Cool News
AI screened in Tokyo and our man was there...
Father Geek reporting with a review of AI from the Japanese preview screening... I just got home from seeing this flick myself... I found it enjoyable, but somehow empty. After the film several of us stood around discussing it afterwards (2 girls and 3 guys). The telling thing I think is that we were all bringing up little problems instead of little triumphs. Why? Why weren't we excitedly babbling about how great it was? Well, it was beautiful. The effects were near flawless, buuuuut something just didn't sit right. Greatness has somehow escaped the film, I'm not real sure how, but it just felt flat somehow. Beautiful, but hardly exciting. Awesome, but not awe inspiring. It just failed to capture our screening audience. I'll see it again, its great eye candy if nothing else, and maybe a second viewing will hit me different... Buuuuut for now here's our agent behind the lines in Japan...
Hi. Your old Englishman in Tokyo is here again. Quick review of
A.I for you from the first wave of previews to hit Japan tonight. I was in
attendance, along with several DreamWorks and Warner reps, and some lucky
members of the general public.
This will be a summary review with only minor spoilers that won`t detract
from the movie.
A.I. - ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (2001)
THE GOOD
- A.I. is fascinating. Your attention will be held throughout the
movie. Why?
- Because it`s one of the most unpredictable movies ever. At some point you
will probably just surrender and give up trying to comfort-guess how a scene
is playing out, because something entirely mad happens every five minutes to
throw the story in a new direction. And the point you surrender yourself to
the movie is fantastic, because you become aware that you entirely in the
hands of one of the world's greatest visual story tellers. This movie will
defeat your pre-conceptions with it`s weirdness and thoroughly offbeat
rhythm. And coming from a summer of Pearl Harbours and Mummy sequels, That`s
a real thrill.
- Haley Joel Osment is a revelation. Jude Law is hilarious in his role, the
supporting cast is excellent, and Teddy, the child's bear who sounds like a
stoned PC talk program steals every scene he's in. In other words, solid and
interesting characterization.
- The film stretches your credibility at a sensible pace. You start off in
the real world. In the realm of science-fact. Soon you're in a very strange,
surreal place... but the reality is still there. Hardly with time to breath,
you're being hurtled along towards a truly Close Encounters style climax
that is really quite transcendent and moving. And you realise that you have
come a long, long way from the start of the movie. This is a good thing. You
feel you have invested time in something worthwhile.
- Hitchcock shots a-plenty. There are classic images in this film. Many of
them. They will haunt you.
- This is nothing like any Spielberg film you have ever seen -- despite some
saying it has scenes knocked off from earlier Spielberg movies. There is a
dark, quite nasty edge to a lot of the film.
THE BAD
- The flesh fair sequence, which, bizarrely, is like something ripped out of
Mad Max, and feels out of place. Why?
- The voice overs suck. All of them. Every time John Hurt opens his mouth
you are pulled out of the movie. It`s meant to sound reassuring, like a wise
man narrating you a fairy tale. It does not work at all. It is contrived.
- The film did not know when to end. There are about four moments where you
are sure the film is about to close -- and worse, they all start coming
about two hours into the movie. The camera holds on a killer, film defining
shot, we start pulling back, the screen starts fading, the music dies....
and then we cut to something completely different. "2000 years later." Uh.
- By the third time it`s like, damn, that would been have a great ending
moment. The fourth time it`s jeez, end already. There is no sense of rhythm
or structure or build or release to the ending 30 minutes. It just gets
weird, then really weird. Then cheesy. Then weird. Then fizzles to the
credits.
- As much as I can dig weirdness, Kubrick surrealism has raw intelligence
and ambiguous behind it. We should be shown wonderful things and left to
fill in the gaps with our own experiences. Here we are taken to stunning
places, and then the voice over appears and rapes any semblance of depth by
explaining everything that just happened, in terms Homer Simpson could
understand. I`m no film snob, but the lack of narrative sophistication is
hugely jarring with the sophistication of the imagery, specially when things
starts to get really desolate and awe-inspiring at the end.
- Ashley Scott appears for exactly five seconds in the movie, looking 10
times hotter than she did in her pre-release promotional shot. And if you
saw that, you'll know what a crime that five mere seconds is.
That`s it. But highly recommended, and as a fan of the 70s/80s Spielberg, I
rate this higher than Saving Private Ryan, or Amistad, or any of Spielberg's
other recent letters to America.
I do not blame Moriarty for dissecting the film into it`s component pieces
and scenes, but if you're doing that you're probably missing how the movie
is best enjoyed. It`s not perfect, and the ending makes some tonal mistakes.
But A.I. is not a logical film, because it`s food for the soul, and souls
aren't logical. It`s fragments of brilliant imagery painting an
impressionistic emotional picture, that is more than the sum of it`s parts.
That`s why, five hours and one party and many drinks later, in the quiet and
the darkness of my home, the film returns to me vividly. The film lives in
an area of your brain rarely touched by movies. For that alone, it`s head
and shoulders above any other mainstream film released this year.
Judge for yourself, and don't read a single word more about the film before
you do. Me? I loved it.
-Aibo Tokyo
Have a comment? E-mail our Japan Man at: This Location
-
+ Expand All
-
Cause I'm that too.
-
Kubrick would have pulled it off better by the sounds of it. Never mind, got to be better than Pear Harbour anyway.
-
Is a big long article from Harry explaining away any reasons FG didn't like part of the film... you see he wasn't looking at it the right way, he was looking at it this way.... you see.. uh huh.. that's it...
hee hee... but I kid!!! -
Jun 25, 2001 10:52:12 PM CDT
So it's good, I get it already. But it's still not as good as th
by littleredsmock
right?
-
"It's cheesy". "It's wierd". "It doesn't know when to end". "It's cold". "It's heartless". All the complaints are the same. Every single review seems to have the same caveat. Spielberg fucked up the ending. But it all says the same shit that people said about 2001. Every review has the same uncompromising view towards art and expectations. It all has the tone of unrecognized brilliance. I haven't seen it yet. I've seen excatly two scenes from it (on Ebert & Roeper) and it looked really fucking cool. Joe Gigolo may be the coolest character to appear in a movie in years. An instant clasic. The other scene was more revealing though. It was framed just like a Kubrick shot! It was really fucking wierd. It fucking looked just like Kubrick! Low, wide angle shot of two people talking in a sparsely decorated room, with, like, splashes of saturated color in the background. Spielberg has shot this film AS Stanley Kubrick, creator of icons and maker of a handful of the best movies ever made! But he's not! He's Steven Spielberg, creator of icons and maker of a handful of the best movies ever made. But not really. Really it's their bizarre mutant offspring, Stevely Spielbrick! Both Kubrick and Spielberg use a lot of the same tools. Detailed and extravagant set design. A strong emphasis on visual storytelling. Artificiality. Fantasy. The use of bankable stars. However bad it is, I bet it'll be better than Eyes Wide Shut.
-
"It's cheesy". "It's wierd". "It doesn't know when to end". "It's cold". "It's heartless". All the complaints are the same. Every single review seems to have the same caveat. Spielberg fucked up the ending. But it all says the same shit that people said about 2001. Every review has the same uncompromising view towards art and expectations. It all has the tone of unrecognized brilliance. I haven't seen it yet. I've seen excatly two scenes from it (on Ebert & Roeper) and it looked really fucking cool. Joe Gigolo may be the coolest character to appear in a movie in years. An instant clasic. The other scene was more revealing though. It was framed just like a Kubrick shot! It was really fucking wierd. It fucking looked just like Kubrick! Low, wide angle shot of two people talking in a sparsely decorated room, with, like, splashes of saturated color in the background. Spielberg has shot this film AS Stanley Kubrick, creator of icons and maker of a handful of the best movies ever made! But he's not! He's Steven Spielberg, creator of icons and maker of a handful of the best movies ever made. But not really. Really it's their bizarre mutant offspring, Stevely Spielbrick! Both Kubrick and Spielberg use a lot of the same tools. Detailed and extravagant set design. A strong emphasis on visual storytelling. Artificiality. Fantasy. The use of bankable stars. However bad it is, I bet it'll be better than Eyes Wide Shut.
-
right?
-
Hey, I haven't seen it, but other than earlier reviews hating the ending (like 2001), I don't see that argument. The Flesh Fair gets ripped on because it's "out-of-place" or "freaking stupid" (Mad Max vs. the robots does seem sort of odd), but that's not exactly a Kubrickism. I don't remember the band in the Shinning busting out Ministry while Jack rode a motocycle around the hotel. Stupid plot devices like all the robots getting dumped in the woods even though Haley supposedly is the only one with emotions, swimming in water causes no harm but eatting spinach does, etc. seem more like sloppy writting than Kubrickisms. Hammering the audience over the head with little wooden boy references, again not Kubrick. Oh crap, these are all Hook-isms!!!!!
-
Jun 26, 2001 12:53:16 AM CDT
Your Lack of Theoretical Knowledge on the evolution of artificia
by malchizedik
may have something to do with the medium level of dissapointment? Perhaps the film is a bit too accurate for your tastes?? If not, dear fuck, what is this, Cherry 2000? I am utterly tripping on the idea of sound triggering a static program of emotions. BTW even modern day robots 'fear' things such as ledges and stair cases...anything that may prove a challenge to navigate will cause uncertainty and hesitance in modern robotic systems based on the fact that they are aware of the geometry and topology of an environment that is not exactly conducive to their programs and mechanics of movement. It would be like asking a human to navigate a zero gravity environment where there were dangerous vortex's of space that one could lose molecular structure in.
-
This review and Harry's comments basically prove that this is a Kubrick film at heart. Thought provoking, fascinating, idea-packed, visually stunning but somehow empty, cold and detached, right? You can say this about almost every Kubrick film. Personally, I'm happy that this is the case and that Spielberg didn't take over the theme and tone of the film but basically showed respect to the source material and sensibilities. This is going to be good. A fitting tribute and farewell to one of the greatest directors that ever lived.
-
Show me. My biggest concern is the advertising campaign matches that statement more than the reviews of the actual movie seem to indicate. It's Pinnochio 3000 with a touch of Mad Max and a helping dose of Bi-Centenial Man as far as I can tell. It seems to explore the tortures an adopted child might experience... and? "They made us too smart, too fast". Fuck Data, Jude Law-Male Prostitute, all thinking robots stories, and how man will doom himself with his own inventions. It's been done. Robots as characters reached their height with the Pimpbot on Conan. IT'S BORING. This ain't Fight Club folks.
-
how this movie is somehow more engaging or more original than "Blade Runner?" These preview reviews all sound like nobody wants to say the unspeakable - that this film is every bit as egregiously bad as "1941" or "Temple of Doom." And none of these review bespeak anyone wanting to go back and re-watch the film, which is the critical test for blockbuster-status success. I think I'd put my money on "Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back" and "The Fast and the Furious" for being the profitable winners this summer.
-
The posters on this talkback seem once again divided right down the middle over A.I. either being misunderstood genius or a total disappointment, somehow not worth watching. On that latter point let me ask the following: In a summer that has offered few hits and even fewer that touch a higher emotional and intellegent level, how could this effort be considered somehow not worth our time? The evidence of interest in A.I. talkback proves it may be well worth our time, if only to gawk as one might at a train wreck (although I have serious reservations as to wheather it is such a dismal failure).++++++++++++As to the "it's all been done before argument", I want to say that the idea, while not fresh, is offering a different perspective from a solid director, actually challenging his own film making abilities to work beyond what has come before. That alone makes A.I. worth our time.
-
The girl who played Robin Williams' daughter in Hook?
-
Jun 26, 2001 6:14:22 AM CDT
'Stanley, Stanley, he's our man, if he can't do it...What, he's
by dexter cornell
Kubricks dead. Kubrick was an awful director and storyteller. Spielberg is a great storyteller, but is working with a Kubrick visualization. Translation? Spielberg + Kubrick equals really weird, off kilter movie with nice visuals. By the way, I heard the Japanese attack Haley Joel Osment while he's vacationing in Hawaii near the end.
-
Your review is really an excellent analysis. I saw it last night as well and felt really good about the film. I saw a friend of who teaches a Kubrick course at UNC-Charlotte and he gave me a big thumbs down gesture. I told him that he was just bitter. I don't usually like to react too soon because I like to let the movie happen to me and then see what stays with me after I've digested it.
This morning, I woke up and all the problems of A.I. spilled into my head. I was disappointed. For me what was truly wrong with the film was the lack of subtext. It seemed like so much of the film wore its heart on its sleeve. I loved the emotion that Spielberg put into the film. But it feels like when I say Spielberg, it -
But Kubrick wished for this movie to be made by Spielberg. He wanted the Spielberg touch, the warmth and romanticism that marks his work. Unfortunately, some of you are thinking that the cinematic god Kubrick could not possibly deign to condescend to giving a movie to the popcorn king, Steven Spielberg. Never mind Sugarland Express, Close Encounters, ET, The Color Purple, Empire of The Sun, Schindler's List, Amistad, and Saving Private Ryan. Never mind the consistently high quality of the work that Dreamworks was involved in. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For some reason, this criticism keeps popping up. For some reason, Saving Private Ryan, one of the harshest war movies of recent memory, gets labelled as sentimental. Schindler's List is seen as overlooking Oskar Schindler's faults when they are actually in plain view in the film. I could go on. Truth is, what people find frustrating about Spielberg is that he forces us to confront our emotions, forces us to confront uncomfortably ambiguous circumstances. In our culture, emotion and ambiguity are far more dangerous than cynicism and obviousness. It's far more dangerous to just think for yourself, than to take up dogmatically radical positions. And what really gets those people's gall is that he rakes it in doing this, makes money hand over fist doing what they don't dare. Kubrick was a mature enough filmmaker to understand Spielberg's talent, to understand what made him so great. If Kubrick had made movies with more emotion, more of Spielberg's kind of ambiguity, they would hate him, too.
-
Jun 26, 2001 7:12:54 AM CDT
Am I a real boy or a mecha boy? All I want to know is the truth!
by bari umenema
Last summer they told the tourists at Warner Bros. that "A.I." stood for Alien Invasion so where the hell are the Alien Invaders? I think Spielberg was trying to fool those clueless tourists and I was one of them so he sure fooled me! Why Steven why? Why tell us the movie is about an Alien Invasion when it's really about Artificial Intelligence? Ain't It? Cool News?
-
Then maybe I'll have something to say worth taking up this bandwidth. There has just been SOOOOO much said about this movie. All by people with different points of view. It's starting to get a little overwhelming. I just want to see it because it looks like a interesting movie. Why is everyone making such a huge deal about Kubrik, Speilberg and Osmett when most of you haven't seen the damn movie.
-
I have refused to read any of the spoiler reviews. I will see this film. And I will probably enjoy it, yea, perhaps even love it. I have not pinned my salvation or damnation on this film or on the likes of Steven Speilburgerking or Stanley Kubrickhouse. So, knowing that this film is not my own personal jesus I can take this film for what it is: A science fiction fairy tale. So what if there are holes in the story, so what if it leaves you feeling not so fresh. Most SF films are and do. I still enjoy the possibility of something great in every piece of SF schlock I see. If there are moments in this film that transcend the decay we call Hollywood and take me to a place of introspection and contemplation of the soul then that's just icing on the crab cake. With that said, I need to know where Tina Yothers is. She stole my heart in '85 as well as my Visa card. I must have her.
-
Pick one:
A) I either love or hate Spielberg and/or Kubrick and will watch this movie fully aware of their involvement. Afterwards I will filter the film through my perceptions of their former work while judging it.
B) Although I have been known to use a director as a sign post in my decision to see or not see a film, I let each film stand or fall on it's own merits, and judge it accordingly.
From everthing I've read, those who chose A will have a problem with the film while the B people (the other 95% of humanity) will probably give it 4 to 5 stars. I don't doubt that the film will have some problems - the Ministry video gave me an uneasy feeling about the whole Flesh Fair thing - but overall the story, acting, visuals and music - from what I've read and heard - should more than make up for any perceived shortcomings. It may not be perfect, but everything points to A.I. being a wonderful film experience if you let yourself forget the names at the beginning of the credits. Oh - and the question about Ashley Scott - she's a model and here's a link to a little info - http://www.exito.com/0911issue/Models2.htm - scroll down. -
I have to laugh at this. Some of you people place Kubrick up on some kind of pedestal, like he is something more than human. Well, many of the things that you are bashing AI for...these were ideas Kubrick wanted in the film im his 90 page treatment he wrote. People tried to get him to move away from the whole Pinnochio parallel, or at least get him to make it more subtle. But no, KUBRICK wanted to keep it in there in its bat-over-the-head entirety. KUBRICK. I havent seen the movie yet, but I bet that if Kubrick had actually made it, people would be ripping him even harder than they did with Eyes Wide Shut, which I loved. So give Spielburg a damned break and stop blaming him for everything in this film. He has done his best to bring Kubrick's entire vision to life. I doubt anyone could have done it better.
-
Better than Saving Private Ryan? Hmm, I may have to see this after all.
-
I don't quite understand... if Kubrick asked Spielberg to direct A.I. because it was "closer to his sensibilities", then why would Spielberg feel the need to try to emulate Kubrick's style in this film? In that case, why have Spielberg direct it at all? (I know it's cause Kubrick's dead, but say he wasn't)Why have someone else emulate his style if Kubrick himself could just make it? If Kubrick was still alive, do you guys think this movie would have ended up being pure Spielberg? Instead of the quasi-Kubrick I've been reading it is?
-
I still don't really believe that if Kubrick was still alive Spielberg would have ended up directing A.I.
-
Something that bothers me with AI is the depiction of the robot child as just a average, normal kid.Ive always been under the impression , that the reason for the films twenty year waite , was that Kubrick always imagined the boy as an obvious and convincing robot.In interviews he talked of the fact that he wasn't sure if the character should be CGI a real child made up, or some sort of Puppet.That explains , why after seeing Jurasic Park , Kubrick felt he could go ahead with the project.Chris Cunningham's Biork vidio , with its elegant black and white androids , seems much closer {and partially derived from},to the impression I had of Kubrick vision.Spielberg seems to have taken a rather easier option. { in terms of creating audiance emotion/empathy and the sheer problems of filming the artificial child} .If kubrick had always pictured the child as just , some miserable kid ,{ fresh and unchanged from Sixth Sense }..he could have had this sucker in the can years before his death!
-
A long time puzzle fan, Stanley Kubrick created his infamous cube on the set of BARRY LYNDON in order to watch Ryan O' Neal go crazy. Kubrick had already tired of telling O'Neal to piss in the corner of a round house. Friends were immediately on Stanley's ass for him to market his cube. He finally relented, with the provision that the name be changed to Rubik's Cube, as not to detract from his film career. Kubrick is best known for such films as RAFFERTY & THE GOLD DUST TWINS, MY NAME IS NOBODY, THE BIG BUS, and THE BAD NEWS BEARS IN BREAKING TRAINING. He is also the father of Jerry Bruckheimer.
-
I am a first time poster, but long time visitor to this site. Why do people insist on calling Fight Club a brilliant film? I like the film, and own the dvd, but it is just a fucking movie. I want Domi's Inner Child to explain the profound,lifechanging message that is supposedly somewhere in the film.
-
Jun 26, 2001 2:19:06 PM CDT
I Wish To Echo The Praise Heaped On The Corpse Of Stanley Kubric
by buzz maverik
That scene in EYES WIDE SHUT with the masked naked chicks changed my life. However, if Stan the Man (as he liked to be called; he also dug Smilin' Stan) were alive, no way would he have had A.I. in the can years ago. He'd be shooting take 3303 of the robot kid squeezing a silicon zit. Haley Joe would have to shave 3 three times a day and be on all kinds of Michael Jackson hormones to keep playing the part.
-
Jun 26, 2001 5:27:58 PM CDT
Spielberg's bad movies are better than most people's good ones.
by crazyqbn
That says it all.
You want to see a real filmmaker at work, see ANYTHING Spielberg has directed. Including "Lost World". Even when he makes movies that most consider crap, I always find something brilliant about them. (Julianne Moore on the cracking glass) He's a master, if not THE master. But it all starts with the script. Even Spielberg needs a good script. But if the script is weak, you can STILL count on wonderful sequences in his films. Wonderful moments. Every time.
Name the film and I'll give you the moment...
But today's "hot" directors...
Ugggggghhhh
Michael Bay, Simon West, Dom Sena, Antoine Fuqua, McG--all those guys are music video hacks. They don't have a clue as to how to tell a story--even a bad one--through cinema. Fast cutting and great camera-work do not a great film make.
Watch Spielbergs "bad movies" and compare them to these guys "good movies". Which are better?
I know there will be AICN movie geeks that PRESUME to know what they're saying and will reject my conclusions and to you, I say: Learn cinema, 'cause you're like Bay and Sena and West--a hack! -
...as good a filmmaker as speilberg is, one of his major problems is he doesn't know how to end a film well and tends to overlook massive plot holes-cases in point...schindler's list would have been a much better film if speilberg had ended it with schindler in the car driving off, the faces of those he saved reflected in the glass, instead of the horrible coke commercial ending...and saving private ryan-just who WAS remeniscing about WHAT???
-
Okay, so Moriarty and a few fan boys don't like A.I. and suddenly people start writing staff like "These preview reviews all sound like nobody wants to say the unspeakable - that this film is every bit as egregiously bad as "1941" or "Temple of Doom." Have you lost all touch with reality? Almost every damn professional critic has rated this film with an A or its equivalent. The reviews range from "flawed masterpiece" status to ecstatic raves. Andrew Sarris, a legendary critic (He's the one that actually came up with the auteur theory) goes berserk with his praise of A.I., while saying that he usually doesn't like Spielberg, Kubrick or sci-fi movies. Yet, the opinions of some guys with no formal film education, no reviewing background (and whom you don't know and could very well be horny 16-year-olds with a Van Damme fixation) suddenly are more important. I can only repeat one thing: I'm gonna have a field day come mid-December when everybody's gonna be whining how crap LOTR is! And as for Kubrick, it's okay not to like his films, everybody is entitled to his opinions. Just don't make stupid uninformed comments that he was a hack and his films were not good.
-
So, Moriarty and a couple of fanboys didn't like A.I. and suddenly people write staff like "A.I. is a disaster, A.I. is disapppointing, A.I. is the new 1941, etc.". Have you lost all touch with reality? Almost every damn professional critic gave this film an A rating or its equivalent. Attitudes towards it range from the flawed masterpiece status to the ecstatic. Legendary critic (He came up with the auteur theory, boys and girls)Andrew Sarris writes a multi-page rave, while pointing out that he dislikes Spielberg,Kubrick and sci-fi movies. Yet, these facts hold no gravity to some people here. For them, the opinion of some guy (That's not for Moriarty, whom I often find literate and informative- but not here) with no formal film education, no reviewing background and which they don't know (and could very well be a horny 16-year-old with a Jean Claude Van Damme fixation) is more important and everybody is ready to hate A.I. before actually seeing it! As I've said before, I'm gonna have loads of fan come mid-December, when everybody starts whining about how crap LOTR is. As for those who hate Kubrick films, it's okay, everybody is entitled to his opinion. Just don't make uninformed and ultimately stupid comments in the style of "Kubrick was a hack, his films are unwatchable".
-
So, Moriarty and a couple of fanboys didn't like A.I. and suddenly people write staff like "A.I. is a disaster, A.I. is disapppointing, A.I. is the new 1941, etc.". Have you lost all touch with reality? Almost every damn professional critic gave this film an A rating or its equivalent. Attitudes towards it range from the flawed masterpiece status to the ecstatic. Legendary critic (He came up with the auteur theory, boys and girls)Andrew Sarris writes a multi-page rave, while pointing out that he dislikes Spielberg,Kubrick and sci-fi movies. Yet, these facts hold no gravity to some people here. For them, the opinion of some guy (That's not for Moriarty, whom I often find literate and informative- but not here) with no formal film education, no reviewing background and which they don't know (and could very well be a horny 16-year-old with a Jean Claude Van Damme fixation) is more important and everybody is ready to hate A.I. before actually seeing it! As I've said before, I'm gonna have loads of fan come mid-December, when everybody starts whining about how crap LOTR is. As for those who hate Kubrick films, it's okay, everybody is entitled to his opinion. Just don't make uninformed and ultimately stupid comments in the style of "Kubrick was a hack, his films are unwatchable".
-
you're kidding here, come on. I know great music videos and straight-to-video- flicks directors that were better than Kubrick, no contest there. To name a few: Fritz Lang, Sergei Eisenstein, Akiro Kurosawa.
Those guys knew how to end a movie. Not to mention they didn't try to pose as intellectuals making movies for thinking masses by putting the result of sleepless nights on LSD through half of the script, like basically Kubrick did with 2001. I know most sheepishly think it's the greatest movie ever, but come on, stop with such a joke. Visually interesting yes; M Bay and R Emmerich have great visuals too. Yet they don't have that much stuff for thought surely. Yet 2001 misses the shot by far. If you haven't read the A C Clarke novel, the movie is mostly boring and pointless with mildly interesting stuff amdist it, especially in the middle, and some great scenery. If you have read the novel, then the movie is just a major disappointment. -
ok i have a friend inside who gets passes for prmieres and so he invites me to go to the Ziegfield Theater to see AI last night(tuesday) at the World Premiere in NYC. GREAT! I have been waiting to see this movie for a while. We got great seats, the popcorn and soda was free and before the movie starts Spielberg HIMSELF walks out to the front of the auditorium to give us all a little speech about how he and Kubrick worked on it since the eraly 80s and yadda yadda yadda...Then he walks away to thunderous applause..We are ALL psyched!!!!! the light go down....the movie starts.......and we watch it....and its crap....This movie is really like 4 different movies that dont fit together..I agree with the Tokyo review in that someparts of are like Mad Max Beyond Thunderdome, part sweet fable of a robot boy that wants to be a real boy, part aliens from another galaxy in the future....part Bad Seed.....it goes all over the place and because of that you never get to really feel for any of the characters. You expect to at LEAST fall in love with Haley Joel Osments character (after all he is the main character) but you dont, because the story doesn't pull at your heartstrings the way that Spielberg often makes his young charatcters do.You remember in E.T. when Elliot says goodbye to ET at the end and its really sweet yet sad and your eyes get all wet and teary? Theres nothing in the script that makes anyone FEEL for the characters.It is a movie that cost alot of money that is very full of bright shiny expensive things to look at, but empty emotionally. I was REALLY disappointed. I would have loved to LOVE this movie, but I cant. It was cool to see Steven Spielberg in person though. I saw an advance screening of CHris Rocks POOTIE TANG last week and even though its a REALLLLY ultra low budget movie, I liked it WAY more than A.I.
-
Hmmmm. Ok, yes it's just a coincidence, but I thought I'd just point it out. Thank youuuuuuuuuu.
-
People keep bitching about how Spielberg is a hack, how he can't make a movie for shit, and how he is unable to make a movie with a shred of subtlety (sic).
Why don't YOU try making a movie, fucking asshole fanboys. Why don't YOU undergo the months of pain-staking work, million-dollar expenses, and often cast/crew issues that it takes to make a movie. Why don't YOU make your OWN fucking 2001 or Star Wars.
THEN will you have the GALL to legitemately criticize Spielberg. He is one of the greatest directors of this day and age...look at what the man brought us, why don't you.
Jaws: CLASSIC Suspense/Horror. Scares the crap out of me to this day.
Raiders of the Lost Ark: Tons of fun, another CLASSIC adventure.
Saving Private Ryan: Great War Movie, first to portray such an extremely violent D-Day campaign.
Jurassic Park: Don't tell me you weren't entertained (if you weren't, you're like Leonard Maltin: Walking with an 80-foot stick all the way up your ass). Best 3D effects for its day and age, PERIOD. REVOLUTIONARY.
I could go on but I have yet to see some of his most raved-about films (Schindler's List, Close Encounters), but what I have seen pleases me enough.
I have yet to see AI, but I look forward to it. I know that Spielberg's last few films (excluding the GODAWFUL Lost World, based on a shitty book anyway) have been quite excellent, and I have a feeling that I will adore AI, or at least enjoy it. -
Above someone calls this an Astro-Boy ripoff. By this farcical logic, Star Wars is a ripoff of Kurosawa's "The Hidden Fortress", because Obi-Wan Kenobi is based off a samurai warrior in that film.
Today, everyone bashes one film or another for copying another film. Honestly, while SOME films are just too plain obvious a ripoff (The Lion King and Tezuka's Kimba), others are simply "inspired" or "borrowing".
You can't say that after a movie is made it's impossible to borrow from it. That would make it illegal for most of the modern classics to be made, for they would be infringing on copyrights.
No. Just plain No.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts