here, as Spielberg firmly commands the screen at the
height of his powers, amazingly able to invoke Kubrick's touch throughout in
framing and shot composition, as well as the way the late master would hold
for protracted periods on certain reactions.
Still, I wish Spielberg had drawn on some of his personal strengths in the
nontechnical areas. It's clear he's trying to honor Kubrick's vision, but I
got the odd feeling that Spielberg was trying to reach for the sort of
ambiguity in the finale that made Kubrick's art a must for repeated viewings
and debate.
Here, I don't feel that there will be as much discussion as disappointment.
The most mesmerizing and wonderful character in the piece is Teddy, by far.
The character plays an essential role and is so very memorable. There are
also images of the future that are still staying with me, especially relevant
with George W. Bush presently in office who thinks global warming isn't a
threat and could be stopped by ceiling fans.
The fact that I'm still thinking about "A.I." is a good thing, and while many
might contest that I haven't said much about the film, these are the only
thoughts I can safely convey without giving much away.
This is a film that everyone will see, and should ... but right now my chief
intention before revisiting "A.I." is to read the original material that it
was based upon.
While many read the short story that "2001" was culled from in an effort to
get insight into what the film's meaning was, I'm more interesting in reading
Brian Aldiss' "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" to see how that piece resolved
itself. I'm still waiting and wanting an ending from "A.I."
Still, I highly recommend "A.I." despite my problems with the screenplay. It
honors Kubrick's memory in a much better fashion than "Eyes Wide Shut" and
I'm grateful Spielberg made it. He's truly paid homage to the late Stanley
Kubrick, without falling prey to self aggrandizing, but when you think of the
endings of "Jaws" and "Close Encounters"... it does make me yearn for a third
act that was cut from Spielberg's cloth, not anyone else's.
Your man,
Derek Flint
Hey folks... Harry here again... I'm getting trembly excited about the prospects of seeing this film! I'm foaming at the mouth.... I want in now!
Hi Harry,
I too went to a Friday morning screening for "A.I." and I just wanted to
write in with a short and spoiler-free mini-review for the movie. I think
everyone should stay away from spoiler filled reviews and for that matter,
ones that just plain talk about the plot. The less you know, the more
wondorous the journey for the viewer.
That said, I will say that this is a moving, haunting masterpiece of adult
science fiction. The film is very much like a Stanley Kubrick film would be.
His presence is felt throughout the entire film, especially during the first
part of the third act. This is not to say that Steven Spielberg's presence
is crowded out nor do his touches seem out of place (the emotional final
scenes are Spielberg in top-flight emotional form. I was quite choked up as
the house lights began to rise). The genius of these two great filmmakers
has been combined to give us a film that fascinates us, moves us and makes
us think about it quite a bit after it is done.
The cast is excellent as well. Haley Joel Osment is perfect as David, the
robot who longs to be a human being so he can love as well as return love.
Frances O'Connor is wonderful as the mother and Jude Law is also excellent
as David's sidekick, Joe Gigolo.
Not a big surprise here, but the visual effects by Industrial Light and
Magic are great, while John Williams' score is both subdued and effective.
Technically, this is your typical top flight work from the Spielberg camp.
"A.I." is going to be a film that, much like a lot of films on the market
today, will divide people. Some, like myself, will find it a welcome change
of pace from the usual garbage that pollutes the multiplexes nowadays.
Others, much like the exhibitors in attendance this morning, will leave the
theater depressed and wondering why the hell they spent two and a half hours
watching the film. They will wonder where the typical Spielberg fantasy
whimsy and fun is. As much as I enjoyed a great deal of that ol' Spielberg
magic and still continue to do so, what we have here in this film is a
director who has taken the maturity that has graced such films as
"Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" and applied it to a genre that
has served him extremely well in the past. How the American Public will
respond is a matter only time will tell, but I do know that this is one
summer movie I will be revisiting at least a few more times in the upcoming
weeks.
Call me SF
-
+ Expand All
-
And that, if it is, it brings in Titanic numbers. One of the big draws for Titanic was the emotional pull for the audience, resulting in repeat viewings. I saw it more than once myself :)
-
word
-
I echo Harry's sentiments. For me, this is the most anticipated film of the summer. And even if I come away scratching my head at the ending (like I do with "2001"), I think it will be worth the price of admission just to see Spielberg doing sci-fi again. I'll be honest Spielberg's presence is a bigger attraction for me than Kubrik's influence. Kubrik is a filmmaker whom I respect, but Spielberg is a filmmker whom I adore. That's mainly because images from his movies are so inextricably linked my chilhood. Hopefully, this film will contain enough of that Spielbergian wonderment to win him over a new generation of young fans (those deemed too young to see "Saving Private Ryan" and "Schindler's List.") By the way, is the author of the source material for "A.I." the same who wrote the story on which Bladerunner is based? The promos have very Bladerunner like feel.
-
There Is a big ear to ear grin on my face right now and it will most likely stay there till I fall Back to sleep. This is very good news. I hope they are right about the Ads being full of shit. It would not be the first time. So He just might have pulled it off huh? I can't wait to see this ending that everyone is talking about! This really puts me in a better mood to go to bed then the one I was in with all the Tomb Raider Junk. NO! I must not say those words! Must erase them from my memory! Please No one start talking about that film on this talkback! Don't get me started again! let me go to bed thinking about Kubrick films of the past and how sweet I hope A.I. is. Sweet is not the word for A.I. Master peace... yes... that's what I would like it to be... Still Eyes Wide Shut WAS a great film and I really don't see why people dislike it. It's not such a bad way for him to end his career. It ends on a happy(ish) note. They overcome. that's more then I can say for the endings of a lot of his other films that left me artisticly in aw but emotionaly down. NOTE: None of this Is impliying anything like A.I. should not have been made by any means!!! All I'm saying is I'm happy his last film had a (none selling out(like he ever would)) happy ending. GOD I CAN't WAIT
-
You have given hope to those of us who are desperately seeking intelligent cinema. It is so sad to see the way the typical American moviegoers react to intellectual science fiction these days. They choose mindless fodder like 'Armageddon' and 'Lost In Space' over good sci-fi like 'Gattaca' and 'Dark City'. I hope that this film will turn the tide. Thank you Steven and Stanley. Thank you so much!
-
the guy who wrote the story that blade runner was based on was phillip k. dick
-
Sorry to nitpick but I didn't think Eyes Wide Shut ended on a happyish note. To my eyes it looked like they were doomed to repeat their mistakes due to their lack of communication. Of course I haven't watched it in a year or so, so I might be wrong. AI looks like the bomb. Between this and Jay and Silent Bob's movie I'm hoping the last part of summer rocks. Peace Out
-
No really, they are. It means that not everyone who comes out of an event movie is just another sheep willing to heap more praise on a critically adored film.
I also liked the reference to global warming in the first review, as one shot in the A.I. trailer(s) instantly came to mind: When you see the Statue of Liberty's raised arm sticking out of the water, the rest of the statue submerged in water. Damn, that's a bleak vision. -
Yeah I see where you
-
Hey Essemtee! There is another area of AICN (a review area) That I have Swore that I would not bring up again tonight or at least say the name of that I think could really use you and your hopfully contagious way of thinking.
-
Jun 15, 2001 10:06:56 PM CDT
Anyone who wants to say that Kubrick had anything to do with thi
by asseyes
Kubrick was the master. He didn't have collaborators, though he absorbed information from others. And he's not here to defend himself against this utter rape of his memory. What happens when Jean-Luc Godard dies? Will Spielberg take his last project, slap together his own "collaboration," then sit back while other people call it the spirit of Godard? I stand disgusted.
-
in response to asseyes: from what i understand kubrick wanted spielberg to direct ai. not only that but they had been collaborating on it for years, well before kubrick decided to do eyes wide shut. kubrick felt that spielberg had more of a sensability for making a movie like ai, whether or not he does is a different story. its not as if kubrick died and spielberg bought the project, its more like he was carrying out kubricks wishes.
-
AssEyes, I had The same reaction the first time I found out about this. Part of me still agrees with you. The other part of me is lost in hope. I will know if this was Kubrick when I see it and only then. and when I do see it AICN is going to get one hell of a review FRom one HARDCORE fan who is going to ether make wish Spielberg wish He was never born or make Harrys MOULIN ROUGE review look like disgust! Till then I'll Hope. A fool or not.
-
Yo Joe! thanks for bringing that up! I had herd about it years ago and just plan forgot about it!
-
yeah, and so were elvis and micheal jackson. doesn't make them untouchable. and it's not like speilberg got indiana jones to go raide kubrick's grave and pry his sacred script from the king's dead hands while steven sat at home just waiting to crap on it. from all accounts kubrick asked steven to take over the script - so it's a decision straight from the artist/king that got this movie rolling in the 1st place. i'm sure kubrick's in his grave giving a shit about how his subjects are all pissed off and wondering how made such a fucked up decision as to let spielberg get involved in his pure artistic vision. shut the fuck up and go see the movie or don't but don't act like it you know what the fuck kubrick wanted or didn't want.
-
I just read a book on Kubrick by Michael Herr (screenwriter collaborator for Full Metal Jacket), and it's really interesting. It's not really biographical, more like his personal take on Stanley through their collaborations and conversations. I highly recommend it. It's an easy read and is only like 90 pages long. Check it out. NeoSamurai, I liked your comments about letting some time go by and revisiting a film, I'll think I'll check out Eyes Wide Shut tomorrow. And Herr agrees with you on the ending of EWS!@:-) I really can't recommend the book enough. It's called simply Kubrick. ADIOS
-
I remember when I heard Kubrick died and immediately all I could think of was that we were never going to see his masterpiece that he had been working on in seclusion for over a decade, A.I. which reportedly he referred to constantly as Pinocchio. Alot of the stories behind the making of this film back when he was doing all sorts of tests in his mansion in england are the stuff of myth and legend. Originally Kubrick wasn't sure how he wanted to convey the main character of David. Whether the boy should be cgi or animatronic or a kid with makeup. He played with the concept of the boy having black eyes like a doll. He wanted this film to be his commentary on humanity. And yes, the ending I read about was really sad and numb at the same time and I imagine would have left the audience leaving the theatre in complete silence alone with their thoughts. And that's what Kubrick did. His movies made you think. It would have been classic and would have undoubtably been his swan song. And when he died, his vision died with him. At first, nobody knew what Kubrick left behind on the project. To say that Mr. Kubrick had a thing for secrecy would be an understatement. And when I heard Spielberg was going to take over the reigns of this film I became cautiously optimistic. Cautious as to the presence of the hand of Steven Spielberg who definitely has his own distinct and consistent way of storytelling. I think we've even given it a word, Spielbergian. Whereas I was really looking forward to Kubrick get to the heart of a story that really seemed personal to Kubrick. A STORY PERSONAL TO KUBRICK. well ladies and gentlemen that's about as close to this reclusive mad impetuous artist as we are ever going to get. What I trust in Spielberg with this movie is his love and respect for film and the artists who created them. Spielberg is as much a fan of Kubrick as you or me. Undoubtedly he has directed this film with the utmost respect to the visionary that was Stanley Kubrick. Perhaps Spielberg has managed to give us a glimpse into what was going on in the mind of Kubrick in regards to THIS story A.I. that occupied the last decade of his life. We will never know for sure. All we can do is imagine ...
-
They probably left the screening wondering if they should order another print of Scary Movie 2. "Man, the teenagers ain't gonna be comin' to see this thing 5 times".
-
......................................................................................................
-
Jun 16, 2001 3:33:51 AM CDT
"the maturity that has graced such films as 'Schindler's List' a
by dorko76
uh, dude? like, you just discredited your review with that comment. only --if-- spielberg matures after his immature handling of p.ryan and schindler's list will A.I. have any chance of being a great movie. Let's hope Kubrick's touch is really there, because if not, it will be a shameful way to pay tribute to a dead friend...
-
or is that just a beautiful dream?
-
...maybe Harry will see Tomb Raider again, and LOVE it.
-
Yes Derek, you are so right! Steven Spielberg knows so much more about man's effect on Global Warming than the thousands of scientists who say it is a natural phenomenom!
-
Dorko, couldn't agree more. My friends and I have been worrying about this from the moment the project went into production. Hopefully Spielberg won't attempt to turn us into emotional whores this time around.
-
First off, I've seen every Kubrick and Spielberg film. There are exactly 2 Kubrick films I own. There will only be 2 Kubrick films I own. 2001, because it is a masterwork, and DR. STRANGELOVE, because quite simply it is the greatest comedy of all time. They are both perfect films. Kubrick has directed 2 more perfect films than most. Most directors don't get that opportunity. However, his other films are far too flawed for me. Yes, there are moments of brilliance. I think there are strong moments in filmmaking in the other films that will be on our movie consciousness forever. But as a whole film, no. EYES WIDE SHUT was absolutely brilliant, watching a man enter a crisis in his life and marriage, and then he goes to the castle. And the movie becomes laughable. And it's not just for the stupid block shots, either. It simply doesn't work, and I believe this is an instance where Kubrick got simple human behavior wrong. It looks and feels like a bad soft-core porn. THE SHINING? As someone who prefers the King novel, well, it actually makes me angry in a way, because while the novel was about a man fighting his demons and losing to them, the film was just one scene after another in an attempt to shock the audience. Jack Torrance in the book is a good man who loses his way, and the Jack in the film has no resemblance to that. FULL METAL JACKET? Boot camp was flawless. When they finally get to Vietnam the movie changes pace and feel, and you never quite recover from it. CLOCKWORK ORANGE? It's an interesting study on violence, but it's not one I return to. I feel like I got the point the first time. And there are others I could write about. In the end, Kubrick was a master, yes. I can wholeheartedly agree with that. But his films were not perfect. It's only clicked all the way from beginning to end on 2 projects. As for Spielberg? Well, Kubrick-fans claim he makes his movies more "user-friendly" and I agree, for the most part. And I think that's a good thing. Film is for the masses, not the elitists. I think RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and JAWS are perfect films. They do EXACTLY as intended, from beginning to end. My personal favorite Spielberg film is E.T. THE EXTRA-TERRESTRIAL, but it's mostly for personal reasons I won't get into here. Now HOOK and 1941 are pretty damn bad, I'll admit. LOST WORLD is bad too, but it's not all that bad. They are missteps. But Spielberg has also made more films than Kubrick has. So missteps are possible. I for one consider BARRY LYNDON to be an awful film, slow of pacing, and devoid of any interest. And SCHINDLER'S LIST, before anyone gets all anxious, is a wonderful, powerful film, and fully deserving of its place in the AFI 100. There are those who say the emotional ending was silly and not accurate. Not accurate I will agree with you on, but silly, no. Spielberg did something amazing. He made the audience MOURN the Holocaust. He made Joe Six-Pack give a damn about the 6 million Jews killed in World War II. Joe Six-Pack's not going to see SHOAH. And Joe Six-Pack's not going to see Godard's movie either. But he'll see Spielberg's. And Spielberg got to him. SCHINDLER made over $150 million at the box office, far more than any other Holocaust film, with the exception of LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL. As for SAVING PRIVATE RYAN? It's a flawed film too, but I'm still glad Spielberg made it. For one thing, the opening sequence is unparalleled in war film. Now we come to A.I. and I for one cannot wait to see what kind of film a collaboration between Spielberg and Kubrick makes. These are two seemingly antiethical filmmakers. And A.I. could be an interesting mess, or something that takes in the brilliance of both filmmakers and makes a jewel of a film never seen before. I've said this before. I love Kubrick. I love Spielberg. I think both are fantastic filmmakers. And if you don't love them BOTH, you don't love film. Period. You can't be selective as film fans. You have to recognize the intelligence and talent of both. If you can't, you're simply not a film fan. You can't criticize, because you're simply not equipped with the tools. And I think A.I. will be an amalgam of both visions, and I think it will be wonderful. "This means something. Something Important," Roy Neary claimed in CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND. "My mind is going. I can feel it. I can feel it," mourned the mad computer HAL in 2001 A SPACE ODYSSEY. And there is room for both. Thanks for reading.
-
Whether or not Kubrick thought Spielberg would be right for the project, the whole thing still seems kind of crass. I mean, Stanley sits around clutching his head, obsessing over this concept for like a decade. Then he he kicks off, leaving the film unmade, and Spielberg swoops in and fast tracks it and establishes himself as Kubrick's heir apparent in the process. Even if Kubrick had attempted this movie and fumbled it utterly, I promise you it would have been more interesting than whatever the Beard has cranked with his Summer Blockbuster Machine.
-
I don't understant complaints from people on having their emotions manipulated. A film is basically a guy taking images and putting them in front of you in order to manipulate your emotions. Who decides when the line has been crossed and a film maker has gone to far? I don't get this argument. Please explain.
-
Didn't ANYONE get the toystore/child metaphor? Geez, you guys...
-
that this will be worth seeing this summer. I haven't gotten too interested due to the idea of the film being a futuristic Pinnochio. If the reviewers are right, maybe it does has that certain something worth seeing. I am encouraged by the fact that they are still digesting it, and not coming out with "I loved it" or "hated it" statements. If anything, it appears to be a thought-provoking film. -AD
PS- lay off the high-horse antics on the Kubrick-Spielberg nonsense, Talkbackers. It's not like Spielberg is a two-bit hack director trying to hitch his wagon to a star. We all know he does not need Kubrick to make a great film, so drop it. -
Globel warming is all bullshit don't believe a word of it.
-
Jun 16, 2001 8:53:27 AM CDT
Waaaaaah!!!!! Whiny Left Coast Liberals Can't Get Over Gore Losi
by dirkbelig
WTF was that Dubya shot for?!? Get over it!!! (Like Gore could do better about the energy crisis?) THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF ABOUT GLOBAL WARNING!!!! Get out of Hollywood, you llamas!!!----Now for the movie stuff....I am NOT a worshipper at the Temple of Stanley. 2001 sucked, The Shining sucked, Eyes Wide Shut was preposterous and REALLY SUCKED. At first, I was afraid that Spielberg would succumb to his worst tendencies and make Hook look like Citizen Kane, but now it appears he's channeling Kubrick and that...can't...be...good. Spielberg tends to drown in schmaltz (beyond the D-Day stuff, Private Ryan was average, the bookends were the WORST) and Kubrick was a soulless, pretentious coot whom the fanboys can't resist spanking to daily.----I'm already detecting the same sort of snobbish elitism that Radiohead fans use to defend the fact that they suck ass now--"If you don't like it, it's because you're too igonorant/stupid/unevolved to appreciate the sheer brilliance of his/their art. Go see The Animal, you rube, you prole, you...you...TELEVISION WATCHER!"---The Woody quote (himself a spotty case) is just to shore up that fact that A.I. may be psuedo-pretentious claptrap that the general public "may not get" and thus elevate the "l337 h4x0r3s" of fanboydom ever higher in the own self-esteem. Bah!
-
I've read your talkbacks before on the subject of Spielberg. Simply stated, your mom called to tell me to remind you it's time for your pill. And you need to stop touching yourself. You're dismissed, boy. And yes, dummy, Godard's making a film on the Holocaust. Read my talkback again. Both Spielberg AND Kubrick, boy. You have to love them both. Don't bring a fucking baseball to a basketball game, Hooked-On-Phonics boy.
-
Jaws and Raiders are great movies, it's true. BUT: whether you love Kubrick movies or hate them, they began and ended with him. Kubrick controlled every aspect. No detail was too small. No one else could take credit or blame for one of his movies. That was the kind of man he was. Spielberg, who couldn't be opposite to Kubrick, has made this movie, AI. Fine. Whatever. But this is NOT in any way, shape or form, the work of Kubrick. You could put a hundred monkeys in a room with a camera and what they would come up with would be closer to a Kubrick film than anything Spielberg would create. Oh, and as for the deathbed bequeathment, I do not for one minute buy it. If Kubrick really wanted Spielberg to make the movie, it would have happened years ago when they were talking about it.
-
Well, that deathbed thing does sound like something that a studio came up with, and I find it highly unlikely, but it is documented that Kubrick and Spielberg exchanged a lot of ideas about A.I. Now would Kubrick want this project continued after his death? I don't know. I think he might, though. Actually, more like, Kubrick showed Spielberg what he wanted, and Spielberg thought that was amazing. I will agree that A.I. is more Spielberg's than Kubrick's at this point, but I think much of what Kubrick inteneded will end up in the film. People get the idea that later actions (and films) negate the past. No matter what A.I. turns out to be, it's not going to lessen Kubrick's career one bit. I'm not a fan of EWS anyway (that last third of the film was so incredibly silly), so I'd like to think of this in a way as Kubrick's last film, especially if it turns out to be good.
-
Jun 16, 2001 10:11:16 AM CDT
"And if you don't love them BOTH, you don't love film. Period. "
by neosamurai85
Nordling I Think Youve written a great Talkback but I can't say I compleatly agree with this commit. I Do not fall into the like one but not the other catagory but I can see how others Could. Spielberg Has not ever Really (that I can think of so I might be wroung!) Made any Trully Risky films. People rarely look at any thing he has done except, the girl in the red dress in S. List and the opening of P. Ryan, as Having a huge Impact on how film is made. He does not stand up next to Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola. He is not as intellectual as Jim Jarmusch in his imagery (I'm talking about Jim's more recent films) there are a lot of foreign directors I could also list and a lot more independents Like Jim. Spielberg Has Made A few truly Great films. He has pumped many films out at top speed (most of which I can't say I liked). He is loved By the massis and hated by the bold. Kubrick was an artistic director. He would take hundreds of takes on some of the most simplest things. He would act a certin way around diffrent actors to push what he wated out of them. People ofitn complaned when working with him... untill they saw the finished product. Then they only wanted to work with him again in hopes that he could make them act that once more. Spielberg is for the most part one of the gratest Hollywood directors I've ever known. So good that many mistake him for an artistic director. He's has come very close at times to being one. but now can't you see the diffrance? Kubrick is artistic and Spielberg is Hollywood. kick ass Hollywood but still Hollywood. Many people out there Do not like Hollywood and want nothing to do with it. I come very, very close at times to being one of those people. To say that people that are aganst Hollywood are not true fans or critics of film is like saying that people are fools if they don't want to suport something that say's that it's art but only really cares about making money off them! Saying that film purest are not fans of film is not a very wise thing. But that's Just my opinion...
-
Jun 16, 2001 10:12:36 AM CDT
"And if you don't love them BOTH, you don't love film. Period. "
by neosamurai85
Nordling I Think Youve written a great Talkback but I can't say I compleatly agree with this commit. I Do not fall into the like one but not the other catagory but I can see how others Could. Spielberg Has not ever Really (that I can think of so I might be wroung!) Made any Trully Risky films. People rarely look at any thing he has done except, the girl in the red dress in S. List and the opening of P. Ryan, as Having a huge Impact on how film is made. He does not stand up next to Martin Scorsese or Francis Ford Coppola. He is not as intellectual as Jim Jarmusch in his imagery (I'm talking about Jim's more recent films) there are a lot of foreign directors I could also list and a lot more independents Like Jim. Spielberg Has Made A few truly Great films. He has pumped many films out at top speed (most of which I can't say I liked). He is loved By the massis and hated by the bold. Kubrick was an artistic director. He would take hundreds of takes on some of the most simplest things. He would act a certin way around diffrent actors to push what he wated out of them. People ofitn complaned when working with him... untill they saw the finished product. Then they only wanted to work with him again in hopes that he could make them act that once more. Spielberg is for the most part one of the gratest Hollywood directors I've ever known. So good that many mistake him for an artistic director. He's has come very close at times to being one. but now can't you see the diffrance? Kubrick is artistic and Spielberg is Hollywood. kick ass Hollywood but still Hollywood. Many people out there Do not like Hollywood and want nothing to do with it. I come very, very close at times to being one of those people. To say that people that are aganst Hollywood are not true fans or critics of film is like saying that people are fools if they don't want to suport something that say's that it's art but only really cares about making money off them! Saying that film purest are not fans of film is not a very wise thing. But that's Just my opinion...
-
Why is this Talk back listing up now instead of down? They didn't always do that did they?
-
Kubrick loyalists were NEVER going to like this anyway. If it came close to Stanley's vision, they'd claim Spielberg was a ripoff. If it doesn't, they'll say he "Spielbergized" it. It will be impossible to win. I think those absolute Kubrick loyalists should just stay home, because no matter what, they won't be satisfied. News flash: Kubrick is dead. He'll be dead for a LONG time. If you love the man so much that you can't handle an exploratory film into what might have been, stay home and watch the collector's DVD set that just came out. Otherwise, try to keep a damn open mind. No loyalist can claim to me otherwise, though. People just won't say when they're wrong. If A.I. stinks, believe me, I'll say so. Spielberg made some bad films. So did Kubrick. I can't imagine anyone defending BARRY LYNDON.
-
Spielberg has made Hollywood films. And so has Kubrick. Both have artistic control on their films, it is true, but both were financed by major studios. Kubrick, it must be said, has NEVER made an independently produced film. Warner's has picked up the check ever since the 70s. And MGM before that. Also, I don't think multiple takes is the answer. Kubrick was more sucessful at it than many, but to me, it stifles any creativity the actors want to show. It beats them into the ground. That's why so many Kubrick films are considered "soulless." Spielberg shot RAIDERS in 27 days. 27 days, man. It's easily one of the best films of all time. I don't think long takes and many multiples are the way to go, myself. But that's just me. And yes, to those paying attention, I'm lurking in Talkback. You have no idea how dull my day is today.
-
I said "Most of" not all Raiders as a action movie/adventure rocked! It's one of the reasons I can't say that I don't like him. And though I really don't want to get into it... he was working with George Lucas (Yes I know not co-directing but still) PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME IF I THINK GEORGE LUCAS IS ARTISTIC AND NOT HOLLYWOOD!
-
Just wanted to add to your discussion. There is no right or wrong way to make films. Kubrick was meticulous, Spielberg and others work fast. Some are actor friendly, others aren't, like Kubrick and Hitchcock. It's the finished product that matters. And no movie is universally hated or loved. Look at the French and Jerry Lewis. Barry Lyndon is my least favorite Kubrick film, but I know some who love it. Shindler's List, best picture, but I found moments to be cliched (and more importantly the Jewish charcters were rather one dimensional, working as icons instead of people). What I love about Kubrick is the complete vision in each film. And his visual style. Some of his films connect with me much more than others, but as a filmmaker his vision was put onscreen 100%. Oh, and I believe The Killing was an independent production. And films don't get much more perfect than Paths of Glory. I get frustrated with Spielberg because he resorts to quick and cheesy methods of conveying themes and emotions. And often there is no sub-text, nothing deeper than what is on the screen. Even so, he has made some of my favorites, Jaws, Raiders, Close Encounters, but as of late he is more miss than hit, and even his stronger films have gaping lapses in quality. Ryan and Shindler are both quality films deserving praise, but...and there it is, there's usually a but. Am I looking forward to this film, most certainly. I consider it a Spielberg film, but I enjoy the notion that it will contain the handprint of Kubrick, perhaps only in theme and tone, but there nonetheless. That's all for now.
-
First, what we REALLY should be discussing, A.I. I can't wait. Kubrick was the first filmmaker that I really got into and so the prospect of seeing this, a project he spent many years on, finally come to the screen under Spielburg's gaze is irresistable. Oh, I can't resist this. To the idiotic rube below. Global warming is a FACT. And Duh-Bya is a fu**ing pr**k who deserves every trouncing and knock he recieves.
-
This film will have a pretty big opening because people will all go thinking it's the feel good film of the Summer. Parents will bring their kids and middle America will come out of the theater pissed off. After word spreads that this is not the sweet little robot boy movie people expected it will quickly drop. The people that like this kind of thing will not pay any attention to it until all the major critics start commenting on it. The minor critics in the local papers on the other hand will hate it and rip it apart as some pathetic art house crap posing as a blockbuster. This is the riskiest thing Spielberg has ever done and if it was all about the money it would have been a completely different movie. Spielberg is doing this film for Kubrick (and maybe a little respect from critics) but he knows he is going to lose money on this. Even all the mystery and clues of the game they've put together for us is so far under the radar that the average person has never heard anything about it. This film is for Kubrick and us, not for the masses. Spielberg should be applauded for this and I hope I'm wrong and everyone loves it (but they won't).
-
Any talk back whore who bashes this film before it comes out is a frustrated loser who has no grasp of the awe and imagination that Kubrick and Spielberg have given us. If you aren't anxiously awaiting this sucker with the excitement of a little kid on Christmas eve, you are probably one of the C.H.U.D. everyone avoids in film school.
-
First off I want to correct my earlier statement. I know that Kubrick was for most of his career funded by Hollywood and big European film companies. I had my original closing statement all ready but then I lost it in my rambling. So I tried to write another one
-
>>>>
Uh, I'm afraid you're mistaken there. Gradual warming may be natural at certain points in the Earth's lifetime, but definitely not the drastic warming we're witnessing now. There is actually only one scientist who has had his work "peer-reviewed" that has made a less than definitive statement that the current Global Warming trend is a natural phenomena. (The three that received media attention a few years back were all out of their specialized fields, NOT peer-reviewed, and funded by the GCC, an industry front group with members such as Exxon and GM) There are thousands of scientists, whose work has ALL been peer-reviewed that conclude Man's CO2 emissions as having a great effect on the atmosphere. I'm assuming Rush Limbaugh is your main source of knowledge. I'm sure He is much more knowledgeable than the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,) thousands of other climatologists outside of that Panel, and the hundreds of world leaders who have accepted it. (Do you really think that nations will willingly risk an economic slowdown to curb something that wasn't happening?) You should cast aside your flimsy political ideologies, and face the truth. Heck, even large oil companies like BOP Amoco, and large idiots like GW Bush have recognized, and accepted the current science which attributes rapid Global Warming to our CO2 emissions. Maybe its time a small, insignificant talkbacker like yourself did the same.
-La Madre de Mithrandir
-Steave Brodsky -
I thought the movie was very good, nice special effects in places and very good acting from everybody in the movie, including Osment.HOWEVER, this movie is drawn out, really drawn out. Every scene is longer than it needs to be creating something more similiar to Spielbergs Close Encounters rather than E.T. There is very little comedy in the movie w/ a few exceptions in Jude Law and the Teddy Bear "superbot"
that plays David's companion. I thought the end scene was very good, you'll know what Im talking about when you see it, although people around me thought that it wasnt needed and that the movie could have ended earlier.
All in all, good movie just drawn out too much and I hate to use this word but towards the end is indeed "boring."
-
Jun 16, 2001 1:55:58 PM CDT
Nordling, I don't usually read log posts 'cause they tend to ram
by lt. torello
EVERYTHING at Parris Island pays off in Vietnam. In the film's first scene, Sgt. Hartman demands to see Joker's "war face." Joker gives a comical screech. Hartman yells back, "You don't scare me! Work on it!" And that's what the movie's about, one young man learning to make his "war face." Kubrick couldn't make it any plainer. Look at the long shots of Joker's contorted face when Private Pile's getting beaten by the platoon, or when he's looking down at the bodies of murdered Vietnamese, or when he has to finally execute the wounded Viet Cong. Kubrick didn't earn his genius rep for nothin'. By the way, didn't the Cinemax doc make everyone hate this year's films even more?!?!
-
Allen Iverson is already getting a biopic?
-
Jun 16, 2001 6:50:28 PM CDT
JESUS CHRIST FLINTS PICTURE IS HILARIOUS! BEST THING ALL DAY!
by samwave
But my supertoys never lasted all summer. My ecto1. My turtlevan. Even my turboman broke in like a week. Ai in two weeks. Awesome.
-
Jun 16, 2001 7:20:06 PM CDT
As (the band) The Crystal Method once put it (or sampled it I sh
by neosamurai85
I just saw a
-
What is up with the way this thing list Talkback!? One moment it
-
N O O T C H . . .
-
I take pleasure in thinking. Kubrick said that the truth is not likely to be embodied in any one statement. This includes how to make movies. His movies divide people because most people don't think as long-term as he does; their reactions gratify them instantly. Something as far away but no less 'real' as global warming attests to his ability to think about events beyond his lifetime. I like science-fiction because it encourages long-term thinking and stimulates the imagination. I would like to remind people that emotions are thoughts too, and that they cannot survive without them. Spielberg vs. Kubrick. I feel lucky they both existed. Harry likes more movies than he hates because his imagination finds most movies stimulating and worthwhile. If a person likes a movie, then I can learn how this movie can be interesting to it.
-
There has never been anyone in the history of cinema like Kubrick and there probably never will be, mostly because the way the industry is these days. The guy is arguably the most important filmmaker of the past 50 years. Spielberg is the consummate craftsman. He's pretty smart, and it seems like he knows exactly what he wants, or what he can get. What he wants being something simple and direct. Either you like where he's going or you don't, its never a situation where you're not sure what he's trying to say. Kubrick's films are events. They age very well and are way more sophisticated then most of the stuff out there. My enjoyment of the AI will probably hinge on how far out Spielberg was willing to take things. And I expect something other than the typical sad ending in all of his "serious" movies; just a different era with different characters, same emotions. This is Kubrick, damnit, not Forrest Gump (a movie I find thouroughly offensive, the ending just made it worse), Then again, I love the ending of 2001. Its the perfect visual metaphor for evolution as the story (from Dave's perspective) sees it. And its necessary to complete the movie.
-
go read this: http://www.msnbc.com/news/588406.asp
-
Hahahahahahahaha
I started laughing at AI about ten minutes ago, andhaven't stopped yet.
Hammer it home, SS. Batter us with your ham fists.
Poor Stanley...
Poor Mr. Aldis... -
I saw AI, and a review I just wrote may be posted soon. But I just read the above reviews and have some serious disagreements. First, Spielberg does NOT mimic a Kubrick style at all. The visuals are pure latter day Spielberg. Any film buff can close his eyes and picture the symmetrical compositions in "2001", "Clockwork Orange" and "The Shining" or Kubrick's intentional pregnant pauses between lines of dialog. None of that in AI. Also, one of the above reviewers yearned for a 3rd act that was more Spielberg and less Kubrick. The ending is PURE Spielberg--in the horroble "Hook"-like way! I won't reveal anything, but watch the last few minutes and think of the whole Peter Pan/Pinocchio obsession Spielberg has. No Kubrick movie ever had an ending like this. There may be a slight resemblance to the "white room" ending of 2001 but that's all. Thematically its all simplistic Spielberg schmaltz.
None of the intellectual explorations of artificial intelligence that Kubrick would have made are present. Be aware, I am a Spielberg fan. "Close Encounters" is my favorite film of all time, but he drops the ball this time. The only reason this movie will be considered good is because the summer competition all sucks so far. It will seem smart because most movies are so dumb. -
Jesus Christ! Finally someone who recognizes what an overrated piece of this Stanley Kubick is! His films have been the most shallow superfially grounded pieces of garbage I've ever seen, and the most irritating of all is Kubrick's amazing talent of being able to take a fantastic story and hack to to shreds until the the components which make of the theme are effectly shaved off of the film! Not to mention that the guy can't write a coherent script to save the lives of small children. Kubrick's tru calling should've been making boy band videos on MTV. His ability to create eye candy over empty depthless garbage and make people giddy about it would make for the quintissential pop music video.
-
So you're saying that the bookends on SAVING PRIVATE RYAN are mawkish? Too emotional? Well, jezz Louise, God forbid we feel emotional at a movie. God forbid a movie makes us feel something deep inside ourselves, or makes us ask ourselves if we've "earned it". You people are a fucking emotional wasteland. RYAN is brillant filmaking, period. Speilberg may have made some not-so-great filmd, but RYAN is his best work, IMHO. Name another director who can reach into our emotions and thrill us and show us things we've never seen before. Look at the diverse subject in his body of work and you'll see what I mean. JAWS, RAIDERS, CESK, E.T. SHINDLER'S LIST, just to name a few. As for Kubrick, what an incredibly talented filmaker. What I like best about his work was that he made his films at a certain intellectual level, and he expected the audience to meet him at that level, therefore watching a Kubrick film you experience it like with no other director. We will probably never see that type of talent again (although David Fincher comes close). Finally, to all you Republicans out there, face the truth...Dubya is a fucking idiot. You guys picked a moron to lead your party, and it'll cost you the 2004 election. Next time choose someone that the rest of the country can respect, not just the ultra right-wing and big business. And his daughters are college sluts.
-
...napoleon? who will pick that up? dreamworks or disney or... eh...
....completely off-topic: (your president bush passed my streetcorner the other day... he's on tour fondling statesmen all over the globe at the moment, as you might know... and it struck me...) what is the geek-community's official stand on death penalty?
-
www.wired.com/wired/archive/5.01/ffsupertoys_pr.html
-
Eggshell, I can't make any claims to being smarter than you (I beg your forgiveness on that point), but I can tell you why so many folks - myself included - consider Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" to be a true masterpiece of cinema. "2001" is one of the very few science fictions films to explore the concept of First Contact intelligently, realistically, and with an eye towards the ramifications of such an event. Kubrick stood outside the normal spectrum of human emotions in this film (thus the "chilliness" that many audiences find so off-putting) attempting to show us in every frame of film what human life looks like to the god-like ETs
that permeate the universe. Notice how banal, flat, and uninteresting the human individuals in this movie appear to be? This is a very deliberate move on the Director's part. Kubrick is actually trying to put us into the "head" of creatures so intrinsically superior to us that our mammalian brains cannot wrap themselves around their motives. The twin symbols of the Monolith and the Star-Child
are the outward symbols of a depth and reality that is literally incomprehensible to us. Kubrick, in this instance, doesn't tell us about the aliens, he attempts to show them to us indirectly, for indirectly is the only possible we might be able to apprehend them, though dimly and inadequately. Admittedly, "2001" is hard-going for many. When it first came out, even some professional critics found it too long and too boring. Indeed, that was the general consensus. To today's young people with their jacked-up cinematic reflexes and their fast-cutting MTV sensibilities, the movie might appear unendurable. It takes patience to understand it, but that patience will be amply rewarded. I've seen "2001" (in various incarnations) perhaps two-hundred times since it first premiered in 1968 and even today I find something new and intriguing with each viewing.
Kubrick's tendency towards coldness serves this film very well, a wonderful counterpoint to
the emotional sloppiness that seems to characterize most of today's popular movies. Why we have to end everything with a hug nowadays is utterly beyond me. Kubrick showed us that the universe is both awesome and terrible at the same time, inhabited by Olympian sentients for whom the multi-dimensions of spacetime are mere playthings and the brief comings and goings of our tiny species nothing but brief and inconsequntial flashes in the dark.
-
she was in the move for 10 seconds.. with one line. Strong performance?
-
Okay, we get it! Bush is stupid. You hate him.
I'm sure Bush is far less intelligent than that former president from that intellectual center of the universe, Arkansas. And he is far more stupid than Gore supporters in Florida who couldn't figure out how to punch a hole. But apparently he is not as stupid as you are. Pay attention to this next part, you might learn something: BUSH DOESN'T REJECT GLOBAL WARMING, BUSH REJECTS THE KYOTO TREATY BECAUSE IT IS BAD POLICY. Do you understand the difference? I doubt it.
And what is up with you democrats and your O.T. political blasts? Didn't your mama ever teach you that discussing religion and politics in a social setting is impolite? Half the readers on this board are republicans and we don't want to be insulted while reading a movie review. If you reviewers have an axe to grind with GW, do it on a political forum, not a movie site.
-
Did not care for Derek Flint's dismissal of Empire of the Sun as a misguided attempt at being David Lean. Empire is a brilliant film, full of emotion and human drama, that serves as a milestone in his great career- the first of his many "historical" themed films.(and I'm not talking 1941!). Just because the film did not receive the usual boxoffice fanfare and marketing blitz normally associated with Spielbergian epics, it is by no means grounds for it being dismissed as a misfire.
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