Spielberg interpreting Kubrick!!! No no no no No!!

[nextspielberg]

Hahaha, that's funny. Justinmorgan posted something about mispelling Kubrick's name in his first post on this topic. It looks like you don't know much about Kubrick either.

[Lita]

Well it looks good to me.Hey give it a chance before you dog a movie you have not seen.

------------------
Brenda Diane Smith Filmmaker 35mm 0r bust nothing will stop me!!!!!

[This message has been edited by Lita (edited June 23, 2001).]

[Matt J Heaton]

In my mind Speilberg is more worthy of the genious tag, his films are far better IMO.

Kubrick's films never left me satisfied, I always felt they were missing something.

And justinmorgan, no offence, but if you're going to correct someones spelling of a name, at least spell it correctly yourself.

I think that Speilberg could make AI just as good, if not better, than Kubrick could. But it would certainly look very different.

[Ribena]

Well, first of all my point wasn't that Kubrick was a genius. He was way too pretentious to be such a thing. But it's just the idea of someone being his polar and inferior opposite, making one of his ideas into a film.

I think Spielberg is for the dumbed down cinema goer now, in that he explains everything on screen. You don't have to think much during his films. With Kubrick, whether his film has bored me, or irritated me, or enlightened me. I always ponder on what he was trying to say, what he wanted the audience to think and the like.

Will A.I suck? I can't say. But what I do know now is that I won't be satisfied because Kubrick wasn't behind the scenes.

Though Haley Joel Osment (What a fucking name) did impress me in the trailer. Which he didn't do in pay it forward(BLEH)

[justinmorgan]

Doh! Apologies, I spelt it wrong too (well it was a typo actually - but no excuses for not proof reading before posting!!!)

I think the two trailers produced look pretty cool and it seems like Spielberg is going to try to go a bit arty for it. The stills that have been releassed look a bit dodgy though - Jude Law looks like a cross between Max Headroom and Lisa Stansfield! Very 80s colours too...

I've seen 3 different reviews of it so far (on the web) - one said it was great, one said it was okay and the other said it was terrible. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - film is so subjective and everyone's tastes are different as this forum also proves.

[justinmorgan]

Doh! Apologies, I spelt it wrong too (well it was a typo actually - but no excuses for not proof reading before posting!!!)

I think the two trailers produced look pretty cool and it seems like Spielberg is going to try to go a bit arty for it. The stills that have been releassed look a bit dodgy though - Jude Law looks like a cross between Max Headroom and Lisa Stansfield! Very 80s colours too...

I've seen 3 different reviews of it so far (on the web) - one said it was great, one said it was okay and the other said it was terrible. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - film is so subjective and everyone's tastes are different as this forum also proves.

[twister!]

Very true!

[Lita]

It seems to have a blade runner theme.

------------------
Brenda Diane Smith Filmmaker 35mm 0r bust nothing will stop me!!!!!

[Red House Painter]

HH3, do you know what pretentious means, because the first line of your post is probably the stupidest thing I have ever heard.

[HH3]

From Webster's:

"..expressive of affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature"
synonym see: SHOWY

Given the anti-intellectual nature of the U.S., trust me, intellectuals can be considered showy. Touche'!

Anyway, back to A.I. The early buzz is that the film has a simple plot, although complex in form and thought provoking, and not a happy ending. The scant review made it sound as if Spielberg was at least attempting to retain Kubrick's vision.

Spielberg must have had to "bite his tongue" in order to not have a happy ending!