A.I. - Spielberg's Strange Love

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 20, 2001 1:46 PM

Spielberg runs circles around Kubrick.

;p

-Acheron

RE: Circles reply

Posted by 100% AMERICAN (hellskitchen_@hotmail.com) on June 20, 2001 2:48 PM

That's a bold statement.

Posted by Error11 (No Email) on June 20, 2001 3:00 PM

Imagine: ET meets Clockwork Orange

What if Kubrick directed Jaws!?

Posted by Jack (jack@dtheatre.com) on June 20, 2001 3:09 PM

I would give my left nut to see that.

(the jaws one.. and by nut I mean almonds sitting on my desk ;)

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 20, 2001 3:17 PM

You are pretty weird man, or at least I think of you as a man... Unless you want to give your husbands left nut, that makes more sense. In other news, I can't wait for A.I.

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 20, 2001 3:47 PM

jack?!

we thought you were a chick! D'oh!

jd

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 20, 2001 4:16 PM

Unsuspecting fools!
While you were busy with our scout "jd" we have returned.....the NAZIS are back! ha ha ha

yah Kubrick!

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 20, 2001 4:40 PM

Spielberg is a great PRODUCER but a lousy director. The only reason jaws was good is because the damn shark didnt work and he had to edit around it -- ironically making it more scary because we didnt see it and the as anyone knows the scariest thing in an horror is what we DONT see. As for Spielberg the only film he did well was ET because he did it from the heart-- then again how could you mess up a script like that anyway --- Shildlers was pure drivell.... not historically correct at all and jurassic was an fx show reel the acting and direced scenes sucked. Janus Kaminski his cinematographer should be heralded as the real genius of the team and in AI he again brings us beautiful pix and thanks to Kubrik the story is somewhat ok-- I only hope Mr Spielberg doesnt pollute it with his typical tearjerking overdone soundracked, corney dialogue and fudgey performance direction again...... thats all!!

Posted by jerbear (zachdelarocha@hotmail.com) on June 20, 2001 6:26 PM

I think speilberg should have left the script alone in its original form,he should not have softened up any charecters just so it could be made pg-13 ,stanely would have had a fit if he were still alive ,he didnt believe anything should every change on his movies and that stubborness has brought us some of the best films i was pretty hyped about a.i. but now that i kow he changed it m just not as excited as i was .

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 20, 2001 6:27 PM

Well, I am interested in seeing the new A.I. but spielburg does need to freshen up on the directing skills because the only thing well worth seeing is the effects alone with his last few films and why is this new A.I. movie PG-13...R gets more people to watch which means more revenue. Throw in a pair of A.I. breasts or something.

Posted by Jack (jack@dtheatre.com) on June 20, 2001 6:41 PM

Actually that's not accurate. PG-13 movies by default get more people to watch it. Every very commercial movie (Titanic, Pearl Harbour, Jurrassic Park etc..) is PG-13 because of this fact.

Even South Park was shooting for a PG-13 when they started.

Posted by Pumpkin Boy (pumpkin_pie_studios@hotmail.com) on June 20, 2001 9:07 PM

Those are strong words for someone who can barely form a coherent sentence.

Posted by Pumpkin Boy (pumpkin_pie_studios@hotmail.com) on June 20, 2001 9:11 PM

South Park was shooting for a PG-13? Boy, they sure f*cked that up.

Posted by tiny (anti_tiny@hotmail.com) on June 21, 2001 6:16 AM

It wouldn't have been a South Park movie if it was PG-13!!

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 21, 2001 7:02 AM

Exactly what did have to "edit around" for "Schindlers List"?

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 21, 2001 8:13 AM

You are a complete moron. Anyone who bad mouths Schindler's List doesn't derserve to watch movies at all!

Posted by Acheron (denny@dtheatre.com) on June 21, 2001 8:17 AM

Spielberg should have changed the script to make the characters more personable, and help the dialog flow better. One of the reasons I dislike Kubrick is because he leaves all those weird, uncomfortable 3 second pauses between dialog (see EWS, Clockwork, etc). And you might claim that it was in the name of "art," but the story/dialog/mood would have been fine without those weird pauses.

And Spielberg will get John Williams to score the soundtrack, so we won't have to endure the lousy scores that Kubrick puts in his movies (in my opinion).

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 21, 2001 9:15 AM

i agree...i think spielberg is capable of handling something more edgy...what would prove him as a director is if he could still pull off his heart wrenching scenes along side the restricted material...how about the Shining crossed with E.T.?

A.I. - Spielberg's Strange Love reply

Posted by 100% AMERICAN (hellskitchen_@hotmail.com) on June 21, 2001 11:36 AM

Schindlers List was a good movie but it copped out of showing the horrors of the age. Many think this is true, including my grandfather who escaped the holocaust as a child, barely. Why did they decide to tone down the nazis treatment of the Jews, who knows?

Posted by SnowBunting (SnowBunting@excite.com) on June 21, 2001 11:39 AM

Get back on track here people! We're not discussing South Park here, we're discussing A.I. and Steven Spielberg. If any of you were properly educated, you'd know that Steven Spielberg, always, always, Directs movies with his heart and his soul! He should have won the Oscar for Best Director and Best Motion Picture for Saving Private Ryan! But NO, they decided to give it to "American Beauty". Now that movie sucked big time!!!! Steven Spielberg deserves more than what he has recieved from the Academy, I just wish that they would open their eyes and see that!!!!!

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 21, 2001 12:34 PM

American Beauty was produced by Steven Speilberg's company Dreamworks, and he personally thought it was a great movie. Maybe you just didn't understand the movie.

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 21, 2001 2:54 PM

American Beauty was an asstonishing movie dealing with every aspect of life in under 2 hours so that did deserve an award but Saving Private Ryan was very detailed and realistic so that was a winner also...

Posted by Jack (jack@dtheatre.com) on June 21, 2001 5:31 PM

"American Beauty" was ground breaking cinematography, beautifully shot, unique (theatre style) directing, very original story line and almost flawless acting. I only started really respecting DreamWorks SKG after they Produced that. Other then "Private Ryan" and "Antz" there was nothing exceptional in their collection up until that point.

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 22, 2001 6:28 AM

Actually he did win best director for "Saving Private Ryan" smart guy. That must really be emabarressing for you. Get your facts straight.

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 22, 2001 6:28 AM

Actually he did win best director for "Saving Private Ryan" smart guy. That must really be embarressing for you. Get your facts straight.

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 22, 2001 7:56 PM

Yeah, no kidding.

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 23, 2001 6:11 PM

Because otherwise it wouldn't have gotten past the ratings board, and the movie probably never would have seen the light of day, or maybe would have gotten an NC-17 rating (which nobody wants on their movies)

Posted by Pumpkin Boy (pumpkin_pie_studios@hotmail.com) on June 23, 2001 10:23 PM

Spielberg is personally responsible for the existence of the PG-13 rating. When Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was ready for release, there were only G, PG, and R ratings. He went to the MPAA and suggested a new rating: PG-13.
Ironically, Temple of Doom only got a PG rating.
And why the Hell isn't the Indiana Jones Trilogy on DVD?!?!

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 24, 2001 6:15 PM

Probably the same reason the Star Wars movies aren't yet. They are probably waiting to release them with the next sequel. It would make more money and hype the new film more. Even though it's going to make tons of money anyway. We all know hollywood is greedy like that.

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 26, 2001 3:57 PM

And Spielberg laughs all the way to the BANK!

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 27, 2001 10:04 PM

American Beauty is a psudointelectual movie catoring to people who like to think they are smart. Now Fight Club was is the true masterpiece of the last decade.

-love
-harry

AI- Almost a Masterpiece. reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 28, 2001 10:32 AM

oops

Posted by SciFiGuy (vbprgrmr@yahoo.com) on June 29, 2001 1:38 PM

AI has succeeded in keeping to Kubrick's vision. Watching it, I kept forgetting this is a Spielberg film and not Kubricks. There were elements that reminded me of 2001, especially the cool, almost cold relationships of the people in the film. At times, I thought the mechas had more heart. In spite of its length, the beginning and middle of the film, seemed to moved fairly quickly. The ending I had some problems with, reducing it in my mind a bit, but overall a thought provoking Kubrick/Spielberg production.

RE: AI- Almost a Masterpiece. reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on June 30, 2001 11:04 AM

Hey that hurts so much American Beauty did not suck. It was a great commentary on society today.

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 1, 2001 5:31 PM

Hmmm. I thought the ending was weak initially as well. During the movie, I kept thinking, "If only he had broken it off while he was undersea praying to the Blue Fairy." That would have been Kubrick's style.

However, after thinking about it for a day or so, I think that the released movie's ending is brilliant and far more meaningful than if we had simply left David undersea. My only problem is the suspension of disbelief required to transition into that ending. Once it happens, it's right.

RE: RE: AI- Almost a Masterpiece. reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 1, 2001 10:03 PM

You guys are idiots! I mean you can't even figure out that that one movie that that one guy is genius and that other movie that that other guy is crap? I mean you guys are stupid. That guy made a great movie and that other guy SUCKS, man. (in my opinion) I mean of course my opinion is right and that other guy's totally sucks, dude. Anybody can tell you that!

RE: AI- Almost a Masterpiece. reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 2, 2001 4:13 AM

this commentator is an idiot
raymond smith

Posted by FredHater (fred_hater@hotmail.com) on July 2, 2001 8:30 AM

It sucked, Kubrick would have puked all over it.

2000-2001 were the boring mastubatory projects of a ridiculously overinflated ego, Clockwork was Kubrick's masterpiece.

RE: RE: AI- Almost a Masterpiece. reply

Posted by geertz (dgeertz@hotmail.com) on July 29, 2001 12:21 PM

You people seem to use the word "sucks" a lot of the time. Obviously you're not the least bit educated in the fine art or technical aspects of filmmaking. To say that either one of these men "sucks" is absolutely ridiculous. Both Mr. Kubrick and Mr. Spielberg have brought us technically brilliant landmark films, and both of them are premiere storytellers of our era. From the technical cinematography of Barry Lyndon to the absolute perfection in using music in Empire of the Sun, how can you critisize genius with a track record. What do you people do...go to art school or something? Oooooohhh....Truffault, Luis Malle, Fastbinder! give me a break. You critics haven't got a clue.

RE: AI- Almost a Masterpiece. reply

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on July 30, 2001 7:54 AM

I don't think you know Spielberg's work very well or perhaps you are still very young and to do not understand movie industry ,please leave to us who appreciate Spielberg's work.He is a great Director and Producer.
Conrad

Posted by A random shemp (No Email) on August 22, 2001 2:30 AM

Fassbinder, not Fastbinder; Truffaut, not Truffault, Louis Malle, not Luis Malle.

[quote]
Obviously you're not the least bit educated in the fine art or technical aspects of filmmaking .... [end of quote]