Cool News
Just Added Link To First Print Critic Review!!! Heavy Spoilers Review of A.I. That Detests The Film Vehemently!
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL ADDED!!!! Harry here, David Ansen of NEWSWEEK has just had his review posted HERE. Before you go, realize that this is a traditional critic that finds it necessary to describe the entire structure and layout of the film... As a result, the spoilers are quite intense... HOWEVER, it is the most insightful look yet. It left Ansen pondering the ending and what he was meant to feel, whether or not that was Spielberg or Kubrick that made him feel that... He felt that the film came unraveled in the third act, but apparently in a engrossing manner... And he is left pondering what it all means about love. I'M SO THERE!!!
Hey folks, Harry here... We've had fairly ecstatic reviews with little to no spoilers thus far. Happy reviews, reviews that bought the story, that struggled with the tale... that left them pondering the meaning of it all. Well.... Shen, the reviewer below, saw the film, but never bought into it. He saw it all as obvious and trite. A cinematic case of monkey see and monkey do. He didn't buy the vision of the future and felt the film was cruel and unusually upsetting. This is a reaction.... and some of you may come away from this film the same way. I don't believe A.I. will be for everyone... but it could be for me or you... THERE ARE TONS AND TONS OF SPOILERS HERE.... and no safety net at all... If you want to stay pure.... go away now!
Here's my review for A.I. Sorry, it has Spoilers through out. After reading
the other two reviews, I had to write in.
The more I think about this movie, the more offended I get.
I knew it was coming, like a speeding train rushing at me, I could hear it in
the distance. And yet, like a fool, I refused to leap from the tracks.
A.I. is the near legendary last and unfinished project by late Director
Stanley Kubrick, based on the short story: "Supertoys Last All Summer". A
project Kubrick worked on, but mostly put aside for years waiting for
technology to reach a level he found acceptable. Too bad for us, Kubrick went
belly up before that time, and even worse Steven Speilberg is the one who
picked up the project (for Stanley's memory and legacy, of course), turning
what was to be the last milestone in Kubrick's career into a bloated
corporate whore after a night of sailors on shore leave, after months a'sea.
So what we get is a mixture of Stanley Kubrick, Steven Speilberg, and Steven
Speilberg imitating Stanley Kubrick. The obvious punchline being that; the
movie is filled with long, slow, drawn out moments of silence, puncuated by
pretentious melodrama.
So what's it about? Ever heard of Pinocchio? There you go, but with a boy
robot and minus the cool part with the Whale. It all takes place in a world
where the ice caps have melted, overpopulation is a problem, smart robots
called Mecchas service our every need, and Haley Joel Osmont is a one of a
kind prototype robot of a dillusional, autistic 9 year old boy. Autistic or
retarded, it was hard to tell. Anyway, he wants to be a real boy and goes
searching for the Blue Fairy with a Super Teddy Ruxpen teddy bear (Actually
the ONLY truly likable character in the movie), and a robot male gigalo,
named Gigalo Joe (Jude Law). The movie dares to ask the question: Just how
much Psychological torment can a thinking child robot stand before it snaps?
The movie does raise another interesting question, though. Such as; in Man's
continuing quest for knowledge and technological advancement, shouldn't we
stop to consider the ethics and consequences of our actions? A question,
interestingly enough, that could also be applied to the movie itself.
This is yet another, in a long line, of vintage Speilberg movies. Which means
a long EVENT MOTION PICTURE, sprinkled with a few moments of inspired
directing, buried under a mountainous pile of heavy handed is-this-not-deep,
are-you-not-moved-goddammit crappy film making. Steven Speilberg obviously
set out to make a GREAT movie, but its just not. Instead he decides to spend
the movie telling you its a great movie, because theres certainly nothing
there with which to show you. An easier way would have been to just have a
scrolling message board along the bottom:
FEEL HIS PAIN! WEEP, PUNY HUMANS! WEEP AT THE PATHOS, THE INHUMANITY OF MAN,
THE CRUELTY OF WHICH YOU, THE HUMAN RACE IS CAPABLE OF! FOR SHAME! WEEP, DAMN
YOU! O' SHEEP, ARE YOU NOT MOVED?
Between the wild Mecchas in the woods, the designs stolen almost as a whole
from a Terry Gilliam flick, Speilberg's cheap imitation of how he believes
Kubrick would have made it, and the fact that Speilberg obviously HATES
children on some level, because he relentlessly tortures the main character
again and again, I was just left with this sickened, creepy feeling. It's
like watching someone push over an old lady and then they kick her when she
tries to get up, and then they come running around a corner and hit her with
a garbage can when she thinks shes okay, and then back over her in their car.
Speilberg's God complex is more evident here than anywhere else. His Ego is
like a sweaty fat guy rubbing your neck the entire time. For God's sake,
People, someone stop him! As a friend commented in horror: "He even unsexyed
Jude Law. Damn him! I'm going to write a letter!"
The designs are what get me the most. Neon? Vinyl suits? Three Wheeled cars?
Obviously this is a tangent future that never grew out of the 80s. I can't
stand "future" movies with such stupid crap like this, stuff that makes no
sense, but some moron out there decides its futuristic. Why is there
motorcycle guys wearing vests with Neon lights on them? Vests with Neon
Lights on them? Why? Simple, Because Its The Future! Which is, of course, a
fantastic Neon World. Its as bad as the movies where the future people all
wear shiny one piece jumpsuits. At what point in time do we all decide to do
that? The three wheel car isn't even a future innovation, in fact the first
one was road tested in 1915 or so, called the Dymaxion car, designed by
Buckminster Fuller (the geodesic dome guy), and while it did get something
crazy, like 70 miles to the gallon, the fact that it flipped, exploded and
killed its drivers during the prototype phase pretty much canned the project.
Another thing I didn't get. There's a "flesh fair", a name that makes no
sense, A WWF type carnival where they destroy unwanted Mecchas that they
caught running wild in the woods, by shooting them out of cannons, and
pouring acid on them, and all the Mecchas run and are afraid of capture, but
why? Haley is the only one with emotions, the SPECIAL prototype that has
emotions built in, so that means the others don't. So why are they running?
What are they afraid of? Why would getting torn apart bother them? THEY HAVE
NO EMOTIONS! THEY'RE MACHINES! That question was conveniently ignored. Like
how if Haley tries to eat anything, he gets all screwed up, Spinach clogging
up in his circuits at one point, but being underwater is no problem at all.
And like saving Private Ryan, where the interperter kid kills the Nazi guy at
the end, we're left with another confusing character point. Haley meets
another version of himself, and kills it. Not just kills it, but mutilates
it, I mean goes totally bug shit, knocks its head off, beats it to death
kills it. So, if he's supposed to be real and have feelings, than that means
all of his other selves are real and have feelings, as well. So that makes
him a murderer, and a psychotic one at that. Are we supposed to be
sympathetic? Are we supposed to be so behind his single minded, obsessive
quest, so supportive in his hunt to become a real boy, that we can excuse his
bludgeoning of a creation, his mirror image, a creation that the entire movie
has spent trying to get us to accept as real, because he is under some
stress? Scared? What the hell is that about?
And then it just drags on. This was Speilberg's first script since Close
Encounters of the Third Kind, and hopefully it will be his last. His modern
pinocchio tale reaches a point where he realized he had painted himself into
a corner, and simply didn't know how to end it. There are at least two false
end spots (ala The Saint). So whats his solution? Well, after the second
optional stopping point (the point where I felt all hope die), its suddenly
2000 years later, and the Aliens from Mission to Mars show up (The cheapest
aliens ever, I guess they blew too much of the budget on all that Neon.) and
excavate him out from under the several thousand feet of ice he and most of
New Yorks buildings survived under. (I don't even want to start thinking
about the problems with having a second Ice Age, and the Empire State
Building's chances against an encrouching Glacier.) Speilberg then straps you
into your seats for another half an hour and sticks needles under your
fingernails.
The Only part I felt some apprehension is when Teddy was almost broken, like
I said, he is the most likable one. Rest assured, Teddy survives to the end,
but afterwards, I think I felt the most sorry for him, stuck with this whiny
kid for Eternity. The only other good part was when they launched the Chris
Rock Meccha out of a cannon, through a ring of fire, and into a giant fan.
Oh my god, I'm drained. Jesus Christ. What pretentious crap. What tedious
drivel. This movie wasn't bad like Battlefield Earth, where it was simply
amazing, or The Mummy Returns, where it was simply crap. No this is a bad on
a whole new, creepy level.
Basically my prediction is that, this is a movie everyone is going to love,
and as a result, cause me to lose even more faith in Humanity.
I officially detest Steven Speilberg now,
Shen
-
+ Expand All
-
I new someone would have to hate on this film eventually. I havent seen it yet so who am I to judge. I still predict it to be this years BIG film.
-
I know this is way off topic, but has anyone seen or heard of a screening of this film. I am the biggest Jet Li fan alive and am dying to hear the word it is getting before it explodes on to the American market July 6th. I cant wait til audiences see how great this man is.
-
This kind of makes me want to see it even more! You thought it was disturbing? Great! A DISTURBING Spielberg movie. That can't be bad can it (Flame on!!)? Thank you Mr. ReviewerMan!
-
What do you expect from the guy who brought you the "Kick the Can" segment of "Twilight Zone: The Movie"? Or "Saving Private Ryan," for that matter?
-
unless you didnt get it
-
I got "Private Ryan" ("war is VERY violent and ugly girls should be burned to death!"), but I'm still trying to figure out the complex message locked inside "Kick the Can." I'm guessing it's "You will grow very old and die unless a magical old black man visits you in the nursing home right before you die."
-
That's how you come across with your review, a coldhearted cynic.
-
goodbye geek world . . I had it in my grasp, but alas . . . it was too much for me. Thanks, Harry for the opportunity and the fun.
-
Jun 17, 2001 12:41:30 AM CDT
you know, i kinda think that spielberg shot his foot for...
by cedric cannon
...not getting richard d. james(aphex twin) to have some involvement for the score. he's ideal. ahead of the rest of the electronica artists. if you listen to all aphex twin music. you know it would be a perfect compliment for the story's narrative, and it would fit with the futuristic look. the tracks on the Richard D. James album and the Come to Daddy convey just the right amount of hope and dread.which this flick is gonna have...its well known that Kubrick employed music video director Chris Cunningham to build some of the robots. if the film would have been kept on track, i bet you somehow that cunningham would tune kubrick in on aphex twin...oh well. can't do anything about it. at least spielberg was cool enough to get ministry. its actually inspired that they're cast as a sorta skinhead band of sorts(not unlike the skinhead band in american history X)...anyone know where i can watch the video with quicktime? i can't get it on that dreamworks fan site.
-
...I'm trying to give the movie a chance...but no matter what I do, something deep in my heart tells me Spielberg is going to fuck this one up. Let us hope not. Spielberg, you make it so hard for me to have faith in you...AGGHHH!
I'm done now. -
It sounds like the scene you describe where David destroys the other robot is Kubrick's idea. Remember that HAL9000, the most human character in 2001: A Space Odyssey, turns into a murderer too. Kubrick always seemed to have a chilly view of humanity in his movies, and this plot point may be Spielberg's attempt to incorporate Kubrick's ideas about the fine lines between love, obsession and jealousy.
-
Jun 17, 2001 1:27:30 AM CDT
Me thinks this guy aspired to be a screen writer but never becam
by brooklyn bred
Dude stop playa' hating Spielberg. We are talking about a movie which centers around a robot boy (a creepy boy mind you) for crying out loud! Of course we will be asked to swallow alot. If we weren't then there'd be a problem. Every fantasy movie before and after it asks us to open our mind and not think, just enjoy. This flick sounds like something to do on a 99 degree Saturday afternoon and isn't that why these movies are made in the giddy-up to entertain us?
-
Jun 17, 2001 1:54:55 AM CDT
It sounds like a GREAT movie that made this guy THINK and he res
by eugene o
Rather than be outraged, why not just ponder what it all means and leave it at that?
-
Hey its opinion. Go and see the film then re-read the review ok.
Anyway im with anyone who namechecks Buckminster Fuller! -
send'm in folks!
-
For all this guy blames on Spielberg, the more I want to see it. So I guess he failed. And I didn't read all of it because I'm trying to stay away from spoilers... But I always felt that Kubrick was the one who tortured his characters... Oh well...
And yes, some shows (most of which came out after the series on which this movie is based) have delt with this, but it doesn't necessarily mean that this movie has been done (or done well). -
Man, I can
-
Have you ever seen a Stanley Kubrick movie? Have you seen '2001' or 'Clockwork' or 'The Shining'? They can be cruel movies, they can be unsettling, and they can be a little hard to get your head around. They're not full of sympathetic characters (remember that at no point in 'Eyes Wide Shut' are you asked to like or identify with Tom and Nicole). Dehumanization is a prevalent theme in just about all of his movies, which are so unconventional that you have to see them at least twice before you can seriously discuss them. This looks absolutely like brilliant Kubrick, and probably just about Spielbergs best movie. Kubrick joked once that in 'A.I.', he wanted to make a movie that would be as popular as 'Star Wars', the kind of a commercial sucess that none of his movies ever approached. And now it's happening. Then again, much of the audience drawn more by Spielbergs name may very well hate it. But I can't wait.
-
"Incredibly ponderous and languid", "A bloody bore", "Process became more important than plot". These are not, as it happens, reviews for A.I. Nor are they reviews for any Spielberg film. They are actually reviews for 2001-A Space Odyssey, which went on to be considered by many as the greatest sci-fi ever made. Many critics might have hated it (including Pauline Kael - the witch!), but the audience loved it (didn't John Lennon propose they build a theatre showing it 24 hours a day?). I might be getting off the point a little, but what I am saying is, the guys who wrote the bad reviews (I never read all of them, to avoid spoilers), may miss the point. To make a film "unsettling" and "disturbing" is an achievment, not an error, especially conisidering the subject. I'm sure making the film disturbing was Spielberg's intention. What were these guys expecting, a sequel to E.T.? I am not saying that this film will go on to take 2001's position as the greatest sci-fi ever, but I am still pretty sure it will be very clever and original.
-
Why film critics these days write jaded reviews for the jaded media and the heavily jaded general public? 1-They grow old. 2-They forget their childhood traits and fascination with imagination. 3-They are becoming cynical and overealistic. 4-They watch too many thought-provoking or art-house films. 5-They think they are smarter than the rest of the planet. 6-They think the filmgoer public are too stupid to tell the difference between a good movie and a blockbuster. 7-They overanalyze everything, right down to a nitpicking detail. 8-They can't admit that a film is fictional medium of imagination, a grave insult to their real world perceptions. 9-They have bad expereinces at the movie theaters, the kind involving people talking, kids crying or misbehaving, sticky soda on the floor, booger-filled chair, or unwanted mental imagery of an overweight couple having sex down the row. 10-They can't admit that films are meant to be entertaining in various levels, because the lives of film reviewers are always jaded. How sad. Is this movie critic Harry posted in this page real or not?
-
Jun 17, 2001 8:34:45 AM CDT
where's the wireless internet in this future?? Ubiquitous comput
by malchizedik
So the only computing being done is in the 'mecchas'? They wouldn't even have silicon storage!
"Too bad for us, Kubrick went belly up before that time,"
Boy, that's a really really ugly way to describe death. -
Jun 17, 2001 8:40:59 AM CDT
To Spielberg-haters - I wouldn't piss on you if you were on fire
by nordling
Stay away from me. Stay away from this movie. We don't want you there. Furthermore, your mother's ugly and I had to stick a picture of Nicole Kidman in front of me just so I could fuck her. And tell her to wash.
-
I doint know about any of you, but I am looking forward to this movie...
To watch a master at work is always something to behold, whether it be a plumber fixing some pipes or a professor expaining theoretical physics, or a carpenter measuring out a staight line or a filmaker at the height of his talent, prowess and financial feasability...
Does anyone here truly doubt Spielberg's ability?
Let's wait for the film to come out and then let the bombs fly, let us not be, shall we say...premature, which is something I think everyone does not appreciate... -
Jun 17, 2001 9:35:40 AM CDT
Pretentious, eh? Well, since Stanley Kubrick was a big part in t
by manda
-
Well, I guess this just continues the trend. Every movie that has come out this summer thus far has seriously undershot expectations. I made a commnent in another post about art in general in decline. Several people wrote back to say that it's just that Hollywood et al isn't interested in art anymore. This shift is certainly obvious. You have to dig a lot harder and go further to find good art these days.
I hope this movie is good. I am not even going to ask for great anymore. I have just about given up on that. So far, the best thing far and away to have come out is Atlantis for this year. I still have hope for this one. -
The reviewer said that this is Spielberg's first script since Close Encounters of the Third Kind. But he never wrote that script. Julia Phillips, the producer of Close Encounters revealed in her book You'll Never Eat Lunch In This Town Again that Spielberg paid off the writers of Encounters so that he could claim sole writing credit. The writers were, in fact, Hal Barwood, Jerry Belson, John Hill and Matthew Robbins (whose names appear, thankfully, on IMDB as uncredited writers with Spielberg's name at the top of the list).
-
It's nice to get some advance warning before people waste their valuable money. I'm gonna go see Swordfish!!!
-
Well, first off I AM a Spielberg basher - his movies ARE pretentious crap. However I am looking forward to this one, the visuals look really spectacular - out of Spielberg's usual mode. This review does install a little apprehension - I hate Spielberg's hokeyness. I think it's interesting that he suggests the film's statement could be applied to itself - I felt that strongly about SCHINDLER'S LIST. "If I could have saved just one more - one less car to save one more person - " blah blah - why doncha lower your hype and budget and save some starving families you rat bastard? Spielberg has a bad reputation for exploiting resources and the lower classes for his 'vision'. Yea, I really am a MAJOR Spielberg basher here. As such, I must say I found this review to be very funny. Silver jumpsuits - "When did we all decide to do that?" That is hilarious. To a comment above about jaded reviewers, I was a reviewer for a few years... critics don't sit in public theaters for one, the viewing experience is pretty nice - but you see SO MANY films, it's just a constant barrage. And SO MANY films are utter crap. You don't see most the films that come out - every little indie. Let me tell you, there is nothing as bad a bad indie movie. They're like mice, they infest the critic's screening rooms. They distort your perspective. If anything I feel like I embraced some lesser films when I reviewed merely because they were different - they weren't terrible. And when you see a big budget dog of a movie - it's grueling. Physically grueling. And the big fear as that this uncritical crap will inspire - almost give permission for the indie filmmakers to release more crap. It's a self-regurgitating cycle. When you watch movies for hobby or sport, they have a totally different value than when you're reviewing. Like Bush's supposedly support of the arts - in that art can relax you and take your mind off the real stuff. If you're a critic, art IS the real stuff.
-
And I know that the above post is really illiterate for a former reviewer, and I'm not on the clock anymore you rat bastard.
-
I have no special knowledge of this particular reviewer, but I expect A.I., whether or not the film is good, would elicit a strong negative reaction from certain people. Those that believe humans have a special place in the universe above all other matter and fear a universe that pays no extra attention to our fate frightens many people beyond reason. This movie shows us a future where the last special human qualities are bestowed upon simple machines. Therefore, I believe that the better this movie is the more sharply contrasting the reviews will become. Those who don't mind sharing sentience with metal will love it. Those who feel their paradigms being blasted will not attach to the film and will also feel the need to discredit it in any way possible.
Well...its a thought anyway. :)
-
... by a person not afraid to follow the Pied Piper. If there can be one single indicator of the condition of our society I nominate the popularity of Steven Spielberg films.
Brief moments of originality, the rest of his films are cannibalizations of others ideas and movies. I can not get over the rape of the Sullivan family with the making of SPR. Did no one ever hear of hear USS THE SULLIVAN or see the 1947 movie THE SULLIVANS? The scene when the War Office notifies the Sullivan family of their sons' deaths is depicted frame by frame in SPR, including the stairway in the home, the screen door, the cotton dress Mrs. Sullivan was wearing (in the movie). Yet when asked about the Sullivans, Spielberg denied the family story had any influence on his own. I'm not a member of the Sullivan family or connected to them in any way. It is simply appalling to me that a person of Spielberg's stature is too greedy, too insecure, or so insensitive that he could not share the spotlight with the sole remaining member of a family whose lives he so clearly lifted his "masterpiece" from. I do not agree that the reviewer's remarks were filled with hatred. He *ends* his comments with that statement, undoubtedly because he feels he was brought to that point because of the movie. Since many of you are crying for 'fairness' how about reading the review with an unjaundiced eye. Many of those who knocked the review obviously came to the TalkBack with the same prejudice you see in the review. You are prepared to like AI and are willing to smash anyone who dares to disagree with your preconceived ideas. Give the guy a break, give the movie a break, and go see it and then, as someone else said, come back to this review. He's not trying to convince people to stay away from teh movie, as I have read others do. As a matter of fact, he acknowledges, as I do, that undoubtedly the movie will be a box office 'success'. I feel the soulful resignation of acknowledgement in his comments. He has a right to voice his opinion, however strongly. I find it particularly amusing to read the posts of those who say they want "to see the movie *more* now"
Certainly, these writers are rebellious teens, or adults who have never gotten past that stage of life emotionally. If you want to see a movie, go see it because you want to. Do you really need to express your dissatisfaction with authority by wanting to spend your time and money because someone else dislikes what you already made up your mind is a 'good thing'? Oh brother ... -
if he were to bash a film uneqivocally. Oh, and Shen, you dumb fuck, the period goes inside the quotes! "Printed Reviewer," and the punctuation is outside of the quotes. HA! I knew I'd see at least one word used when someone went to bash this film: pretentious. Oh, fuck! Give me a break. Fucking Darren Aronofsky is pretentious. Another thing, Shen, is you discuss the story being the problem; then you discuss Stanley Kubrick. Well, the stories in Kubrick's films, if you get down to brass tax, were nothing. Absolutely nothing to them - aside from Dr. Strangelove. Granted Stanley didn't come up with the ideas behind most of his films, but they still reflected his literal interpretation of the book, etc. of what he had adapted. BUT, here's the kicker: it's not the stories, it's the fucking filmmaking. I had to browse through that review in order to spare myself from spoilers, but I never once saw a remark that stood out enough to grab my attention regarding the mother fucking filmmaking! And of course Shen's a "printed" film critic; the dumb fuck gives away plot points! Why the fuck do you have to give away plot points? You can tell us what it's about and so be it, but I believe your stupid ass saw the film; you don't need to validate it by telling me what happened. You dumb shit, I wanna SEE the film for myself. And what spoilers I did read didn't in any way lower my expectations, so they weren't used to better validate your critique, but like I had mentioned, tell me a stupid fuck like you saw the film and has nothing nice to say. I am so fucking sick and tired of everyone being the expert on Stanley Kubrick. If all of you are, then you're insulting Kubrick. Kubrick didn't make films for stupid people. But this is NOT a KUBRICK FILM; it's Steven Spielberg's work. I mentioned this a little while back, but Kubrick has faith in Spielberg and obviously thinks Spielberg's a good filmmaker. At least Stanley Kubrick made good and influencial films, so I think has more authority than some halfwit film "critic." I hope nobody carries Shen's sentiments into the movie theater. So what if Spielberg's films are emotionally manipulative. I see a lot of these so-called film critics on this site saying that OVER and OVER and OVER again. But not one of them says why that's a bad thing. They'll say it makes them want to puke their guts out. Okay, you dipshits, films are personal reflections of the filmmaker. Obviously, the filmmaker wants you to feel the same way he does. But he's not telling you to. The only way you're going to be manipulated is if you are a pussy weepy bitch who'll succumb to the "powers of the dark side!" Shen obviously carries a small attention span so he's incapable of critiquing books, so he critiques films based on the literal/story side. When any GOOD filmmaker (Scorsese, Welles, Kubrick, Fellini - and for the earlier part of his career, Speilberg - and I know you guys cried at the end of E.T. when you were 8!) understands it's the filmmaking and aethetic over the story. However, if the story sucks bad and is terribly manipulative i.e. Battlefield Earth, it should be bashed "vehemently." But, again, if the filmmaking is manipulative - as it is in the case of Spielberg's films (but, it's mostly scoring that causes that. Don't believe me, then take that sonofabitch Darren Aronofsky's film Requiem For a Dream and mute the ending and see it it's as "powerful" as when you watched it with the aid of Clint Mansell's scoring!) - it's merely the filmmaker's self-expression. And art, Shen, is filmmaking, NOT story/plot. And that filmmaking, that art, is self-expressive. And from what I read of your shitty review, it sounds like true filmmaking. All I needed to see from this review is your sentiments regarding the filmmaking; I could give a shit about the story. Then again, it might be garbage, but I'll be the judge of that since you are obviously incapable of doing your "job."
-
of all the reviews i've been privey to so far,this one really fleshed it out for me.i'm not goin' in "pure" and i don't care.i'm still goin' in you bastard!
-
Jun 17, 2001 11:39:36 AM CDT
Ah, THAT is what has been missing from not just Spielberg's work
by smugbug
Ansen called, in his review, A.I. "ambitious". Good word - that one word has been missing from so many of the crap coming out this past spring and summer. I do now want to see this movie. Only partly becuase of David Ansen's review. I think he hit the nail on the head about Spielberg. I saw Close Encounters as a kid when it first was released. I couldn't take my eyes off the sky for weeks afterwards. I want to see Spielberg reaching for those heights again. I wish more of the directors like Bay, West and the like would do the same. I know that Tim Burton is a great visual stylist but can't tell a cohesive story to save his life - however I do believe he has remained ambitious and always tries to push his creative envelope. I welcome that. I will always think that Jaws, Close Encounters and Raiders of the Lost Ark were his best. I wish Poltergeist could be in this list, but he produced it and Tobe Hooper directed (but I LOVE this movie, too!).
-
>
Please tell me you are just in a rant ... you are not serious with this statement, are you? *If* you do respond, can you make it low key and intelligent, as opposed to TalkBack 'fuck you' rants. I am politely serious in my question and am only asking that you back up your statement. I, for one, totally disagree with you. What the heck is filmmaking but telling a story using all the 'tools' of the industry? Be nice ... -
Folks, I'm worried about the level of intelligence here. Those who bash the most read less? The comments Harry put up by "Shen" are not the same as the print critic David Ansen, yet many of you confuse the two, assigning one the comments of the other, while damning the two of them together. If you're going to put someone down, at least get your facts straight.
Ansen made a very interesting remark discussing the influence of Kubreck's style on Spielberg's camera work: "We haven't seen Spielberg working in this chilly, disorienting mode before, and he's damn good at it." For those who admire Kubrick this is a good thing. For those of us that feel Spielberg gets way too much credit for basically copying other people's work, the statement validates our opinion. OTH, all artists are influenced by the work of something or someone; to me this is just part of the process. The problem I have with it is when Spielberg claims and takes credit that is not solely his ... he is not an artist so much as an extremely skillful technician. -
Sikofu, this is kinda aimed at you. Sure, I have a lot of preconceived ideas regarding A.I. Shen's incapable of discussing the filmmaking, but opts to bash the story instead. That's not film, that's literature. Films are ripped off all the time, and the biproducts, such as SPR and American Beauty (don't believe me about AM, check out Middle Age Crazy.) are praised. I, for one, have always thought SPR was mishmash for one reason: the filmmaking. Sikofu, you made a totally justified and, heh, "'un'pretentious" remark about SPR ripping off The Sulivans. My hat's off. Your remarks are justified, but what concerns me is, what concern is it of your's if someone bashes Shen for writing a "bad-themed" review? Why does anybody need to be told not to see a film because someone else didn't like it? Are we a symbiosis of sheep and goat(s)? If someone feels indifferent, the rest do too in fear that goat might be right and the they, the sheep, are wrong? Sure, I think "bad-themed" reviews are a good thing, if the reviewing quality if of an intelligent and enlightened nature. Film is about sharing stories; since when did society become so cynical and decide that everyone should hate a story because they do? What has Spielberg done so wrong that we should never again listen to his feelings? You made a point, Sikofu, he really ripped of the Sullivans on the filmmaking front. But the only reason a "critic" like Shen can give me is because Spielberg's films are "manipulative." In my previous talkback post, I think I might have made a good point about manipulation and Spielberg. Shen's rating a film on its story; and any enlightened goat knows stories aren't what makes a film a film. But there's no reason at all to spoil people's good hopes in order to draw attention to oneself. I'm betting, thanks to criticism like Shen's, 90% of the fanboys interested in this film will dislike this film in order to show they're willing to be a goat like Shen. Of course, they become sheep in doing so. However, I'm betting if Shen had help back his remarks until after the film, no one would agree with them. They'd be full of joy. Shen wants to be noticed. He's already spoiled the film for a lot of those people devoid of any real understanding of film. So don't get upset at people for bashing Shen for giving them a "bad-themed" review and spoiling their high hopes. My point is: film is a celebration. Save critique until everyone's had a fair chance to enjoy the film. Shen's bashing the story, and not the filmmaking. I don't want to know about the story! This is why I'm upset: all I want to know is if the filmmaking is up-to-par; par being a Kubrick production. Something everyone seems to profess knowledge of nowadays! So let people bash Shen for raining on their parade. People only see story, and most times never understand film because it's something that shouldn't be of concern to them. But if Shen's going to say this film in some way pales in comparison to a Kubrick film - and Kubrick is not infallable, people - then he should give reasons as to why, because Kubrick wasn't about story, but the filmmaking/illustration! Shen already rained on the parade of the people more concerned with the story by bashing it, and cast a cloud over people, like myself, who are more concerned with the filmmaking by failing to acknowledge how it wasn't up-to-par.
-
Here we go. The first film critic to review this movie. Oh, too bad he doesn't like it. No wonder- he's a film critic. He's been a critic all his life since his days at Harvard. Just another bitter ass that has never made or worked on a movie. Just someone who thinks HIS opinion matter more then others. Well, you know what they say about opinions....
-
Jun 17, 2001 12:41:20 PM CDT
Saupie, David Ansen called A.I. f'ascinating' and 'ambitious'
by semprini
Saupie, have you actually read Ansen's review? He liked A.I. and find it 'mesmerizing'. It seems that you are mixing up his insightful review and Shen's review.
-
This review had nothing to do with any of the movie!! He didn't even want to like the film. He's obviously very jealous of Speilberg and hates him! He hates summer flicks and Speilberg. You know he must really really hate George Lucas!!
He said everything at the end...He hates it..but everyone else will probably love it. That's what will get his goat!!
He knows it's gonna be a huge hit!!
This will probably be Speilberg's biggest film since Jurassic Park! -
Thanks for answering Sikofu. That's exactly what I meant. Exactly. It's okay if people disagree with me. If someone gives a reason as to why in an intelligent manner, I have no problem. But if someone reads what I, or anyone for that matter, has to say with a bias, his/her input is not going to be intelligent. Oh, and Eyes Wide Shut is based on a novel called Dream Story (by Arthur Schnitzler; it's included with the screenplay) - that might better explain the whole confusion behind EWS's story. But you're right: what was happening on the screen and how it was told through the filmmaking - I call it narrative - was excellent. Thanks.
-
Jun 17, 2001 1:26:22 PM CDT
most people don't like films that are challenging or make them t
by fatal discharge
...something that Kubrick's films are famous for. I thought Eyes Wide Shut was spectacular and I keep thinking about it off and on - like great films make you do. Their reputations grow with time and repeated viewings. Wasn't Vertigo also despised when it was first released? It's one of my favorite films ever. Sounds like Spielberg has gotten Kubrick's intentions down correctly most likely. I can just hear the critics whining though that he's merely "copying" Kubrick like Woody Allen copied Bergman's films (regardless that they were great copies nevertheless).
-
...probably to be seen better at night going 180 through downtown Megacity. Why do the robots run? Because they may have some type of self preservation mechanism built in. They can't experience deeper emotions like a human but some basic flight-or-fight instincts like an insect.
AICN must get some tax credit for letting this retard speak. -
Laugh? I nearly pissed my pants! If only ANYTHING could be the downfall of Spielberg... except of course, a bullet, to his smug little hairy head. Cinematically, he seems to have done it to himself. Again.
Enjoy your website game, fanboys. I'm just going to go on laughing for a while. -
Spielberg's mentor Robert McKee, the God/aging guru of Hollywood's legendary STORY seminar, which over 35,000 screenwriters, filmmakers, TV writers, novelists, industry executives, actors, producers, directors and playwrights have taken for the past 15 years would have to disagree with your illiterate raving, "Red Army Chimp".
STORY is everything, whether on the big screen, tv, on stage or in novels, in ALL creative work, everything works in the shadow of classic story design.
"I could give a shit about the story" mmmkay, go back to watching the pretty colors on Teletubbies, lil Chimpy. And be sure to keep your big mouth open wide and so Hollywood can keep shovelling in the soft-serve shit.
As for my faith in Senor Spielbergo... can you say Amistad? The guy is just another bloated Hollywood ego surrounded by yes men, hopelessly out of touch, but still making bank thanks to the millions of chimps out there willing to accept crap on a silver platter.
It's idiots like you who are financing Kate capshaw's new 20 acre stables in the middle of Bel Air while the legacy of Stanley Kubrik's life work is further defaced. -
Yes, I made it clear what my definition of story was RELATIVE to filmmaking, not story-telling. If you're going to insult me, read what I say first. My points are valid. I don't give a shit how many people think filmmaking is just story. 30,000 idiots as far as I'm concerned! Filmmaking is how you tell the story. I made that fucking clear; yet you call me illiterate! You can't even spell Kubrick! I'm talking about filmmaking and how a filmmaker goes about telling a story. Not the fucking story itself? What's not clear to you?
-
Does Spielberg pay you to blindly defend him or did I just bruise your ego, Chimp?
-
Lmao.... You are obviously just another of Spielberg's post-happy lackeys and I have unmasked you, traitorous villain!
How can you ask us to take anything you say seriously when your email address is "ToBeARealBoy@aol.com"??
hoo ha, at least you were good for a laugh.
-
My apologies about my last post. Semprini is correct. After reading the slam on AI, I was quick to reply.
-
Since this project was announced I've had revolving emotions. I was initially happy that one of Kubrick's pet projects would see production from Steven Spielberg, then I worried. The teaser trailer would have been good had it not been for the "His love is real but he is not" shit, and I saw it just about every time I went to the movies. And Spielberg writing? I always thought that Kubrick actually had a completed script and Spielberg would be filming based on Kubrick's treatments and drafts, as well as Kubrick's own production notes and designs. Had Kubrick had all of this material (I'm not sure if he did) I think that Spielberg would have been good just to set it up as Kubrick would have wanted and rolled film. This was supposed to be a Kubrick film, not a Spielberg film, even if Kubrick had talked with Spielberg about directing it, I seriously doubt Kubrick would allow too many feel good mainstream moments that would compromise what is supposed to be a downbeat story. I haven't seen the movie but I'm definitely planning on being there opening day to see either A) Kubrick's vision beautifully realized or B) Spielberg's fucked up imitation of Kubrick. It might fall somewhere in the middle - but because this is Kubrick and to a lesser extent because it's Spielberg, people have way high expectations. There are so many more hardcore Kubrick fans out there than there are Spielberg fans, yet in recent years I think that Spielberg has grown up as a filmmaker (a little late, but that's okay) but he always provides an entertaining ride, and up to his point I think that everything I've paid for that Spielberg has directed I haven't regretted. He's good, but Kubrick was so much better, and had balls when it came to the movies he wanted to make. What causes me to worry so much is that twenty years into his career, Kubrick was making "A Clockwork Orange" and twenty yars into Spielberg's career he was making "Hook". I kind of like "Hook" for what it is, but "A Clockwork Orange" has eternal importance, while "Hook" is just a cash cow. Therein lies the difference, and it just might be "A.I"'s undoing.
-
It's a fact, whatever either is, seems to be, or will be popular and succesful will have detractors on the sideline, ready to piss all over it. Take for example Titanic. Wildly successfull and loved by many, including lots of critics, but some people positively HATED it mostly because it was popular. Some refused to see it.
A.I. has had tremendous reviews by the handful of advance screeners, and it is significant that Ansen is among them. It appears to be a critical success, if not commercial one. But, to be contrary, to draw light to themselves, there will be people who hate it and will voice their hatred loudly and often.
-
What exactly is it that I don't "get"?
And please don't go off on another expletive-riddled cromagnum man rampage, as your friend Chimpy is wont to do. -
http://www.drudgereport.com/link6.htm
-
You just bash me with no basis for doing so other than I like Spielberg. I didn't like Schindler's List, Amistad, Saving Private Ryan or any other drama Spielberg's produced. You're attacking me personally when I did nothing to provoke it! I'm just sharing my feelings about something and you insult me - on the grounds you think I hold myself up to more enlightened members of filmmaking. I'm not a critic and I'm not published, but I am voicing my concerns in a manner relative to the article it arose from! Go ahead and insult me. My question is: why haven't you gone after TheEnigma or anyone else. They're all voicing their opinions, what makes mine so different? Oh, yes, I'm retarded! Well, you honestly insult "retarded" people; you get pleasure from doing so? Criticize me all you want, man. I'm not paid off by Spielberg, but I do defend MY PHILOSOPHY on filmmaking, and it just so happens Spielberg has his place in it. You say Spielberg sucks; yet, you probably can't name a filmmaker better than he. Oh, you'll probably mention Orson "Wells," or that damn Stanley "Kubrik" again! The problem with you is you know I'm right. I'm not leaving this as an open debate of the validity of my philosophy. Sure, man, you can disagree with it, but it's only because you won't admit I'm right. And beside, I doubt you're an enlightened member of the filmmaking world, so you have no authority! The reason I know I have authority over you is I'm willing to explain myself, whereas you're incapable of doing so and will opt to attack me personally! Oh, and as for my e-mail address, I made it long ago before A.I. and it's actually in reference to Pinocchio.
-
I decided to check back to see if discussions were still going on. I'm glad, RAC, to read your comments. At least now I understand where you were coming from. "I'm talking about filmmaking and how a filmmaker goes about telling a story. Not the story itself." is what you feel movies are about. I understand your point but I don't agree with you. As Invisible Loki says, IMO, story is everything. But that doesn't mean I put you down for your opinion. You make an interesting observation. I'm not certain the TalkBack is a forum to fully discuss the issue but at least we managed to disagree without hurling *Fuck you's* at one another.
I don't remember that I suggested anyone should refrain from seeing AI, and I didn't read that in "Shen's" review either.
My comments are about Spielburg's
'borrowing' without returning any thing in return.
Shen strongly disliked the movie and said so. Shen, while I your review was great, your reaction to those who disagree with you certainly dimishes your own credibility. This is a TalkBack, for crying out loud. Some of these people make a living finding new ways to insult one another.
If I were to put money on it, my guess is that A I will be a huge box office success. Is it a good movie? I don't know - was SPR? No, but people loved it anyway and Spielburg won tons of awards. Go figure.
-
Oh brother! here come the insults. It's late, I'm tired, what can I say ...
-
Enough said.
-
Since pointing out typos seems to get you off so thoroughly, I'll try to leave a few in. You must keep really busy with all these message boards to patrol with your Big Red Pen.
Chimpy, you cry don't attack me, "I'm just sharing my feelings about something and you insult me - on the grounds you think I hold myself up to more enlightened members of filmmaking."
Well, well, well... isn't that exactly what you did to Shen and his review?
You made a lot of assumptions about me in your last post. 99% of assumptions are wrong, Chimpy. You might want to bear that in mind before hastily whipping out yet another half-baked reaction.
My response to your ludicrous statement regarding the role of story in film has nothing to do with misconceiving you as some kind of enlightened filmmaker. The contrary is more than evident.
-
"How can you ask us to take you seriously..." I never asked anyone to take me seriously. I'm new to this talkback shit and didn't expect to see any responses. And who's US? US, Loki? Who is this US? You're in a group Loki. Here's how I see it: one of me, and many of you. So of course I'm going to "lose!" You're totally disregarding anything I say and defending that halfwit, Shen. Hell, you're probably Shen - that might explain that mysterious US you speak of! Enough's enough, Loki. You insult me and no one else has went as far as to insult me. Obviously, there's some provocation I'm aware of where your only resort is to insult me. The only case I see that working for is if you are Shen or friends with him and feel I've insulted you personally. Well, good. I'm not an idiot like you and at least my intent was to discuss film! Your intent was to insult me! HA! Just cease the insulting, man. I insulted your "friend" Shen. Hey, I may stick up for Spielberg, but at least he's made films. I don't see Shen doing any such things and, yet you defend him! So enough's enough! Quit acknowledging me from here on out if you find my presence unbearable enough to insult me. Peace.
-
Jun 17, 2001 7:53:51 PM CDT
Let me put my two cents in here amoungst the nonsensical ramblin
by g-dude
First of all, Kubrick never wrote a script, he wrote a treatment, and yes, Spileberg did go from that treatment. Also, Kubrick left all of the pre-production designs & storyboards to Spielberg, and yes, Kubrick HAD Spielberg in mind to direct ever since he saw E.T., because he thought Spielberg could handle the subject matter better. Read actual publications, not rumor sites like this place, and you might know this. As for my standing on Spielberg, I think almost all his work is great (didn't care for 1941 or Empire), yes, even Hook. Hook was the first movie I ever actually OWNED, that I could pick up and say it was mine, and only mine. You could say I like it for sentimental reasons. I think Schindler's List was a truley phenomenal film- and my favorite part seems to be the part everyone of the no-lifes seem to hate- Liam Neeson's speech towards the end. Just a great slice of acting. Saving Private Ryan was just as good, and it is unfairly bashed here. If you didn't like it- fine, but don't tell other people they're dumbshits cause they liked something you did not. It also seems to be the frame of mind here to hate anything that is successful, because successful=everyone liking it, resulting in some strange form of reasoning that if this guy liked it, you MUST hate it. Does anyone here think that they can like Saving Private Ryan AND The Thin Red Line just the same. I did. But I'm not like you people- I enjoy arthouse (whenever it gets here) AND blockbusters- I went and enjoyed The Mummy Returns (but I still have major gripes about it), and I liked Shawshank Redemption not because of everyone else I knew- because I liked it. I watched it with out any outside influence. I can tell you now that there is not one person in these talkbacks who are being given outside influence as to what to expect from A.I. This includes myself. So-called "freethinkers" are getting just a biased information if they spend all their time in this place, arguing about how Spileberg is no Kubrick, how this movie will blow because Spielberg is sap, blah, blah, blah. Well, I say watch ad #6, and tell me if this looks sappy. To me, from this preview, it looks thought-provoking (god forbid), emotional (oh, that can't be allowed if its successful or poular, right), hell, even angry. That's what I think. But then again, I actually enjoy watching movies, not critizing them. To paraphrase a quote from a (go figure) Spielberg movie: "Perhaps you should ENJOY movies instead of BASHING them!" But I'm just rambling.
-
Hey Chimpy, maybe if you weren't so defensive it wouldn't seem like people were "attacking" you when they disagree with your "philosophies" about filmmaking.
For someone who is sure everyone is out to get him because they can't admit he's right, your attitude isn't really surprising. Neither is your "I flame you one last time, but now that's it!! Stop acknowledging me!" demand.
Grow up, chimpy, and someday maybe you'll not only BeARealBoy, but *gasp* ARealMan. -
This is one of the funniest things I have ever read! The almost perfect way you completely dismantle this movie and find each part you remove more revolting than the last. I just might go see it, to see these things myself. I haven't laughed that hard in a while, especially when someone was tearing a movie everyone was rooting for a new asshole.
-
His review is even more articulate than Ansen's, though both seem to rate the movie about the same--interesting, but icy Kubrick diluted by warm Spielberg.
-
when are you speilberg lovers going to realize that he has SUCKED ever since he won that oscar for schindler... he stopped making movies at that point and only concentrated on winning oscars. and don't think for a minute his craft hasn't suffered greatly because of it. that's why I was soooo happy when shakespeare in love beat ryan's privates for the best pic. not that it kicked so much ass, but at least it wasn't "a steven speilberg film." come on stevie... all you were ever good at was making kiddie films... (indy, e.t., et al) stick with what you're good at. intellectualism ain't your bag, baby.
-
Who cares what this reviewer thought? Does anyone find it just that much more amazing that one person's opionion (valid or not) can inspire so many loud mouthed arguments? Who is the reviewer anyway? What if it's a Dreamworks plant? (I picture Spielberg sitting at his computer, late at night, typing away...a memo for a production assistant to email a review in the morning, fix him a bagel, cup of coffee, wash his car, and whatever-else-crap he can't do himself)
If something like this were a plant, then wouldn't we all be playing into it, and responding, creating a stir? Making talk so we have something to talk about with our own geek friends at the movies tonight? And if we're REALLY smart, we'll avoid seeing anything directed by Simon West or Michael Bay (thank God Jan DeBont doesn't have a film out right now). -
What's up with this SpEIlberg thing, an inside joke I obviously don't get? Sorry, it's not that I'm one of those spelling obsessed people, but I've seen this typo so often, not to mention in a posted review a few dozen times, that I wonder if I'm missing something here?
Anyway, as far as this review goes, every man is entitled to his opinion, though I didn't think Shen was very convincing. Some of the people here should take a pill or something and calm down, like this TheEnema guy who gets all throthy around the mouth and funny enough blames Shen to be just another angry Spielberg hating geek and being biased. My friend, everybody is biased and so what, it makes discussion more interesting. I like some of Spielbergs movies and dislike others. I didn't care for SPR, apart from the marvellous technical achievement of filming the D-day landing which was very impressive. It just didn't move me, especially not compared to a movie like The Thin Red Line that came out about the same time, but that is old hat. I don't know if I'm going to like AI, but I'll give it a chance and I do believe Spielbergs integrity is beyond question, if though at times he overdoes it with the schmalz.
As far as Kubrick goes, his movies are like good wine, they improve in time. I first hated Eyes Wide Shut and considered it to be pretentious crap, but after having seen it a few times consider it a great movie, which proves that sometimes being careful with your judgements is a prudent thing to do and so goes for AI.
The problem with Spielberg to me often is, that he forgets that it sometimes doesn't work that when you feel very strongly about a subject and/or very emotional, though it's natural to want to convey your passion to an audience, you often are counter productive trying to hammer down your involvement into the audience's heart. You feel like saying "Don't try so hard man, I know what you're getting at without you shouting in my ear." I hope Spielberg hasn't made the same mistake with AI. Ah well, we'll see and I'm very much looking forward to this movie. -
I don't get reviewers sometimes. Not every film can be, or needs to be Citizen Cane. You can go to the theatres for simple amusement without having to see a great work that will be talked about for the next hundred years. I read reviews on Pearl Harbor, Mummy Returns, and not A.I. all saying the same thing. Horrible film blah blah blah. I liked all of them up to A.I. (gonna see it just to see what all the hype's about). Each one of them were simple mindless fun. Mummy Returns was just like the first one. Over the top and light fare entertainment. Was it as good as the first, no. Was it a piece of crap, no. It was fun, no more, no less. Pearl was a blockbuster. Everybody's beautiful, everything is wonderful until the big day, BIG explosions and the hero gets the girl. If you want a deep film, wait for Apocolypse Redux. If you want to see a Hollywood Blockbuster in the same vein as ID4, then you will be a happy camper. I think people don't go in expecting the type of film they are gonna go see. Not every action film has to be as good as Raiders, or The Killer to be good. Not every Sci-Fi film has to be 2001 or Star Trek II in order to be entertaining. Relax and enjoy, or stay the fuck home and pout about how horrible Hollywood is nowadays.
-
Suffering through Shen's "review" is like being sat on by a VD infected rhino. This review makes a fat man's sweat tastes like lemonaide. It's almost like a steamroller doing donuts on your bedroom carpet. The endless, overblown use of simile and metaphor to "review" is like shooting an ant with an elephant gun. It's like that.
-
If you combine the letters in their name, convert them to ASCII code, then turn around three times and click your heels, you get the URL "www.troutmakers.org".
-
Im not going to go on and on about pretentious geeks who think they are masters of the art of film and bash anything Spielburg makes. He could create the Great American Movie, and you'd still bash him just because ofhis name. But you know what? Many, many people have been entertained by his movies over the years, and many, many people will go see this movie and be entertained, and he will continue to make films until he is too old to see through a lense. If you dont like him, dont go see his movies, but I guarantee you I will be in line opening night for this. Oh, and this review is ludicrous. He spent an entire paragraph writing about how bad all of the "future" props looked. Well, what do you think people in the 1880's would think if they had a chance to see into the future at how people would be dressing in 1984? To use his own words, at what point did everyone decide to dress in pastels, headbands, and red leather jackets covered in zippers? Exactly.
-
Ah, so I see Slowbro is still bent over in front of his simian friend, defending him to the bitter end without ever bothering to read any of his belligerent posts, filled with mis-statements regarding not only myself, but oh yes, what were we talking about, FILM-MAKING.
If you read my responses in order you will see that I made my point abundantly clear in my first post, while the latter were merely for entertainment purposes. Subsequent posts from the Chimp were beneath address, (come on, "The problem with you is you know I'm right. I'm not leaving this as an open debate of the validity of my philosophy. Sure, man, you can disagree with it, but it's only because you won't admit I'm right!" .....and you defend this kind of delusion. i can only laugh.) beyond a simple reply just to get his goat. I know how chimps can't resist being poked with sticks, and apparently his Slowbro can't either.
Like your friend, you make many assumptions. And it's entertaining to watch you both flailing in the wind. "LokiShen"? lmao.... Funny how you're so sure, just because someone disagrees with the preposterous theory that story plays no part in the overall success or failure of a film, that I am now in league with your Great White Enemy, Shenjanno. (Who apparently is the bane of your existence....goddamnit he is probably Spielberg himself!!!)
On second thought, your paranoia and conspiracy theories are just boring. Go back to taking it in the ass from your little friend Chimp. Oh and you "taught college English"? That must explain your baffling fondness for the class imbecile. Oh well, those who can't do, teach. -
you have a right to dislike it.. but to call others that do 'sheep' is just mean. It was a really incredible movie.. and the 'creepy' parts and the ambigiuous nature of David murdering the other David is what makes the movie memorable. Ive been thinking about it non-stop for 5 days since Ive seen it.
-
Jun 18, 2001 10:02:10 AM CDT
It's Time to Put the "Playmountain" to Rest ("Spielberg" transla
by grouchox
I am tired of his films and style of filmmaking. I only go to them because someone pays me to do so. I am tired of his endless crane shots. I am tired of his fast track in shots to low angle close ups of stoned faced amazement. I am tired of how he can't make a film without special effects or 50 billion extras (how about doing a Dogme 95 film for chrissakes?) I am tired of how the actors in his films take a back seat to the production design. I am tired of the sappily overdone John Williams scores, the predicatable Michael Kahn editing, the predictable Alan Daviau cinematography, Kathleen Kennedy and Frank Marshall, and the Amblin Pictures logo ripped off from ET. I am tired of his allegiances to Barbra Streisand and Bill and Hillary Clinton. I am tired of his expressed liberal politics and fatalistic, socialist view of the world. I am tired of his blonde shiksa trophy wife Kate Capshaw and his faux common guy facade of driving his kids to school. I am tired of how his renewed sense of Jewish identity only coincided with the making of Schindler's List. I am tired of how it took the making of Saving Pvt. Ryan to give him an appreciation for the supreme sacrifices of WWII generation. I am tired of his Dreamworks SKG partnership with David "Swish" Geffen and Jeffrey "Sparky" Katzenberg. Schmuckberg, despite all the fawning sycophantic praise he receives, will never direct a film as great as Wild Strawberries, Rashomon, or even L'Avventurra, because chances are, 95% of his viewing audience have never HEARD of those films. Why go to the trouble of serving filet mignon to your guests when ground chuck suffices?
-
Has anyone been following the debate with Red Army Chimp/Slobro/Invisible Loki? That guy's fucking nuts!! He started OK, but what's all this "you like to be fucked up the ass"shit, and where does it come in? AI most probably will suck, but it won't neccesarily be a failing on Spielberg's part [although I'm thinking he hasn't made a truly "great" film since ET] I, for one am dubious about Jude LAw. I mean I know he can act, but how big a role does he have in this movie. I just don't see him as a leading man.
-
Loki, you made this remark, "I'm just trying to get (Red Army Chimp's) goat!" So, I can assume, and justifiably so, you think my love for film is excessive? So, in other words, you're doing your job to stop me from doing. Oh, yes; this is paranoid rambling! Well, Shen, as TheEnigma pointed out, is just a bitter asshole who would rather bash films than enjoy them! You fit that description, too. If someone enjoys film, you make it your goal to make it a miserable experience for them as it is for you. Funny thing is, I thought talkbacks were supposed to be about film. I'm going the distance to defend my love for film. You're going the distance to bash me for enjoying film. Now ain't that something!? I've yet to see you actually discuss film. I see you bash it or maybe justify Shen's critique by mentioning the Story convention. Well, I have respect for all mediums of story telling. But, because this is AICN - a movie site, my goal is to defend the film medium for telling stories. Hey, you and Shen both have AOL accounts. Talk about film, Loki; not about me.
-
I'm not gay but apparently you are. More power to you. And I mean that sincerely. But perhaps defending your boyfriend's hysterical ravings on message boards is less than your forte.
I am not interested in proselytizing to someone with such an apparently pedestrian understanding of film. Someone who defends a film he's never seen. A film...by Senor "Hook" Spielbergo, no less. I mean, certainly you can see the futility in illustrating how film is so much more than just a "visual medium" to someone who discounts story as less than imperative in order to defend a film he's never seen to someone who, upon seeing the film, points toward the lack of cohesive story as one of its downfalls.
You say you'd rather watch pretty pictures with no story, than vice versa. Well aim low and reach your goals, Bro. You fit in nicely with the rest of the wide midsection of the bell curve. I prefer to watch films which aspire to realize the full potential of film as a medium.
I never stated story is "everything" but without it, we're talking about a different kind of filmmaking all together. Try sitting through all 12 hours of Andy Warhol's *****.
Your priceless advice, "if you think story is everything why don't you just listen to radio plays" could be applied quite easily to yourself, in reverse. If you only care about pretty pictures, go stare at a painting. Or take a long walk off a short dock for all I care. -
I thought for a moment you were all missing the point, but then I realised, No, this site IS for back stabbing, bitching and meaningless rants, not for discussions of films and film making. Why else would (and could) AI have been so passionately discussed for so long with no actual discussion of how GOOD the thing is - just how much you like it or 'cool' it is. Some hard, technical analysis of Spielberg's (always) floundering and forever less than subtle or eloquent technique wouldn't go amiss. But why get involved in that when you can project your Matrix-fuelled stroke-fantasies onto this certain failure of a film.
Chimp/Twat/BillyInfoSeek or whatever your names are, maybe you could just take a cue from Battle Royale and duke it out to the death? At least then, at last, there'll be a 'winner' of some description. -
Did you at all read the first two posts this arose from!? Have you bothered reading anything Slowbro and I say that doesn't involve attacking you? I am defending a movie I've never seen for one reason: people should still see it. Telling everybody it sucks is still telling them not to see it! Cohesive Story - lack of. Hah! I'm defending a film, not a critic. You're defending a critic with no understanding of the concept of film. And you still disregard it. Quit posting, Loki. You're schizophrenic and you're rambling on about something you care nothing about! But Shen never mentioned what was wrong with the filmmaking! That's my concern. That's why I'm defending it. Obviously it must have been up-to-par! Now when people see the story sucks, they're normally going to associate the film itself as being part of it! Therefore, upon walking into the theater, they're going to think it sucks. And when this film comes out, we'll see you saying this movie sucks! And you sure do hate Spielberg a great deal. And you're defending a film you haven't seen either! OR HAVE YOU!? Hahahahahaha! Keep throwing gasoline on the fire, Loki!
-
You're not the sharpest tool in the shed are you? "you're defending a film you haven't seen either! OR HAVE YOU!? Hahahahahaha!"
Maybe you don't know what it means to "defend" something, but if anything I have done quite the opposite when it comes A.I. Based on Spielberg's recent artless disasters, I won't be surprised at all if Shen's review turns out to be right on. And neither will about half the other people posting in this string. -
You're pulling that remark out of context. Jesus Christ, I don't sit there and cut and paste! You idiot, I'm reading what you say and making remarks about what you're getting at. You're pulling just one remark out of my post and attacking the integrity of it. Now, what I meant by "defending a film you've never seen," was actually defending your friend's thoughts. You're still, in turn, defending it. Maybe you disagree, and obviously you do, but that's how I see it. And what I was getting it is you're most likely Shen. Of course I can't possibly justify my remarks until I have proof. But the volume gets turned down everytime you comment on it. Enough, Loki. You win. I'm an idiot. But, Loki, who's defending you? NO ONE. No one will defend you because you haven't said a thing about film other than mentioning some stupid tidbit of information. I'm going to concede now, Loki. So, you win. You're not Shen. I'm an "illiterate" "simian" "retard." So you enjoy picking on "retards?" Oh, don't answer that. Obviously you do. But I've had enough of this. It would have been better if I would have just left my first two paragraphs as is and spare myself the embarassment of showing what an ass I am. So I apologize to Slowbro and Sikofu for making them, in any way, look less-intelligent by starting a conversation. I can't win with you, Loki. You won. Now leave me alone.
-
While Spielberg's cannon is a good deal more checkered than Kubrick's, the very simple fact is that he is the most important and influential film maker to emerge from America (and by extension the world) in the last 30 years. Your beloved Finchers and Aronofskys and Nolans and even Tarantinos have all been affected by his work, and none have begun to approach his accomplishment. Even more brilliant directors such as Scorsese and Allen (and of course Kubrick himself) have the deepest admiration for his mastery of Popular Filmmaking. In short, any attempt to deny Spielbergs enormous gifts, to lump him with Ron Howard and Simon West as a visionless hack is just ignorant and childish. Stanley Kubrick didn't become the world's most popular Art Film Maker by accident. He controlled his career (and himself) more astutely than Griffith, Von Stroheim, Wells, Kurosawa, Godard, Fellini or Coppola. He was a master artist who saw no reason why he shouldn't make a few bucks off of his gifts. 'The Shining' in particular was clearly influenced by the movie brats' phenomenal commercialism, and 'A.I.' was developed partly in response to 'Star Wars' and 'E.T.'. He did not die a bitter old man bitching and moaning because people preferred 'Jurassic Park' to 'Last Year at Marienband', as Godard surely will. Rather he navigated his career through five decades of cinematic change which his films often precipitated. I think that 'A.I.' will be a truly great Hollywood film. Unlike Spielberg's previous 'Serious' films (and I expect this to be a fair bit weightier than his previous Adventure and Science Fiction films), this is a futurist fantasy rather than a historical drama. Frankly, when Ol' Stevie starts talking to me about the horrors of World War II and the plight of poor southern black women my eyes start to glaze over and sometimes I even get a little bit offended and I want to hear about the big shark and the spaceship and the ancient treasures again. Of course I'm rambling. I've written myself into a corner and I'm not quite sure how to end this. Except that I can't respect the oppinion of anyone who dismisses Spielberg outright, especially some illiterate zit faced virgin who probably thinks that 'Memento' and 'Fight Club' are masterpieces. You people just don't know very much about movies, and the movies that you watch are important. Part of the reason your country is melting into the sea is because you have no appreciation for art, you are indifferent to aesthetic beauty. Movies are a brilliant artform, they're your heritage and you treat them like they don't even matter.
-
How do you know that New York is underwater due to the melting of the ice caps? Something else might have happened, you don't know. Also, where does Dawson's creek fit into AI? There aren't any teenagers who are discovering sexual exploits and battleing over girlfriends, so how does Dawson's creek fit in there? Don't bash something and diss it until you've seen it. Of course, with your attitude, if you see it, you'll hate it no matter what it turnsa out to be because you and almost everyone else on this site feel the need to hate anything that doesn't come out of an arthouse. I'm sure that if this movie were an independent film, free of all Kubrick and Spielberg ties, every one of these people wquld be jumping to go see it...until it got popular, and then you would pick apart all of the flaws and say how the director is an incompetent director because you found a continuity problem, etc.....this site, I am starting to belive, is not a site for movie-lovers, people who just want a movie to entertain, maybe give you some good laughs, or inspire. This is a site for movie HATERS. People who think that movies, in general, are nothing but crap, crap, crap. Sample dialouge (words & comments are paraphrased to protect the stupid....er,innocent) "New Spielberg movie coming out" "It's crap." "How do you know?" "Because I know that anything Spielberg is crap. Man, does he suck major cock. I don't like any of his shit films. Jaws can kiss my ass." "Yeah, but how do you know THIS one is crap." "It doesn't take a snake to smell shit from a mile away." "Huh? What does a snake have to do with this?" "Fuck you, homo, you're disagreeing with me." "No, I'm just asking why you're so prejudice against a film you haven't seen yet." "FUCK YOU!!! FUCK YOU!!!! YOU'RE AN ASSHOLE! GO TELL IT TO YOUR MAMMA, COCKSUCKER!!!" Real intelligent, right? Movie-lovers I say that you abandon these talkbacks and go to the IMDb boards. They are at least above a fifth-grade grammer level. But I'm just rambling.
-
groucho: wow. You said you didnt like Spielburg, and you actually backed it up with reasons why. I respect that. As I have stated before in past talkbacks, we are a very diverse species, and Hollywood makes movies to fit that diversity. Do his movies challenge you? No, not most of the time. Do they make social statements? Sometimes, but there is little subtext involved. His movies exist solely to entertain, with a few exceptions. Yes, I think Schindler's List could have been a bit more...hmm...subtle, but I definitely do not think Spielburg meant any harm by it. I believe he was earnestly trying to convey the horrors of the Holocaust, even if it did seem a bit self serving at times. Anyway, my point is, his films dont hurt anyone and they are entertaining to most. Nothing wrong with that, but again, I do respect your opinion. Thats the wonder of a multiplex cinema. You dont like something, you can go see something else (well, maybe not this summer...)
-
STORY is everything, whether on the big screen, tv, on stage or in novels, in ALL creative work, everything works IN THE SHADOW OF CLASSIC STORY DESIGN. That was my entire statement, if you bothered to read it, in its entirety. Subtle interpretation of complete sentences is apparently beyond you, Slowbro.
It's really cute the way you continue to defend your lover, even as he reveals himself to be the insane half-wit he truly is. Originally, my reference to you taking it in the ass from Chimpy was merely to illustrate how you were acting like his bitch as you unsuccessfully tried to defend him, but now, I can feel the love! ...I think I'm getting verklempt.
-
"fool"? And so, like his boyfriend before him, he descends into playground tactics.
If you were capable of comprehending my statement in its entirety you'd realize that meaning taking from a partial reading does not inform the whole. -
Hey, Slowbro is defending his feelings towards film. It just so happens they're common with mine. Perhaps this makes us lovers. That's plain out crude. But, you defend Shen! That's your whole reason for attacking me; your revealed it in, I believe, the "get out your red pen" post. Slowbro defends something; Loki, you defend someone. You defend Shen! Wouldn't that make you gay!? Of course not, but according to your train of thought, it would. But, you've been ever-so-careful to find ways not to contradict yourself. The only way you wouldn't contradict yourself is if you and Shen were, in fact, the same person! This would explain the attack on me! The big concern I express with Shen's writing is the fact it's devoid of critique regarding filmmaking, and chooses to discuss the "lack of cohesive" story. But I only aimed this at Shen - yet YOU'RE offended by it! It was never about my thoughts regarding film. I asked you what's not clear, and you never answered because it's not why you're attacking me, but because I insulted Shen. Think about what I said and TRY to find a way to disprove my paranoid ramblings!
-
have you ever SEEN and UNDERSTOOD a Kubrick movie?? This sounds like the typical kubrick shtick. The man had a cruel streak, but with a strange moral purpose (see A Clockwork Orange). You sound like a pompous ass from your critique. I think you are a nerdy, repressed homosexual. Let it out man, come out of the closet. Take the broomstick out of your bum. Relax. Go back to the whole entire Kubrick catalog and do your home work. Remember "life on earth is cruel" then go see his movies, then you might understand where he is coming from. I'm also not a huge violence freak, but if it fits the story so be it.
-
Am I the only one who's noticed that ever since the guy's linguistic abilities got dissed, he's tried so hard to not have that criticism levelled at him again, despite his "I couldn't give a fuck what you say" attitude. It's actually kinda sweet, you can almost hear the cogs in his brain churning as he forces out sentences like "you'd realize that meaning taking from a partial reading does not inform the whole." Um, what? And has anyone actually backed up your opinions yet?
-
Jun 18, 2001 2:28:02 PM CDT
At the very least this movie will inspire some interesting debat
by superninja
I agree with the Talkbackers that Kubrick has the disturbing characters. As the film critic said in his review, it's interesting to try to figure out when Spielberg is being Kubrick and when he's being himself.
-
Johnny 5 is alive. No disassemble!
-
I only have one love inmy life, and he's big, bearded, and loves bengay-smeared sticks!
-
...spielberg screwing another people out of their screenplay/ideas (a la Close Encounters)...if you read the Kubrick scriptment I reviewed in Guerill-Film you will find many of the plot points are simmilar if not identical to Kubrick's treatment. I kid you not fellow fanboys. I hope Spielberg has made a good movie out of A.I. and I sincerely hope it's not the usual Spilberg movie, because quite frankly, Kubrick is more my type of filmmaker. I've heard Spielberg saying he felt as if he was channeling Kubrick in a way during the making of the movie...I looked at that incredibly lame Ministry video out of A.I., and I'm worried. It looks like he's channeling Joel Schumacher instead. PLEASE SPIELBERG, DO NOT FUCK THIS ONE UP!!!
-
It's not a good indicator of your mental health that you need to labor constantly over such an "obviously apparent fact": we will simply never agree. You just don't wear white after Labor day!
If my posts have gotten more "linguistic" over time, yours have certainly become more flaming! Aw, we're getting to know each other. How sweet.
I don't know why you keep asking me to restate the obvious, or to clarify someone else's false assumptions. If you carefully read what I have stated about film, you'd see A. Chimpy, this isn't about Shen, you stump, and B. My point was Story IS the crucial element in a film. Without a story, you'd have no film. I challenge you to name one great film lacking a great story. Even in movies like "Baraka" where there is no narrative or conceivable plot, just a montage of images, the pictures, the scoring of the music, still tells a story. It is human nature to seek the "story" in everything, for in stories, we find ourselves. From the Bible to mythology, to the canon of western literature, even in a photograph or a song, they all tell stories. The story is the ultimate way we relate to one another, communicate what it is to be human, and impart what we've learned and aspire to express. Film-making is a medium for telling stories. And to claim a blockbuster like A.I. can truly be deemed a great film without a cohesive story, you'd have to be pretty dense. Uh oh, you're getting yourself all worked up into a lather again, aren't you, Slowbro.
Don't get your undies in a bundle and don't even think about stalking me. (what is with the obsessing on my name?) You wouldn't find me to your liking anyway, and I hope you don't "wet yourself" again, I'm a girl. -
Jun 18, 2001 5:24:21 PM CDT
GREAT GOOGA MOOGA! You really nailed it! Kudos for the great rev
by jacklint
I dont hate spielberg, after all Indiana Jones and The Last Crusade is one of the best movies ever made, but DAMN can he spoon-feed you a movie. "Are you not moved?" LOL, its funny 'cause its true. I had some hope for A.I., being a Kubrick fan, but that quickly went away after seeing the trailer. Although I disagree about one thing, Hale going apeshit on that other robot sounds pretty cool to me. Anyway Its just Pinochoio meets Heartbeeps.
-
You keep talking about "assumptions." What the hell? What assumptions are you talking about, Loki. It's just an abstract variable in your plan to make everyone as confused as you are, I think. If someone points out your major shortcummings, you use that damn assumptions shtick again! I PRESUME (HA!) you're speaking of my assumptions. You said 99% of my assumptions were wrong! Well, I'd have to have made at least 100 assumptions in order to VALIDATE your last remark! One would think with all those darn assumptions I've been making, you could at least name one assumption I made. Oh, I made an assumption about how you perceived me. Okay, one. Where are the other 99 assumptions, Loki?
-
Jun 18, 2001 6:24:57 PM CDT
Dr.Floyd and GrouchX/Two Gentlemen with polar opinions well pres
by sikofu
Whaahoo! this is why I keep coming back to these TalkBacks. Oh, the bashers are funny but it gets old after awhile. It's so worth the effort to wade through all the crap to get to a post that stirs the soul. Dr. Floyd's comment: "movie's are a brilliant art form, they are your heritage ..." is simply thrilling to read. I love someone who knows what they are talking about & who is passionate about their subject. I don't agree that "Spielberg is the most important and most influential ..."
but I applaud the way you present your case. IMO, his brilliance is in the chameleon-like way he absorbs the works of others and morphs them into a *new* concept.
I certainly agree he is the most *popular* director of our time, but not all time.
GrouchoX, you blew my socks off. I thought *I* was fairly bold in my remarks about Mr.Spielberg. You go the whole nine yards. Thank you. I hope you don't mind if I quote you some day down the road for you have expressed *exactly* my sentiments:" ...it took the making of SPR to give him appreciation of supreme sacrifices of WWII generation." Your whole post is brilliant, insightful, and backed up by knowledge. WhaaaHoo!
Okay, and for those others, I'm not saying "don't go see this movie" nor am I saying: "if you like the movie, you suck." Go if you want to. How can anyone put someone else down for their preference in movies, books, music, etc. "I don't like what you like, so you're a moron." ???I probably won't go because, as I said before, I simply do not care for the genre. I applaud the liberty we have to agree and disagree, make stupid jerks of ourselves and learn a thing or two from one another ...
-
"99% of assumptions are wrong." Ah, okay! I misread that. I'll keep everything you say in mind, O' great Lord Loki! But that doesn't make my inqiuisition much different: what assumptions do you keep talking about? Again, I remember one. Oh, forget it. I'm tired and sick of this game, Loki. You win and I'll never post on here anymore. That's right. I've seen the error of my ways, and I shall take part in them no longer. I'm leaving. Goodbye, Loki.
-
Maybe you should spend more time outside of same-sex functions, Slowbro, you're beginning to doubt real girls even exist. You want my full name and address? What's next? Are you going to offer me Red Vines from inside a big black trenchcoat? Get lost, creep. And why would I read some ape by saying maybe (and I definitely said MAYBE) someday he'd BeARealMan? Well, his email address is "ToBeARealBoy@aol.com"
And, he's been talking out of his ass defending a movie he's never seen that's being called "Pinnochio 2001". Nuff said, n'est-il pas?
Oh, and Chimpy: Begone. I no longer even bother to read your gibberish. Go back to being Omega Chimp in the corner, surrendering your will to me as you confess your complete idiocy, or be silent. You bore me. -
I agree with Dr. Floyd. Movies ARE a brilliant art form. That's why many of us are so passionate about debating the merits of any film that comes along which demands so much attention, especially AI. I'm troubled by some of the Kubrick/Spileberg comparisons here. There is a huge chasm of difference between Kubrick's and Spielberg's work and ironically, even a few similarities. Both were/are master audience manipulators and control freaks. Kubrick made films his way and really for his own dark pleasure and amusement. He didn't give a shit what critics or audiences thought of them. He figured that if people were perceptive and smart enough, they would ascend to his level of understanding of the human condition. That revelation would be the viewer's reward for watching the film. Spielberg, on the other hand, clearly panders to his audeince with every frame. Eager to please, he knows what audience response buttons to push, and what heart string to tug at the proper moment. Nothing in any Spielberg film is ever cryptic or subliminal. Messages and themes clunk you over the head with extreme self-awareness. You don't have to mentally work at figuring out what's going on in a Spielberg film. Kubrick's films were mostly purposeful "mind fucks" that often required multiple viewings to capture the gist. In my opinion, this is what separates high art from popular art. Kubrick represented high art, Spielberg popular art. Unfortunately, Spielberg seems to stumble when he attempts high art, as with The Color Purple (too uncomfortable to depict the novel's lesbian undercurrent, Steven?), Amistad (politically correct and historically revisionist), Always (I thought a very glossy but dull love story), and Empire of the Sun (weak Lawrence-of-Arabia-type of sweeping war epic, to atone for 1941 perhaps?). If i could give Spielberg one bit of advice, I would say, kid, stick to the comic book movies. For all the hoopla and praise, Schindler's List can never be the definitive Holocaust film so long as there is director Sidney Lumet's The Pawnbroker (1965) around. Watch both sometimes and compare the two. Rod Steiger as refugee Sol Nazerman did more to express the horror of the concentration camps than Spielberg's 50 billion extras could ever have hoped for.If Dr. Floyd is reading this, I would ask him to elaborate further on why he thought that The Shining was influenced by the '70's movie brats.
-
While his own movies were never arthouse obscurities, film makers like Lucas, Spielberg, Coppola, Friedkin and others influenced by Kubrick achieved a level of popular success far beyond his. Brian DePalma had had a huge hit with 'Carrie', 'One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' had topped $100 million and swept the oscars, 'Barry Lyndon' was Kubrick's first unprofitable film and it was in this environment that the most artistic of popular artists made 'The Shining', his most brazenly commercial film. Stephen King is in every way Spielberg's literary equivalent, and 'The Shining' is particularly strong with the domestic dysfunction and childhood neuroses which pervade both artists work. Along with The Beatles and Walt Disney, these are arguably the most effective popular artists of all time. Whether you like them or not is completely beside the point. If you ever read anything at all, if you see one movie every decade, if you only ever once leave your home or even if you don't, you WILL be exposed to these artists work. Certainly almost every contemporary film maker has been deeply affected by at least one of Spielbergs films. He's directed twenty or so, produced many more, and to say that there's not an inspired moment in the lot is kind of ridiculous. I don't love everything he does, but the guy's definitely got something, something quite unfakeable as Martin Amis put it. His best work may hit on base emotions, but it does so with astonishing skill and what seems like a utopian purity. Some of his films feel crass, but I really don't believe that 'E.T.' was made ONLY for the sake of earning a billion bucks. Finally, and not entirely for the worse, the blockbuster franchise film as perfected and defined by Spielberg and Lucas in the seventies has become the economic backbone of the movie industry. Lucas has subsequently distinguished himself as a technological innovator more than as a director, however Spielberg has mastered the hippest cinematic trick of them all, ridiculous profit. I do not by any means intend to say that he is the best film maker of the last thirty years, he belongs somewhere in an all time 100 but nowhere near the top, however I can not think of another living and working film maker who's influence is so pervasive, who has made such an imprint on the cinematic landscape. I didn't say that that was a good thing. And while it's true that all movies have stories, it's also true that lots of great movies (and books and plays) have dumb, shallow, incoherent stories. 'Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon' has an utterly useless story.
-
I sincerely want to see some great Spielberg and some wonderful Kubrick because that's just so damned good and it's just such a pleasure to see a movie like that. To those who say that it's just a movie I say that it sure as hell wasn't just a movie to Stanley Kubrick. What I've heard so far all confirms that this is something special. This review looks every bit as dumb as the bad reviews I've read of '2001' and 'Eyes Wide Shut'.
-
While I agree with Dr. Floyd that Spielberg has had a profound impact on cinema, I wouldn't go as far as to say that every contemporary filmmaker was influenced by at least one of his films. Spielberg's more commercial films have certainly been genre highlights with movies like Jaws, Close Encounters et al. but his more 'serious' works, while in some efforts respected, never had much impact beyond the viewer experience (which in no way is something to be belittled). The emphasis on narrative as a traditional postulate of American cinema, does not mean it is imperative to cinema in general. Otherwise cinema would be little more than theatre in moving pictures and I personally believe, that what distincts cinema from the other arts is the fact that it can be so much more than the basic illustration of narrative, but that basically nails down the problem I have with Spielberg at times. Spielberg is a director of what you see is what you get and while this works very well in most of his blockbuster movies, his more serious works suffer from this, since he tries his hand at more serious issues, like the holocaust, WWII or Japanese prison camps, his inability to present the complexities of moral and political issues in my view shines through quite clearly, since he brings every issue down to basic human emotions, which is fine in itself, but robs his more 'serious' movies of the depth and socio-political complexities the topics deserve. He is a great storytelller but sometimes a subject cannot be truly conveyed simply in terms of "And then this happened ... and then he...", since human experience is much more than a compilation of events, i.e. a collection of consecutive stories, they are also made up out of abstract images, sounds and smells. This is where for a example a movie like Saving Private Ryan dramatically fails and Malick's The Thin Red Line succeeded.
On a minor point I very much disagree with Dr. Floyd calling the narrative of "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" utterly useless. I think exactly the opposite, that the narrative here has been very well developed and is quite meaningful, having at its heart the emancipatic struggle for individual freedom and equality in a society of moral repression. A struggle perfectly depicted between the older tradtional generation as represented by Li Mu Bai and Shu Lien that still follow the traditional code and consequently have wasted their lives in unexpressed love for one another (which at the end they admit themselves) and on the other hand the young generation of the crouching tiger (Lo) and the hidden dragon (Jen) that do not blindly accept the confinements society puts on them and want to break out of them, which is what put this movie far above the average martial arts movie, since those traditionally reaffirm the social conventions of the old mythological Chinese past world and this movie actively questions them. -
I think that Spielberg has been a great influence over many of the younger directors, such as Brian Singer and Brett Ratner (well, that's what he says), and I personally think he is one of the best directors. But, it seems, I can enjoy movies easier than most. I think AI will be great, those aren't expectations, its just optimism. I think Shen went in expecting Kubrick and got Spielberg, or at least some strange blend of the two. And it made him think, like '2001'. And he didn't want to. So he didn't like it. If this movie gets trashed when its released, I'm sure that in about ten years, we will look on A.I. just as lovingly as '2001: A Space Oddesy", which itself was trashed monumentaly when it came out for being boring and self-indulgent. But I'm just rambling.
-
After reading Dr. Floyd's point "...while it's true that all movies have stories, it's also true that lots of great movies (and books and plays) have dumb, shallow, incoherent stories." I was tempted to respond. (Maybe a few great movies, books, plays have shallow incoherent stories, but I'd can't think of one I'd truly call "great".) But then he cited as his example "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon", and I felt Vox did a great job of clarifying how meaningful that story actually was. My Chinese friend has told me that something is definitely lost in the translation, so perhaps that was where you felt the gap, Dr. Floyd.
And, Slowbro, I'm sadly not surprised that, out of ammunition and abandoned by your wacko boyfriend, you've resorted to the basest of misogynistic name-calling. I know you hate women, you just like to wear our clothes, right. -
Film is a multi-disciplinarian art form, and relatively few films hit evey base brilliantly. A great production can certainly compensate for a weak narrative. Personally I thought 'Crouching Tiger' told a predictable story rather clumsily. As in many great musicals, the big production numbers more than made up for that.
-
Film is a multi-disciplinarian art form, and relatively few films hit evey base brilliantly. A great production can certainly compensate for a weak narrative. Personally I thought 'Crouching Tiger' told a predictable story rather clumsily. As in many great musicals, the big production numbers more than made up for that.
-
no, I didn't read the scoop above because I'd actually like a few surprises when I pay to see this som'bitch. I am dying to know if there will be a Crazy/Beautiful trailer before this one. Oh please, please...just one more time, before the movie comes out, so I can hear that dipshit tell Dunst, "Just don't play me." Like this guy gives a shit about anything other than getting his little Chihuahua stroked. Back to A.I. - I look forward to seeing this, however, I'm not sure how much more of this Osment kid I can take. Have you seen interviews with this kid? What kind of kid talks like that? This kid is definitely headed towards a break down in the near future. I'm thinking somewhere around puberty when he gets ugly and finds that casting directors want nothing to do with him. I'm not always this cynical.
-
hahaha... I think you're definitely right about that poor little freak. And we all thought he'd dodged a bullet when he got passed up for the Oscar for "I see dead people."
It's only a matter of time til he's holding up a dry cleaners in Vegas with two prostitutes while high on crack. Ah, celebrity. You gotta love it when it goes awry. -
And to back up my argument that Spielberg is an important film maker, a partial list of directors he has influenced might include Frank Darabont and Brett Ratner and Jonathan Demme and Michael Mann and Ridley Scott and Tony Scott and Brian DePalma and Ron Howard and Martin Scorsese and Neil Jordan and Stanley Kubrick and Francis Ford Coppola and Cameron Crowe and Oliver Stone and Rob Reiner and Barry Levinson and Sydney Pollack and John Woo and Sidney Lumet and Roger Christiansen and Amy Heckerling and Simon West and Nora Ephron and Akira Kurosawa and David Fincher and Christopher Nolan and John Sayles and John Cassavettes and Baz Luhrman and Lars Von Trier and John Hughes and Terence Malick and Penny Marshal and Garry Marshal and Michael Bay and Stephen Soderbergh and Stephen Sommers and Ang Lee and William Friedkin and Curtis Hanson and Sam Mendes and Bryan Singer and Clint Eastwood and Charles Band and Tim Burton and Frank Oz and Barry Sonnenfeld and Joel Schumacher and Chris Columbus and Alan Parker and John McTiernan and Richard Donner and Roman Polanski and Milos Forman and Terry Gilliam and the Wachowski brothers and the Coen brothers and the Hughes brothers and the Wayans Brothers and Penelope Spheeris and McG and Spike Jonze and Roger Corman and Robert Zemeckis and Dominic Sena and David Lean and James Cameron and Quentin Tarantino and someone else whose name eludes me right now.
-
I think you've been indulging a little too much in your own herbal remedies. I really wanted to focus my talkbacks on bashing that little Osment character but I damn near dropped my Affleck voodoo doll when I read some of the names on your list of directors who were influenced by Spielberg. Granted, some of them belong, but of particular outrage to me was Kurosawa. L'il Stevie was still festering in his dad's balls when Kurosawa was out making a few of the masterpieces of the last century. Explain your rationale please, sir. I have to get back to sticking a needles in Affleck's groin.
-
Kurosawa made later films as well. He was friendly with Georgie and Stevie, I think they might even have helped him with financing. 'Ran' in particular has always struck me as sort of returning their compliments. I think Spielberg's influence also encouraged David Lean to come out of retirement and do 'A Passage to India'.
-
it would take a *very* long time to back up your last statement. In order to do that, you need to show what film by Director X was influenced by which Spielberg film. Unless, of course, you are saying that Spielburg is god is Spielburg.
Impressive list, though.
In reference to your comment re: Spielburg's impact on "blockbuster franchise film as perfected and defined by Spielburg ...the economic backbone of the movie industry"
Your point is exactly what I dislike about 'him'. Don't know him personally but the kind of film he produces, and yes, he has had huge impact on blockbusters.
Which is exactly what's wrong with movies today. Geared to fill the seats to bring in the bucks, the qualities film *lovers* are being lost. Instead, scripts are written to target a demographic group, scenes shot or not shot because X # of tickets will be sold. Why don't we just let Madison Avenue suits write, direct,edit movies and be done with the pretext of the 'artist' in the middle.
To your statement that the blockbuster is now the economic backbone of the Industry - no arguement there. It seems to me if all those folks had followed a different yellow brick road they all would have gotten where they are going anyway. Who knows, perhaps with *more* movies of greater quaility. However, my remarks are like flailing in the wind; the masses follow the pied piper, the numbers talk even when they lie, and the people with true passion for film have to find whatever nook and cranny they can find to present their vision. -
I keep picturing him going out in a hail of bullets at age eighteen, a cracked-out cross between MacCaulay Caulkin and Linda Blair. He goes nuts when the clerk behind the counter, at gunpoint, gasps "Aren't you the 'I see dead people' kid??" ...And Dr. Floyd, I'm not sure what you mean when you say Spielberg has influenced all those directors in your list, unless you mean like how molecules affect other molecules by mere proximity, or something. It's easy to drop a lot of names, but can you back it up? Truly interested, but I think we'd be here all day.
-
I have a few more thoughts. I was going to be a smartass and say that you forgot to add Orson Welles, D.W. Griffith and David Lean to your list, but here I see that you have already listed Lean. Although you already noted it, I think it is more important to stress that Spielberg was influenced by Kurosawa a lot more than Kurosawa was influenced by Spielberg. As for Lean, it almost seems that the Spielbergian influence on "Passage" had more to do with Lean's own nostalgia for epic movie making and the fame that goes with it, rather than any particular technique. A few of the more contemporary directors you listed were influenced by Spielberg whether they liked it or not, as Amblin alone has produced so many films from so many popular directors i.e. Donner's Goonies, Zemeckis' BTTF, etc. If you ask me, and I know I'm straying way off topic, the biggest rip-off artists are the ole' Wachowskis. Not that the Matrix wasn't a fun movie (it was every comic book nerd's wet dream) but it didn't turn me into a raving lunatic. By the way, I thought 'Phantom' should have received the Oscar for SFX. That's my own little jab at the academy. I'm going to go read my notes from my Spielberg class from a few years back. See ya.
-
Article in e-space. I've clipped some of the comments I liked best. The entire article is about the new breed of director beginning to emerge in Hollywood, the ones who want to create the vision and knowingly forgo the fat paycheck to do it. The influence, the people, the studios - it's a great read. Spielberg is mentioned. Everything goes full circle.
http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/nm/20010619/re/industry_directors_dc_1.html
Here are some of the remarks if you care to read further.
>
...>
>
>
>
YeeeHaw -
Well its been a long time since any movie has received such diverse responses. The fact that it receives a critical drubbing from some sectors does not mean its a bad film. Take Blade Runner for example. I loved it when it first came out but most critics condemned its slow pace and muddled narrative. The critics seem to have revised their opinion about that film nowadays. While I have not seen AI, this is one film this summer that is a "must see". Tomb Raider and Mummy Returns were disappointments and I can't help but feel that most of these so-called blockbusters lack the magic of many of their predecessors. 3 films this year should be exceptions. AI, Harry Potter and The Fellowship of the Ring.
-
Yes, why can't Spielberg make a film on a modest budget where he and the actors work for scale because the material is risky and defies marketing research and high concept descriptions of less than 25 words? DO A DOGME FILM, STEVEN, MAYBE MY RESPECT FOR YOU AS AN ARTIST WOULD BE RESTORED! He painted himself in to a corner a long time ago, sadly. It must be an incredible burden to have to produce a blockbuster everytime out, like expecting a baseball player to hit a home run every time at bat. Certainly with his clout, he could convince some studio suits to sink 30-40 mil into something experimental and unconventional that hopefully wouldn't feature his pet themes of lost innocence, Everyman vs. (fill the blank), dysfunctional families, apocalyptic doom, or wild creatures running amok.
-
Okay, I don't mean to exagerate Spielbergs influence on the various old masters (Kubrick, Kurosawa, Lean). He was and is friendly with many of them, they shared a professional admiration, they liked his films and he adored theirs. Seriously, I don't think that Spielberg is god, I dislike and even hate a good deal of his work, and I think his influence has been largely negative. But to deny that influence is just plain stupid. As I said before, it's irrelevant whether you like his work. Just about every person on this planet and especially anyone with an interest in film has seen his movies. Film is an expensive business. You just can't hire hundreds of people and spend tens of millions of dollars without giving some thought to the bottom line. Spielberg sells an amazingly popular product. He is probably the single most powerful man in his particular industry, and he mentors a great number of younger directors. How could other film makers not be affected by that? Some of the directors I mentioned have blatantly imitated him, others have absorbed his work and the work of others into a more unique style. No one is denying that Spielberg was influenced by Kubrick, even though their films are not alike. Steven Spielberg doesn't need me to defend him and I don't want the job. Like everyone in big time movie making he's indecently wealthy, except more so. Why should he do a Dogma film? 'Dancer in the Dark' was just as stupid as 'The Green Mile', and I still think Julien Donkey Boy should have traded movies with Jar-Jar Binks. I'd watch them both again. Kubrick and Lean certainly weren't in the business of cutting corners and defering pay. He's not Joel Schumacher, he's Steven Spielberg. He doesn't need to suck up to a bunch of godless danes. Something rotten indeed. Don't forget that he has other peoples movies to finance too. And baby needs a new pair of shoes.
-
Jun 20, 2001 4:09:54 AM CDT
How can the most obviously homophobic MAN on this site start pre
by otto parts
Does ANYONE here buy this bloke's story that he's a girl? I mean I know 90% of the people on the 'net who claim to be women are really men, but I don't really expect to see shit like this on AICN. And Slobro has got a point about goal-post shifting. Invisible Fagbasher [who is probably denying his own homosexuality, especially if he wants to be thought of as a girl] should have just made the reasoned argument which he eventually made right at the beginning and the rest of us wouldn't have had to read his bigotted BULLSHIT. Christ Loki, you didn't even define "story" until you'd been fagbashing for about 15 posts. You nerdlinger
-
The good Dr. is quite right, Spielberg is a powerful influence. > There doesn't seem to be an answer for it. His movies bring people in by the numbers. He manages to find a way to pull emotional strings to such a degree that most people don't even 'see' the movie in front of them - SPR being a good example. I don't understand it at all. I do remember seeing E.T. when I was young. I came out of the movie going Ahhhh, just as I was programmed to do. Fortunately, I grew up. The more I learn about film, and truly love it for the amazingly creative boundlessly awesome medium that it is, the less I like the work of Spielburg. It may be unfair to say I disrespect the man because all of his ideas are 'borrowed' from someone else, revamped, blown UP, and repackaged because almost all of filmdom is *influenced* by the work or works of someone else. Movie lovers love movies. It's impossible to spend time with something/someone you love and not come away with a piece of that experience now part of you. It's that Spielberg doesn't *acknowledge* his influences, except in the case of A.I., in which, in my opinion, he comes forth to proclaim admiration for Kubrick in order to once again 'cash in'. That may be harsh but that's the way I see it. I know my opinion isn't based on envy or a proloteriat dislike of the popular; because of his popularity and influence, I would that his movies *were* sparked by genuine creative freshness and orginality thus inspiring others in the same manner. What his influence produces is a summer line -up like we have this year. ***
For me, this has been a gratifying and interesting conversation. At least two other people in the world are not blinded by the Spielburg spell. As for A I, I think it will do well but no records breaking. Ah! my own statement reminded me what rankles the most. The headlines that declare A I to make $250 by Labor Day. Going for the $, obviously manipulating the mentality that 'loves a winner', needing to be the 'biggest' while side-stepping, and even trampling, the 'best'. I'm hoping the ticket buyers are getting savy enough, are wising up enough to feel, as I do, that our intelligence is being assaulted when powerful people design, make and market movies with the thought in mind that we are mindless sheep that will follow the pied piper of their PR choosing. What I really hate is the coupling of this enormous influence with the dark side theme in A I. Kubrick may be genuis, but he is dark side genuis. It would be better for us all if *his* influence stayed where it was - over in the corner where mostly film buffs and industry people saw and appreciated his work. -
A review of A.I. from Slant magazine on rottentomatoes.com calls it an Oedipal-inspired Folgers Crystal commercial.
"A.I. is all excess baggage... it's all the more disappointing that the visual landscape of the film does nothing more than distance us from an otherwise simple tale of a boy needing to be loved." Sounds like vintage Spielberg.
p.s. I don't know why my gender requires such a suspension of disbelief, Otto. All I can say is Get out of the house more often: Real girls are not a myth! -
Spielbergs films, at least his good ones, work! They work God damn it! They do the job! He might hit you over the head, but it's a beautifully timed precision assault. Watch 'The Mummy' and then watch 'Raiders'. They're not even the same thing! They're both fast, they're both loud, they're both kinda dumb, and they're both very very commercial. However, one of them is an ugly oppressive cynical mess and the other is an almost indecently enjoyable and relentlessly inventive joy. Steven Spielberg is in the business of making movies that make a lot of money, but I do believe that he loves movies as much as he loves money. And if a huge chunk of my 'A.I.' dollar goes into Kate Capshaw's face, at least the usual 40% goes to the Kubrick ladies, who really aren't all that badly off already. Spielberg is not a particularly subtle or cerebral film maker, he would be the first to tell you that he deals in primary colours and primal emotions - exhiliration, horror, awe, love. As it happens, those are important themes. Directors as varied and accomplished as David Lean, Francois Trufaut and Stanley Kubrick appreciated and admired what he can do, which other film makers including themselves can not do, and I hate to burst your various bubbles but they knew more about film than you or even I do. So do Martin Scorsese and Woody Allen. And so does Steven Spielberg.
-
The only bubbles that popped for me were the ones floating happily about as I thought of this TalkBack conversation. I was pleased that people can have a discussion with a variety of differing opinions and not resort to "Fuk youse" or other forms of anger.
My opinion of Spielberg is only going to change as his movies change. All the 'his movies work, damnit' and 'he knows more about film than you or *even* me' isn't going to change a thing in the world. Yes, his movies 'work'. Yes, he knows a great deal about filmmaking. I believe he started 'making' films when he was fourteen or so, producing 'shorts' at home with a camera his father gave him and his family for cast and crew. His passion for film is enormous. My goodness, when RAIDERS came out, I sat in the theater from the first screening until the last. I was young and didn't know a thing about film. I was mesmerized just as I was supposed to be. He does what he does well. As I said before, the more I learn about movies, the entire process, the less I like Spielberg's film. What rancors me is the way he uses this wonderful gift of his. From a man with this talent there could be so much *more*. Does it mean that we should give up all hope of film ever being about the passion of the vision and not hitting the demographic pool, no matter how skillfully done? No. Don't get upset, dear Doctor, when others don't see things the way you do. You presented your case well and I admire you for it. Your voice will undoubtedly concur with the numbers. But that doesn't mean that what we get is the best of what film can be about. -
What sort of movies should Spielberg be making? Did it ever occur to you that he might genuinely like fantasy and adventure stories, and that those happen to be the films that he has a particular knack for? And what makes you think 'A.I.' might not be a major step forward for him? I never said his films were the very best ever, only that some of them represent the very best of corporate Hollywood. There are lots and lots of different types of movies out there, tens of thousands of them. There are countless alternatives to 'Tomb Raider'. And there's room for everything.
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