Jump to content

A.I. Artificial Intelligence VS. Minority Report


Josh500

A.I. Artificial Intelligence VS. Minority Report   

46 members have voted

  1. 1. Which score do you prefer?

    • A.I. Artificial Intelligence
      41
    • Minority Report
      5
  2. 2. Which movie do you prefer?

    • A.I. Artificial Intelligence
      21
    • Minority Report
      25


Recommended Posts

Though both films lack a true intellect at the helm (both cerebral, Spielberg is more visceral in approach and execution) the scores are great, 'AI' moreso, but with the ever-growing disappointment in JW's recent output and its outright denial that he once was a flexible and interesting composer i give them both my vote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Minority Report is the much more confident film between the two.

 

57 minutes ago, Thor said:

Quite the contrary, over the last decade or so it's been embraced as the misunderstood masterpiece that it is. Most of the 'cineastes' I hang with -- even the Spielberg critics -- seem to like it now. And it's been the object of many an analysis in both academia and elsewhere. That's my experience, anyway.

 

For what it's worth, I did revisit the movie a couple of years ago and I felt the same exact way.  There are just so many glaring flaws that I perceive that I actually find it a pretty fascinating study of how so many people think it's a masterpiece. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, nightscape94 said:

Minority Report is the much more confident film between the two.

 

 

For what it's worth, I did revisit the movie a couple of years ago and I felt the same exact way.  There are just so many glaring flaws that I perceive that I actually find it a pretty fascinating study of how many people think it's a masterpiece. 

 

Well, we obviously disagree strongly on that one, so let's instead celebrate that we both think MINORITY REPORT is a great film. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both A.I and Minority report have weak characters, which is strange because it's something Spielberg used to do very well. Tom Cruise never becomes an Elliot or an Indiana Jones or a Brody, a Matt Hooper, a Quint, a Roy Neary, an Oscar Schindler ... And Haley Joel Osment's performance as a puppet is no match for Carlo Rambaldi's puppet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William Hurt in A.I. could have been iconic but he wasn't ... The list goes on and on ... You could argue that A.I. and Minority Report are movie movies and not character movies but if you don't believe in the characters then it will hurt the movie. You don't have to like them, you have to believe in them. Jude Law as Joe Gigolo in A.I. rocks the boat in the first scene he appears in. Then he becomes uninteresting ballast. Tom Cruise watching his hologram movies about his wife ... did not believe in him or that scene. You can watch Minority Report on a story level but that's it.

 

 

Alex

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Alex here in regards to characterisation in later Spielberg movies. There's a clear distinction between pre and post Schindlers List, yet again. Damn that movie! 

 

Then again, Tom Hank's was memorable in CMIYC, and isn't Lincoln supposed to be really great in particular in that regard? What others have there been?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nothing much. 'Lincoln' is a dusty cabinet full of strutting actors that certainly isn't bad but not especially arousing, either (as a movie, not as showcase for DDL). 

 

I liked Hounsou in 'Amistad' (probably because he didn't talk much) and CMYIC is a nice, well-rounded movie that just works. The rest has been (as identified here numerous times), great, sometimes brilliant single sequences in desperate search of a better script or overall vision. I stand by my reading that Spielberg has gotten so rich/important and, contingent upon, secluded from real life that he more often than not seems to guess his next move.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Alexcremers said:

William Hurt in A.I. could have been iconic but he wasn't ... The list goes on and on ... You could argue that A.I. and Minority Report are movie movies and not character movies but if you don't believe in the characters then it will hurt the movie.

 

Hehehe...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, publicist said:

and CMYIC is a nice, well-rounded movie that just works ...

 

Now that you mention it, I did believe Leo in CMIYC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Jay said:

AI for score

 

MR for film

Ditto!

 

I do admire A.I. for the lot of things. But it just ultimately is a mess. I think Spielberg's more "literal" approach doesn't mesh well with the allegorical themes of the story. But there are some images in this film that stay with you so I'm giving it some credit.

 

Minority Report is a better film simply because it mostly achieves what it sets out to do. Which isn't necessarily a lot but it holds together for the most part, even after 15 years.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, publicist said:

Which was a terribly maudlin movie with great cinematography.

 

And a bit misunderstood. Spielberg was going for a definite Frank Capra melodrama vibe with this one, and succeeded, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Stefancos said:

Tom Hanks was very convincing as an Eastern European in The Terminal.

 

It's a good movie when you're feeling ill.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never really bought the idea of Viktor and Amelia together, but it's a relatively innocent and humorous movie that is certainly watchable with good performances.  Williams wrote a hell of a love theme for it too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Thor said:

 

And a bit misunderstood. Spielberg was going for a definite Frank Capra melodrama vibe with this one, and succeeded, IMO.

 

I don't think it has Capra's amazing touch for side-characters.  In a Capra film, the side characters' stories are often more memorable than the main ones.  I think of Mr. Gower the druggist in It's a Wonderful Life or Mr. Poppins in You Can't Take it With You.  I still cringe when I think about the godawful sidestory of Diego Luna and Zoe Saldana in The Terminal which was just creepy and not sweet at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gupta was a nice little character with a good story.  But I do agree that on the whole the supporting players, nice and lovable as they may be, aren't terrifically interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No!

 

Frank Capra is known for architecting the feelgood movie, and for his childlike, naive view on the world, so Thor has a point.

 

17 hours ago, nightscape94 said:

Never really bought the idea of Viktor and Amelia together ...

 

Spielberg is known for making sexless movies so nightscape94 has a point too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course he has a point. That's the problem. Spielberg trying to revive the golden days of yore that were fake and corny even back then but nowadays just are embarrassing. He's too rich and too removed from real life, i say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Terminal was certainly a misfire for Spielberg, but I think in other films he's shown a real maturity, politically, while still keeping that "Capra-esque" idealism at the core.  With Lincoln and Bridge of Spies, both among my favorites he's ever made, he has a real fascination with idealistic pragmatists.  Those people with lofty goals that use knowledge of human nature to actually achieve political goals.  I find those kinds of stories fascinating too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur, only that i find it much less endearing. If done right (especially in the story department) it would lend those movies a commendable quality but it, imho, comes off as overly convenient and too afraid of taking any risk (you can still mould Oscar brownie points out of stuff like that). It works OK in 'Lincoln', all the other stuff i find just dreadful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I love about A.I. is how, intentionally or not, it feels like great sci-fi concept art, like that by Syd Mead and his ilk, brought to life in cinematic form.  That artwork usually presents something, a futuristic vehicle, a futuristic house, whatever, as the primary material, since it is concept art after all, but there is always this great world-building that surrounds the focal point which draws your imagination in.  And similarly, in this film, something totally innocuous, like distant city lights through a rainy dining room window, completely captures that sense of "vague futurism" where all of these little background elements make you wonder about the rest of the world that you only see a tiny part of.  Does anyone at all get what I mean?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, publicist said:

He's too rich and too removed from real life, i say.

 

spielberg_boat_for_sale_0.jpg

 

Yep, he's selling his yacht (or his detachment from the real world) because he needs a bigger boat. He really needs it. It's important to him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Disco Stu said:

The Terminal was certainly a misfire for Spielberg, but I think in other films he's shown a real maturity, politically, while still keeping that "Capra-esque" idealism at the core.  With Lincoln and Bridge of Spies, both among my favorites he's ever made, he has a real fascination with idealistic pragmatists.  Those people with lofty goals that use knowledge of human nature to actually achieve political goals.  I find those kinds of stories fascinating too.

 

The end of BRIDGE OF SPIES, when Hanks returns to his family and then eventually falls asleep on his bed, is also an extremely Capra-esque moment.

 

Of course, Capra and many of the other Hollywood old-timers have always been a source of inspiration for Spielberg, and I love it when he appropriates or nods to these artists through his own lens. Like Victor Fleming at the end of WAR HORSE etc etc.

 

THE TERMINAL was one of these 'ode' films that I think worked very well. The whole film, really, but with individual moments where it really stood out. Like the restaurant scenes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, publicist said:

I concur, only that i find it much less endearing. If done right (especially in the story department) it would lend those movies a commendable quality but it, imho, comes off as overly convenient and too afraid of taking any risk (you can still mould Oscar brownie points out of stuff like that). It works OK in 'Lincoln', all the other stuff i find just dreadful.

 

IMHO? 😂 

 

Your opinions are never humble. 95% of the time you're criticizing, and mostly it's just arrogant bs. You probably should stop watching Spielberg movies, or ANY movie for that matter. Maybe movies are not your thing... Just a suggestion.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, filmmusic said:

Judging from the votes in film, I think we do not have enough sensitive guys here..:lol:

 

It's not a question of which movie is more sensitive, but which do you like better!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.