Cool News
Tone of A.I. Reviews Shifting' We'll have to wait and see...
Hey folks, Harry here... I'm dying to see the film, if only to be able to chime in with a valid opinion... One thing that I'm beginning to notice is stronger and stronger negative reactions to the film. And not from mindless fanboys that piss on Spielberg, but from film lovers profoundly disappointed by that which they have seen. Like Nicho here... He wanted to love the film, through his spoiler review, he quite calmly and intelligently makes the case for why this film was an utter disappointment for him. Now... there's a press embargo on printing reviews, the reviews we've seen from the press have been all positive so far.... could it be that in order to 'break' the press embargo, you must have a positive or mostly positive review? I don't know, I haven't seen the film yet.... I won't see it till the day it is released, because I'll be working on the AICN TV show... But you have to begin to wonder when the only negatives you are reading come from well spoken film fans, while 'selective' press reviews it for the rest of the world.
BEWARE OF SPOILERS!!!!
Hello there Harry! I have never written in before but
I have recently discovered AICN and been sucked into
its reviews and banter whole heartedly. From time to
time I have the fortune to view films before their
release and I thought there couldn't be a better place
to share my euphoric highs, banality and sometimes
utter disappointment about the world of film.
Unfortunately my first review falls into the third
category of the dropping your peppermint stick ice
cream cone and watching it splatter on to the pavement
category. This devastatingly disappointing film is
AI. I recently attended a screening for media people
and industry types and you could feel the cracklin' of
anticipation in the air as we all waited for the
curtain to go up (errr screen to come down). I am a
huge Spielberg and Kubrick fan and truly enjoy their
work differently but equally because of the subtextual
levels and eerie mood that Kubrick can absorb you into
and because of that sense of adventure that Spielberg
casts the viewer in with each new film. Two great
story tellers with two very different styles.
There are two factors that I see and am still boggled
by that sum up the weakness of this film. The first
is its Schizophrenia about its style, editing, and
just overall cohesiveness. This is odd because if
your a film fan names like Kennedy, Harlan, Kahn,
Kaminski and Williams don't usually let you down. The
other problem is it's inability to place you in a
world where you allow the suspension of disbelief
needed. Also strange for either of the names
attached.
The film starts strongly with a Spielberg feel and
lays the plot out word by word and you're interested.
However this will become a specifically annoying
tendency of the film as it progresses but we'll get
back to that. A prototype robot has been built that
can love and they need a couple to test it who would
appreciate it and is also needing love. This part of
the story moves along with some interesting turns and
discoveries but it's strange because you're slowly
getting sucked in but you're on the outside at the
same time. I equate this to Spielberg trying to pay
homage to Kubrick but the result is not by any means
what you desire. The actor Sam Robards is very inept
and you think you're not sure at first but then you
realize that his chemistry with Haley and Frances O'
Connor makes you increasingly feel like you're
watching a B movie!! A Kubrick or Spielberg film or
whatever that feels B!! I didn't want to accept it
but you just start feeling it.
The film moves on and Haley is separated from the
family after some mishaps and complications and goes
off on a mission with his pal Teddy to more or less
chase his dreams. Teddy is a funny character and
everyone will really enjoy him. Nuff said. This is
where Jude Law is introduced and he is hi-larious.
He's a saving grace for the film and the guy once
again proves that he's got talent to burn with his
schmoozing and twitching and making the ladies melt as
Gigolo Joe.
The film know goes into its first sort of
schizophrenic reality and becomes dark and scary
things start to happen. Then there's escape and
capture and escape and capture and escape and capture.
In between we get a nice cameo voice from Robin
Williams and we get to watch Haley becoming human. The
sets are very cool and the visuals amazing throughout.
We also get to watch the modern day Pinocchio unfold.
That is a HUGE problem with the film.
We don't get the subtext of Pinocchio. We get a
re-telling. We aren't subtly introduced either. Mom
reads the story to Haley and from that point on we've
got Jiminy Cricket, the circus, the "adventure", the
whole nine. See if you can figure it all out. It's
not hard because it's rammed down your throat. So
much so towards the end of the film we start to get a
voice over like the movie is a fairy tale. I'm all
for a great modern day fairy tale but it was very odd
when all of a sudden the movie moves in that direction
and you hear Ben Kingsley or Michael Caine ( not sure~
I think Kingsley) come in on a voice over. The
schizophrenia continues. You think it's over but not
even close it's like the robots on the screens it just
keeps on going and once again you feel like your
betraying your uncle's pride while he's telling a
Vietnam story because you're really trying to be into
it but he's just not capturing you.
I equate this to the fact that Spielberg wrote this
screenplay and it's his first since Close Encounters.
He's definitely rusty or his respect for Kubrick got
in the way. The voice of the film is divided and you
can't really believe the story when it's all said and
done. Even more sorrowing you don't really care about
its resolution or more importantly about the robot boy
who loves. Isn't that the whole point to get us to
care about him like a real movie hero?
The last twenty minutes can only be described by a
four letter word...S-L-O-W. I was routing the whole
time for the end to make it all coherent. It was an
utter let down. Mark this prediction when the reviews
come out it is going to be staggering how many people
convey disappointment and how many people will not
except that these two forces didn't come through. Over
time this movie will not be understood (like 2001) as
many critics will try and give it that spin. It will
not become more cherished but rather the opposite. It
will be more understood that the mark was missed and
that it is not a stong film. Time will make it okay
to say this. I know I will not stop one person from
going because you couldn't have stopped me and that is
not my intention. I'm just trying to give it to you
straight.
Half of you are reading this and saying he doesn't
understand Kubrick- he doesn't understand the great
finale's and non traditional endings of some of the
masterpieces like Casablanca, Dr. Strangelove or even
modern day films like Seven. Maybe we have different
tastes but I think I'm usually on point. I really
wanted it to come together and even after hours of
mental review all that remained, like a great Kubrick
shot, was the silence. This time it was the silence
of disappointment.
-Nicho EkulHere's a happier review, but notes that there will be a significant portion of the audience that will HATE the film with a passion. Although.... he loves it....
Hey Harry,
"Chains" here again... this time with a look at A.I. There won't be any spoilers at all.
I must begin with what is foremost on my mind after seeing this film - and that is the American viewing public. I went to this screening with two co-workers, both women in the 25-35 age range. They both hated it. "It was too long..." "There were lots of parts with no dialogue." "I liked the beginning, but after that it got weird..."
I point this out because it is the exact reason we will continue to see shit on the screen for the rest of our natural lives. Pardon the blunt language, but it is the truth - the essence of why the summer is filled with "films" like Tomb Raider - and it infuriates me. Make no mistake, the public is NOT going to like this film. And that is sad, because it is brilliant.
The first film that it reminded me of was "2001", a film that even critics walked out of frustrated and confused. People don't like things that they can't easily understand. But I digress... on with the review of Kubrick's film (yes yes, I know...)
WHY IT'S GOOD:
Thank the Lord above that I fought the temptation to find out as much as possible about "A.I." before seeing it - it's best not knowing anything. The film takes you in directions you couldn't possibly anticipate. Any film that gives me something I've never seen automatically earns big points. And after the opening segment, the story completely flies off the handle. You could watch the trailers & 6 TV spots all day and night and still have no idea where this film is going.
The visuals are absolutely amazing. I made it a point to watch the film casually, and to avoid studying every shot, but there were just so many well-conceived, amazing shots. The sets and the effects were great and unique, but I thought they used a bit too much neon, at least for my tastes, since I think that's been done too often in futuristic films. But that teddy bear was so cool to every little detail... even the women I saw it with liked the damn bear - it's impossible not to.
If there has ever been a better child actor than Haley Joel Osment, please show me such a performance. You can't compare Shirley Temple in my book, because she never had to do anything that carried this much weight. He carried this movie, and gave one of the best performances I've seen from ANY actor in recent memory. If he continues to make good career choices, I really believe he will be one of the best actors of his generation. And all of the acting was solid. Frances O'Connor was very good, Jude Law was great, and Brendan Gleeson fit his role just right.
WILL YOU LIKE IT?
Now, I've read reviews that have claimed to have liked the film, but had problems with the ending. I'll bet two bucks and my left nut that they're the same people who had problems with the ending to "2001". Yes, it's unconventional. Yes, it contains long stretches with no dialogue. But dammit, people... use that organic mass wasting away inside your skull and think. The film is intened to make you think. It isn't meant to make you jump out of your seat, laugh your ass off, or even applaud. I didn't feel like applauding at the end, because I really didn't have time enough to think about what it meant. But a long ride home in shitty Atlanta traffic afforded me the time I needed.
This is the film for all you REAL film lovers out there... the ones who watch DVD's 50 times, and stay up all night playing with all the extra features, deleted scenes, documentaries, trailers... and the film lovers who hover over this site and several others, looking for snippets about films that haven't even been written yet, or films from your favorite director, from a screenplay by your favorite writer, starring your favorite actor. This is what it's all about - and more. If you've never watched a movie made before 1980 that didn't start with an opening crawl in big yellow letters, you may not appreciate it fully.
But if you like Kubrick, it's almost impossible not to like "A.I." This was SO Kubrick it was scary. It's like Spielberg channeled Kubrick through that director's chair. Good God above, this film is not E.T. in any way, shape or form. It felt like "2001" and "Clockwork Orange" melted into one... that may sound strange, but that's the feeling I got. Lots of moments where you don't really know how you're supposed to feel. Awkward "Should I be laughing?" moments. God, I'm getting all excited writing this - just thinking about how bold it was for Spielberg to make a film that audiences will, for the most part, not like.
You parents won't like it, your aunts and uncles won't like it, your neighbors may not even see it if they catch word of mouth first. But you'll like it if you love film so much that it hurts to see "Tomb Raider" do so well... to see that audiences gave that movie a "B" on their way out of the theatre. They'll give this one a "B-" at best. Most will give it a "C".
MY PREDICTION
This film will likely make a ton of money its opening weekend, then it will sag because of negative word of mouth. I really hate to sound like an elitist, but it really frustrates me that people don't have the patience to sit through something a little different. I will be shocked if this is the biggest movie of the summer - shocked.
MY LAST WORDS
Perhaps the best way of expressing how I feel is to say that I now feel guilty about enjoying films like "Pearl Harbor." They really shouldn't be made. They are like junk food - they're made up of all the worst things for you, you know what they're going to taste like, and you feel bad later. But the reason McDonald's stays in business is that people like to know what they'll be paying for. So Bruckheimer and the rest provide their junk food for them, package it up in familiar TV ads, serve it up with familiar actors, and even provide a familiar storyline.
Steven Spielberg made a Stanley Kubrick film. You haven't seen it before in another movie. Feel privileged. It will be a classic.
Scrapping the phony pseudonym "chains"... yours truly,
Sean
-
+ Expand All
-
You'd have to be an idiot not to see this.
-
...can't tell the difference between Ben Kingsley and Michael Caine. They are shifty and their eyes are too close together. Oh wait, that's Ben Kingsley.
(can't wait to see this film, critics have been too wrong and too dumb in the past for me to even consider missing this. -
Spielberg has the technical abilities to make this right, but his sensibilities fly in the face of any Kubrick project. This one really is a wait and see prospect. -
It's always hard to know which of these may be genuine and which may be planted by rival studios. I know that sounds paranoid, but it's probably inevitable.
-
the reason negative reviews are coming from "film fans" is that "film fans" typically don't know the first thing about film, hence the existence of Michael Bay and Simon West.
-
how can you consider anything above a spoiler? It looks like a couple of reviews for the tv commercials.
-
SPielberg did not "steal" the movie from Kubrick and his work is not a "bastardization" or anything of Kubrick's vision. Kubrick handed Spielberg the project - even when he was alive, he was suggesting that Spielberg should direct and that he would probably just produce. But I think this will explain part of the backlash - people who love Kubrick but hate Spielberg who aren't seeing the film as it is, ut rather, who are comparing it against some theoretical version of the film that Kubrick would have made. Maybe its subconscious, but I certainly have noticed it.
-
Most people giving these reviews (good and bad) have a 1-dimensional, superficial, sort of sliding scale sense of films. They aren't looking to understand what they see, they're looking to being given some kind of rush. --------------------------------------------------------------------
I think the second reviewer has a better handle than the first. The first has this sort of "you killed my buzz" sort of sentiment. He sounds like a person who was not at all interested in the subtext, but only in the general moment to moment coolness. By cool, I mean the kind of cool that Lester Bangs described in ALMOST FAMOUS. --------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the gloomy prediction made by the second reviewer, I am going to wait. Two of Spielberg's previous three serious movies have turned out to be good box office performers. I think Spielberg can pull this sort of thing off, because people trust him to make good movies, and they will often go to see his films regardless of subject matter. He's earned it, too, because even in his most crassly commercial films, he still managed to put forward some kind of meaning that you didn't have to be a dumbass, a hip guy, or a film student to understand. -
I still say we need to talk about this creepy Osment kid. I say kid, but maybe he's like 46 and just has child-like features. I read in Tiger Beat that l'il dreamboat Haley can't be killed by conventional weapons and that he sleeps upside down, suspended from his feet like Batman. If this is true, who knows how long he'll be around. I must revert back to the interviews you see with this kid/droid. Seriously, what kind of kid talks like that. Maybe he partied his ass off when he was five and matured very early. See, he already went through his Poison Behind the Music phase, and now he's ready to re-enter the sociological mainstream. Only time will tell. I feel sorry for the kid/cyborg when he hits puberty and casting directors forget about him.
-
OK folks. I know what the problem is. Fans of Kubrick are not necessary fans of Spielberg. Therefore you have an immediate built-in conflict. Two opposing styles collaborating? That would be like the Raiders getting along with the Chiefs. One is wholesome and acceptable, the other is dark and disturbing. I personally like Kubrick and have heard that characters like Gigolo Joe were tempered down so the movie could get a PG rating. Even Jude Law said that Kubrick's original vision was "more twisted". Let's face it, this a watered down version of a story that would have been too complex and even too horrifying for kids. It would have caused a stir among parents if the characters were fleshed out EXACTLY the way Kubrick had intended. That's why he had to pass the story onto Speilberg. I used to like Spielberg's movies when I was a kid but even his most celebrated films are derivative of other films. The opening scenes of Saving Private Ryan were already done in 'The Longest Day', the soldier carrying his own dismembered arm was taked straight out of Speilberg's favorite Kurosawa film 'Ran', and the battle scene near the end of SPR was taken straight out of Full Metal Jacket.
-
Or at least someone who's been reading about AICN online. I understand that the review didn't want to include spoilers, but he/she really didn't say anything that couldn't be discovered online.
-
The title of Kubrick's final film, "Eyes Wide Shut", may well sum up how Steven Spielberg went into this project. The man who brought us "Schindler's List" and "Saving Private Ryan" has created another "Amistad" bomb.
-
The true test of whether A.I. is any good is whether 10 years from now, people will look at it and agree it was a great film that was not understood by the public during its initial release. Look at Ridley Scott's BladeRunner, Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Dr. Strangelove and other films that were either boxoffice failures or critical failures (noted Pauline Kael especially blasted 2001 in her NY Times review) at the time of their release and look at where those films are today.
-
Just viewed the
-
I love both Kubrick and Spielberg for different reasons, and personally have no more concerns about a "collaboration" than I do drinking tea - which you boil to make hot, then add ice to make cold. I like sweet and sour sauce. I enjoy when it rains while the sun is still shining. Left of center is always a good thing in my book. Kubrick's vision melded with Spielberg's ability to grab viewers on an emotional level has intrigued me since I first heard about it. Then - the damn (this is not a) game hooked me like a trout. I've got my June 28th "sneak" tickets and have since Laia first told us about them.
My wife will attend as well and will be the voice of the masses. She's intelligent (no desire to see any Mummy movies and thought Pearl Harbor too paint by numbers), but she *enjoys* rather then *loves* film. I'll know how the film will perform this summer on the drive home next Thursday night. My gut tells me that - from what I've seen and read (limited spoilers don't ruin anything for me personally) - she will say what reviewer 2's co-viewers said: "It started out good, then got weird - but I *loved* Teddy". And - therefore - my viewings of the DVD will be alone.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope this is huge for everyone involved and it give timid studio execs a little more reason to green light and promote a film or two aimed at someone over the age of 12 and without ADD. But like reviewer 2, I think it will open huge, be gone form the collective consciousness by late July and will more of a footnote in future Spielberg and Kubrick filmographies. I'll know for sure on that drive home Wednesday.
-
I think Kubrick's philosophy is this: it is hard to discern any truth from an experience, because you aren't given any truth in the first place to rely upon. As a result every statement, including those implicit in reactions to film experiences, which decrees a right or a wrong does so precariously. Even when confronted with something different, people leap to conclusions anyway. If each person were guaranteed 500 years of life, they might be more careful. Kubrick wanted to let people realize the arbitrary nature of their sense of time, and be more patient with their thoughts.
-
This is the second review of mine that's been posted on this site, and this is the second time I've been accused of being a plant. I think it's due to my grammar & lack of spelling mistakes... but I'm working on it. My next review will contain alot of fuckups and kurse wordz, so thatthe masses will beleive in me.
Oh, and if anyone wants the movie completely spoiled for them, just email me, and I'd be glad to - plants have tons of free time. (Oops...) -
nice catch... I just went with the first thing that came to mind (that I thought was funny). But now I feel like a dumbass. When I read that, my left arm turned into a vine, and my ass turned into a dozen roses, so I'm beginning to think you're right. I've been called "meat" on the basketball court, and even "fruit" by someone in high school, but never a "plant" till I sent a review to this site. How about this: "I'm just a patsy."
-
Kabouter Plop made the vital point that Spielberg's film making is decidely different from Kubrick's. Can the geek nation reconcile that perhaps the schitzophrenia of this film will perhaps be the most interesting (if distracting) thing to watch? True, the actual story of what it is "to be human" in the sci-fi genre lends itself quite well to Spielberg's tastes. But as he's consciously trying to tell a Kubrickian tale, so much of the film will seem out of place. This is what will disappoint contemporary audiences used to more sugar coating from our baby boomer Captain America. That's ultimately the real issue here: the stylized film making of one genuis matted with another's for an unusual mesh. So what do we expect? I have to fall in line with the majority here and say "A.I." cannot be fully judged in one contemporary summer season. And to be quite frank, given this summer's abysmal record, I'd rather not be lugging so much angst around when I have a few more looks at it.
-
Jun 20, 2001 8:19:26 AM CDT
Us unsophisticated folk probably wont understand this movie yall
by mrfanboy
-
AI is a beautiful movie, and is sort of like spielberg making a film about kubrick. the two filmmakers' weaknesses cancel each other out. it's fucking great.
-
You want a SUPER MEGA-HIT??? Then don't polorize the crowd.
AI will make a crap load of money, but wether it will substain the momentum over the summer is another tale. -
I'm also hoping Steve will imitate my all-time favorite Kubrick shot: the tight, fish-eyed close-up of a character's face, eyes popping out and mouth agape in horror. Seen prominently as Bowman follows the monolith at the end of 2001; as the old writer in Clockwork Orange realizes Alex is the man who raped his wife; and all over the place in The Shining.
-
Sheesh what a cornball!
-
That's what I get for trying to sneek on line while at work.
-
I just watched the Jaws DVD, then new Close Encouters DVD, followed by Saving Private Ryan on DVD twice...the Close Encounters documentary was especially good. And my respect respect for Spielberg has gone back up through the roof. The man knows how to make movies no almost no one else, he's incredibly technically innovative, and not in a CGI George Lucas way, and he works with the best. A.I. is, no doubt him channeling Kubrick, and it will be weird. It will be a Kubrick story, with the technical sensibilities of Spielberg...and belive me, this movie looks so *sweet* visually, from all I've seen. I was so hyped to see this movie...now the negative reactions has lessened that, but I'll have more realistic expectations now. And remember, Minority Report is coming out too. P.S. Someone said that Saving Private Ryan ripped off a bunch of other movies, which is bullshit. Yes, the "arm scene," which was two seconds long, isn't %100 original. The opening sequence was excellent, who cares if the idea has been done before, never like that it has. And the ending battle was entirely original and awesome...the movie was great throughout. Yes, is had Spielbergian humanistic tone. DUH. It's a human movie, with a great cast, and very simple, but very complex and moving characters to it. If it's not your cup of tea, fine, but in my book it's an excellent film, and one of Spielberg's most mature. Should have won Best Picture, not Shakspere in Love and the Miramax marketing machine. But Dreamworks has won the last two Best Pictures anyway, with American Beauty and Gladiator. I love that studio.
-
People havent bitched about it as much on this TB, but people used to say shit like "Steve, you're just remaking Pinocchio!", and "You should stick to Kubrick's vision!" Well, if you read the Kubrick FAQ, while he was working on this film, he nevver referred to it as A.I. He always called it "Pinocchio." Is it possible This was to be a modern day retelling? IT WOULD FUCKING APPPEAR TO BE SO!!! Once again, it hasnt been as bad on this TB, but i am tired of people bitching about this. Straighten up and fly right. DIG
-
...and you're already digging its grave. Lighten up, get a life. I belive the second reviewer when he says "Only TRUE film lovers will like this" Translation: If you think that any film that is a) directed by Spielberg, b) appealing to a wide audience, or c) a film that will challenge you to think about it instead of spoon-feeding the plot down your mouth, is crap, then avoid this film. You don't have the brain power to handle it. If you could graduate to a higher level of thinking OTHER than bashing a film YOU HAVEN'T SEEN YET and get maybe, a 6th grade vocabulary instead of the 5th grade, THEN you can go see it. A.I. looks like 2001: People will flock to see it, because its finally something different, but critics will despise it until a few years from now. That's what happened with 2001, and pretty much everyone here now regards it as a classic. And remember: Star Wars was panned when it came out in 1977. I know that's just asking for a string of comments saying that Star Wars sucks, but that just strengthens my argument that a good deal of people on these talkbacks are morons. But I'm just rambling.
-
The film is gold!! My friend worked post-production on the project and says we're in for one beautiful ride.
-
Jun 20, 2001 11:02:13 AM CDT
It's funny there are so many Spielberg haters, but why see his f
by fatal discharge
So what if his films are humanist, Frank Capra made his career on this and has made loads of classics (and cornball films too). Kubrick's films were criticized the opposite way - too cold and unemotional. Bah, that was his style - love it or hate it (as people are likely to do). As a lover of film as an artform, I respect and love many of these director's films. Sure, I wish Speilberg didn't feel the need to make The Lost World for purely commercial reasons or that the need to get critical respect for serious films made him do clunkers like Empire Of The Sun or Amistad. However, there's nothing wrong with being a "kid at heart", it's the critics who kept harping on him that his big entertaining blockbusters weren't serious enough that was wrong. People do have to mature over time but their strengths will always remain the same. Though dramas are his greatest strength, I thought The Color Purple was a good first try and Schindler's List & Saving Private Ryan were emotionally powerful movies with some stuff that didn't work quite as well in them also. As for Kubrick, sure he was a perfectionist and a bit nutsy too. Filming a Vietnam film in England or taking 30 shots of a man walking across a street before he liked one enough to use in The Shining is very can be called quirky or downright nuts. His films are full of silences, big themes and technical brilliance. He's not the favorite of the masses due to the intellectual, disturbing and unemotional (which I disagree with in part) films he made. Therefore, you get hate it or love it reactions to films like Eyes Wide Shut (which blew me away when I first saw it). I can watch his films over and over for their brilliant images and powerful ideas. A.I. was a Kubrick envisioned film so Spielberg fans may not like it and Kubrick fans may feel that it was softened too much for them to like it. Since I like both directors, I am sure it will be a good film. Maybe it won't be a masterpiece but I am willing to bet that I will like it.
-
Star Wars was panned when it came out, g-dude? Really? (From www.filmsite.org/starw.html:) "The 20th Century Fox film set box-office records and was a critical success. It was nominated for ten Academy Awards, and won in six categories: Best Art Direction/Set Decoration, Best Sound, Best Original Score (John Williams), Best Film Editing, Best Costume Design, and Best Visual Effects. Its other four nominations were for Best Picture, Best Supporting Actor (Alec Guinness), Best Director, and Best Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen. The film was also awarded with a Special Achievement Award for Sound Effects for the creation of the alien, creature, and robot voices (Benjamin Burtt, Jr.)." Yeah...it sure was reviled, wasn't it? Were you even alive in 1977? If so, you should remember the buzz Star Wars created. It just about single-handedly legitimized science fiction movies, fer chrissake! Of course, none of this says anything about whether A.I. sucks. Judging from the reviews, it does. Granted, they may prove to be wrong, but it's a little early to be throwing out "2001" comparisons.
-
It will be interesting! Like Sean, I love a film that makes you think.
-
Due to it's really very lame dialogue. I mean sit down with your eyes closed and listen to the movie. It's really very bad - and that's because George Lucas wrote the screenplay and directed. And c'mon, we all know he's not very good at either. Remember Radio Days? Thats a comedy Mr. Lucas directed. Watch it, I dare you. It's pretty bad. Anyways, just because a movie wins multiple Oscars does not mean that the critics panned it. And yes, I am old enough to remember. I also remember standing in line the three times I went to see Star Wars in the theater back in 1977. Also, compare Star Wars to its much superior sequel, Empire Strikes Back. Empire was better in so many ways - direction (by Irvin Kershner, who is brilliant), screenplay (by leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan and special effects. But did it win any more Oscars than Star Wars? Nope. Was it better rec'd by the critics. You betcha. I still have the Newsweek copy of David Ansen's review............
-
Jun 20, 2001 11:33:08 AM CDT
Does a movie need constant nagging meaningless dialogue and a ni
by smugbug
I hope not. What I loved about 2001 was the silence. The quiet moments that Kubrick used so much - and I hate the overused MTV style of editing that seems to be infiltrating all the movies now as well as stupid, mindless chatter that explains EVERYTHING and NOTHING. For god's sake - let me think! Let me use my brain! And really, does a movie require a complete resolution at the end? I hope not - let me become so involved with the characters that once I leave the theater, I'm still thinking about their future. How interesting that would be? I will see A.I.
-
It's for me. No one writing has seen this movie twice yet, and you simply can't write about a Stanley Kubrick movie based on a single viewing. And yes, I do believe that what we have ourselves here is a Stanley Kubrick movie. David Mamet said of '2001' that it made virtually every other film look completely redundant, and 'A.I.' looks set to do the same. I don't know, Kubrick/Spielberg just sounds a tad classier than Bruckheimer/Bay, don't you think? What's creepy about that Osment kid is that he isn't some moppet like Jake Lloyd or the Culkins or the usual Spielberg kids, he really can act and he has a very unusual presence. I thought 'The Sixth Sense' might have been a fluke, but after having seen 'Pay it Forward', a generally mediocre film, I have to conclude that he's as fine a child actor as I've seen even in the films of Trufaut. One of that movies major problems was that Osment and Kevin Spacey were so damn much better than anybody else. Few actors of any age can hold their own against Kevin Spacey. Unlike your typical 'Stars of Today, 7-11 Stick-up Men of Tomorrow', he's carried TWO huge (and very good) movies and is likely headed for his SECOND Oscar Nomination. His future will much more likely resemble Jodie Foster's than Todd Bridges' (complete with asexuality, I suspect; and who knows, maybe some one will be inspired by the 'Pay it Forward' concept to shoot George W. "Well you see, this complete stranger gave me his car. He said 'Don't pay it back, pay it forward' and so you see...) Anyways, I'm looking forward to a great great movie.
-
I had heard that this movie was basically a futuristic retelling of Pinnochio where an artificial human wanted to e excepted as a real boy. And I expected no less than that. So complaining it was too much like Pinnochio doesn't bother me at all. I'm just happy that a movie was madse this summer that was meant for a more mature audience than the standard summer movie fair with exposions and corny dialogue. I have always thought of anything that had Kubrick's touch on it as thought provoking. Movies like 2001: A Space Oddysey and A Clockwork Orange were surreal visions of morality or lack thereof it. They also shed light of the setbacks of being human too. It's just too bad that Kubrick didn't scrap Eyes Wide Shut in favor of working on AI which is much more superior than his swan song. I feel might just win a few Oscars as well.
-
When are all you dumbasses gonna stop labeling films as a typical "Kubrick Film" or a typical "Speilberg Film" and appreciate the films for what they are. My advice, go in blind, and come out with your own fucking opinion. Don't go back and repeat some garbage that a film teacher, who has probably never even made a movie, told you to think, or what some lameass posted on a fucking website. Why don't you grow some nuts and make your own mind up. The sign of a good filmmaker is someone who never repeats himself/herself, or steals from himself/herself. I just so happens that these are two directors that have never really done so. Each of their films can stand on its own, and that is the most important thing. If a film can't stand on its own, without the weight of the name of the director, then it is probably not worth seeing. I happen to love both Kubrick and Speilberg, and I wish you all would just stop comparing the films between the two. They are not the same person, but simply share, or shared, a passion for film. Don't go to see a "Speilberg" film. Go to see a film. Close your eyes until you go into the theater, the let yourself see the damn movie.
-
Well, I WAS alive in 1977. I don't have the original "People" review, but I remember it saying condescendingly that Luke Skywalker "wants to be a Knight just like his daddy". A few years later they complained that the only non-Caucasian character in "Empire" was a "jive-talking betrayer". Don't remember what they had to say about "Jedi", though.
-
Spielberg was credited with the screenplay of Close Encounters, but did not write a great deal of it. Radio Days is a Woody Allen film. Lucas produced the excretable Radioland Murders starring Brian Benben. Don't believe everything you read.
-
I keep hearing about how great Osment's performance is in this film. Can't wait to see for myself. Along those lines though, if anyone is interested in seeing an amazing performance by a child (I think it's the best ever put to film), check out "Ponette". It's a French film from '96 directed by
Jacques Doillon. The actress in question is Victoire Thivisol. She was only 4 years old, but her performance was truly something that needs to be seen to be believed. The subject matter was especially difficult (death of her mother). The film is flawed (mainly the ending), but is something that everyone should see. Just thought I'd mention it. Meanwhile, I'm eagerly awaiting A.I. -
Jun 20, 2001 5:51:09 PM CDT
Wee Willie: sorry - I didn't have my "Official Listing of Ever
by smugbug
you know - I believe after about 2-3 years of AICN Talkbacks, that is the first mistake I've made regarding a movie title and connected director. But thank you for correcting me - the mistake was not intended to purposely misdirect someone. But my opinion that George Lucas should not be allowed to pen a screenplay or direct his own concepts still stands.
-
Jun 20, 2001 5:53:24 PM CDT
Wee Willie: sorry - I didn't have my "Official Listing of Ever
by smugbug
you know - I believe after about 2-3 years of AICN Talkbacks, that is the first mistake I've made regarding a movie title and connected director. But thank you for correcting me - the mistake was not intended to purposely misdirect someone. But my opinion that George Lucas should not be allowed to pen a screenplay or direct his own concepts still stands.
-
Of course there is a chance it could suck.
I don -
OH, I am sooooo sick of hearing conspiracy theories about how a certain post is a studio 'plant'. Come on, MASTER OF THE OBVIOUS, of course it's a friggin' possibility. I see posts about 'plant' reviews so often that I'm surprised that those accusational posters still visit this supposed greenhouse.
Okay, so that was bad. But you all know what I am saying, I am sure, when I say that pointless arguments are just clogging up the boards. And then we've got those arguments about 'whether Spielberg should have channeled Kubrick for this movie'... 'is that what Kubrick intended?' shite. How many months have those arguments been posted? You're beating horse hamburgers, that's how dead your points are.
I can appreciate in a small way what that one person says about how one shouldn't go into a theatre expecting a Spielberg film or a Kubrick film, that one should just go in open-minded. Face it, buddy. That's just a bunch of phony-as-existentialism horse dung. ANYONE who watches movies and retains the name of the director will want to either see or not see more of that person's films.
Another thing that I would like to have put to bed: people using the word 'commie' as if it is some kind of insult. I mean, where are you from? Did you time-travel here from the Un-American Activities Hearings? Please. If I read one more post where people refer to studio producers, reviewers or whomever as 'commies', I'm gonna track that mofo down and go all totalitarian on his or her respective ass. I'm talkin' tyin'-you-to-a-chair-playin'-Stuck-In-the-Middle-With-You-by-Stealer's-Wheel-While-I-Cut-Off-Your-Ears-And-Laugh-About-It.
I'm calm now. -
Haley Joel Osment stars as Robin Williams in Millenium Man. I don't really care how the plot eventually twists, but its a same basic plot: A robot with A.I. struggles with his "humanity".
Its like making some dinosaur movie one year after Jurassic Park and insisting that there're plot twists and better characters. The movie industry is such, you build another movie with the same premise and the other movie comes out first, its just too Freaking bad. -
If you're interested, she played Juliette Binoche's daughter in the recent CHOCOLAT. As for A.I., can't say I'm completely excited about it but of course I'll be checking it out when it opens here in Australia...in freaking SEPTEMBER!
-
Perhaps, except almost cetrtainly better. Personally, I'll take Corman's brilliant rip-off 'Dinosaur Island' over 'Jurassic Park' any day.
-
I feel the need to bring something to the second reviewer's attention. Steven Spielberg's last sole "written by" credit was on CE3K. However his script was rewritten Hollywood-style by four other writers who remained uncredited. Conversely he created the stories for such classics as POLTERGEIST and THE GOONIES (okay one of those is a classic) as well as the teleplays for shows like AMAZING STORIES and even ANIMANIACS. And we all know his uncredited writing contribution to RAIDERS was enormous. Not knocking Kasdan or Spielberg or anyone else here. Just saying that the screenplay credit (and/or blame) can be vastly misleading. And that Spielberg's been a writer all along. As for Kubrick, his name appears nowhere in the credits for this movie, at least not on the poster. Despite all the behind the scenes stuff I seriously wonder if Spielberg has any intention of aping SK. Like Martin Scorsese, Spielberg's borrowed tricks from Hitchcock, Capra and Ford to tell stories. But the stories he tells have always been told in his own voice for better or worse. It feels to me like too many people are projecting a Kubrick film onto this one and coming out even more confused than those critics did after seeing 2001. On a completely different note, am I the only one annoyed by the fact that this "serious" movie's title has done that E.T.-abbreviation-thing?
-
I agree with Fugui on that Julia Phillips thing. But read the CE3K chapter in EASY RIDERS RAGING BULLS for a second opinion.
-
www.drudgereport.com is posting a link to Army Archerd's A.I. review. I, personally, am waiting for a review to appear on Joe Bob Brigg's web site.
-
Jun 21, 2001 6:10:46 AM CDT
If everybody understood Kubrick's work, then those who do unders
by twonkenn
I'm so glad that the 'Tomb Raider', 'Fast and Furious', 'Pearl Harbor', 'Mummy Returns' crowd won't like this. Leave the 'I'm too old for this shit' movies to them. Kubrick films aren't intended for those mindless Michael Bay fan fucks. The near-universally hated 'Eyes Wide Shut' was a masterpiece. With that in mind, I can't wait for A.I. I hope it is raked through the coals so I can, yet again, snicker at how many idiotic people our school system turns out year after year.
-
Thanks, Sinister....I noticed her in "Chocolat" as well. Not nearly the same caliber of performance, but nice to see her again in something.
-
Jun 21, 2001 12:21:57 PM CDT
Feh - Spielberg will make a "2001" when I shit diamonds
by dr. channard
What a crock. Don't waste electrons telling me how much ANYthing that simp Spielberg makes relates in THIS dimension to Kubrick's work. Christ, here's a guy who takes the New Testament and turns it into "E.T.", the assualt on Normandy turns into an episode from Oprah, and the potential of Stapledon's "Star Maker" into a Richard Dreyfuss doofus vehicle.
Schopenhauer once wrote: "Add a spoonful of sewage to a barrel of wine and you get - sewage. Add a spoonful of wine to a barrel of sewage, and you get - sewage". Adding Spielberg's (and that inane rip-off artist John Williams, damn his worthless hide) "magic touch" and I don't care if it's mixed with Kubrick or any other talent - you're going to end up with Spielberg: sewage. -
No, haven't seen it yet, but one thing is surely clear from Uncle Steve's post-Schindler output. He's painted himself into a corner, since every film has to be an event film given the level of expectations (and therefore box office gold), while he still craves the "artistic legitimacy" conferred by subject matter like WW2, Holocaust, slavery and now an association with Mad Stan Kubrick. It's like King getting his short stories in the New Yorker. They don't want to be remembered as, albeit brilliant pulp storytellers. This is serious legacy preparation.
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