MovieMusic.com Message Boards: my thoughts and perhaps yours on AI

Message Boards

Movie Soundtracks

my thoughts and perhaps yours on AI (Page 1)

Archive of old forum. No more postings.

Please visit our new forum, The MovieMusic Lobby, to post new topics.

This topic is 2 pages long: 1 2

Author	Topic: my thoughts and perhaps yours on AI

Kyriacos S Oscar® Winner	Yesterday i watched Spielberg's A.I. And since i don't quite remember your initial reactions at the time of release, i thought i would ask you what did you guys think of the movie. Some call it a "heavily flawed movie" (particularly Clemmensen at Filmtracks). Some of the people i asked told me that it was too boring in the middle section-and that overall it was a very long movie. Well i know i'm not a movie genious, just a movie buff. And in my humble opinion, it is a modern fairy tale done in the most magical way. And i did not get bored of it at all. Nor did i feel that the middle section was pointless and meaningless. In fact, by the time the movie ended i didn't even notice that two and a half hours had passed. And Williams's music worked perfectly. There were only a couple of times where i thought that the use of electronic rhythms between a solely orchestral score didn't quite blend so well. Other than that, the use of a soprano voice(mother) in the ending sequences of the movie was so perfectly done that made me cry. Of course i don't really know in which aspects Kubrick could have done the movie better, since i haven't watched any film by the director. Despite that, i still found the movie very enjoyable and interesting. ...just my thoughts... Kyri np:AI (John Williams)**1/2/*** [Message edited by Kyriacos S on 03-13-2002]
posted 03-13-2002 09:26 PM PT (US)

Crono/Kyp Oscar® Winner	I loved it. And Filmtracks is on crack. --Bri
posted 03-13-2002 11:05 PM PT (US)

Richard Oscar® Winner	I watched this on the weekend. My thoughts are that it was good, but people think whatever Steven Spielberg touches turns to gold now, because he has made some good movies that everyone liked. I felt it was maybe too long, but seeing I also felt as if scenes were left out, I have no idea how it being any shorter would improve it. When it comes to picking between Kubrick and Spielberg, I'll take Kubrick. I really would have liked to have seen how he would have made the film. As for the score, it was like every other Williams score for me, which is boring and uninteresting. Although, I think the first time (at least, I think it's the first time)we hear score in the film is maybe reminiscent of Bartok's Music for Strings, Percussion and Celeste. (Maybe) I guess I'd give the film */* and the score...I don't know, we'll say /***** for now.
posted 03-13-2002 11:17 PM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	A.I. is by far Spielberg's worst movie. Completely boring, manipulative and endless. Spielberg doesn't have the guts or the maturity to touch the issues the story raised in the beginning. In the end, it's just a revisioned vision of Pinnochio, filled with cheap emotions (most of all on that cheesy mother-son relantionship), superficial characters and inane morality lessons (like the awful Skin Fair - or whatever is called - sequence). Nevertheless, is just my (not so) humble opinion.
posted 03-14-2002 05:03 AM PT (US)

cine-sin Oscar® Winner	Andre, I think your critique is a little harsh especilly where the 'maturity' and 'guts' are concerned. However, overall I did find the film somewhat banal and mired in a drowning Hollywoodized sentimentalism. I do wonder if this had to do with a Kubrickian concept and a Spielberg articulation. Rochelle
posted 03-14-2002 05:27 AM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by cine-sin: Andre, I think your critique is a little harsh especilly where the 'maturity' and 'guts' are concerned. Sorry, but I have to be harsh on Spielberg. He was a great moviemaker, a master on the art of manipulate the audience's emotions - something which works fine on fantasy movies such as E.T. or INDIANA JONES. But when he does this on all these supposed "adult" movies, it's just embarrassing, not to mention stupid. A.I. has nothing to do with Kubrick - except maybe the original concept, which isn't even so original since ALL "robots trying to be human" tales touch the same issues. But never so poorly as Spielberg's A.I.
posted 03-14-2002 06:05 AM PT (US)

Quill Oscar® Winner	My biggest complaint about the film is the flow...the set pieces seem to come from different movies with no sense of time and place. Maybe that was the point, but still. Example...the first third in idyllic suburbia...then it jolts to the crazed mayhem of the flesh fair (or whatever it was called) after David takes a little stroll. Or had he been sitting out the woods for years? Doubtful considering he should no signs of wear. The movie was full of these "issues" for me at least. Some might call them thought-provoking...I tend to see them as plot-holes in a very lazy screenplay. Not a horrible movie--I enjoyed moments of it, but as a whole I just can't stomach it.
posted 03-14-2002 08:30 AM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by Quill: Example...the first third in idyllic suburbia...then it jolts to the crazed mayhem of the flesh fair (or whatever it was called) after David takes a little stroll. Or had he been sitting out the woods for years? Doubtful considering he should no signs of wear. I agree. That future civilazation makes no sense at all. First we learn that the world has collapsed and only "developed" countries survived (as usual, an offensive remark to the "third world")... Then we see all that idillic suburbia, perfect hospitals, beautiful neon cars - as we learn that rich people are good. Next day, cut to that ludicrous flesh fair, where we sudenly learn that there's still poor people in the land - and all are evil and rancorous. Then we go to a big city, filled with more cheesy neon lights and night clubs - a complete chaotic enviroment, with lots of crazy people, police repression, etc. Then cut to NY, drowned into the sea, but still working... A grotesque and undeniable mess!
posted 03-14-2002 08:45 AM PT (US)

Kyriacos S Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by cine-sin: However, overall I did find the film somewhat banal and mired in a drowning Hollywoodized sentimentalism. Hmmmm...it's a matter of opinion after all, but i didn't find the film banal...I've seen other Hollywood films and i understood when that sentimentalism was over the line...(Final Fantasy-the ending sequences.Now THAT is banal). With A.I. though, i thought that all the sentimentality was at the proper level. I never made the thought (oh!what a cheesy,awful line). And that's partly because of a good performance by Haley Joel Osment. That boy is a real talent. I don't know whether i should look at the movie with the aspects that Andre is using, but still; i DID find the movie very moving and interesting. Kyri np:nothing
posted 03-14-2002 09:39 AM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by Kyriacos S: I don't know whether i should look at the movie with the aspects that Andre is using, but still; i DID find the movie very moving and interesting. Kyri Kyri, is always good to see everything (including movies) at the light of a different point of view. Sometimes things gett better when you do it -and sometimes don't. Nevertheless, you will always grow with the experience.
posted 03-14-2002 09:44 AM PT (US)

JeffBond Oscar® Winner	Andre, I know I'm going to regret this, and I want to say this as nicely as possible because I know you think I'm on some campaign to destroy you--but I wish you would take your own advice sometimes. You announced months before you saw A.I. that it was going to be bad (because I liked it)--so it was no surprise that you hated it. There is more than one point of view with which to look at this movie. I wish you would devote at least a few seconds to exploring some of them before just dismissing it as crap because it's directed by Steven Spielberg. I do not love everything Spielberg has done (Hook, Always and large segments of Temple of Doom and Last Crusade are unwatchable in my opinion), and there are obvious aspects to his style and themes that do deserve suspicion. But he can be a great film maker and I think he tackled Kubrick's themes quite seriously. I think many of the criticisms of A.I. take the film totally at a surface level and attack it in a way that's too literal. The film is allegorical and is described as a fairy tale by the people who made it. It's a fairy tale using the language and some of the ideas of science fiction. If you pay attention to how the film is narrated, the point of view is from the far future, looking back on the events of the film--it's a view of the past from the POV of the future A.I. robots. It's like their legend of creation since David is really the first of their kind. This is their view of humanity. Are rich people depicted as "good"? The affluent "parents" choose to bring David into their home which is a terrible idea. The husband is clearly a shallow individual while the wife is just misguided--she abandons David in the woods, one of the least sympathetic acts in the history of the movies. The William Hurt character is also "rich" assumedly; he creates David seemingly for "good" reasons but it's clearly shown that he's doing it for profit. The "bad" poor people are attending and cheering the Flesh Fair but they ultimately reject their own worst impulses when David is put on display as a sacrifice. The "sentimental" ending is what rankles most people--it surely has powerful sentimental elements but they're not all as pat and obvious as a first look indicates. It seems like everyone is getting what they want for a "happy" ending, but to believe that you have to accept David as a real boy, which he clearly is not--there's no magic moment where someone waves a wand and turns David into a real person. He's just completing programming and the reunion with his "mother" is an illusion--she's dead along with the rest of humanity. I find that more chilling than sentimental. Finally, the "Spielbergized" elements in the film are obvious for a reason--because the Kubrick elements refute them. That's what I find fascinating about the film. The Spielberg fairy tale elements are inherently childlike and hopeful, but those hopes are dashed by the adult, Kubrickian ideas in the movie. For some people the collision of those themes destroyed the movie; I found it to be the opposite. Now despite the fact that "it's always good to see everything (including movies) at the light of a different point of view" I get the feeling that I won't have "grown" unless I agree with your point of view. But at least I've considered it.
posted 03-14-2002 10:21 AM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by JeffBond: The Spielberg fairy tale elements are inherently childlike and hopeful, but those hopes are dashed by the adult, Kubrickian ideas in the movie. For some people the collision of those themes destroyed the movie; I found it to be the opposite. To me it completely destroied what could have been a great movie - even BICENTENIAL MAN was better (and, no this is not a compliment to Columbus' movie). But Spielberg lack of maturity transformed it on pitiful and painful experience, not only for the cheesy and manipulative narration/dialogues, but also for the completely messed and illogical screenplay. And you are right about Spielberg refuting Kubrick's elements. Kubrick was essentialy an intelectual, interested in raising important and controversial issues for discussion, while Spielberg is an insecure, infatile person, interested in manipulate audiences with cheap emotions, while give all the answers preventing them of thinking or even discussing the issues. A.I. is like Ed Wood trying to reamke BLADE RUNNER. I believe you can find lots of reasons to say it was a great movie - just like you did with the godawful STARSHIP TROOPERS, but sorry if I just can't take them seriously, Jeff.
posted 03-14-2002 10:44 AM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by JeffBond: Now despite the fact that "it's always good to see everything (including movies) at the light of a different point of view" I get the feeling that I won't have "grown" unless I agree with your point of view. But at least I've considered it. Again, you try to corrupt what I realy meant - which was an encouragement to Kyri to see the movie again using a different point of view. Perhaps he will consider it even better. Better luck next time, Jeff. BTW, nice to see you coming all the way to here just to "antagonize" me. Too bad you can't do this on your FSM board, from where I was banned... As some pointed-ears character would say: "Illogical". [Message edited by André Lux on 03-14-2002]
posted 03-14-2002 10:54 AM PT (US)

PeterK FishChip	quote: Originally posted by André Lux: BTW, nice to see you coming all the way to here just to "antagonize" me. Too bad you can't do this on your FSM board, from where I was banned... As some pointed-ears character would say: "Illogical". Andre, cut the bullshit already. Your song and dance is really becoming pathetic.
posted 03-14-2002 11:04 AM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	I like to be pathetic. Sorry.
posted 03-14-2002 11:05 AM PT (US)

JeffBond Oscar® Winner	Andre, the moviemusic board is just a button away on my computer--coming "all the way over" is easy. And as I have nothing to do with how the FSM board is run, I have nothing to do with (or any interest in) why you've been banned there. I gotta say, I know you think me a bitter old man, but between the two of us I'm a lot more cheerful. In fact, I'm having a crazy love affair with the human race right now! Even you seem somehow loveable...
posted 03-14-2002 11:16 AM PT (US)

JeffBond Oscar® Winner	"I believe you can find lots of reasons to say it was a great movie - just like you did with the godawful STARSHIP TROOPERS, but sorry if I just can't take them seriously, Jeff." I accept your apology, Andre.
posted 03-14-2002 11:23 AM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	I am sure you don't have anything with that, Jeff! And don't take me wrong: I don't consider you an old grumpy fart. I just consider you cute - you know, the "genius" stuff and all... As for being more cheerful than I... well, I am sure you consider yourself a winner, but be realistic: be called "pathetic" by board moderators makes me much more cheerful than any other!!
posted 03-14-2002 11:24 AM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by JeffBond: I accept your apology, Andre. Nah! It wasn't a real apology, Jeff. Just didn't want to shock you so much...
posted 03-14-2002 11:26 AM PT (US)

Luscious Lazlo Oscar® Winner	JEFF BOND SAID: "The 'sentimental' ending is what rankles most people--it surely has powerful sentimental elements but they're not all as pat and obvious as a first look indicates. It seems like everyone is getting what they want for a 'happy' ending, but to believe that you have to accept David as a real boy, which he clearly is not--there's no magic moment where someone waves a wand and turns David into a real person. He's just completing programming and the reunion with his 'mother' is an illusion--she's dead along with the rest of humanity. I find that more chilling than sentimental." I find it more coyly evasive than either chilling or sentimental. The fact that Spielberg made the ending deliberately enigmatic is what's so objectionable. He tried to have it both ways and ended up destroying his credibility. Jeff's claim about the illusionality of David's mother is a facile assumption. You could equally assume that David has croaked and gone to Mecha Heaven. Philip Dick posed the titular question: "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" (The novel that was turned into BLADE RUNNER.) Spielberg might just as well be asking "do mechas go to a heavenly afterlife?" and then answering in the affirmative. The deliberate enigmaticism of AI's ending was obviously inspired by Kubrick's deliberate enigmaticism at the end of 2001. Which was rightly called a "shaggy-God story" by John Simon. If Spielberg had had the balls to come right out and definitively state that David's reunion is an illusion, that would've been respectable. But unfortunately, Spielberg chose to parrot Kubrick and engage in enigmaticism for the sake of enigmaticism.
posted 03-14-2002 12:30 PM PT (US)

Graham Watt Oscar® Winner	I didn't like AI at all when I first saw it, though the first reel was well done. As from Jude Law's appearance on it went haywire, and the final segment made my jaw drop in disbelief. BUT I'm prepared to change my opinion. After all those months I'm still haunted by some of it. And the Williams score just gets better and better. I think that AI may turn out to be one of those very unique, flawed masterpieces.
posted 03-14-2002 01:55 PM PT (US)

Gae Oscar® Winner	Hmmm, I cant wait to see A.I. next week after all the different reviews I've been reading, here as well as at other sites. Usually, the kind of film that generates such diverse opinions ranging from "awful" to "flawed masterpiece" looks a likely contender for becoming a "cult" film which maybe improves with further viewings (if you are willing to do that). I haven't seen it yet, but it certainly sounds like a movie that is worth looking forward to. I look back to the early 80's when I saw "Blade Runner" for the first time and didn't really like it. After repeated viewings, over the years, it became one of may favourite sci-fi movies. Maybe A.I. will prove the same. Gae
posted 03-14-2002 03:17 PM PT (US)

joan hue Oscar® Winner	I’ve only seen this movie once, and I think it is the type of movie that bears a repeated viewing. Now I can rent it. I’ve been straddling the fence on this movie since I first saw it. I’m getting a little chapped sitting on that darn fence. Anyway, I think it’s great that this film has generated such debates and discussions. Maybe the genesis of the debates is the clash between Kubrick’s pessimism and Spielberg’s optimism, and the “twain” just can’t meet, making it a flawed effort. Maybe its due to pacing, directing, plot, etc. Or maybe we just don’t get it and really missed its point. Or maybe we get it and still hate it or get it and enjoy it. Ahh, conundrums. I’ve really enjoyed the above debates which have given me multiple perspectives and new insights to carry to my next viewing........where I’ll discover the absolute correct answer, the gospel according to mom.
posted 03-14-2002 03:41 PM PT (US)

John Zimmer Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by André Lux: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size=1 face=arial>quote:</font><HR size=1>Originally posted by JeffBond: [b]I accept your apology, Andre.<HR size=1></BLOCKQUOTE> Nah! It wasn't a real apology, Jeff. Just didn't want to shock you so much... [/B] Whew! I was worried for a minute there Andre. Jz NP: The Temple of Doom (John Williams) ***/***
posted 03-14-2002 03:50 PM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by Gae: I look back to the early 80's when I saw "Blade Runner" for the first time and didn't really like it. After repeated viewings, over the years, it became one of may favourite sci-fi movies. Maybe A.I. will prove the same. Gae I had the same experience with BLADE RUNNER, Gae. But then, I was just a teenager expecting to see another STAR WARS, with Harrison Ford flying on spaceships. But BLADE RUNNER was a movie ahead of its time and therefore could only be apreciated years later, after people start to digest it properly. Frankly, in my opinion, it's not the case of A.I., for the reasons I've posted already.
posted 03-14-2002 08:02 PM PT (US)

Gae Oscar® Winner	I just saw the review section at the "Blockbuster" website and this is what it was for A.I. Now if this isn't a sign of a potential "cult" movie, then I dont know what is. Brilliant ------------ 50.0 % Very Good - 0.0 % Worth A Look - 0.0 % Disappointing - 0.0 % Dreadful ------------ 50.0 % Talk about a dead split of opinion or what? I'm now really looking forward to seeing this film tomorrow!! GaeNP Adagio for Strings (Barber) [Message edited by Gae on 03-17-2002]
posted 03-17-2002 12:41 PM PT (US)

Gae Oscar® Winner	Just watched A.I. tonight and I just have to say that Spielberg has gone too far for me this time. Dont get me wrong. I was impressed with the film for most of its length, great production design and performances from the two "mecca" leads. What really got me was the final section of the film and the overall conclusion. Let me get this right now. All is well with the world because little David got to spend a whole day with his mother in an environment artificially created by slimline faceless aliens, without any worldly distractions from sibling or fatherly rivalry and rounds the day of nicely by sharing his mother's bed while she dies and he can allow himself to pass on feeling contented. What a perfect day eh!! Forget the fact that the whole of the human race has been wiped out, most of the planet is underwater and also has been taken over by aliens who are keen to resurrect whats left of the corpsess of human beings so they can understand their "genius"...a genius which has wiped them out in the first place...etc...etc...etc. I mean, the more I labour on it, the more I think, why bother telling a story which has such a depressingly far fetched vision of the future..whats the point of it? Oh well, thats just my opinion anyway! Gae
posted 03-18-2002 05:53 PM PT (US)

Donovan448 Oscar® Nominee	The ending was disappointing but I liked it.
posted 03-18-2002 06:12 PM PT (US)

Lightborne Oscar® Winner	I have only seen A.I. at the theatre once. I may end getting it on DVD (It still pisses me off about Spielberg's refusal to do commentaries on DVDs. What the hell is his problem?) That said, I really was mixed about the beautiful final scene at the end of the movie, David reunited with his mother which was heartbreaking, if "manipulative". What I really wanted is that long fade to black when David is looking at the Blue Fairy to end the movie. When I saw it, I was like, "Please role credits, please role credits." But now here come the ridiculous horrible looking CGI aliens(reminiscent of the ridiculous ending to MISSION TO MARS), conceived no doubt by Lucas over Spielberg's shoulder in the editing bay. This defined the movie for me...lots of great wonderful scenes strung together badly, and how you got to those scenes was horrible. Like the flesh fair scene and stupid Robin Williams idiocy as the information supplier (which was idiotically replicated in the recent TIME MACHINE with Orlando Jones. Note to sci-fi scripts,,,LEAVE THE COMEDIENS OUT OF THE FUTURE INFORMATION BOOTHS). I suppose I need to see A.I. again, but I don't think the film was utter failure, despite what the press made it out to be. And as far as "manipulative", that's what movies do. They are supposed to manipulate us into feeling certain emotions with visuals, music, characters...Kubrick was just as manipulative as Spielberg. I just find it funny that sentimentality gets crushed with this "manipulative" argument while manipulation like Kubrick's which revolves around the complete opposite,,,anger, psychosis, hatred, and violence is hailed as genious and not manipulation. Don't get me wrong I love both directors and their work. (That's why I liked EYES WIDE SHUT when no one else did.) I just try to be fair. Anyway, the real manipulation is the removal of guns and replacing them with walkie talkies. NOW THAT'S MANIPULATION!!!!!!
posted 03-18-2002 06:46 PM PT (US)

cine-sin Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by André Lux: First we learn that the world has collapsed and only "developed" countries survived Can you unpack this a little bit? Was this overtly stated or implied? quote: Then we see all that idillic suburbia, perfect hospitals, beautiful neon cars - as we learn that rich people are good. Next day, cut to that ludicrous flesh fair, where we sudenly learn that there's still poor people in the land - and all are evil and rancorous. Yes, I had some major problems with this. The "flesh fair" could have been utilised to express some complex character (questioning their evil) and thematic (progress of science) statements but ultimately failed to do so. In the end, they came of like a bunch of heavy-metal listening bikie neo-racists who can transcend primitiveness by seperating adult robot and child robot. quote: Then we go to a big city, filled with more cheesy neon lights and night clubs - a complete chaotic enviroment, with lots of crazy people, police repression, etc. Then cut to NY, drowned into the sea, but still working... I thought the shifts in contrasting spaces added to the chaos of the world. Regards, Rochelle
posted 03-18-2002 06:50 PM PT (US)

Peter Criss Oscar® Winner	Perfect. Film and score. And even the end, with seems to be the worst part for many people, was, for me, touching and inspired. Man, this is music! The Catman
posted 03-18-2002 06:57 PM PT (US)

Kyriacos S Oscar® Winner	...hmmm...is this because Andre is against the movie??....(!) Kyri
posted 03-18-2002 06:59 PM PT (US)

UCFKevin Oscar® Winner	I thought it was excellent. In my opinion, the best of last year. Brilliant movie. Very moving. A very odd one, though. Bittersweet is definitely the word that comes to mind. The music is gorgeous, especially at the end. Speaking of the end, I for one love the ending. It REALLY pisses me off when people say, "Spielberg totally ruined this movie with the stupid ending." Newsflash, folks, Kubrick came up with the ending. Spielberg was just being true to the story. I love how they just blame him for everything about it. Kubrick's to blame, too, dammit. I blame no one, though. I adore this flick.
posted 03-18-2002 07:44 PM PT (US)

Bulldog Oscar® Winner	If anything's to blame for the film's supposed lack of flow and coherence, it's John's episodic score. It was the only part of the film that did not impress me.
posted 03-18-2002 08:06 PM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by Kyriacos S: ...hmmm...is this because Andre is against the movie??....(!) Kyri Hehehehehehe... you got it Kyri!
posted 03-18-2002 09:34 PM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by cine-sin: Can you unpack this a little bit? Was this overtly stated or implied? It was overtly stated. This is a common "quote". You can find similar offensive in the awful DEEP IMPACT. quote: I thought the shifts in contrasting spaces added to the chaos of the world. To me it just showed how senseless and incoherent the screenplay is, jumping from totally differente scenarios without respecting any visible inner logic. And can someone tell me what's up with that ludicrous Moon Balloon???
posted 03-18-2002 09:41 PM PT (US)

André Lux Oscar® Winner	quote: Originally posted by UCFKevin: Speaking of the end, I for one love the ending. It REALLY pisses me off when people say, "Spielberg totally ruined this movie with the stupid ending." Newsflash, folks, Kubrick came up with the ending. Spielberg was just being true to the story. I love how they just blame him for everything about it. Kubrick's to blame, too, dammit. Believe it or not, I also think the end was the best part of the movie. The wasted Earth and the appearence of the futuristic robots (which cloned their looks from the CGI martian from MISSION TO MARS ) is the only thing that prevent me for fall asleep completely at that point. Kudos to Kubrick then! I was sure that SOMETHING from him ended in that aberration of a movie...
posted 03-18-2002 09:47 PM PT (US)

MattStar Oscar® Winner	AI is a score that I just can't seem to get into. I didn't like the movie, but the score also left me cold. However, I did love the song, For Always, and that melody in the score was the best part of the score. But overall, a forgettable score for a bad film. And incredibly, this is Williams that we are talking about and this is the first time I've so readily dismissed a Williams score.
posted 03-18-2002 10:08 PM PT (US)

nightwing Oscar® Nominee	Let me start of by saying that I love nothing more then sitting down and watching a good movie for 2:30+ hours, and many times the longer the better (some of my all time favs are Lawrence of Arabia, Spartacus, Ben Hur just to name a few). Let me also say that A.I. was THE WORST movie experience I have EVER had, not only because of the tediousness of the movie, but also because of my company, but that's a whole other story. As far as the movie goes, it seemed like it should have ended about 15 times and was about an hour too long. You could hear people groan every time it went from pitch black to another scene. Which brings up another point, way too many times the movie jumped from pitch (or near) black to the brightest white imaginable, taking your eyes through hell. I think the root of the problem is two directors from total opposite ends of the spectrum having their hands on this project. As far as the acting goes, blah is all I can say. This is also the only time I can remember walking out of a movie with Williams's score NOT in my head. To this day I wouldn't be able to place it if my life depended on it. And this coming from one who swears by the maestro. Overall, it may not be as bad as, say, The Fast and the Furious, Dungeons and Dragons, Wild Wild West, Wing Commander, The Hollow Man, The Haunting, etc., but it is easily the worst Spielberg movie I have ever seen and actually makes me not look forward to Minority Report. He needs to get back to his bread-and-butter (WWII flicks/real dramas) FAST!
posted 03-18-2002 10:28 PM PT (US)

JoeinAr Oscar® Nominee	but it is easily the worst Spielberg movie I have ever seen and actually makes me not look forward to Minority Report. He needs to get back to his bread-and-butter (WWII flicks/real dramas) FAST![/B][/QUOTE] His bread and butter has been Indiana Jones, Jaws, JP, CE3K, E.T., not the WWII films, Those are his true blockbusters. I have hope for Minority Report because after all of his dogs he has come back with a really great film. And A.I. was the worst of the lot. It makes Hook, Always and Least Crusade look good. Here hoping that after he finishes Catch Me if You Can, he starts directing Ghost Soldiers. It will take real guts to direct this picture that will be an indictment against the attrocities against POW's by Japan, just as Schindler's List was an indictment of the holocaust by Germany.
posted 03-19-2002 11:27 AM PT (US)

Old Infopop Software by UBB