Janszoon

I'd actually consider it a very under-hyped movie since it got such mixed reviews and only has a 6.9/10 at IMDb.

I thought it was good but not great. One thing that always impressed me about with was that one of the characters was a talking teddy bear and they somehow managed to avoid making him overly cutesy and annoying. That was some kind of miracle all by itself.

__________________
A Night in the Life of the Invisible Man

Time & Place

25 Albums You Should Hear Before the Moon Crashes into the Earth and We All Die

last.fm

FireInCairo

A.I is awful. Spielberg wasn't up to it, it needed a Kubrick.

Finally got around to seeing There will be blood. Bloody good. Damn a pun.

__________________
O G MUDBONE: Only You can prevent forest fires.

boo boo

No.

You don't have a right to this opinion, it's not an awful film, that's a fact, weither or not it is a good film is subjective opinion, you can call it a mediocre film, but awful? Absolutely not.

Movies take a lot of care to make, even the guys who make awful horror movies on a shoestring budget deserve applause just for getting the damn things made, this film took a lot of care, a long f*cking time to make and it had high ambitions and it at least has a mixed response from moviegoers. This is not a badly made film, this is not an inept film and it's not an offensive or insulting film. You CAN'T call this awful, that's drawing the line.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

FireInCairo

God you're an argumentative one.
I think it's a pile of trash.
I respect that it is hard work to make a film.
I have myself, written and directed an incredibly low budget film, so I get it.
This is a mainstream, high-budget film, by an acclaimed director, and it does not deliver on it's premise. I found it cheesy, contrived and it felt like I was watching it for 4 hours rather than 146 minutes. Additionally, Haley Joel Osment is probably the most overrated child actor of all time.
Hence, this film, to me, is awful.

__________________
O G MUDBONE: Only You can prevent forest fires.

boo boo

Those are all idiotic reasons.

I could come up with better criticisms of the movie even though I loved it, the mix of Kubrick and Spielberg makes this film kinda at odds with itself, it goes back and forth between being a sentimental movie and a cold and bleak one. Now you see? That's criticism.

"It sucks because it sucks" is something I'm just not going to accept.

"Awful" is a horribly overused word. The worst you should possibly think of this movie is as a failed experiment, but even as a failed experiment it should be admired and appreciated for the incredible amount of talent and ambition that went into it, that's not awful. Don't lump this in the same category as films that truly are awful, that's insulting.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

FireInCairo

So you think I should respect and admire a film I did not at all enjoy?

__________________
O G MUDBONE: Only You can prevent forest fires.

boo boo

Of course you can respect and admire a film you don't enjoy. There's some movies that certainly fit that category for me.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Molecules

Despite BooBoo's usual politeness I'd have to agree, it's a terrible film (especially when you imagine what Kubrick would have done with it) but you can't help admiring the production design. They certainly spent money in all the right places but that doesn't stop it from being mawkish drivel!

I was personally a huge fan of the animatronic teddy-droid that follows whatshisface around everywhere. And Jude Law wasn't bad either, the film was just rather clumsy derivative sci-fi. Spielberg getting a bit carried away. You know Stanley would have reined it in and used those wide-angle lenses to give you a feast (I don't know how he got that look for his films so please do correct me)...

edit: all an opinion ofcourse, don't want to offend any AI aficionados

__________________

[SIZE="1"]Eff em
tumble her

boo boo

I thought the movie worked great with the main theme, even if theres some loose ends around the core. The theme is love, and it raises the question of weither or not being programmed to love is really love, and it's also about wanting to win the affection of someone who dosen't love you back, about as universial of a theme as you can get, it's a simple story and the narrative is kept simple as it never complicates things with science mumbo jumbo and techno babble. It's meant to be a surreal and disorienting experience, as it obviously would be from David's point of view, and of course to recreate the feel of a Kubrick film, which I think Spielberg did beautifully even if he defies Kubrick at the same time, which I also like because he pays homage to a great filmmaker, he alludes to his style, but he dosen't directly imitate him either. It's one of the things I like most about this movie, I actually like the blend of the two styles. The film kinda plods in the middle, but I don't think it was ever boring. And I actually loved the ending, a common misconception is that those are supposed to be aliens but I'm pretty sure they're just evolved robots.

I don't see how it's clumsy or derivative, usually a sci-fi story is never so simple and universial in it's theme, and I think the mix of fantasy and sci fi archtypes is actually pretty original, it should be judged as more like a fairy tale in a sci fi setting than a sci fi film. I wouldn't call it a film that goes for easy solutions and I don't think it stumps down to many sci fi cliches. In a blizzard of horrible cliche sci-fi movies, I think it's just plain wrong to put this movie in the same category. This was not just Spielbergs attempt at a crowd pleaser, far from it.

It deserves an A for ambition, and there's too much to admire and appreciate for it to be an "awful" film, there's nothing appalling about it, I don't think it's stupid, so I don't get all the hate for this movie except for it's tone and narrative, which is kinda split between Kubrick and Spielberg, but that dosen't prevent me from loving this film so I don't see how it could possibly make it an awful film.

__________________
It's only knock n' knowall, but I like it

http://www.last.fm/user/kingboobs

Molecules

I'm with you, your analysis (from what I remember of the film) is spot on; however I personally didn't detect a sniff of the Kubrick's style in it. Unless possibly in the absence of huge amounts of dialogue, Kubrick's cinematography and atmosphere was always awe-inspiring and the scripts (post-60's) all seemed quite minimal yet every scene of his best the actors conveyed everything you needed to know. A good example of this would be the under-appreciated Barry Lyndon (love that one ).

It's different strokes I guess, my 'mawkish' complaint still stands, there are enough Hollywood films about 'universal themes' out there for me to be quite bored of them. That's always been my main beef with Spielberg to be honest; whilst I appreciate that he is/was a top-flight director and innovator (with the blockbuster, for better or worse) it all just gets a bit too sappy sometimes. That all owes to growing up in the blockbuster era though, doesn't it? I'm sure if A.I. had been pulled off by him in the 70's or early 80's it might be hailed as a classic.

But yeah I'm not fond of it but could never dismiss it offhand as an 'awful' do-not-see-under-pain-of-death film.

edit. what the f*ck am I on about Barry Lyndon had loads of talking in it... Ignore me!

__________________

[SIZE="1"]Eff em
tumble her