I Robot

[Diff-chan]

So... Kubrick didnt have any access to the British version?

Im pretty sure he lived in England, after all.

I daresay the American one, and hence the film, was censored.

[animegirl]

So... Kubrick didnt have any access to the British version?

I daresay the American one, and hence the film, was censored.

It's weird though because they censored it to make it more controversal, you know, Alex goes back to his old ways in the Amercian version.

[Drewbacca]

I dont think there was anything wrong with AI. Seriously. I really liked it.

The first half of the movie was extremely cold and Kubrick-esque, and I guess that was okay, but really, thats not suited for the entire thing. It just doesnt make sense. The whole movie was like some sort of futuristic Pinochio, a cold, heartless film wouldnt have worked.

So thats why you had the 2nd half. I know why a lot of people like it, because for some reason Kubrick is put on a pedestal while Spielberg, who has for all intents and purposes made much better films, is mocked because he injects emotion to his films. Heaven forbid! Emotions! He wanted to put some emotion into a Kubrick film!

And dammit, it worked. I thought it did at least.

Remember, Kubrick wasnt perfect and actually a lot of his movies had serious problems. I love Eyes Wide Shut, but even I admit that nothing really happens from beginning to end. Only half of Full Metal Jacket is really great (the rest is merely good). Clockwork Orange was good, and a solid adaptation from the book, but it fucked up and omitted Burgess' real ending (which changed the whole tone of the film) and the whole thing was, really, when you get down to it, pretty close to just a silly snuff film. And 2001 was visionary but impenetrable. Yea, great "art" I suppose for the film-snob crowd, but Im not one of them.

Kubrick's films never really engaged the ideas they set forth, either, if you think about it. So I guess Spielberg just inherited that.

It was alright, but A.I. seemed to be giving us a world eye view of humanity through the eyes of not only a robot, but a child robot and it did an okay job and people wanted an awesome one (bastards).

It was good, and Joe (I think, the prostitute bot) was interesting, and I enjoyed the robotronics and effects, but the whole thing was kind.... whatever. It had a message but it wasn't based enough in reality to really strike a chord and aside from the boy being left in the forest I didn't get an emotional connection with him.

I've only seen this movie once, and maybe that's not enough to give it a fair shake. It reminded me of Donnie Darko in a peculiar way.

Yea, great "art" I suppose for the film-snob crowd, but Im not one of them.

Good art is good art. There's nothing snobby about appreciating its value.

You're going to pay ~$9 to see a flaming turd projected on a film screen.

Laugh it up, fuzzball.

Okay

It's 10, Canadian, and it will be entertaining.

You see, the problem with a lot of people on the internet, which assume they are film critics, is that they seem to expect the same notion and ideals from one film, like an A.I. for example, to another, like I, Robot. I, Robot looks like a great action movie with a smattering of fucking ROBOTS and an overly competant director to boot. This movie isn't going to break boundaries, it'll deliver a fun flick. It doesn't lie about it, and it looks to deliver on it (whereas a movie like King Arthur presumes it's giving us a look at history, which it isn't).

Now, I'm assuming this movie is going to be great in its delivery while I say this, and it may not be. But since you've seen nothing but the previews, as I have, your scrutiny of me paying to see a 'turd' is pointless (and idiotic). You may be right, but I saw Van Helsing this summer, and Envy, and I wouldn't go back and change that. I like movies, and knowing what a bad film is (sometimes, unfortunetly you're duped into going to one), helps you appreciate what a good one is.

Oh yeah:

[Diff-chan]

It was alright, but A.I. seemed to be giving us a world eye view of humanity through the eyes of not only a robot, but a child robot. It was pretty good, and Joe (I think, the prostitute bot) was interesting, and I enjoyed the robotronics and effects, but the whole thing was kind.... whatever. It had a message but it wasn't based enough in reality to really strike a chord and aside from the boy being left in the forest I didn't get an emotional connection with him.

I've only seen this movie once, and maybe that's not enough to give it a fair shake.

Ive only seen it once too. If you didnt have an emotional connection thats fine... thats a legit complaint. I liked it and it worked to answer some interesting questions on the nature of robots and shit (like, if you can build a robot with feelings and attachments, is it still a robot?).

BUT I am dead-tired of people ragging on the movie because its "split in two" or not Kubrickian enough or whatever.

Good art is good art. There's nothing snobby about appreciating its value.

Im saying, 2001 is "great art" like, say, those paintings that are just a single blob of paint.

[Calliander]

I will not be seeing this one. It will break my heart. Someone tell me if the effects are cool, at least.

[jonas]

People should comment on movies AFTER they see them.

[Drewbacca]

Ive only seen it once too. If you didnt have an emotional connection thats fine... thats a legit complaint. I liked it and it worked to answer some interesting questions on the nature of robots and shit (like, if you can build a robot with feelings and attachments, is it still a robot?).

BUT I am dead-tired of people ragging on the movie because its "split in two" or not Kubrickian enough or whatever.

I didn't even know who Kubrick was when I was viewing it, and I had seen 2001 before it. Yes, I'm shameful of this. This was a Spielberg movie and a Kubrick tale, correct? Complaining it's not the exact same is stupid. Nobody who's creative would direct something 100% like another. There'll always be some different.

Im saying, 2001 is "great art" like, say, those paintings that are just a single blob of paint.

Some of the best design in the world is the simple stuff. Being able to tell a story or make a statement with a toilet or a couple of dots in a saturated world of realism is fine. It's not something everyone could think to do.

[Diff-chan]

I didn't even know who Kubrick was when I was viewing it, and I had seen 2001 before it. Yes, I'm shameful of this. This was a Spielberg movie and a Kubrick tale, correct? Complaining it's not the exact same is stupid. Nobody who's creative would direct something 100% like another. There'll always be some different.

Correct. One of the common complaints leveled against AI by faux-film buffs is that Spielberg butchered the last half, turning it into a "spielberg movie instead of a kubrick one".

Some of the best design in the world is the simple stuff. Being able to tell a story or make a statement with a toilet or a couple of dots in a saturated world of realism is fine.

I believe that news, but if you can explain that final spacetrip/baby fetus/nature of universe/monkey pillar business Ill give you a cookie.

[Drewbacca]

I could probably make sense out of it. But that movie is boring and two viewings it enough for me. But I know a bit about film, and to my understanding Space Odyssey was shot in an uncomfortable way. The long, uncut scenes, the slow prodding development and the isolation of the humans was what made people giddy about the art.

It was slow, but it wasn't about action. People still don't manage to direct so competantly, even with good examples like 2001. Uwe Boll is the epitome of incompetant. 100,000 cuts in 10 minutes or whatnot being 'groundbreaking' is so fucking STUPID it hurts. Using so many cuts for a reason (maybe someone is frantic, and that's the theme of the movie... something about being frantic and jumpy or shooting off too much) makes perfect sense. Ugh...

Irréversible and I Stand Alone are two good examples. They're not entertaining but they tell a story and are designed in a way to make you uncomfortable. They're good movies. It takes a bit of understanding of film and how things are put together to appreciate them fully. Be warned though, Irréversible is extremely harsh at times and I Stand Alone is fucked up.

It's the epitome of suspense.

[Mzo]

People should comment on movies AFTER they see them.

But I know exactly the type of film it is already. Take the money and time investment required, plus my general apathy towards the majority of film and it means I'm not going to watch I, Robot.

I guess I can understand that there are people out there who enjoy watching the Indepence Days that are shovelled our way, but I am unfortunately not one of them.

I believe that news, but if you can explain that final spacetrip/baby fetus/nature of universe/monkey pillar business Ill give you a cookie.

We went through the film in my last film class, but it was just like poetry crap: the professor makes up so much bullshit you're not even sure the director intended half of it. I guess that's what makes it great, how open and interpretative it is, but that makes me bored... so in my eyes, it fails as a movie.

Same goes for most of David Lynch's crap.