http://www.sfsoc.com/images/movies/minorityreport.jpg
****n loved it

Minority Report was really underrated, I saw that in the cinema! Apparently they consulted loads of 'scientists' and had a bit of a committee to iron out what would make the most accurate representation of the near-ish future. Need to watch it again..

And ofcourse you have Colin Farrell in an early role... amd the evil poison plants that try to kill Tom.

I saw it in school today, in my criminal justice class. But yeh it does accurately depict the near future I would think, I mean they aren’t shooting lasers or going into space. I also love that they’re is almost no color in the film, just blue black and white. I don’t think rainbows exist in the future, for some reason.

global warming ofcourse, they thought of everything! The cinematography is great aswell, the dulled shades you mentioned, lot's of daylight. Certainly one of Spielberg's best sci-fi's. Don't know what he's playing at these days

For the most insanely popular movie director of all time, I actually find that a lot of Spielbergs films are treated unfairly.

Color Purple, AI, Minority Report and Catch Me If You Can are a lot better than people give them credit for. Hell, I even liked Hook, yep, guilty as charged.

The opening beach scenes in 'Saving Private Ryan' are some of the most visceral scenes ever put to film and I still cannot bring myself to rewatch Schindler's List, it was that powerful. Latest Indiana Jones was terrible though.

AI was good film until the end, the aliens bit completely ruined it for me.
I must say though, some of the scenes really get to me.. heartbreaking to say the least.

Loved this movie. The end always brings tears to my eyes. It's on my top 10.

Hook is awesome :D

Robin Wililams does a good job and Dustin Hoffman as Cpt. James Hook is amazing. Bob Hoskins is also good .. the only one I thought was not so good was Julia Robert as Tinkerbell.

In my opinion the movie is thoroughly entertaining and me and a friend loved it when we were younger.

You might like the ending better if you realize they weren't aliens but rather robots that were descendants of robots built by humans.

I liked Catch Me If You Can a lot. Hated AI and Saving Private Ryan though. I think Spielberg's at the top of his game when he's doing stuff like Jaws and Raiders of the Lost Ark. When he's good, he takes that style of film to a whole other level that few directors can match. But I don't think he handles dramatic films very well. AI was too sterile, and Spielberg is no Kubrick, sorry. A weirder director would have done a better job with it. I couldn't get into Saving Private Ryan because I couldn't stand how it was deliberately attempting to tug on the viewer's heartstrings. It bugs me when films do that. Dunno how to explain it, but it's cliche and it annoys the heck out of me.

I like Kubrick but I'd say he's much more sterile than Spielberg.

Depends on how you look at it I guess. From a technical standpoint, Kubrick's style is definitely very cold and precise, but he uses it to create some really emotionally charged atmospheres. I wouldn't say they're realistic, but he can capture a lot of emotions and ideas on an almost entirely visual basis. I think that really enhances the performances in a lot of his films because the characters feel a lot more like creatures of their environment.

In the case of AI I thought Haley Joe Osmont was pretty darn good in the role but Spielberg's direction was pretty boring so the whole thing felt cold in an uncompelling way, as opposed to cold in a more thought provoking way like Kubrick had been able to do in most of his films.

you hated saving private ryan?





???

To be fair on it, it does take a lot for me to like a war film. Apocalypse Now and The Dirty Dozen are the only ones I can think of that I really enjoyed.

C'mon man, if that last scene didn't get to ya you have a heart of stone.

AI made me bawww.

Sorry but AI was just a combination of both Kubrick's and Spielberg's ejaculations. A very over-hyped movie that deserves to be forgotten.

Still bawwed. I saw it when I was like nine.

I'm going to see Friday the 13th tonight... my expectations could not be lower

WHYYYYYYY

Why are my expectations low or why am i going to see it? lol - I'm going to see it because I love horror movies. My expectations are low given the propensity for horror movie remakes to suck bawls.

I like horror movies but I never liked the Friday the 13th movies, I thought the first one was lame and cheap and not scary, a low budget is no excuse, Evil Dead was scary as f*ck and it cost like what? Nothing?

Blah. It's flawed but I thought it was excellent.

It is kind of an odd mix of Kubrick and Spielberg.

the latter >:

It's a project with huge flaws. However there is much to admire in the film. At the very least Fangorns early production design which can be seen in many points in the film.

So, I haven't seen Mullholland Drive for some reason. Will probably tomorrow.

It's certainly Spielbergs most ambitious, he was trying to make a Kubrick film rather than a Spielberg one, but some of Spielbergs traits managed to sneak in, Kubrick wouldn't have made it as much of a tearjerker. But I like the combination, and Kubricks presense is greatly felt throughout this movie to an extent that I like to think of him as the spiritual director of this movie.

It's overrated but good.

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.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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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 :D).

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!

I thought the cinematography in AI is excellent, the use of lighting is brilliant. Everything else, the visual effects, the John Williams music and the acting is top notch. But I wouldn't call it a great film if I thought that's all it had going for it.

It dosen't really look or sound like a Kubrick film, but it has moments of coldness, bleakness and just plain weirdness that has Kubrick written all over it.

Btw, the teddy bear sounds like HAL from 2001, and of course he's talking to a character named David, ha, I wonder if I'm the only one who noticed that.

this is what my idiot brain could not articulate, cheers. Speely manages to recreate some of that at least. It's a good looking film by any standard ofcourse, a bit gaudy though, Kubrick always made the frame seem like a realistic but vitally-charged snapshot of some event he had no control of... And I don't mean in a documentary way. Except the final act of Full Metal Jacket, that was just f*cked.

While we're on cinematography, on the other end of the scale you have sensationalist arseholes like Joel Schumacher, it was because of him the Batman franchise was considered for rebooting... I saw 'Batman & Robin' recently and I was watching aghast; but it was so bad he must have done it on purpose. Surely he was trying to recapture the high camp of the early comics/60's TV show?
Just putting it out there.

Oh and re the HAL bear, I never noticed that, might whip out the DVD for lack of anything else to do today...

http://i295.photobucket.com/albums/m...Schumacher.jpg
Good. God.

I would hate Joel Schumacher with all my heart for doing that to Batman, but I think if he hadn't, Christopher Nolan wouldn't have been able to do so much with the franchise.