I went to see the new Spielberg movie "Artificial Intelligence" & almost got up to leave. It's almost 2 1/2 hours long & feels like 3 hours. The movie is real slow for the first third to half of the movie, then it picks up for a little while, & slows back down again. The movie is actually a very sad movie. I wouldn't recommend this movie to my worst enemy, well, maybe my worst enemy. ------------------
Yeah I saw it too. I would not recommend it to anyone. It is really really slow. But I am one of those people that sometimes likes wierd ass movies and I really liked this one for some reason. Still, the majority of the people would hardly call this a good movie. ------------------
"And David sat in front of the Blue Angel for the next 2000 years.....which we will now show you in real time.....beginning now." What a crock. I'd say Steven has lost a little in the old screenwriting department since Close Encounters. ------------------ Gascon
Did he think he could use another 2 letter abbreviation for a movie and it would automatically equate to "box office sensation"?? (think E.T.) rH ------------------ visit: groovehouse.org
Yeah, not so much. I thought it was terribly boring and stupid. Biggest disappointment of the year by far. I'm bummed that Kubrick wasn't around to make this. ------------------ Can't I just give you some of my sperm? It's really good!
There are a lot of things wrong with the film. The script is weak. It's slow. The conculsion is ignorant. Yet, the main problem I see with the film is that spielberg's protagonist, David, is not volitional enough. Spielberg rightly sees that David, losing his place as the "real" son in the family, would be the worst thing that could happen to him. Therefore by having the other son come back from his coma or whatever it was establishs the classic model of film-making where our hero must reestablish his world, that world before the real son entered the picture. The problem is that I never really bought into David's ideal world, which is his and his mother's realtionship before the other son comes back, so I don't care weather David becomes a real boy or not. And then you have the whole moral question, which could have been so interesting, but it just isn't. I think the reason is Spielberg doesn't give his audience enough dialogue. Everything is left to the emotions you see on the actor's faces. It is just a poor piece of film-making with a great topic. ------------------ I am an invisible man. [This message has been edited by kbm (edited June 30, 2001).]
There are a lot of merits to the film. It was trying to accomplish a lot in the 2.5 hours. Even tho it is slow. It just went through the human experience pretty much. It asks what's real and what's not. Love, hope, religion. Stop and smell the roses...etc. Its a weird movie but all Kubrick movies are weird. If u think about what happens in the movie then you might enjoy it a bit more. ------------------ We will ball.
I thought it was extremely well-made, and well-acted. However, I'm not really sure what I thought of it. At some points, I thought it was an excellent movie; others, I thought it was a bit wacky. But the teddy bear at least was hilarious! Strangely, I found myself hoping the bear survived more than anything. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets. [This message has been edited by shanna (edited June 30, 2001).]
Teddy kicked ass! I was hoping he'd survive too. I thought it was a very well made movie in every aspect. At first I thought the ending was going to disappoint me, but it developed into a nice conclusion to the film. Also, I can understand how some could have found some parts, for instance David getting adjusted to his new home, too stretched out and boring when developing characters, but I liked it. ------------------ The Smurfs were Communists [This message has been edited by tacoma park legend (edited June 30, 2001).]
Yea, Teddy was about the only part that made me laugh. If this movie had come out closer to Christmas, Teddy would've been the gift most often fought over. DW, I don't go to movies looking for meaning. My feeling is that movies are mindless entertainment or romantic fantasies. I can see where KBM is coming from. They did attempt to question the morality of creating another human (cloning), but never truely answered the question of whether it's right or wrong. It seemed as if they posed the question, then took off in another direction. The only reasons that I went to see it were because of Spielberg & that my only other choice was "Pootie Tang" & I've seen the previews of that one. The fact is that Spielberg laid an egg with this one. But in spite of that, it'll probably be the #1 box office hit this weekend just because his name is associated with it & the only other choice is "Pootie Tang". That's a stupid movie, but the title cracks me up. ------------------
I thought about going to see A.I. today, but in the end decided not to. Judging from all these reports about the movie being very slow-paced and sad, I think I made the right choice. ------------------
Most of the best movies (from a cinematographic standpoint, at the very least) are developed without usage of large amounts of dialogue. They rely on camera techniques, actual acting (i.e. the facial expressions you mention), and the development of plot. Language and dialogue are usually used to hide a weak plot. Spielberg should be commended for minimizing dialogue and focusing on the aspects that truly make a movie good. ------------------
The screenplay was written by my all time favorite director Stanley Kubrick. The director of such great movieslike A Clockwork Orange, and Full Metal Jacket. Along with an assortment of other weird ass movies. Kubrick before he died wanted this movie done by Speilberg because he could bring his creations to life. I have seen the movie and love it. I personally love it. I love the slowness of it. That sometimes is what makes a movie great. Just like Unbreakable which was slow and dull at points, but did you know that it is a series of movies. It may suck. But I just love it when people talk out of their asses.
also why does a movie have to have a point now? or answer some moral question? Can't a movie just be a movie anyomore? and not some picture to help us understand the human condition better. dammit. ------------------ The proud President of "The Tree Question." Foundation. If you were a tree, what kind of tree would you be? Quote from from Colby: "Let me recap for you: We have harnesed fire, landed on the moon, and cloned some sheep." The coldest reply ever given to a newbie.
I thought this was about Allen Iverson . Yeah when this movie gets ok ratings from all the critics you know they dont want to bash it because its from Kubrick and Speilbergo ------------------ Reactions after The Rockets got Eddie Griffin for 3 draft picks "Eddie For 3 ... Yes!!! O Mother!!!!!!!"
Yeah Moe, I actually was convinced to see the movie by the three star rating of roger ebert. Damn him! Also, DW the reason the moral question has to be answered is because speilberg establishes this question at the beginning of the film. "Would a real person ever love a mech? I guess it is a moral question." ------------------ I am an invisible man. [This message has been edited by kbm (edited June 30, 2001).]
I thought the movie was well made, was great to look at, and had a great topic. Unfortunately, about 2 hours in, I suddenly realized: Oh no. There's no way this movie can come up with an ending that's worthy. I was right. It dragged out waaaay too long, and felt very different from the rest of the film. There were three shifts in AI: The first was from David and his new family to David and the rest of the world. I thought this worked well. (Seeing how the world had adapted to mechs, not just this little family we were introduced to, was great). But the third shift, from David's quest to the drawn out conclusion, didn't work at all. In some ways, the rest of the movie was too good. The ending never had a chance, and the film went out of its way to try and reach it. As a result, it was like it was just trying way too hard to find a suitable conclusion. It was just overdone. I will say this though: I want a Teddy, too, dammit! Rok ------------------ Proud Member of whatever Clutch City club is currently the most popular and/or controversial. [This message has been edited by Rokkit (edited July 01, 2001).]
Oh no. There's no way this movie can come up with an ending that's worthy. I agree completely. There was simply no way to have a "good" ending. His quest was to become a real boy, and that was simply not going to happen unless they went into lalaland. Basically, it was just a matter of time until he failed, although the actual ending was a bit out there. ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
