Although there should be other people here who already have it.

I'm open to trades!!! Want this one bad!

Complete!

Huzzah!
Sean

For the #1 flick, Elvis Mitchell chose In The Mood For Love, Stephen Holden In The Bedroom and A.O. Scott A.I. Here is the text of Mr. Scott's opinion:

"Steve Spielberg's science fiction fairy tale is not only the best movie of the year but also the most misunderstood. Critics who scoffed at its supposed sentimentality ignored its dark pathos and unsettling ambiguities. No film in recent memory has put the technological resources of the medium to such ravishing and humane use. 'A.I.' peers 2,000 years into the future; it should not have to wait nearly so long to be recognized as the masterpiece it is."

I am quite pleased with his concise assessment as I remain profoundly baffled by the film's ambivalent reception, a chagrin magnified with each soundtrack listening session.

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

I didn't want to see this picture at all when the trailer came out, and still hold that it was one of the worst trailers(well, the TV spot at least)ever done...after seeing the film, I know why. It's a hard movie to sell, especially to those expecting something typical from Spielberg.

After seeing it, I was convinced it is a modern masterpiece, will be regarded as such in the future, and would tank at the box office, since contemporary crowds rarely have a brain in their head to understand a film this deep.....

I understand Spielberg's cult must go on and his brain washed die hard fans will like anything with his tag on it (even THE LOST WORLD!), but honestly, I can't understand how someone with a working brain can dig such a stupid, pathetic and cheesy movie as this A.I. travesty.

Even the soporific BICENTENIAL MAN was better...

Now, Williams is just repeating himself as if he was composing while sleeping... Just listen to HARRY POTTER. Pathetic, really! His "copy and paste" score detract the movie.

Email me at ohmss79@hotmail.com

Got a nice surprise for ya

hehehe

A.I. is an examination of how precious it is to be human through all of life's possible emotions: Joy, Fear, Love, Sadness, Abandonment, Loss. It comes down to taste: those who love the film respect it's mature treatment of understanding the reversals of it, but that's just a theory. Those who hate it don't see it that way and expected something else from the film, again a theory, but the only one I can come up for the sharp division by which the film is regarded.

Plus, and if you truly think about this, you may agree: this film is pretty hard-core sci-fi that in the hands of any other director would be just scoffed at entirely. Because it is treated in it's excution as more than just sci-fi attributes and would-be platitudes on humanity, but as a genuine journey, those who watched and liked it got more out of it. That's the difference between Speilberg and, say for instance, the guy who initally directed Supernova.

However, I am looking forward more toward Minority Report- but I expect to get from it what I got from A.I., exactly what I thought it would be.

The plot was somehow interesting in the begining, but as soon as we see the "future world" Spielberg created we knew something was wrong. Then enter the family and... well, the rest is history.

This A.I. as presented by S. Spielberg is nothing more than a tedious and cheesy revision of the tale of Pinochio (something the imature and non-resolved Spielberg still identify himself with).

And how am I wrong? I'm unconvinced of your opinion and therefore cannot see how you are anymore right than I am about whether A.I. was better with or without Spielberg.

Have you heard the theory that ten different directors will make a move ten different ways? You put another director on A.I. and it won't be A.I. At least not in the way that it means to me. And I'm not the only one, several people here I would like to say would agree.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Widescreen:
Well, each to his own opinion, Andre- I see you disagreeing with me, but I don't think I'm wrong. Just as your are confident in your opinions to which I take no offense, I'm equally confident in my opinion of A.I.

And how am I wrong? I'm unconvinced of your opinion and therefore cannot see how you are anymore right than I am about whether A.I. was better with or without Spielberg.

Have you heard the theory that ten different directors will make a move ten different ways? You put another director on A.I. and it won't be A.I. At least not in the way that it means to me. And I'm not the only one, several people here I would like to say would agree.

---

Fair enough, Wide. I wasn't offended by your comments by any means. So I hope you were not offended by mine.

I tought we were just debating. In my opinion, you are wrong. Sorry, but that's how I see things. I went to see A.I. with an open mind, but the movie failed to me on every level.

As for the theory of the "ten different directors" I think it's quite logic. I know too that all those ten would be able to produce a better movie than mr. Spielberg did.

My God, even Chris Columbus did!!!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hasta:
Didn't you know widescreen, Andre's opinion is the end all of opinions.

---

Nah! you are the one with thin arguments, just that...

The claim that a movie fails simply because the average moviegoer doesn't understand it is a frustrating, highbrow sentiment. I fully understood the deeper undercurrents that Kubrick was leading us to...unfortunately it Spielberg's failure to bring those undercurrents to fruition is the key reason I give the film a thumbs down.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quill:
The claim that a movie fails simply because the average moviegoer doesn't understand it is a frustrating, highbrow sentiment.

---

Exactly. Besides, there was nothing there so dificult to understand. I've read and seem PINOCHIO when I was a kid and found it much more rich and profound than mr. Spielberg last fiasco...

BTW, don't you just love when people say you didn't like a movie because you wasn't able to understand it?? Ok, if they are talking about 2001 or RAN it's passable. But A.I., from mr. Steven "Peter Pan" Spielberg?? What a joke...

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeffBond:
That makes the bleakness of the ending that much more powerful to me. But hey, that's just me...

---

I still think the sappy and "endless" end of A.I. (Artificial Imbecility) could be even more powerful if Steven Pan used robots based on those bugs from STARSHIPTROOPERS, instead of the martians of MISSION TO MARS...

But, hey, it's just me!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peter Criss:
You guys can bash A.I. ...

---

Ok then, thanks. We will.

quote:

---

Hum...Ahahah

---

Faz mais força que sai!

Yup, neater-looking robots would have saved the movie...

quote:

---

Originally posted by JeffBond:
"...putting robots that resemble aliens at the end of the movie would have made even less sense to audiences.

---

But they did. That's the problem.

They could have chosen 100 different types of design for the futuristic droids, but no, they have to come with transparent and lame cousins of the ETs from CLOSE ENCOUNTERS...

A.I. is a Spielberg movie, so there's no such thing as "serious discussion" of anything in the movie. Only, as Rogério Ferrare (aka Peter Cris) well pointed, cheap sentimentalism and cheesy "magical" moments.

Even BICENTENIAL MAN was able to bring some depth to the tale of a robot who wants to become a man.

I mean... a Kubrick movie where the main solution to the plot comes from a ridiculous and hysterical character named "Dr. Know", voiced by Robin Williams?? Oh, please...

quote:

---

Originally posted by HadrianD:
Oh Kay then.

---