Concerning A.I the movie

[Ricard 2,244]

Exactly, don't assume it's superiority joe.

Then perhaps they should try to reword their comments.

[Morn 8]

Perhaps, my point is that saying you don't get it doesn't equal I think you're stupid or inferia Rather, that you need to give the film more attention.

[Uni 306]

Seems like familiar territory to me.... :roll:

But there is an undlying tone in alot of the people who like A.I., perhaps even Fight Club that "they" got it. That "we" missed the point. As if "we" are inferior and less intelligent because "we" didn't get it. Superiority doesn't happen because one likes movie. This kind of intellectual snobbing is not very appropriate or appreciated.

Precisely. This point of view would have us believe that if someone saw Battlefield Earth and liked it, then they have some sort of deeper insight or more advanced understanding of artistic expression than we do (the guy's gotta be a friggin' genius, man....I mean, there's only three or four people in the world like him, right...?). That's nothing short of inane. Hey, you enjoyed a particular movie, great; but that doesn't make you better, that just makes you you.

Furthermore, some of the comments made here regarding those who dislike the movie are provocative and insulting.

Agreed, for the same reasons.

People do not "miss" good or bad things. "Good" and "Bad" are very subjective concepts. Assuming that someone didn't get to see the good aspects of a movie and trying to convince that person that he missed the point is what I find annoying and insulting.

Right again. In all but a few cases, people don't "miss" anything (unless they're off getting popcorn). Everything hits them; it's how it hits them that makes the difference (and there are no right or wrong answers on that one, either).

And if there is a point, what is it. The movie was long and pointless to me.  

But if you like it fine. Just don't call it art. Dont put it with Spielbergs best because its not. It is not the equal of Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, ET, Schindlers List, Jurassic Park, Sugarland Express, Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Temple of Doom, Last Crusade, Lost World, Always, Hook, SPR, Amistad, 1941. It isn't better than them either.

Nope....gotta call you on that one. Denying someone's creation the label of "art" isn't in your pervue any more than rejecting someone's opinion because it isn't yours. Spielberg, Kubrick and the whole gang got together and expressed an ethical, emotional, and intellectual concept through storytelling, dramatic performance and cinema. That's art. Great art? Your call. "Great" is a subjective modifier, so that's up to you. But saying it isn't art at all simply because you didn't like it is on the same level as the gripes listed above.

And along the same lines, anyone certainly can feel free to "put it with Spielberg's best" if they so choose. Frankly, I would include it in the list you've provided, because I found it far superior to one of Spielberg's real duds, Always (my opinion, of course.... ).

The thing is movie enjoyment is based on personal preferences and personal tastes.

You just proved my point.

However, to pick up on another subject in this thread....Close Encounters is in fact a masterpiece from beginning to end....and anyone who says otherwise has MISSED THE POINT and is DEAD WRONG!!! ROTFL

We should be thankful that things like A.I. are actually being funded with Hollywood dollars instead of another Battlefield Earth!

Amen to that...! Perhaps the wisest point proferred in this thread.

- Uni

[Morn 8]

Precisely. This point of view would have us believe that if someone saw Battlefield Earth and liked it, then they have some sort of deeper insight or more advanced understanding of artistic expression than we do (the guy's gotta be a friggin' genius, man....I mean, there's only three or four people in the world like him, right...?). That's nothing short of inane. Hey, you enjoyed a particular movie, great; but that doesn't make you better, that just makes you you.

It depends on the film of course. However, what you say is certainly the most important thing. But if you miss what the film is really about, you aren't really going to enjoy much are you?

[Guest]

Richard, I appreciate the fact that 1 viewing was enough for you for films like 2001 or A.I. or Vertigo for that matter, but that's not for a lot of people. I know having attended screenings of all three films with people who had never seen them, the reactions were very different than they were after these same people had re-watched the films at a later date. I've found a number of people who just find the genious in films like 2001 or Vertigo on 1 or even 2 viewings. I think more intellectual films can often grow on people over time. I really believe that A.I. will have the same affect.

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

Bada-bing, bada-boom! Uni's posts always deliver! Thanks Uni. My sentiments on AI (and AotC) are very much similar to yours, except you, as usual, are more skilled at explaining your thoughts than I.

And it truly is great to see Ricard explaining himself more as well.

I think that Ricard sometimes alienates himself to some of us by not saying very much outside of a one sentence comment and leavin us all hanging. I love it when he explains himself instead of saying something and leaving everybody wondering why he said it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Sorry Uni, but you and I disagree on one point here.

Movie making is a craft not an art. Anyone(and everyone here seems too)can call anything art. Piss on a cross in a jar is art, but is it. All painting are art, arn't they. Songs are art, or are they

Wait a minute. Art isn't just art because someone calls it art. Are Thomas Kinkaid paintings art. I don't know. Is art mass produced.

All these things are craft, pure and simple. They may be art from the beginning or they may pass the test of time and become art.

I think people need to start honing their craft, and not worry about art. If it is good enough to be art it will be art, but craftsmanship must come first.

[Ricard 2,244]

Perhaps, my point is that saying you don't get it doesn't equal I think you're stupid or inferia Rather, that you need to give the film more attention.

And how do you know how much attention I was giving to the film? :roll:

[Morn 8]

I don't, but that doesn't mean that just because you gave a lot means that you will like it because as uni said, not everything appeals to everyone. Just that if you didn't give it attention or try and look for the things that it's about, it is reason why you might not like it.

Wait a minute. Art isn't just art because someone calls it art. Are Thomas Kinkaid paintings art. I don't know. Is art mass produced.

I think that art is these 3 things.

1. Well done craft

2. Expression of thoughts and ideas compared to just pure entertainment

3. Doing something that is unlike anything before it, innovation

The 2nd one is the most important in defining art, if the 2nd one fails but the 1st does not, it is rather great entertainment than art. Art seeks to make you think rather than to only give you a good time.

[Ricard 2,244]

I don't, but that doesn't mean that just because you gave a lot means that you will like it because as uni said, not everything appeals to everyone.

Sure, I agree.

Just that if you didn't give it attention or try and look for the things that it's about, it is reason why you might not like it.

Well, that's not my case. And honestly, I don't think that's the reason why so many people disliked this film.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Hey guys I saw it 3 times so if I don't like it, no one can say I didn't give it a chance.

[Morn 8]

Fair enough, but don't say it's not art Probably Spielbergs most arty film. Indy Jones and Jaws aren't exactly art, ET (friendship) and Schindler's List (how it was for the jews), maybe.

Star Wars however though not spielberg, deals with things like a modern religious myth, it's almost like a modern version of a bible and how a dictorial government can form, I think Star Wars is art.

[Romão 2,274]

I started thsi thread I and I want to make something clear: I was nto my intention to "insult" or challenge anyone who didn't like A.I. I just said, and I will say it again, that it is not the worst movie ever (as some have said, although not on this MB).

This is my opinion, but the being A.I the kind of movie it is, having such bipolarized reactions could be seen as a good sign.

Oh, and BTW, Osment and Law were most impressive, IMHO.

[Hlao-roo 389]

Contrary to popular opinion, Spielberg found the perfect ending for A.I. http://t.co/rFHQQfW7ck pic.twitter.com/pIrGtHsw5D

— The AV Club (@TheAVClub)

April 16, 2015

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

This thread is so old, usernames have vanished.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I love this movie. That article explains well why.

A.I. > E.T.

Anyone else a fan of 70s/80s spec art? You know, Syd Mead and friends, all that good stuff? Or even earlier, the 50s/60s vision of the future, especially the proverbial "home of the future." There's this really interesting feeling I get from it. Usually you're shown a single subject, a person, a vehicle, whatever, and then there's this fabulous, exotic world around it. But you don't know much about that world. You just get... a feeling about it. The sense that this is a world you can believe in, populated, alive. And your imagination is free to roam through it. It's hard to describe, as most of these interesting inner experiences are. A.I. seems to me to be among the most successful translations of this quality to the cinematic medium. Due in no small part, I'm sure, to Kubrick's involvement, it being an idea that is deeply tied to his own aesthetic sense. This is similar to what I enjoy aesthetically about Blade Runner, though perhaps ironically it seems less pronounced there. Or more forced.

And no, I'm not referring to the common quality of a world feeling "lived in," but a very specific, vague quality.

[Jay 37,322]

Please don't bump ancient threads like this. Just start a new topic.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

K.M, do you still love A.I. the film?

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I know! I couldn't believe my eyes. He even said he liked the score. Tears were shed.

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Hey it's Morn lol

[Quintus 5,399]

Contrary to popular opinion, Spielberg found the perfect ending for A.I. http://t.co/rFHQQfW7ck pic.twitter.com/pIrGtHsw5D The AV Club (@TheAVClub) April 16, 2015

Blume gets about doesn't he.

Actually lots of AI fans think it ended in an enjoyable way, so I'm not sure it's as unpopular as this guy makes it out to be.

[Thor 7,478]

Please don't bump ancient threads like this. Just start a new topic.

I love bumpage of ancient threads!

As for the topic at hand, the film and score are both absolute masterpieces -- and yes, that includes the PERFECT and crucial ending. It's Williams' best score in the 2000s, IMO, and Spielberg's best film. I cannot rate this highly enough, and I've been defending it ever since it received a lot of flack upon release. Thankfully, it's slowly starting to get better status among critics.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Please don't bump ancient threads like this. Just start a new topic.

I love bumpage of ancient threads!

As for the topic at hand, the film and score are both absolute masterpieces -- and yes, that includes the PERFECT and crucial ending. It's Williams' best score in the 2000s, IMO, and Spielberg's best film. I cannot rate this highly enough, and I've been defending it ever since it received a lot of flack upon release. Thankfully, it's slowly starting to get better status among critics.