Sepulchritude Forum: The Absinthe Forum Archives Thru July 2001: A.I.
By Bluedog1 on Thursday, July 05, 2001 - 03:21 am: Edit

Went yesterday. Visually a Speilberg spectacle, but it boggesd down about halfway through and got a little preachy, then the ending seemed to be compacted, as if Speilberg said "Holy Crap, we've gone nearly three hours, better end this damned thing."

I heard an interview with Kubrick's wife, who said Speilberg was hand picked by Mr K. to do A.I., a project he had been working on for over 10 years.

Overall a positive experience for me, but the friend I took fell asleep.

By Verawench on Wednesday, July 04, 2001 - 10:39 pm: Edit

Wow, that WAS a chaotic movie.. Mixing the two directors was like mixing acids and bases... How exactly did Spielberg expect to fuse his sunny futuristic schlock with Kubrick's cool and subtle intelligence? Spielberg delights.. Kubrick unsettles. The two simply didn't work together.

Agree with Marc, quite a bit of Rouge City/Jude Law's char was Kubrick... Rouge City was quite the Las Vegas of the future, I could almost see Marc pulling all the strings of the decadent charades from up above.

The rest was Spielbergian sap.. little boys with fetishistic longing for mother/home, benevolent aliens and cute robots (Teddy.. I wish they had made him more like a cross between Hannibal Lecter and Chucky).

I want a sequel... "The Explicit Sexual Adventures of a Mecha Lover" starring the droolsome Jude Law.

By Marc on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 11:39 pm: Edit

Spielberg managed to create a few scenes that evoked Kubrick's style. And he paid homage to A Clockwork Orange in the following scenes:

Dr.Know's theater = Kordova Milk Bar

Jude Law singing and dancing =
Malcolm McDowell's singing and dancing

The futuristic car careening down the country highway = same in Clockwork

There's alot of 2001 in A.I.

Lots of tracking shots ala The Shining.

By Mr_Rabbit on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 10:51 pm: Edit

Its worth going to see this and then imagining what it would have been like if it really were Stanley directing.

It would have ruled, then. Now, its got some interesting supporting characters, a damn good story up to a certain point, and an interminable continuation of film after it should have ended.

The star acts his ass off! Just as well as he did when he saw dead people. But I couldnt help wishing for his character to leap to his inevitable conclusion, to end this wanabee hybrid between bladerunner and ET.

By Artemis on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 04:21 pm: Edit


I rarely go out to the movies because they are usually attended by people other than myself or others who I know will refrain from talking, loudly chewing, or rattling hard candy against their teeth.

There you have it. It's like feeding time at the zoo. Add to that they can't sit still, they throw trash everywhere, rattle ice in those giant cups like they're playing the damned marracas (sp?) and/or eat the ice, sounding like mules turned loose in a corn crib. I have to want to see a movie really badly to be willing to go through that. Such movies don't come along often.

By Anatomist1 on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 03:54 pm: Edit

I rarely go out to the movies because they are usually attended by people other than myself or others who I know will refrain from talking, loudly chewing, or rattling hard candy against their teeth. Plus, I always buy the Jumbo Kidney Test Soda for $3.95, end up shivering through the last half, and can't push a pause button when I have to take a half dozen pisses. I tried bringing my own soda bladder, catheter, and spare pee bags all handily mounted on an I.V. buddy, but they wouldn't let me in. I guess that plus the fur trenchcoat and the rabbit fur hat was just too much.


By Admin on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 02:25 pm: Edit

I haven't seen it yet. But here is my favorite review for AI:


wade through the bitching about getting fired paragraphs.


"A.I. is somehow supposed to be a joint collaboration
between Spielberg and the very dead Stanley Kubrick. I'm
not really clear on how the two of them collaborated, but
I'm sure they must have because those upstanding citizens
in Hollywood would exploit a corpse just to give a movie
a pedigree. I'm sure that Spielberg would never take a
half-baked idea that he and Kubrick talked about a few
times and turn it into his own movie while claiming it was
both their work. No, that sort of prestige-grubbing and
grave-robbing would never happen in a town known for
its Academy Awards and John Wayne beer commercials."

By _Blackjack on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 10:36 am: Edit

Almost everyone I know who ahs gotten out to see it has pretty much agreed with the "failure worth seeing" sentiment. I'll try to get out to the Uptown and catch it, since at least then it will be a failure on a great screen.

It's a shame that the best we can come up with to fill Kubrick's shoes is Spielburg. Too bad Peter Jackson is busy with TLOTR.

By Leela on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 09:06 am: Edit

I went on Friday night and I was disappointed and annoyed by the movie. It starts out great, in a challenging and creepy psychological vein. And then...well...in my opinion it turned maudlin. If you're going to go don't pay full price because it's not worth it. Or get someone else to pay for you.

I agree completely with the review from the SF Chronicle, which you can probably find online at sfgate.com if you care to read it. They pretty much panned the film. Meanwhile, on the back page of the Chron's entertainment section, was a full-page ad for the film with lavish quotes of praise. It was pretty amusing to read the quotes *after* seeing the film.

The studio is really hyping this thing to the gills. My husband and I went to the Opera last night and the back cover of the program was a full-page ad for "A.I."


By Verawench on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 07:53 am: Edit

"The movie is totally schizophrenic"

Woot! Can't wait to see it. Having been denied psychotic priviledges at birth, i enjoy experiencing them through other media.

By Zack on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 03:04 am: Edit

Sorry, I see NOTHING worth seeing at ANY of the Theatres here in S.A. Kubrick's latest "A.I." might be worth seeing, but it's gotta prove somthing to us as a Spielberg film...not any regular film...

By Zack on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 02:56 am: Edit


Okay, maybe I am too "fucked up" on anise-based liquers, but I know what you are saying...

Although, the "multi-plex" does frigeten me (mon-thurs)...(the Week-end,- Fri) showings are rather fun)...

By Marc on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 02:30 am: Edit

do any of you mofos get out of the house and see films? or are you too fucked up on anise-based booze to make a move in the direction of the multi-plex?

By Marc on Monday, July 02, 2001 - 01:11 am: Edit

A.I. is an ambitious and thoroughly incoherent
hodgepodge of Spielberg and Kubrick's greatest hits. The movie is totally schizophrenic. It fails as a Spielbergian metaphysical weeper and as a Kubrickian study of humanities' corrupt soul.
The two styles clash, collide and cancel each other out. There are moments of visual brilliance in the film. Spielberg captures some of Kubrick's cinematic wizardry. There are scenes that evoke
A Clockwork Orange, 2001, Eyes Wide Shut...
Unfortunately its all at the service of a banal script that lacks the mythic resonance it aspires too. The movie is a failure. But, it is a failure worth seeing. Its been a terrible year for American film. A.I. at least attempts to do more than break boxoffice records, it wants to make us think.

By Midas on Tuesday, June 19, 2001 - 06:49 am: Edit

Not to mention that the online game going on at the moment is EXTREMELY addictive and really well put together. I salute the puppetmasters.

By Marc on Tuesday, June 19, 2001 - 01:08 am: Edit

Both Time and Newsweek have given Spielberg's
A.I. very positive reviews. It seems he's done right by Kubrick's script and sensibility. I can't wait to see it.

Administrator's Control Panel -- Board Moderators Only
Administer Page |Delete Conversation |Close Conversation |Move Conversation