Hey folks, Harry here... I'm dying to see the film, if only to be able to chime in with a valid opinion... One thing that I'm beginning to notice is stronger and stronger negative reactions to the film. And not from mindless fanboys that piss on Spielberg, but from film lovers profoundly disappointed by that which they have seen. Like Nicho here... He wanted to love the film, through his spoiler review, he quite calmly and intelligently makes the case for why this film was an utter disappointment for him. Now... there's a press embargo on printing reviews, the reviews we've seen from the press have been all positive so far.... could it be that in order to 'break' the press embargo, you must have a positive or mostly positive review? I don't know, I haven't seen the film yet.... I won't see it till the day it is released, because I'll be working on the AICN TV show... But you have to begin to wonder when the only negatives you are reading come from well spoken film fans, while 'selective' press reviews it for the rest of the world.
BEWARE OF SPOILERS!!!!
Hello there Harry! I have never written in before but I have recently discovered AICN and been sucked into its reviews and banter whole heartedly. From time to time I have the fortune to view films before their release and I thought there couldn't be a better place to share my euphoric highs, banality and sometimes utter disappointment about the world of film.
Unfortunately my first review falls into the third category of the dropping your peppermint stick ice cream cone and watching it splatter on to the pavement category. This devastatingly disappointing film is AI. I recently attended a screening for media people and industry types and you could feel the cracklin' of anticipation in the air as we all waited for the curtain to go up (errr screen to come down). I am a huge Spielberg and Kubrick fan and truly enjoy their work differently but equally because of the subtextual levels and eerie mood that Kubrick can absorb you into and because of that sense of adventure that Spielberg casts the viewer in with each new film. Two great story tellers with two very different styles.
There are two factors that I see and am still boggled by that sum up the weakness of this film. The first is its Schizophrenia about its style, editing, and just overall cohesiveness. This is odd because if your a film fan names like Kennedy, Harlan, Kahn, Kaminski and Williams don't usually let you down. The other problem is it's inability to place you in a world where you allow the suspension of disbelief needed. Also strange for either of the names attached.
The film starts strongly with a Spielberg feel and lays the plot out word by word and you're interested. However this will become a specifically annoying tendency of the film as it progresses but we'll get back to that. A prototype robot has been built that can love and they need a couple to test it who would appreciate it and is also needing love. This part of the story moves along with some interesting turns and discoveries but it's strange because you're slowly getting sucked in but you're on the outside at the same time. I equate this to Spielberg trying to pay homage to Kubrick but the result is not by any means what you desire. The actor Sam Robards is very inept and you think you're not sure at first but then you realize that his chemistry with Haley and Frances O' Connor makes you increasingly feel like you're watching a B movie!! A Kubrick or Spielberg film or whatever that feels B!! I didn't want to accept it but you just start feeling it.
The film moves on and Haley is separated from the family after some mishaps and complications and goes off on a mission with his pal Teddy to more or less chase his dreams. Teddy is a funny character and everyone will really enjoy him. Nuff said. This is where Jude Law is introduced and he is hi-larious. He's a saving grace for the film and the guy once again proves that he's got talent to burn with his schmoozing and twitching and making the ladies melt as Gigolo Joe.
The film know goes into its first sort of schizophrenic reality and becomes dark and scary things start to happen. Then there's escape and capture and escape and capture and escape and capture. In between we get a nice cameo voice from Robin Williams and we get to watch Haley becoming human. The sets are very cool and the visuals amazing throughout. We also get to watch the modern day Pinocchio unfold. That is a HUGE problem with the film.
We don't get the subtext of Pinocchio. We get a re-telling. We aren't subtly introduced either. Mom reads the story to Haley and from that point on we've got Jiminy Cricket, the circus, the "adventure", the whole nine. See if you can figure it all out. It's not hard because it's rammed down your throat. So much so towards the end of the film we start to get a voice over like the movie is a fairy tale. I'm all for a great modern day fairy tale but it was very odd when all of a sudden the movie moves in that direction and you hear Ben Kingsley or Michael Caine ( not sure~ I think Kingsley) come in on a voice over. The schizophrenia continues. You think it's over but not even close it's like the robots on the screens it just keeps on going and once again you feel like your betraying your uncle's pride while he's telling a Vietnam story because you're really trying to be into it but he's just not capturing you.
I equate this to the fact that Spielberg wrote this screenplay and it's his first since Close Encounters. He's definitely rusty or his respect for Kubrick got in the way. The voice of the film is divided and you can't really believe the story when it's all said and done. Even more sorrowing you don't really care about its resolution or more importantly about the robot boy who loves. Isn't that the whole point to get us to care about him like a real movie hero?
The last twenty minutes can only be described by a four letter word...S-L-O-W. I was routing the whole time for the end to make it all coherent. It was an utter let down. Mark this prediction when the reviews come out it is going to be staggering how many people convey disappointment and how many people will not except that these two forces didn't come through. Over time this movie will not be understood (like 2001) as many critics will try and give it that spin. It will not become more cherished but rather the opposite. It will be more understood that the mark was missed and that it is not a stong film. Time will make it okay to say this. I know I will not stop one person from going because you couldn't have stopped me and that is not my intention. I'm just trying to give it to you straight.
Half of you are reading this and saying he doesn't understand Kubrick- he doesn't understand the great finale's and non traditional endings of some of the masterpieces like Casablanca, Dr. Strangelove or even modern day films like Seven. Maybe we have different tastes but I think I'm usually on point. I really wanted it to come together and even after hours of mental review all that remained, like a great Kubrick shot, was the silence. This time it was the silence of disappointment.
-Nicho Ekul
Here's a happier review, but notes that there will be a significant portion of the audience that will HATE the film with a passion. Although.... he loves it....
Hey Harry,
"Chains" here again... this time with a look at A.I. There won't be any spoilers at all.
I must begin with what is foremost on my mind after seeing this film - and that is the American viewing public. I went to this screening with two co-workers, both women in the 25-35 age range. They both hated it. "It was too long..." "There were lots of parts with no dialogue." "I liked the beginning, but after that it got weird..."
I point this out because it is the exact reason we will continue to see shit on the screen for the rest of our natural lives. Pardon the blunt language, but it is the truth - the essence of why the summer is filled with "films" like Tomb Raider - and it infuriates me. Make no mistake, the public is NOT going to like this film. And that is sad, because it is brilliant.
The first film that it reminded me of was "2001", a film that even critics walked out of frustrated and confused. People don't like things that they can't easily understand. But I digress... on with the review of Kubrick's film (yes yes, I know...)
WHY IT'S GOOD:
Thank the Lord above that I fought the temptation to find out as much as possible about "A.I." before seeing it - it's best not knowing anything. The film takes you in directions you couldn't possibly anticipate. Any film that gives me something I've never seen automatically earns big points. And after the opening segment, the story completely flies off the handle. You could watch the trailers & 6 TV spots all day and night and still have no idea where this film is going.
The visuals are absolutely amazing. I made it a point to watch the film casually, and to avoid studying every shot, but there were just so many well-conceived, amazing shots. The sets and the effects were great and unique, but I thought they used a bit too much neon, at least for my tastes, since I think that's been done too often in futuristic films. But that teddy bear was so cool to every little detail... even the women I saw it with liked the damn bear - it's impossible not to.
If there has ever been a better child actor than Haley Joel Osment, please show me such a performance. You can't compare Shirley Temple in my book, because she never had to do anything that carried this much weight. He carried this movie, and gave one of the best performances I've seen from ANY actor in recent memory. If he continues to make good career choices, I really believe he will be one of the best actors of his generation. And all of the acting was solid. Frances O'Connor was very good, Jude Law was great, and Brendan Gleeson fit his role just right.
WILL YOU LIKE IT?
Now, I've read reviews that have claimed to have liked the film, but had problems with the ending. I'll bet two bucks and my left nut that they're the same people who had problems with the ending to "2001". Yes, it's unconventional. Yes, it contains long stretches with no dialogue. But dammit, people... use that organic mass wasting away inside your skull and think. The film is intened to make you think. It isn't meant to make you jump out of your seat, laugh your ass off, or even applaud. I didn't feel like applauding at the end, because I really didn't have time enough to think about what it meant. But a long ride home in shitty Atlanta traffic afforded me the time I needed.
This is the film for all you REAL film lovers out there... the ones who watch DVD's 50 times, and stay up all night playing with all the extra features, deleted scenes, documentaries, trailers... and the film lovers who hover over this site and several others, looking for snippets about films that haven't even been written yet, or films from your favorite director, from a screenplay by your favorite writer, starring your favorite actor. This is what it's all about - and more. If you've never watched a movie made before 1980 that didn't start with an opening crawl in big yellow letters, you may not appreciate it fully.
But if you like Kubrick, it's almost impossible not to like "A.I." This was SO Kubrick it was scary. It's like Spielberg channeled Kubrick through that director's chair. Good God above, this film is not E.T. in any way, shape or form. It felt like "2001" and "Clockwork Orange" melted into one... that may sound strange, but that's the feeling I got. Lots of moments where you don't really know how you're supposed to feel. Awkward "Should I be laughing?" moments. God, I'm getting all excited writing this - just thinking about how bold it was for Spielberg to make a film that audiences will, for the most part, not like.
You parents won't like it, your aunts and uncles won't like it, your neighbors may not even see it if they catch word of mouth first. But you'll like it if you love film so much that it hurts to see "Tomb Raider" do so well... to see that audiences gave that movie a "B" on their way out of the theatre. They'll give this one a "B-" at best. Most will give it a "C".
MY PREDICTION
This film will likely make a ton of money its opening weekend, then it will sag because of negative word of mouth. I really hate to sound like an elitist, but it really frustrates me that people don't have the patience to sit through something a little different. I will be shocked if this is the biggest movie of the summer - shocked.
MY LAST WORDS
Perhaps the best way of expressing how I feel is to say that I now feel guilty about enjoying films like "Pearl Harbor." They really shouldn't be made. They are like junk food - they're made up of all the worst things for you, you know what they're going to taste like, and you feel bad later. But the reason McDonald's stays in business is that people like to know what they'll be paying for. So Bruckheimer and the rest provide their junk food for them, package it up in familiar TV ads, serve it up with familiar actors, and even provide a familiar storyline.
Steven Spielberg made a Stanley Kubrick film. You haven't seen it before in another movie. Feel privileged. It will be a classic.
Scrapping the phony pseudonym "chains"... yours truly,
Sean
