MR or AI? Choose the best film

[Rogue_Leader 2]

I'm curious if folks here who hate the ending to AI blame Spielberg for it, and I'm also curious if those same folks KNOW that Kubrick himself actually came up with that ending and Spielberg was just staying true to Stan's vision?

I don't really understand why people hate the ending so much. I believe that people wanted the end to be David staring at the Blue Fairy in the ocean and hate that he actually got what he wanted, albeit in a far out kind of way. I don't really get this. What's wrong with a nice ending?

How is an ending where mankind has been wiped off the planet in a friggin ice age a "nice ending"?

[Morn 8]

It is widely misunderstood by the public, those who aren't particularly informed about filmmaking and the people that work in it, that Kubrick made part of the film, the first part. In fact, the entire film was directed by Spielberg, based on a concept of Kubricks, and sketches for certain scenes.

Err, didn't he also write a ruff draft? Or start a draft.

Some die-hard Kubrick fans spout that A.I. would have been a 'much darker film had Kubrick completed it' etc. Just ignorant poppycock. Kubrick was most insistent that Spielberg direct it all along. The DVD extras go into great detail about how A.I. came into being.

It would have been slightly more dark in that David was supposd to watch Monica die instead of..... sleep with her.

How is an ending where mankind has been wiped off the planet in a friggin ice age a "nice ending"?

So that's why you didn't like it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

I personally think it is a terrible film, and yet it had all the tools to succeed which in my book makes it even more of a failure.

Let me ask you this, if you had the opportunity to meet Spielberg would you be willing to say to him, I think your film A.I. was a huge failure? How do you think he would react? Would he be inclined to say, yes well I spent years secretly working on the film with Kubrick, and got some of the best people in the film industry working on it, but in hindsight it was all a waste of time, I didn't see the error of my ways..Even though I managed to direct a classic film like Schindler's List, when I was making A.I. all my accumulated skills and judgment temporarily went out the window, and I just made a 140 minute bad, bad movie. Does this scenario sound at all likely? Or do you think he might be inclined to try to understand, time willing, why you disliked/misinterpreted the film?

I would most certainly tell him that, but only if he broached the subject of A.I. first. I would rather talk to him about his good films, like Jaws, CE3K, Raiders, E.T., than bring up A.I. or even Schindler's List which is a great film, but not of great interest to me. If he were to ask how I like A.I., I would be upfront with him, but not in a rude manner, I would be honest but polite.

3. Acting is all over the board.  Spielberg is usually sure in getting a top notch performance out of child actors but gets a very average performance out of a very gifted HJO.  Spielberg has gotten better performances out of lesser actors, namely Henry Thomas(E.T.), Drew Barrymore(E.T.), Christian Bale(EOS), Cary Guffey(CE3K), Ke Huy Quan(TOD), Joseph Mazzello(JP), Ariana Richards(JP), Charlie Korsmo(HOOK, yes Joe is complementing HOOK), Tanya Fenmore & Laura Mooney(Twilight Zone, the Movie), Oliver Robbins & Heather O'Rourke(if anyone chooses to believe Spielberg directed this film, I don't).

I disagree.You can't get a better performance out of a lesser actor.

I guess we must agree to disagree, because you can get better performaces from lesser actors. It does happen all the time.

Only Jude Law gave a stellar performance, and Francis O'Conner gave perhaps the worst performance in a Spielberg film ever rivaled only by  Robin Williams' turn as Pan.

On the contrary, Francis gives a superb performance. She is supposed to be annoying, dizzy and selfish, that's her character. It's her function to make you dislike her, as it cranks up the emotional intensity for the horrifying abandoned in the woods scene. From the first introduction of his character, it is David who you "should" empathize with. Not seeing him as a robot is perhaps a crucial aspect to interpreting the film in the most beneficial way.

Once again we disagree, O'Conners performance was simply bad, it wasn't the character, it was the actress. You could almost imagine that Lucas might have directed her.

As far as Robin Williams is concerned, I don't know what your issue is there. In my opinion, he is one of the worlds finest actors. I get chills and tears welling up every time during certain dramatic scenes in Hook, not to mention his genius performance in Mrs Doubtfire, and his wonderful role in Good Will Hunting.

to me Williams is a very funny comedian, and a very below average actor. Time and again, he gives smarmy, sugary performances. His turn as Peter is abysmal. It makes a bad film worse.

Granted he gives good performances now and then, but I can count more bad performances than good, unless you count his turn in each episode of Mork, which fit him like a glove.

 

And by the way I have watched the film 4 times, meaning I have given the film 4 chances to change my opinion

Not if you went into it with the same attitude you had after the first time. The film itself is not likely to change your opinion while you are watching it. It's possible you may have a rather different experience of it a few years from now, depending on how your perception of many other things changes in the meantime.

I remember not liking Fight Club when I initially viewed it, the violence and seemingly pro-nihilist stance disturbed me and made me very uncomfortable and exasperated, but a few years later, after learning more about David Fincher and the author of the book on which it is based, I had a completely different perception of it and I now consider it to be quite a masterpiece. I was able to see the inner layers which previously

had alluded me, allowing the film to make sense and resonate with my psyche.

I think you and I both know that what you proposed is impossible. Once having seen it you cannot help but have perceptions, but by the simple fact that I watched it 4 times ought to tell anyone that I was giving it another chance. I don't like to watch films I don't like, however multiply viewings have only confirmed my opinion, which by the way has changed, the more I understood the film.

The fact that you now consider Fight Club a masterpiece by One Hit Wonder Fincher might explain why you and I have different opinions. I think Fight Club to be one of the worst big films of the 90's. The film is a cheat, based on novelist Palahniuk's books(most of his books reek by the way) which was slightly better. Fincher is best directing video's and leaving films alone. Norton is a potentially great actor, and Pitt has a beautiful and talented wife, and in the hands of a skilled director is a good looking actor. Fincher unfortunately isn't skilled. He was just very lucky with Se7en. I bet you like Jacob's Ladder as well.

 

I think the essence of how one responds to a film is in direct relation to how one relates to certain characters. A large part of the general audience who shunned A.I. did so because they recognized, consciously or subconsciously, themselves in the behaviour of Henry, Monica or Martin.

.

Maybe, but since A.I. had the smallest audience of a Spielberg film since Amistad, I doubt people related or didn't relate to characters that they never saw. People didn't shun the film after they saw it, they simple refuse to go see it.

[King Mark 3,631]

No matter what some others think,I think A.I. is a masterpiece,so I voted for that.

Well, I'd say it's the 'perfect' movie for those who mainly (or only) watch American blockbusters

Yes,and of these movies the ones I love the best are scored by John Williams,which also happens to be why I post here.

K.M.

[tpigeon 3]

The fact that you now consider Fight Club a masterpiece by  One Hit Wonder Fincher might explain why you and I have different opinions.  I think Fight Club to be one of the worst big films of the 90's.  The film is a cheat, based on novelist Palahniuk's books(most of his books reek by the way) which was slightly better.  Fincher is best directing video's and leaving films alone.  Norton is a potentially great actor, and Pitt has a beautiful and talented wife, and in the hands of a skilled director is a good looking actor.  Fincher unfortunately isn't skilled.  He was just very lucky with Se7en.

I agree with you completely on this, Joe. But unfortunately, Fincher is the exact kind of director that today's audiences crave, which makes me very nervous.

Ted

[Morn 8]

Well I guess you both didn't see Panic Room.

[tpigeon 3]

Actually I did. IT is yet another example of the director's motto - all style, no substance.

Ted

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Back to Robin Williams for a minute, to further support my arguments against Robin Williams, since A.I. asked what issures I have with R.W.

I forgot to mention Patch Adams. Now granted someone likes this God Awful film, but I think if I have to sit through one more supportive speach by Williams trying to further the cause of the common man, I hope to God that I get run over by a bus, or eaten by pincher worms.

[Morn 8]

Patch Adams, a film of good comedy with a nice idea, but a maliputive and overly cliched script.

Morn - Who sorta considers himself the guy who likes every film to some degree

[Uni 306]

Finally....I can answer this question. I just saw MR the other night for the first time (further ensuring my spot in this group as the one who's always a good six months behind the times), and now I can safely compare the two.

I remember being caught up in A.I. the first time I saw it. I was deeply intruiged by both the central concept and the futuristic world Spielberg unraveled before my eyes, and even after an iffy ending I considered the experience justified (both the making and the viewing). However....I can't say that the film held up too well to further scrutiny. I think I wrote a post last summer detailing my thoughts on why the ending didn't work (it attempted to manifest at least three different modes of faery fiction, and all three went bankrupt). Also, the pivotal questions--can a robot love, and should it be loved in return?--don't stand up much better as logical premises, which weakens them as dramatic premises.

Minority Report, on the other hand, laid out another complex futuristic tapestry that was woven with a much stronger story. The cerebral ground was less fallow, to be sure, since the questions were less moral and more self-contained (whether the Precrime program worked or should have been supported was primarily a political question, and neither required nor asked for any real empathy on the part of the audience), so there was less to think about; but maybe that's what I liked about it. A good thriller keeps the watcher guessing until the critical moment, and that was certainly true in this case. And I was far less concerned with the ending as some of you were--as was Anderton, who by the time his life had been so wrung out didn't care whether he lived or died. The important issues had already been dealt with, and I was satisfied.

So yes, I voted for MR, though I would hardly call A.I. Spielberg's worst hour (the honor of which belongs to the likes of 1941, or the droner far more pointless than A.I.--Always.)

But I think it's worth mentioning the common emotional thread I felt for both films, summed up in a single word: gratitude. Whatever problems I had with the substance or execution of either one, they afforded me the opportunity to see sights that lay beyond me until Spielberg allowed me a look through his eyes. I could sit and watch either one simply to see them again, to visit those places and just imagine. Regardless of the dramatic impression they leave with us, it is to be hoped that we don't too quickly lose sight of the privilege we have over the generations of filmgoers who have gone before us.

As for the rest of this stuff....there's enough material here for a good 17 threads. Either I answer it all (tempting), or leave it alone. Time constraints will dictate things, as usual. However, I do want to hit on one issue....

I'm in no position to say for certain, and I could be direly mistaken, but I would guess that Ricard is having a little fun with us, tailing off his similar radio silence a few months ago (and the reaction that followed). At least I hope that's the case....

- Uni