What a horrible film!

Nice visuals throughout but horrible story/direction/and overall everything.

I guess go see it so you can say you saw it, but man what a let down. Another shallow kiddish attempt by Steven. Read that fairy tale about that wooden kid becoming real, or see the bad film caled Bicentenial Man and you have the plot to A.I. basically.

Some nice scenes, mediocre at best plot and everything else.

THE SCORE by WIlliams is decent but nothing I would go nuts over since the film was so bad.

THE BEST thing about the horrible A.I. is Teddy. He is amazing but I would rather watch a dead gerbil in a cage rotting than see A.I. again.

Many will have different opinions, but one thing is for sure on my part...Steven has lost it for me thus far...and A.I. is a punishment to watch.

Steven tries to play as Kubrick in many slow paced/panning scenes but whereas in a Kubrick film the pans would let us look deep into a character's motives, meanings etc., Steven's attempts are boring and shallow looks at nothing. I wish Kubrick was still alive. I doubt he could have made this film great, for it is just a lame overused tired story.

You thought Williams score was Kiddish? What does that word mean to you?

I found most of his music to be pretty good. The second time I watched it at work I listened to the rear channel's of the movie's soundtrack just to hear the score in certain parts where it was barley audible with SFX and dialoge. In style the music is quite simular to the quiet parts of ET and The fortess of solitude from Superman. There is some suspense music. And the action music is ocassionally techno.
His main theme sounds simular to a theme in Mighty Joe Young.

As I've said we all view films differently, some find movies to be masterpieces while others loathe them. It's the same thing in life with sports, food, cars etc. Some people view certain athletes as the greatest while others think he/she is fortunate to be surrounded by a supporting cast that make them shine.

We all look at things differently, that's part of being human. Go see the movie, judge it for yourself and don't worry about what others think.

There is nothing wrong with posting your thoughts about how you feel about a film.

you're on record as saying that basically you hate Spielberg films.

yet you go to them anyway and ask for a refund?

film bit the dust...

reddi

As for Williams' score (don't get me wrong.. just because this happens to be my username doens't mean I'm totally biased) I loved it. The main theme stuck in my head long after the film ended. I enjoyed the techno which fit the futuristic feel of the film very well.

This may sound a little hoaky, but there were a couple of scenes in A.I. in which I was on the brink of tears. The music helped the movie a lot IMHO.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lancelot:
I'm at the beginning of thinking that most movies don't deserve the audiences they get....

---

In Spielberg's case, audiences are obviously getting what they deserve...

I found nothing at all emotional in A.I.
I found it all manipulative and rather obvious. Williams' score did work here and there but overall it gave it too much of a poppy happy feel and I wish it have been darker, possibly fixing the kiddish feel of most of the scenes(even if they were meant to be that way...that ruined the film)

A.I. is different...not in story but in look and feel for Spielberg. I was truly looking forward to this for I DO want to like Steven and I hoped this film would be his "smart" film, or a film where he is daring etc. He failed again but did a great job up untill the flesh fair(which feel like Kubrick mostly) after that it became horrible. I just hope Steven never tries to pull off what Kubrick nailed again...those slow pans forcing you to put character in a character for Steven failed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SplbrgWlms:

---

Smart nickname;
'Splbrg'for Spielberg
'Wlms'for Williams
Works perfectly with the topic!
Don't take me wrong:I LOVE Spielberg's films.And Johnny(!)always delivers a great score.
Haven't seen the film though,so i can't say much.

I do not hate all of his films. I love Raiders and Empire of the Sun. I lost respect for his talent and that is why I was highly looking forward to A.I. Maybe he would not go for the hollywood sappy again...

I thought this film would be his "rise to respect" in my eyes for it was based with Kubrick in mind. I want to like Steven's work, I really do want to for he does have true talent. If only he would make an "intelligent" film that does not pander to the same thing every time. I was hoping for A.I. to be different. The first half was different and actually good in many parts. The 2nd half was the usual Spileberg schmaltz. I really realy wanted to like A.I., and although I do like scenes in it, Teddy, and Joe, the film as a whole was nothing new or anything amazing. It was neat to see Steven TRY something different and it worked when it felt like Kubrick was directing it(mainly the first half or at least up to the flesh fair). Actually, the film dropped to the usual schmaltz when David was tied up in the flesh fair and that whole sappy scene. Up to that point it was good...after that it was bad and very usual.

He used to be a great storyteller when used to make infantile movies for kids. Now he is just doing infantile movies for idiotic adults.

The only films of his I find watchable are Lolita, Spartacus, Dr. Strangelove and the first 45 mins of Full Metal Jacket. The rest of his movies aren't worth it. Although I will say Jack Nicholson and the cinematography saved The Shining from being a total loss. The use of classical music in 2001 makes most people I know want to laugh cause it sounds so silly. And yeah I do "get" 2001 if I can stay awake because another flaw is it's dullness.

Of course we adult idiots obviously know nothing about films. We are constantly told who is great, what is great and why it is great. But is it really great?

I believe Lancelot stated something similar in another thread about being told we should like this and that, and I do apologize if I'm wrong Lancelot. Some of us do get out and watch those so called great independent flicks and do try to catch the art house films as well as the classic foreign films and come away feeling the same way; already been there and done that with Hollywood and a larger budget and better acting in most cases.

I will say thanks to Kurosawa and to a lesser degree Ishiro Honda, Japan has the upper leg when it comes to foreign films. And sure directors have taken ideas from them, ie The Seven Samuri = The Magnificent Seven. But yet we only choose to criticize certain directors and producers. There was a thread about Spielberg and Kurosawa but no one mentioned The Magnificant Seven. At least not to my memory.

But then what do I know. According to some people I'm idiotic or worse.

I could be idiotic or worse to some folks here, too. I'm already rivaling Daniel2 for "author of the longest post". Anyway....I don't know if I can take credit for that which you attribute me...it sounds like something I would [i[think[/i], but not sure if I said or put it in writing...

My "philosophy", or at least one in a long list of philosophies, goes something like this:

Remember the story about the Emperor's New Clothes? Here's the Cliff's Notes version:
Some con-men convince the Emperor that only "intelligent" people can see the beautiful fabric that they're weaving for him to wear. So the King's advisors and ministers (etc., etc.) all say "Oh....yes...beautiful! Amazing!" So, when the day comes for the King to go parade himself out in public, the whole public is stunned silent, not daring to disagree with the "brainy" hierarchy of their kingdom....Finally, a child calls out "But he isn't wearing anything!"

So....what am I saying?

Ok, bear in mind that this isn't a statement about A.I.

This is: I think the film was extremely interesting, and a fascinating exploration of emotions and the human psyche. Is it an accurate exploration? <shrug> I dunno. It's a fascinating trip, though, and that's the imporatant thing--to me, at least. If my opinion was solicited, would I recommend it to everyone? No, probably not--but I wouldn't say "Don't go see it it!" I'd say if you've got an open mind, it might interest you.

Ok, back to the Emperor's Clothes:

My concern is that we let people who claim to know more about things than we do tell us what we should like...and often, manage to belittle us for liking those things that are "beneath" their intellectual capacity for entertainment. (Half the time, these people don't know what they want, anyway. It was too realistic, it wasn't real enough...it was unemotional, it was too gushy...it was the best of films, it was the worst of films....)

I am thinking it's very difficult to approach a film with an open mind. Even I have trouble....I make the attempt, at least--which doesn't make me some film pariah, but at least it allows me the opportunity to get my money's worth out of a trip to the movies. Your milage may vary.

Some critics rave about art-house movies because they want to sound like a pioneer in film-appreciation...."Oh, yes, amidst the wasteland of pathetic summer entertainment, I sought out this buried little jewel of a art film, and was resuscitated by its' refreshing depiction of the human soul....alas, those poor multitudes who march lemming-like to brain-cell annihilation upon such fare as Tomb Raider...."

What's the moral of this story?

Hasta...

Yes and no to what you were saying. If the thing being redone is better, than I am all for it! If it adds new light to a subject/story/character etc. I am also for it.

I just did not like A.I. for these few reasons...
1. The plot and story were thrown together.
2. It was great for the first half but 2nd half went down the usual Spielberg golden emotional pander instead of the cold and hard ways that maybe Kubrick would have done it, which would have made the film all that much better if Speilberg would have stayed ballsy and made something special/a masterpiece. A.I. had the potential to be one of the best films ever made but after the "Flesh Fair" it becomes just another hollywood film besides the obvious great LOOK of the film. I really wanted to like A.I. and I went in hoping for the best. I just wish Steven changed for this film just once in making something daring and different story and filmmaking wise. Instead he went for the obvious PUT EVERYTHING IN A NICE BOX and sum up every single factor by the end as he usually does.

Haven't seen AI yet but will go Tuesday unless plans change. Mixed reviews around the country (on the message board here too it seems).

Speilberg is a GOOD film maker, but *I* still think he is very over rated. His films are sort of like the best of the "mainstream" films if you get what I mean. Speilberg is embraced by a wider audiance.

There are two type of people in this world. People who watch Movies.
AND
People who watch films.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd say (from my experience working in a video shop) most people watch movies.
I didn't have one good customer comment on Eyes Wide Shut (an amazing film IMHO), yet these same customers bring back Saving Private Ryan and say "that was the best movie I've ever seen". (To me however, SPR was merely average).

Saying that leads to the question "what is a film?", and having no 100% accurate definition for that, except to say, "a film is a series of pictures on celluoid", you begin to say "well, a film is what I think it is"....

(watcher of motion pictures...?)

The score by Williams is very subdued (minimal is a good word for it) and quite shocking (Woods scene - techno = Williams ----Wow). In style and some orchestrations it might remind of the Accidental Tourist which also had a rather depressing feel to it.

Overall, I loved the movie, but for different reasons. I left the theater quite depressed. This film is about love. The love of one person (for that is what he after all was, wheter in the flesh or in spirit) towards another. We have a creature who desires just one thing: To be allowed to love (and ultimately to receive it back).

In the end I realized that the real human being here was David. In the end he bacame the teacher and mom the robot. In the end the question is : If it has spirit, if it can love - is it human after all? Does it deserve the rights of human beings? Together with all the images, with all the acting, and one of the most emotional end title music ever written this film changed both my mental and my emotional state. It made me cry, it made me wonder, it made me wish and it made me understand. In the end all I wanted to do was go home and hug my little neph and tell him how much I loved him; and so I did. Any film that can do this to me is (in my humble opinion) a truly great film.

Scott

But now that I've thought about it, what I was getting at is that people look for different things in motion pictures.

The reason I think Spielberg is liked more than Kubrick is because in his films, the topic is rarely as "different" or non-conventional to Kubrick's films. I personally think Spielberg makes films to please audiances, and he succeeds. Kubrick I think, made films to please himself.
I still don't quite think I'm saying all I want to here.

Anyway, It seems to me that people who watch movies just want to be entertained, you know
"waaaaahahahah, Adam Sandler fell over, this is a hilarious movie" (I'm probably generalising badly here), where as people who watch films seem to me to be more interested in how all the elements of an art form come together to make a good or bad motion picture.

I don't think those that watch movies see motion pictures as an art form.

it did not even move my boat, instead it sent a torpedo at my tail bone

I respect SOME parts of A.I. but dislike it overall. the 1st half is great, all the rest of the film was rather obvious and tiresome for me. it will get to differnet people in different ways but IMO it was horrible and obvious with little to no emotion.

The acting was of a high caliber...but it just felt like these characters were tossed into a world and forced to exist. On one hand that's a key to the story...on the other it shows off Mr. Berg's poor screenwriting skills. He shines brightest when he sticks to what he does best.

I'm still digesting the movie, but in the end it all feels confused and somewhat forced. No matter how much he wants to be, Spielberg will never be Kubrick and the mating of the two feels like some psycho lovefest.

As for the score...hmmph...passable, but not one I'll sink money into.

What I found strangest of all...other than the Spielberg/Kubrick Production in the beginning...Kubrick was not mentioned in regards to screenplay or story...odd.

Prepare to be sucked in. Resistance is futile. I tried, didn't work. Watch for tons of homages, in-jokes. Has flaws, has a lot to recommend. Still haunted. Wanna see it again.

PS
awesome end credits music, will buy the soundtrack just for that track

*****************************************************************

Sigh...I guess it's true that CG movies about ogres and lots and lots of fart jokes are what sells tickets here in the midwest.

Me? I think I'll watch AI again in the not-too-distant future. Great subdued work by Williams, BTW. Will definitely buy the album tomorrow.

Tim

It felt vague just for the sake of being vague...forced Spieberg Kubrickness.

My biggest complaint is that the characters just felt thrown in...existing in their bubbles without being a part of the world. From his parents who are (for the most part) never seen outside of their home...to Dr. Hobby who seems to exist just for the sake of exposition. Why would anyone continue to live in a floating Manhatten, in particular the best scientific mind in robotics. It just felt forced to me.