AI DVD
the dweeb
The site has been updated for April!
A.I. Artificial Intelligence Special Edition
Reviewed by: The Dweeb
Features: 1.85:1 Anamorphic Widescreen Audio Tracks: Dolby Digital 5.1
Surround: English DTS 5.1 Surround Sound: English Dolby Digital 5.1
Surround: French Subtitles: English, Spanish
Special Features: Documentaries, Interviews, Featurette, Story Boards,
Photo Gallery, Theatrical Trailer
Starring: Haley Joel Osment, Jude Law
Director: Steven Spielberg
Theatrical Release: 2001 by DREAM WORKS
DVD Release Date: 3/5/2002
Running time: 145 minutes.
Plot Synopsis
In a future world of runaway global warming and awe-inspiring
scientific advances, humans share every aspect of their lives with
sophisticated companion robots called Mechas. But when an advanced
prototype robot child named David (Haley Joel Osment) is programmed to
show unconditional love, his human family isn't prepared for the
consequences. Suddenly, David is on his own in a strange and dangerous
world. Befriended by a streetwise Mecha (Jude Law), David embarks on a
spectacular quest to discover the startling secret of his own
identity.
A.I. is an ambitious project conceived by Stanley Kubrick that he
kicked around for years in his head. Only after his death Steven
Spielberg realizes his final vision and brings this movie to the
screen, with mixed results. Spielberg hijacked this movie and removed
the darker elements and made it more mass audience friendly than what
Kubrick probably intended. I was insulted that they even marketed this
movie as a Spielberg film, Kubrick's name isn't even on the cover of
the box!
Don't get me wrong, its still a good film, but it might have been
better if Spielberg hadn't gotten a hold of it. very few movies these
days make you actually think about it after leaving the theatre.
Spielberg claims to have stayed true to Stanley's vision of the film,
but I think the third act set 2000 years in the future was Spielberg's
doing. It should have ended at the bottom of the sea. Instead we get
dragged another 20 minutes with some stupid aliens gushing over the
achievements of the human race. Give me a break! I remember some
people left in the theatre during this part.
Kubrick continues to explore the relationship between man and
technology, and the bad results that could happen when the two are
intertwined. He first explores this topic in 2001, with an intelligent
super computer going haywire in the far reaches of space, killing the
entire crew dependant on it for survival. Here he takes a look at a
realistic future of machines taking over roles of the humans, and how
dependant we become to them.
Haley Joel Osment as David and Jude Law as Gigolo Joe are wonderful in
this movie. This is probably Haley's best acting since the Sixth
Sense. He gives a really creepy performance that makes you believe he
isn't a real human. And if you watch carefully, he never blinks the
entire movie. How the hell did they do that?
I also liked Gigolo Joe in this movie, he's funny and displays the
limitations of the Mecha robots. As they can only relate to the world
through their specific function, and apply that to whatever situation
they are in. They are an attempt at perfection, but this becomes their
flaw. Like after they escape from the Flesh Fair, David wants to
become a real boy, and needs to find the "blue fairy". Joe professes
his expertise in women, which is sadly misguided because all he knows
about is sex, which is his primary function. His ignorance lends a
nice humorous touch and makes this movie interesting.
The quality of this movie release is adequate, but I have a problem
with the picture. I don't know if this is intentional, but I saw this
movie in the theatre and I don't recall the film looking so grainy.
It's grainy enough that it interferes with the viewing experience. On
my digital television it looks really pixilated in certain scenes,
like its a dirty VHS player. An example is the opening scene, you can
see the individual color shades on Professor Hobby's face.
Sound is pretty good throughout most of the film, but I did notice
that in some scenes the mix was not done correctly. I don't know if it
is because of my home theatre setup, but some of the foreground
dialogue is drowned out by the background noise. A good example is the
opening shot of the Rouge City street scene. I can barely hear Joe
talking to David.
The second disc comes stocked with all kinds of stuff. The emphasis is
on the special effects and the film making process. I have to say the
special effects with the Mecha are amazing. Its interesting to see how
they shot the Rouge City scenes, utilizing blue screen, miniatures and
this cool computer program that automatically inserts the digital
background in the monitor during filming.
But, alas, the problems that I have with this movie keeps it from
getting my highest rating. The length of the movie is too much, so at
the end I feel like I'm being dragged through to the end. I wish I
didn't buy this disc, how many times would I sit through this? Kind of
like Titanic, once is enough.
Reviewer's Opinion: Rent It!!!
For more reviews go to http://www.dvd-dweeb.com
Mike Kohary
>A.I. is an ambitious project conceived by Stanley Kubrick that he
>kicked around for years in his head. Only after his death Steven
>Spielberg realizes his final vision and brings this movie to the
>screen, with mixed results. Spielberg hijacked this movie and removed
>the darker elements and made it more mass audience friendly than what
>Kubrick probably intended.
False. Read the Kubrick FAQ.
>Don't get me wrong, its still a good film, but it might have been
>better if Spielberg hadn't gotten a hold of it. very few movies these
>days make you actually think about it after leaving the theatre.
>Spielberg claims to have stayed true to Stanley's vision of the film,
>but I think the third act set 2000 years in the future was Spielberg's
>doing.
You're 100% wrong, since the ending was Kubrick's idea, all the way
down to finding his mother back in her bed.
Not only that, but it was Spielberg who successfully fleshed out one
of the coolest characters in the film, Gigolo Joe, who was a character
that Kubrick could never quite figure out.
Really, the Kubrick versus Spielberg thing is old.
> It should have ended at the bottom of the sea. Instead we get
>dragged another 20 minutes with some stupid aliens gushing over the
>achievements of the human race. Give me a break! I remember some
>people left in the theatre during this part.
All Kubrick's ideas - read the FAQ.
Mike
Anthony Dale
news:vrq7auomvofrkr4sn...@4ax.com...
> On 28 Mar 2002
>snipped intelligent comments<
ONLY to say that every thing in A.I. which one would assume to be S.S.'s
ideas, are actually the ideas of S.K.! What a nice irony.
td
--
I have seen the starlight fading
into echos on the floor
And I dreamed the stars parading
like tin soldiers on the shore
The city casts no shadow now
At midnight, all the whores
come out and dance with darkness
and the night rains pour...
@1979, Janis Ian.
Kevin
> Don't get me wrong, its still a good film, but it might have been
> better if Spielberg hadn't gotten a hold of it. very few movies these
It also might have been never made if Spielberg hadn't gotten a hold of
it.
> Spielberg claims to have stayed true to Stanley's vision of the film,
> but I think the third act set 2000 years in the future was Spielberg's
> doing. It should have ended at the bottom of the sea. Instead we get
I seem to recall reading that was Kubrick's...
> dragged another 20 minutes with some stupid aliens gushing over the
> achievements of the human race. Give me a break! I remember some
> people left in the theatre during this part.
They were robots.
> Haley Joel Osment as David and Jude Law as Gigolo Joe are wonderful in
> this movie. This is probably Haley's best acting since the Sixth
> Sense. He gives a really creepy performance that makes you believe he
> isn't a real human. And if you watch carefully, he never blinks the
> entire movie. How the hell did they do that?
Yuk yuk yuk.
Is this reviewer 12 years old?
Vincent Pereira
> I think the third act set 2000 years in the future was Spielberg's
> doing.
Shortly after Kubrick's death- and well before Speilberg took on
"completing" A.I.- a plot synopsis of Ian Watson's Kubrick-approved
treatment showed up in newspaper articles and on the web, and the
2000-years later coda was most certainly a part of it. This is basic
knowledge that's easily verifiable and you should know it if you're gonna
pass yourself off as a legitimate DVD/film reviewer.
> This is probably Haley's best acting since the Sixth Sense.
So then you're saying he's better here than in PAY IT FORWARD? Wow, what
an accomplishment!
> He gives a really creepy performance that makes you believe he
> isn't a real human. And if you watch carefully, he never blinks the
> entire movie. How the hell did they do that?
Uhm, Haley Joel didn't blink? Again, another amazing accomplishment!
> The quality of this movie release is adequate, but I have a problem
> with the picture. I don't know if this is intentional, but I saw this
> movie in the theatre and I don't recall the film looking so grainy.
> It's grainy enough that it interferes with the viewing experience. On
> my digital television it looks really pixilated in certain scenes,
> like its a dirty VHS player.
I've never known VHS to look "pixelated", and A.I. certainly doesn't look
anything like VHS on the DVD that I bought. It also doesn't look
"pixelated"- there is some occasion film grain, but no digital pixelation
or video artifacts.
> Reviewer's Opinion: Rent It!!!
My opinion- stop writing reviews!
--
VINCENT PEREIRA
http://www.viewaskew.com/vincent/
writer/director/editor: A BETTER PLACE
ABP official website: http://viewaskew.com/A_Better_Place/
A BETTER PLACE trailer: http://viewaskew.com/A_Better_Place/download.html
Dave
dw...@dvd-dweeb.com (the dweeb) wrote:
Instead we get
> dragged another 20 minutes with some stupid aliens gushing over the
> achievements of the human race.
Why do people who claim to have watched it and to have actually paid
attention think they were aliens? The future robots even state that
after the ice age came, they were all that were left and they are
interested in them because David was one of their predecessors. They
didn't gush about the achievements of the human race at all that I can
recall.
buck
dav...@mac.com says...
I'll paraphrase George Carlin here:
"Think about how dumb the average person is, then remember that half of
everybody is dumber than that!"
End of Carlin Quote.
Some movie goers need every tiny bit of the story hammered at them about
15 times, and if every story point isn't accompanied by a VERY loud
explosion (filmed from six camera angles) then they dont hear it, and
dont understand it.
--
Larry Lynch
Mystic, Ct
Brad Snowder
>
> "Think about how dumb the average person is, then remember that half of
> everybody is dumber than that!"
>
> End of Carlin Quote.
I've been thinking of how many people won't even understand that quote.
--
Brad Snowder
Western Washington University Planetarium
http://www.wwu.edu/~skywise
Kevin M. Randall
>A.I. is an ambitious project conceived by Stanley Kubrick that he
>kicked around for years in his head. Only after his death Steven
>Spielberg realizes his final vision and brings this movie to the
>screen, with mixed results. Spielberg hijacked this movie and removed
>the darker elements and made it more mass audience friendly than what
>Kubrick probably intended. I was insulted that they even marketed this
>movie as a Spielberg film, Kubrick's name isn't even on the cover of
>the box!
As others have already pointed out: All of the basic plot points were part of
Kubrick's vision for the film. Spielberg "hijacked" the movie? Hardly.
According to Spielberg, he had to be practically *begged* to make the film,
and he took great care to stay true to his friend's vision.
>The quality of this movie release is adequate, but I have a problem
>with the picture. I don't know if this is intentional, but I saw this
>movie in the theatre and I don't recall the film looking so grainy.
>It's grainy enough that it interferes with the viewing experience. On
>my digital television it looks really pixilated in certain scenes,
>like its a dirty VHS player. An example is the opening scene, you can
>see the individual color shades on Professor Hobby's face.
I also saw the film in a theater, and the print I saw showed a lot of grain,
just as in the DVD.
>The second disc comes stocked with all kinds of stuff.
And you probably should have paid more attention to it.
madkevin
"buck" <nearly_nor...@worldnet.att.dotnet> wrote in message
> Some movie goers need every tiny bit of the story hammered at them about
> 15 times, and if every story point isn't accompanied by a VERY loud
> explosion (filmed from six camera angles) then they dont hear it, and
> dont understand it.
> --
>
> Larry Lynch
> Mystic, Ct
Or - just a thought - Spielberg's decision to make the mechas physically resemble
aliens was needlessly confusing. But, that's "A.I." for you, a supposed
science-fiction movie where nothing makes any logical sense.
In my heart of hearts, I believe that the reason Kubrick asked Spielberg to do this
film was because he couldn't reconcile the story with his usual intellectual rigour -
in all of Kubrick's films, a great deal of attention is paid to the details,
especially in his science-fiction films. Maybe Kubrick knew that Steve wouldn't pay
much attention to the fact that none of it made any sense.
The fact that people mistook the mechas for aliens doesn't nessesarily have anything
to do with the intelligence of the average film-goer. Perhaps it's more indicitave of
sloppily handled storytelling detail, which came at the end of a long movie chock
full of sloppy details.
Kevin "Flying The Logic Flag" Cogliano
IceBlast
IceBlast
buck
sky...@NOSPAM.cc.wwu.edu says...
Well there goes the cranberry juice, all over the monitor & the
keyboard!
--
Larry "Brad got me just like Norm does" Lynch
Mystic, Ct
buck
madk...@golden.net says...
>
> "buck" <nearly_nor...@worldnet.att.dotnet> wrote in message
> > Some movie goers need every tiny bit of the story hammered at them about
> > 15 times, and if every story point isn't accompanied by a VERY loud
> > explosion (filmed from six camera angles) then they dont hear it, and
> > dont understand it.
> > --
> >
> > Larry Lynch
> > Mystic, Ct
>
> Or - just a thought - Spielberg's decision to make the mechas physically resemble
> aliens was needlessly confusing. But, that's "A.I." for you, a supposed
> science-fiction movie where nothing makes any logical sense.
>
> In my heart of hearts, I believe that the reason Kubrick asked Spielberg to do this
> film was because he couldn't reconcile the story with his usual intellectual rigour -
> in all of Kubrick's films, a great deal of attention is paid to the details,
> especially in his science-fiction films. Maybe Kubrick knew that Steve wouldn't pay
> much attention to the fact that none of it made any sense.
Since when does a movie have to make sense to get your attention?
> The fact that people mistook the mechas for aliens doesn't nessesarily have anything
> to do with the intelligence of the average film-goer. Perhaps it's more indicitave of
> sloppily handled storytelling detail, which came at the end of a long movie chock
> full of sloppy details.
>
> Kevin "Flying The Logic Flag" Cogliano
You usually do (fly the logic flag)you just dont always announce it.
>
>
>
>
All anyone had to do was LISTEN TO THE SCRIPT! Good movie/Bad movie
Sloppy details, or no details at all. It was in the script, and I heard
it because I was PAYING ATTENTION! You dont have to be intelligent to
listen (though I think it helps) With caterwalling ankle biters
scrambling all over the place, cell phones and pagers ringin' to beat
the band, I still managed to hear it. (I'm flying the logic flag here
too) And I'm no rocket scientist, just a fairly smart blue collar
kinda' guy.
If I pay the money to get into the movie, I damn well pay attention all
the way through or I leave. Sitting stunned by a bad movie isn't my idea
of entertainment, so if I were having that kind of experience during AI,
I simply would have walked out.
--
Larry "a little cranky today" Lynch
Mystic, Ct
madkevin
"buck" <nearly_nor...@worldnet.att.dotnet> wrote in message
> I gotta' disagree with you on this one Kevin..
>
> Since when does a movie have to make sense to get your attention?
"Movies" don't nessesarily have to make sense for me to enjoy them, but
science-fiction movies most certainly do. That's why I generally hate most
science-fiction films. If Spielberg wanted to remake "Pinnochio", he should have.
> All anyone had to do was LISTEN TO THE SCRIPT! Good movie/Bad movie
> Sloppy details, or no details at all. It was in the script, and I heard
> it because I was PAYING ATTENTION! You dont have to be intelligent to
> listen (though I think it helps) With caterwalling ankle biters
> scrambling all over the place, cell phones and pagers ringin' to beat
> the band, I still managed to hear it. (I'm flying the logic flag here
> too) And I'm no rocket scientist, just a fairly smart blue collar
> kinda' guy.
Allow me to point out that I, too, heard the bit in the movie where the alien-lookin'
dudes are clearly described as advanced mechas. As soon as I heard it, my next
thought was: "Well, if they're robots, then why do they look like aliens? After all,
it's not like a mechanical creature has to take on a humanoid shape." And then I
remembered that I was watching a Spielberg film.
There are any number of logical and internal inconsistencies in "A.I." which detract
from my enjoyment of the film. (Here's my favourite: If the future society was
advanced enough to make fake little boys that could last for millenia, how come they
couldn't synthesize perfume?) The mechas-that-look-like-aliens was simply one of
many.
> If I pay the money to get into the movie, I damn well pay attention all
> the way through or I leave. Sitting stunned by a bad movie isn't my idea
> of entertainment, so if I were having that kind of experience during AI,
> I simply would have walked out.
I am of the opinion that it is impossible to judge a film unless one has seen it all
the way through. I've only ever walked out of two movies in my life: "Two Of A Kind"
with John Travolta and Olivia Newton-John, and "The Sicilian" with Christopher
Lambert. "A.I.", it must be said, is much much better than a Christopher Lambert
movie.
> Larry "a little cranky today" Lynch
> Mystic, Ct
No worries, mate. I give some small points to "A.I." for at least aiming, if failing,
to be a adult piece of sci-fi. Plus, Jude Law and Haley Joel Osment were worth the
price of admission - just.
Now, if I can figure out why Harkness doesn't like "Barry Lyndon"...
Kevin "A.I. 2: The Quickening" Cogliano
Paul Gallagher
>There are any number of logical and internal inconsistencies in "A.I." which detract
>from my enjoyment of the film. (Here's my favourite: If the future society was
>advanced enough to make fake little boys that could last for millenia, how come they
>couldn't synthesize perfume?)
I assumed that it wasn't that they couldn't synthesize perfume, but just
that the particular perfume (I think it was Chanel No. 5) was no longer
manufactured, and that's why it was rare.
Paul
buck
madk...@golden.net says...
> No worries, mate. I give some small points to "A.I." for at least aiming, if failing,
> to be a adult piece of sci-fi. Plus, Jude Law and Haley Joel Osment were worth the
> price of admission - just.
>
> Now, if I can figure out why Harkness doesn't like "Barry Lyndon"...
>
> Kevin "A.I. 2: The Quickening" Cogliano
>
There is someone out there that doesn't like "Barry Lyndon"?????
John Harkness
wrote:
>Now, if I can figure out why Harkness doesn't like "Barry Lyndon"...
>
>Kevin "A.I. 2: The Quickening" Cogliano
>
>
Never developed any emotional investment in the story -- which is not
unusual with Kubrick, really, though I don't actively loathe it the
way I do Clockwork Orange, which strikes me as the most misanthropic
film ever made.
John Harkness
Anthony Dale
There are quite a few of us who don't like "Barry Lyndon."
Mike Kohary
<sky...@NOSPAM.cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>> I'll paraphrase George Carlin here:
>>
>> "Think about how dumb the average person is, then remember that half of
>> everybody is dumber than that!"
>>
>> End of Carlin Quote.
>
>I've been thinking of how many people won't even understand that quote.
rofl...
Mike
Mike Kohary
wrote:
>Or - just a thought - Spielberg's decision to make the mechas physically resemble
>aliens was needlessly confusing.
Right, because that's what *real* aliens look like, as we all know. ;)
Sheesh, anything to bash Spielberg, right? Again - *Kubrick's* ideas.
Doesn't anyone watch the extra features on the DVDs??? Kubrick had
the set design and everything all worked out before Spielberg even
layed a finger on it.
>But, that's "A.I." for you, a supposed
>science-fiction movie where nothing makes any logical sense.
It made perfect sense to me, and every time I watch it again, I get
something new out of it. I don't think I gave it enough credit on my
first viewing - it's actually a pretty brilliant piece. And not very
Spielbergian, IMO.
>In my heart of hearts, I believe that the reason Kubrick asked Spielberg to do this
>film was because he couldn't reconcile the story with his usual intellectual rigour -
>in all of Kubrick's films, a great deal of attention is paid to the details,
>especially in his science-fiction films. Maybe Kubrick knew that Steve wouldn't pay
>much attention to the fact that none of it made any sense.
I think you're completely wrong about all of that.
>The fact that people mistook the mechas for aliens doesn't nessesarily have anything
>to do with the intelligence of the average film-goer. Perhaps it's more indicitave of
>sloppily handled storytelling detail, which came at the end of a long movie chock
>full of sloppy details.
The movie made it pretty clear that these were advanced mechas, not
aliens. Watch it again and listen to the dialogue. I honestly don't
see how anyone could mistake them for aliens unless they weren't
paying attention.
Mike
JoeS
> > I'll paraphrase George Carlin here:
> >
> > "Think about how dumb the average person is, then remember that half of
> > everybody is dumber than that!"
> >
> > End of Carlin Quote.
>
> I've been thinking of how many people won't even understand that quote.
I've been thinking of how few realize the difference between average and
median.
Joe
madkevin
> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:41:09 -0800, "madkevin" <madk...@golden.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Or - just a thought - Spielberg's decision to make the mechas physically resemble
> >aliens was needlessly confusing.
>
> Right, because that's what *real* aliens look like, as we all know. ;)
Perhaps I should have said that they physically resemble his aliens from "Close
Encounters", which is the same vaguelly fetal shape commonly associated with the pop
culture signifier of "alien". Of course *real* aliens, as everybody knows, physically
resemble large black monoliths.
> Sheesh, anything to bash Spielberg, right? Again - *Kubrick's* ideas.
> Doesn't anyone watch the extra features on the DVDs??? Kubrick had
> the set design and everything all worked out before Spielberg even
> layed a finger on it.
As I mentioned, I like quite a few Spielberg films. I just don't like this one. And
even if all the set design, etc. was exactly the same as it would have been in
Kubrick's version, they still would have been two very different movies, because
Speilberg and Kubrick were two very different artists. Whether Kubrick's would have
been any better is a matter of conjecture - what I do know is the *Spielberg's*
version ain't too great.
In my opinion, of course.
> >But, that's "A.I." for you, a supposed
> >science-fiction movie where nothing makes any logical sense.
> It made perfect sense to me, and every time I watch it again, I get
> something new out of it. I don't think I gave it enough credit on my
> first viewing - it's actually a pretty brilliant piece. And not very
> Spielbergian, IMO.
Really. Perhaps you can explain to me, exactly, why the mechas couldn't, for example,
implant a permanent memory of his ever-loving mother in his head. Or how it was
possible that a future society advanced enough to create a robot capable of
sustaining itself through an ice age without permanent damage was also not
intelligent enough to figure out alternative fuel sources.
> >In my heart of hearts, I believe that the reason Kubrick asked Spielberg to do
this
> >film was because he couldn't reconcile the story with his usual intellectual
rigour -
> >in all of Kubrick's films, a great deal of attention is paid to the details,
> >especially in his science-fiction films. Maybe Kubrick knew that Steve wouldn't
pay
> >much attention to the fact that none of it made any sense.
>
> I think you're completely wrong about all of that.
Wrong that Kubrick didn't pay attention to the details? I would like to draw your
attention to such films as "Dr. Strangelove", with it's exacting replication of the
details of how the United States air force would conduct a nuclear bombing mission,
or "A Clockwork Orange"'s meticulous use of language, or "The Killing"'s intricate
time structure allowing a microscopic dissection of a horsetrack heist, or the
entirety of "2001: A Space Odyssey", or the decision to create cameras capable of
filming by candlelight for "Barry Lyndon", or the boot camp sequence of "Full Metal
Jacket".
> >The fact that people mistook the mechas for aliens doesn't nessesarily have
anything
> >to do with the intelligence of the average film-goer. Perhaps it's more indicitave
of
> >sloppily handled storytelling detail, which came at the end of a long movie chock
> >full of sloppy details.
>
> The movie made it pretty clear that these were advanced mechas, not
> aliens. Watch it again and listen to the dialogue. I honestly don't
> see how anyone could mistake them for aliens unless they weren't
> paying attention.
I, personally, had no trouble understanding that the mechas were mechas, as they were
clearly described as being such in the film. However, it is also understandable that
people (Roger Ebert among them) mistook them for aliens, as they also clearly
resembled the pop culture icon of an alien. The defenders of "A.I." would like to
think that this means that audiences aren't very smart. Perhaps - God knows, the
average viewing audience isn't getting any smarter. But I also believe that it belies
a certain thematic and visual, for lack of a better term, sloppiness.
Spielberg was clearly going for an allegorical fable with "A.I.", as the endless
references to "Pinocchio" would lead me to believe. He failed, because for a fable to
work you have to rigourously follow an internal logic that makes the story
believable, on some basic level. "2001" works because Kubrick spends so much time
setting up the extreme plausibility of the future that it becomes easier to accept
the fantastical Stargate sequence. Tarkovsky's "Stalker", while making almost no
logical sense, carries the weight of dream-logic, of a nightmare allegory. The
realism of both "Alien" and "Bladerunner" allow me to fully accept the reality in
which both of those movies are set - I fear for Ripley, because I really feel like
she's alone, in the middle of space, with an unstoppable monster after her.
"A.I." does not cohere for me in the same way - it moves like a series of
barely-connected episodes. The world never seems real to me, therefore I can invest
very little emotions in what happens there.
Kevin "Twentieth Name-Drop Of Tarkovsky This Month" Cogliano
Chris Pierson
I've been thinking of how few realize that, with a sample size of six
billion and a bell-curve distribution, there's almost certainly no
appreciable difference between the two.
--
Chris Pierson ** 13 favorite films, 2002: The Fellowship of the Ring, Amelie,
** Memento, Amores Perros, Startup.com, Black Hawk Down,
Game Designer ** Hedwig and the Angry Inch, Pollock, Vanilla Sky, A
Author ** Beautiful Mind, The Dish, Waking Life, Sexy Beast
JoeS
> In article <3CA52641...@gte.net>, JoeS <me....@gte.net> wrote:
> >Brad Snowder wrote:
> >
> >> > I'll paraphrase George Carlin here:
> >> >
> >> > "Think about how dumb the average person is, then remember that half of
> >> > everybody is dumber than that!"
> >> >
> >> > End of Carlin Quote.
> >>
> >> I've been thinking of how many people won't even understand that quote.
> >
> >I've been thinking of how few realize the difference between average and
> >median.
>
> I've been thinking of how few realize that, with a sample size of six
> billion and a bell-curve distribution, there's almost certainly no
> appreciable difference between the two.
*Assuming* a bell-curve distribution, which I'll bet a buck you cannot prove.
Joe
Mike Kohary
wrote:
>"Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>news:9p7aau0c5196cqmq2...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 13:41:09 -0800, "madkevin" <madk...@golden.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Or - just a thought - Spielberg's decision to make the mechas physically resemble
>> >aliens was needlessly confusing.
>>
>> Right, because that's what *real* aliens look like, as we all know. ;)
>
>Perhaps I should have said that they physically resemble his aliens from "Close
>Encounters"
I figured as much, but thought I'd kid around anyway.
>As I mentioned, I like quite a few Spielberg films. I just don't like this one. And
>even if all the set design, etc. was exactly the same as it would have been in
>Kubrick's version, they still would have been two very different movies, because
>Speilberg and Kubrick were two very different artists. Whether Kubrick's would have
>been any better is a matter of conjecture - what I do know is the *Spielberg's*
>version ain't too great.
>In my opinion, of course.
Fair enough.
>> It made perfect sense to me, and every time I watch it again, I get
>> something new out of it. I don't think I gave it enough credit on my
>> first viewing - it's actually a pretty brilliant piece. And not very
>> Spielbergian, IMO.
>
>Really. Perhaps you can explain to me, exactly, why the mechas couldn't, for example,
>implant a permanent memory of his ever-loving mother in his head. Or how it was
>possible that a future society advanced enough to create a robot capable of
>sustaining itself through an ice age without permanent damage was also not
>intelligent enough to figure out alternative fuel sources.
Do those things really matter? Take any movie, any movie at all, and
you could pick it apart in such a fashion. But those things have
nothing to do with the point of the movie, and there's no need to
address such minutia. If I were to respond point by point, we could
sit here all day speculating, you proposing challenges, me proposing
answers - we could write a whole new script! Nah...
>> >In my heart of hearts, I believe that the reason Kubrick asked Spielberg to do
>this
>> >film was because he couldn't reconcile the story with his usual intellectual
>rigour -
>> >in all of Kubrick's films, a great deal of attention is paid to the details,
>> >especially in his science-fiction films. Maybe Kubrick knew that Steve wouldn't
>pay
>> >much attention to the fact that none of it made any sense.
>>
>> I think you're completely wrong about all of that.
>
>Wrong that Kubrick didn't pay attention to the details?
No, that Kubrick thought so lowly of Steven Spielberg as to cast off
what he thought was a lame story and script on him. He could just as
easily have believed that Spielberg could direct such a picture far
better than he could. The fact is, we'll never know for sure.
>I, personally, had no trouble understanding that the mechas were mechas, as they were
>clearly described as being such in the film. However, it is also understandable that
>people (Roger Ebert among them) mistook them for aliens, as they also clearly
>resembled the pop culture icon of an alien. The defenders of "A.I." would like to
>think that this means that audiences aren't very smart. Perhaps - God knows, the
>average viewing audience isn't getting any smarter. But I also believe that it belies
>a certain thematic and visual, for lack of a better term, sloppiness.
For heaven's sake, you could see wires running through them, and their
skin shone like glass! I can certainly believe that some audience
members were fooled by their slight resemblance in shape to the CE3K
aliens, but that doesn't mean it's a good excuse. Just because
someone is afraid of flying, doesn't make that the airplane's fault.
>Spielberg was clearly going for an allegorical fable with "A.I.", as the endless
>references to "Pinocchio" would lead me to believe.
Right.
> He failed, because for a fable to
>work you have to rigourously follow an internal logic that makes the story
>believable, on some basic level.
I disagree. I think a film needs to suspend disbelief to a certain
extent, but beyond that, I'm not the type of viewer that cares very
much about "realism" in cinema, which is an art form that inherently
lends itself to the fantastical and unbelievable. A.I. suspended my
disbelief just fine; your mileage may (and apparently does) vary. But
that probably has more to do with you and me as human beings, and less
to do with the film itself.
Tell me, at the end of Ghost World, does the old man really get on a
bus? Or is Enid imagining it for the allegorical sake of the
audience? To that question, I answer: does it matter? The point is
made, either way. Wondering whether it's real or not is beside the
point, just as I think the questions you present about the realism of
A.I. are beside the point. We could argue about whether the bus is
real (and I know that some people do), but I don't think it helps us
understand the movie any better.
I guess it's a matter of seeing the forest for the trees. Movies
aren't made to be picked apart piece by piece - either they work as a
whole, or they don't.
>"A.I." does not cohere for me in the same way - it moves like a series of
>barely-connected episodes. The world never seems real to me, therefore I can invest
>very little emotions in what happens there.
Fair enough; it worked for me. And there we have it. :)
Mike
buck
> > There is someone out there that doesn't like "Barry Lyndon"?????
> > --
> >
> > Larry Lynch
>
> There are quite a few of us who don't like "Barry Lyndon."
>
> td
>
>
>
part...
I shoulda used a smiley or something.
Though I liked Barry Lyndon, I have never personally met another person
who will admit to it.
--
Larry "Thats what makes a Horserace" Lynch
Mystic, Ct
buck
mko...@earthlink.net says...
> Tell me, at the end of Ghost World, does the old man really get on a
> bus? Or is Enid imagining it for the allegorical sake of the
> audience? To that question, I answer: does it matter? The point is
> made, either way. Wondering whether it's real or not is beside the
> point, just as I think the questions you present about the realism of
> A.I. are beside the point. We could argue about whether the bus is
> real (and I know that some people do), but I don't think it helps us
> understand the movie any better.
>
I would truly love to have a caonversation with the writer of Ghost
World.
I know what I thought the bus represented, and it makes the story truly
dark indeed!
I wont go (In public) any farther than to say I dont see it representing
Enid achieving her dream of going to some "Random Place"
buck
I understand it (I have to use it all the time in my work) but the joke
is only funny if you use "average"
--
Larry" sometimes I obfuscate, for the sake of clarity" Lynch
Mystic, Ct
Bill Vermillion
buck <nearly_nor...@worldnet.att.dotnet> wrote:
>In article <3ca5...@news.nauticom.net>, hil...@nauticom.net says...
>> > There is someone out there that doesn't like "Barry Lyndon"?????
>> > --
>> There are quite a few of us who don't like "Barry Lyndon."
>>
>> td
>Sorry, I was kind of in my "Smart-ass" mode without turning on the
>smart part...
>I shoulda used a smiley or something.
Smiley are for the humor impaired. If someone can't see humor
without being nudged in the ribs or being told "It's a joke" you
just need to get a higher class audience.
But if you need a smiley. Here one I created years ago.
))))
))))
:::: ))))
:::: ))))
---- ))))
---- ))))
:::: ))))
:::: ))))
))))
))))
>Though I liked Barry Lyndon, I have never personally met another
>person who will admit to it.
My wife hates because of it's break-neck pacing.
Bill
--
Bill Vermillion - bv @ wjv . com
Richard ©ç® ²ºº²
"Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1o7aaukce9a2807q0...@4ax.com...
: On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:36:36 GMT, "Brad Snowder"
==================
That is because 50% of the people in this country are below average.
The gummint needs to work on that....................
madkevin
> >Really. Perhaps you can explain to me, exactly, why the mechas couldn't, for
example,
> >implant a permanent memory of his ever-loving mother in his head. Or how it was
> >possible that a future society advanced enough to create a robot capable of
> >sustaining itself through an ice age without permanent damage was also not
> >intelligent enough to figure out alternative fuel sources.
>
> Do those things really matter? Take any movie, any movie at all, and
> you could pick it apart in such a fashion. But those things have
> nothing to do with the point of the movie, and there's no need to
> address such minutia. If I were to respond point by point, we could
> sit here all day speculating, you proposing challenges, me proposing
> answers - we could write a whole new script! Nah...
Well, to me, it matters a lot. Take that example from the last bit of the film: the
mechas say that each person leaves a bit of their soul in space-time, but they can
only bring it back for twelve hours. Huh? Why? Even if I can swallow the crap about
the soul existing as if in amber in the first place, why would souls be tied to Earth
time? Does the rotation of the Earth somehow affect your soul? Can David truly not
distinguish between a programmed Mommy and the real thing? And, here's the big one:
if the mechas can do all this, why can't they just reprogram David to quit whining
and be happy?
I can accept a certain amount of illogic in my movies - hell, I pretty much have to -
but "A.I." just seems arbitrary. The ending was so outrageously ridiculous that it
clouded what was actually happening on screen, and the movie lost me. At the very
moment that I should have been the most involved with David's character, I simply
stopped caring. In other words, the movie had the exact opposite effect on me from
what was intended.
> For heaven's sake, you could see wires running through them, and their
> skin shone like glass! I can certainly believe that some audience
> members were fooled by their slight resemblance in shape to the CE3K
> aliens, but that doesn't mean it's a good excuse. Just because
> someone is afraid of flying, doesn't make that the airplane's fault.
My greater point is this: by the time we get to the mecha ending, the movie has
already thrown so many logic holes and implausibilities at us that many people had
simply stopped paying attention. If it was the *only* piece of sloppiness in the
movie, then that would be different, but it isn't - it's merely the most obvious one.
> I disagree. I think a film needs to suspend disbelief to a certain
> extent, but beyond that, I'm not the type of viewer that cares very
> much about "realism" in cinema, which is an art form that inherently
> lends itself to the fantastical and unbelievable. A.I. suspended my
> disbelief just fine; your mileage may (and apparently does) vary. But
> that probably has more to do with you and me as human beings, and less
> to do with the film itself.
There are different types of realism. Let's take Baz Lurhmann's "Moulin Rouge" as an
example here - a great example of over-the-top excess, a movie that is purposefully
anachronistic and flaunts any notion of realism whatsoever. And yet, the film works
just fine for me because there is a valid, understandable emotional realism at the
the core of "Moulin Rouge" - I believe that Ewan MacGregor and Nicole Kidman are in
love. If I didn't, if that emotionial realism was not there, the movie would be a
loud, empty failure.
"A.I." has neither - it doesn't have the strength of a fairy-tale, nor does it have
the power of science-fiction. It is neither, and nothing.
> Tell me, at the end of Ghost World, does the old man really get on a
> bus? Or is Enid imagining it for the allegorical sake of the
> audience? To that question, I answer: does it matter? The point is
> made, either way. Wondering whether it's real or not is beside the
> point, just as I think the questions you present about the realism of
> A.I. are beside the point. We could argue about whether the bus is
> real (and I know that some people do), but I don't think it helps us
> understand the movie any better.
In "Ghost World", the film-makers give you enough information to allow you to come
into your own judgement about the fate of the characters. Again, "Ghost World"
meticulously build up a tangible sense of time and place - in fact, it's certainly
one of the best films about being young in a suburban wasteland I've ever seen.
There's a palatable sense that this is a real place, and that these are real
characters. The point isn't what happens to Enid or the old man at the end (I have my
own opinion, which may differ from yours): the point is that I *care* what happens to
her. It's the difference between having an open mind, and an empty one.
> I guess it's a matter of seeing the forest for the trees. Movies
> aren't made to be picked apart piece by piece - either they work as a
> whole, or they don't.
All art is subject to criticism. Perhaps it's better to say: Certain movies can
either withstand criticism, or they can't.
> >"A.I." does not cohere for me in the same way - it moves like a series of
> >barely-connected episodes. The world never seems real to me, therefore I can
invest
> >very little emotions in what happens there.
>
> Fair enough; it worked for me. And there we have it. :)
Indeed.
Kevin "I Hope 'Minority Report' Is Better" Cogliano
JoeS
> In article <3CA52641...@gte.net>, me....@gte.net says...
> > Brad Snowder wrote:
> >
> > > > I'll paraphrase George Carlin here:
> > > >
> > > > "Think about how dumb the average person is, then remember that half of
> > > > everybody is dumber than that!"
> > > >
> > > > End of Carlin Quote.
> > >
> > > I've been thinking of how many people won't even understand that quote.
> >
> > I've been thinking of how few realize the difference between average and
> > median.
> >
> >
> > Joe
> >
> >
>
> I understand it (I have to use it all the time in my work) but the joke
> is only funny if you use "average"
Exactly. The funny part is *why* you have to use "average" when speaking to those
who would make fun of those who are not "smarter than the 'average'" person.
Now, to me, *that* is funny.
Joe
JoeS
> At the very moment that I should have been the most involved with David's character, I
> simply
> stopped caring. In other words, the movie had the exact opposite effect on me from
> what was intended.
And yet, many others had the opposite response that you did.
A film cannot be all things to all people, and I believe respect is due a film that can
affect others even if it cannot affect you.
If you cannot allow this, then you are in the erroneous zone of believing that your
sensibilities are better, not just different.
Joe
madkevin
"JoeS" <me....@gte.net> wrote in message news:3CA5F7FB...@gte.net...
> madkevin wrote:
>
> > At the very moment that I should have been the most involved with David's
character, I
> > simply
> > stopped caring. In other words, the movie had the exact opposite effect on me
from
> > what was intended.
>
> And yet, many others had the opposite response that you did.
Did they have that response in spite of the movie's problems, or because of it?
> A film cannot be all things to all people, and I believe respect is due a film that
can
> affect others even if it cannot affect you.
True, but then I'd have nothing to talk about. If you just wave a magic wand and say
that no film can be discussed because somebody somewhere may have enjoyed it, well
then there's no basis for a critical conversation, is there?
I accept that some people liked the movie. Most people like most movies - that's why
there's a movie industry. Does that mean all films are good? Because my opinion
differs from the perceived norm (which, in the case of "A.I.", I don't believe does -
certainly the audience I saw it with thought it was trash as well), does that make it
invalid? Of course not. If I can defend a critical position, then it is valid. The
fact that people like bad movies is neither surprising, nor particularily within my
sphere of control.
Just for the record, I like a vast amount of bad movies. I've seen "Death Race 2000"
more often than "The Seventh Seal".
> If you cannot allow this, then you are in the erroneous zone of believing that your
> sensibilities are better, not just different.
There is such a thing as an informed opinion. One of the great lies of democracy is
that everybody's opinion about everything is equally valid - a statement that is
clearly hogwash.
I wouldn't listen to, for example, Scorsese's view on the World Trade Organization,
because he doesn't strike me as a particularily political astute observer. If
Scorsese was talking about gangster films, well then I'd perk my ears right up.
None of which is to say that, in this specific case, I am right about "A.I." and
everybody else who likes it is just a big dumb stupid-head. I'm just pointing out the
fact that some sensibilities are, in fact, better and not just different.
Kevin "Elitism: It's Not Just For Rich People Anymore" Cogliano
blu...@megsinet.cutcaps.net
>
> I accept that some people liked the movie. Most people
> like most movies - that's why there's a movie industry.
> Does that mean all films are good? Because my opinion
> differs from the perceived norm (which, in the case of
> "A.I.", I don't believe does - certainly the audience I saw
> it with thought it was trash as well), does that make it
> invalid? Of course not. If I can defend a critical position,
> then it is valid. The fact that people like bad movies is
> neither surprising, nor particularily within my sphere
> of control.
>
Kevin,
I was dumbfounded by the dumb ending of "A.I" too. I'm curious,
however, at what point did the movie go horribly wrong for you? I was
surprised, after noting so much weeping and rending of garments about
this flick, that I actually was intrigued by the first hour or so. All
the intelligently-handled issues raised by a humanized robot in a family
setting worked for me. At the point where "mommy" dumps Osment,
however, the intrigue is on the way out and the film never recovers.
Jay
3/30/02
http://members.core.com/~bluejay/
blu...@megsinet.cutcaps.net
> mko...@earthlink.net says...
> > Tell me, at the end of Ghost World, does the old man
> > really get on a bus? Or is Enid imagining it for the
> > allegorical sake of the audience? To that question,
> >I answer: does it matter? The point is made, either
> > way. Wondering whether it's real or not is beside the
> > point, just as I think the questions you present about
> > the realism of A.I. are beside the point. We could
> > argue about whether the bus is real (and I know that
> > some people do), but I don't think it helps us
> > understand the movie any better.
> >
>
> I would truly love to have a conversation with the writer
> of Ghost World.
>
> I know what I thought the bus represented, and it makes
> the story truly dark indeed!
>
> I wont go (In public) any farther than to say I dont see it
> representing Enid achieving her dream of going to some
> "Random Place"
Larry,
I assume you see the "magic bus" as a metaphor for Enid committing
suicide. Do I win the million dollars?
The writers of "Ghost World" (Dan Clowes and Terry Zwigoff) left
the ending ambiguous, I suspect, so that people could rationalize
several possible fates for Enid-- including going hardcore dark with
suicide. Perhaps I liked Enid too much to see her snuffed out so
pointlessly, but I don't consider the bus to be the Kervorkian Express.
After all, Enid tells Seymour plainly that her ultimate fantasy is to
simply leave town, telling no one before or after where she went. To
become such a disappearing woman, sort of a modern-day Amelia Earhart,
would be an appropriate exit for her from her hopelessly changed
hometown (something to keep them talking). She has learned from Seymour
that it is possible to live your entire life outside of the mainstream.
That is what she will pursue away from her quickly assimilating friend,
her hopelessly unpalatable homelife with dad and the hated Maxine, and
all that is becoming Starbucks in her once happy town.
The old man, who speaks much more like a prophet the second time
you watch "Ghost World", is to me an otherworldly presence there to
guide Enid away from her ghostly, virtually invisible existence in this
town she once called home. I see him, the bus, and Enid's final
departure as literally happening in the story no more than a Greek
chorus really exists in the world of a ancient play. Yes, she really
leaves town as I see it, but not really on a ghost of a bus.
Enid lives, dammit!
Jay
3/30/02
http://members.core.com/~bluejay/
Bill Vermillion
Richard ©ç® ²ºº² <post-xxage@spamcop dot net> wrote:
>
>"Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:1o7aaukce9a2807q0...@4ax.com...
>: On Fri, 29 Mar 2002 18:36:36 GMT, "Brad Snowder"
>: <sky...@NOSPAM.cc.wwu.edu> wrote:
>:
>: >> I'll paraphrase George Carlin here:
>: >>
>: >> "Think about how dumb the average person is, then remember that half of
>: >> everybody is dumber than that!"
>: >>
>: >> End of Carlin Quote.
>: >I've been thinking of how many people won't even understand that quote.
>: rofl...
>==================
>That is because 50% of the people in this country are below average.
>The gummint needs to work on that....................
And your proposals are what?
To make new rules on the way averages are computed :-)
buck
blu...@megsinet.CUTCAPS.net says...
> The writers of "Ghost World" (Dan Clowes and Terry Zwigoff) left
> the ending ambiguous, I suspect, so that people could rationalize
> several possible fates for Enid-- including going hardcore dark with
> suicide. Perhaps I liked Enid too much to see her snuffed out so
> pointlessly, but I don't consider the bus to be the Kervorkian Express.
> After all, Enid tells Seymour plainly that her ultimate fantasy is to
> simply leave town, telling no one before or after where she went. To
> become such a disappearing woman, sort of a modern-day Amelia Earhart,
> would be an appropriate exit for her from her hopelessly changed
> hometown (something to keep them talking). She has learned from Seymour
> that it is possible to live your entire life outside of the mainstream.
> That is what she will pursue away from her quickly assimilating friend,
> her hopelessly unpalatable homelife with dad and the hated Maxine, and
> all that is becoming Starbucks in her once happy town.
> The old man, who speaks much more like a prophet the second time
> you watch "Ghost World", is to me an otherworldly presence there to
> guide Enid away from her ghostly, virtually invisible existence in this
> town she once called home. I see him, the bus, and Enid's final
> departure as literally happening in the story no more than a Greek
> chorus really exists in the world of a ancient play. Yes, she really
> leaves town as I see it, but not really on a ghost of a bus.
> Enid lives, dammit!
>
>
Damn it, I hope so.
Peter Briggs
> There is someone out there that doesn't like "Barry Lyndon"?????
Well, I don't like "Barry Lyndon"...
(Sorry!)
Richard ©ç® ²ºº²
"Bill Vermillion" <b...@wjv.comREMOVE> wrote in message news:GttLA...@wjv.com...
: In article <3ca5e...@news.foxinternet.com>,
: Richard ©ç® ²ºº² <post-xxage@spamcop dot net> wrote:
: >That is because 50% of the people in this country are below average.
:
: >The gummint needs to work on that....................
:
: And your proposals are what?
:
: To make new rules on the way averages are computed :-)
:
===========================
I guess I should have used the following tags
<sense of humor>
: >That is because 50% of the people in this country are below average.
:
: >The gummint needs to work on that....................
</sense of humor>
madkevin
<blu...@megsinet.CUTCAPS.net> wrote in message
news:3ca6741d$0$35579$ac96...@news.raex.com...
> "madkevin" <madk...@golden.net> wrote
> Kevin,
> I was dumbfounded by the dumb ending of "A.I" too. I'm curious,
> however, at what point did the movie go horribly wrong for you? I was
> surprised, after noting so much weeping and rending of garments about
> this flick, that I actually was intrigued by the first hour or so. All
> the intelligently-handled issues raised by a humanized robot in a family
> setting worked for me. At the point where "mommy" dumps Osment,
> however, the intrigue is on the way out and the film never recovers.
The first hour is definitely the best. Even the bit in the forest where Monica dumps
David, while being inconsistent with what we know of Monica's character up until that
point, is still powerful due to Osment's really astonishing acting in the scene.
(Reminded me a bit of Turturro begging for his worthless life in "Miller's
Crossing".)
The movie goes off the rails immediately afterward, starting with the Flesh Fair and
degenerating scene by scene after that. Even more irritating is the constant niggling
idea that there's a good movie struggling to get out of even these bits. I thought at
the time that I saw it that, really, what I wanted to be watching was whatever movie
Jude Law thought he was in, because that one seemed much more interesting.
But even then, if the movie had ended with David submerged in front of the Blue
Fairy, I probably wouldn't have hated it quite so much. The twenty minutes after that
pushed the movie from being a notable failure into full-on lemon territory.
I can only imagine that Spielberg, in separating the movie into these three distinct
sections, thought he was being clever in aping the structure of Kubrick's "2001" and,
to a lesser extent, "Full Metal Jacket". (There are many references, visual and
otherwise, to Kubrick's films in "A.I.", which unfortunately only serve to remind me
that I could be watching a much better movie.) It doesn't work, for any of the
reasons I've talked about ad nauseum in the course of these posts.
Kevin "Done Now" Cogliano
The Dweeb
sensitive!
"IceBlast" <ice....@verizon.netDELETETHIS> wrote in message
news:5B3p8.471$AE1...@nwrddc03.gnilink.net...
> If you didn't like it that much, why is it your pick-of-the-month?
>
>
> IceBlast
>
>
buck
madk...@golden.net says...
> The first hour is definitely the best. Even the bit in the forest where Monica dumps
> David, while being inconsistent with what we know of Monica's character up until that
> point, is still powerful due to Osment's really astonishing acting in the scene.
> (Reminded me a bit of Turturro begging for his worthless life in "Miller's
> Crossing".)
>
> The movie goes off the rails immediately afterward, starting with the Flesh Fair and
> degenerating scene by scene after that. Even more irritating is the constant niggling
> idea that there's a good movie struggling to get out of even these bits. I thought at
> the time that I saw it that, really, what I wanted to be watching was whatever movie
> Jude Law thought he was in, because that one seemed much more interesting.
>
> But even then, if the movie had ended with David submerged in front of the Blue
> Fairy, I probably wouldn't have hated it quite so much. The twenty minutes after that
> pushed the movie from being a notable failure into full-on lemon territory.
>
> I can only imagine that Spielberg, in separating the movie into these three distinct
> sections, thought he was being clever in aping the structure of Kubrick's "2001" and,
> to a lesser extent, "Full Metal Jacket". (There are many references, visual and
> otherwise, to Kubrick's films in "A.I.", which unfortunately only serve to remind me
> that I could be watching a much better movie.) It doesn't work, for any of the
> reasons I've talked about ad nauseum in the course of these posts.
>
> Kevin "Done Now" Cogliano
>
>
Well, I'm on record as having said "I love this movie", but that was
back when it first opened.
Since that time, I have read many postings by people whom I have learned
to respect, so I have re watched the movie several times to see if my
opinion is still the same.
It is.
Sorry to disagree to such a degree, but I still love this movie, with
all its flaws I still think its terrific.
--
Larry"who hates to disagree with people he respects"Lynch
Mystic, Ct
<but I still do it>
madkevin
"buck" <nearly_nor...@worldnet.att.dotnet> wrote in message
news:MPG.17119baa8...@netnews.worldnet.att.net...
> Larry"who hates to disagree with people he respects"Lynch
> Mystic, Ct
> <but I still do it>
Nothing wrong with that, Larry. Deep in my heart, I believe "Pink Flamingos" is
better than any Best Picture Oscar winner in history.
Kevin "Lust In The Dust" Cogliano
blue bus
madkevin <madk...@golden.net> wrote:
> I can accept a certain amount of illogic in my movies - hell, I pretty much have to -
> but "A.I." just seems arbitrary. The ending was so outrageously ridiculous that it
> clouded what was actually happening on screen, and the movie lost me. At the very
> moment that I should have been the most involved with David's character, I simply
> stopped caring. In other words, the movie had the exact opposite effect on me from
> what was intended.
I have to admit, when I saw it in the cinema I thought the ending
intentionally ridiculous, that the 'soul in space-time' was a
self-conciously cosy plot device, and the warm storybook voice-over was
deeply sarcastic. My impression was the ending broke down all the
fantasy/reality questions of the film to absurdity, playing on an
ridiculous idea of science providing fulfilment, ressurection or heaven in
the place of religion, that people's desires can never be realised.
Obviously I have to see this again.
There is no argument here really though, I'm just voicing confusion.
Mike Kohary
wrote:
>if you go to the site, i did not pick this one, but damn you people are
>sensitive!
Yeah, we're real bastards for asking that you don't waste our time
soliciting poorly-researched "reviews". That's our fault, right?
Mike
Chris
Chris (with a dumbfounded look on my face) Lynch
"Mike Kohary" <mko...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3uniauskh3o32p1v2...@4ax.com...