quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
...with A.I. your subjective disbelief in this "one" point seems to be similar to my "one" point regarding Gladiator and the poor artificial special effect of the tiger in the coliseum in the trailer that spoiled a lot of the rest of the movie for me even before I had seen the movie.

For sure, yep. It (in A.I.) was just one of those moments when I wanted to say (and may well have said) a long drawn-out "bulllllll-shiiiiiiiit" in that low tone that signifies the ferry has just left and you ain't on it. It shouldn't have spoiled the rest of the movie for me, but it did, because the little boy running around in search of someone to love him kept reminding me of how ridiculously arbitrary the first act was.

It irritated me because (a) the plot seemed to be pushing the characters into different shapes, and for mine the best scripts work on the reverse principle, and (b) the mother's change in affections hinged on... what does Ebert call it?... the Idiot Plot. Y'know, for instance, the kid/robot comes into the parents' room at night with scissors, and chooses the wrong words to explain himself with, and we cut away before there's too much more dialogue because, if they weren't all idiots, the source of the problem would be exposed with a little more talk and they'd see the kid/robot wasn't to blame. (You're telling me you wouldn't sit little D.A.R.Y.L. down and say 'So why did you come into the room with the scissors?') So the entire plot ends up hanging on the assumption that everyone in it is really stupid and uncommunicative. The shame is that there seems like there'd be a really compelling way to set up the mother's eventual isolation and abandonment of the Bicentennial Boy, with the real kid returning, that was emotionally honest and didn't just hang on the real boy being, like, Damian or the Bad Seed or something, and everyone else being idiots. But they didn't go that way. Sigh...

And yeah, the tiger was a ropey effect in Gladiator, but far from the only one. I swear, some of these early adopters of CGI aren't really thinking too hard about the longevity of their films; Gladiator looks like a live-action/cartoon blend already, and it ain't the Lone Ranger there. (Dobby, anyone?) But I was predisposed to dislike it anyway. I clearly don't have the Toga Gene or whatever it is that makes guys go "woof woof" for sword-and-sandals, the story was paper-thin, and the overly-fast cutting during battle scenes just bores me.

Mind you, the cutting of the dancing in Moulin Rouge depressed me more, because some of those people - maybe not the leads, perhaps, but some of them - CAN ACTUALLY DANCE. And if anyone's seen Singin' In The Rain, they know that if people can dance, you don't need fifty cuts in ten seconds to make it into good cinema, and if people can sing, you don't need pitch-correction on every note (really primitive pitch-correction, too - another early-adoption catastrophe), and if they can't sing and can't dance, what an interesting choice it was to sign up for a musical in the first place (unless it's Woody Allen directing it and you don't find out until after you've signed on).

It seems a little redundant to add Moulin Rouge to my list for this topic, and I think the jury's still out on Baz Luhrmann, but hell, I'm not gonna let it pass by. Moulin Rouge.

I certainly don't have a problem with someone's honest reaction to something "forcing" them to see things a certain way, but in the case of A.I., I don't think it involves "The Idiot Plot", or Damien, or any other unrealistic thing.

First off, we are dealing with sci-fi, but it's a pretty well-grounded sci-fi, especially emotionally. The entire first act of A.I. is full of contradictions, especially emotional ones, but that's why they're emotional and that's also why they're realistic. The dad brings home David against the mom's will, but after they bond, the mom becomes doting while the dad seems pretty cool to him. After the scissors incident, the mom is willing to "forgive" David, but the dad doesn't really want or need an explanation. The dad just fears that David is dangerous due to the fact that he isn't human.

After their real son miraculously awakens from his coma, he both feels threatened by David AND wants to put him in his place by treating him as an object. He needs to regain what he sees as his rightful station as a real son. Does he act "superevil" or does he act like millions of kids do on millions of playgrounds when somebody new or different shows up at school?

It's not that the mom doesn't love David, it's just that she is fearful of what may happen if he stays with the family. Is what she does cruel? Hell, yes. But she's acting on pure emotion, and more on the emotion of protecting her flesh-and-blood. She can also rationalize that what she's doing is acceptable because David is a machine. It's devastating to David since he knows no other family, but the mom is also sobbing as she abandons him.

I'm just happy to have an intelligent discussion about A.I. because normally it boils down to "it sucks" and "I hate the ending." It's actually a complex, intelligent examination of moral issues involving what constitutes life and love and who's responsible for protecting and nurturing it. Spielberg-haters like to just label it a sentimental fantasy and throw it into the corner and point at it jeeringly. Sorta like what happens to David in the movie.

I recently caught ELIZABETHTOWN directed by Cameron Crowe (VANILLA SKY, JERRY MCGUIRE et al) and a cast that included Orlando Bloom, Kirsten Dunst & Susan Sarandon, though Bloom is not leading man material. This one is destined to become a camp classic, particulary one infamous scene with Sarandon doing an act on stage during a memorial.

I agree with ALEXANDER. I love Ollie Stone, but this one was a complete misfire. Good cast that included Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer and the lovely Rosario Dawson. Another one that is destined for camp status. Like ELIZABETHTOWN, ALEXANDER is so bad it's good.

quote:

Mark f posted:

I certainly don't have a problem with someone's honest reaction to something "forcing" them to see things a certain way, but in the case of A.I., I don't think it involves "The Idiot Plot", or Damien, or any other unrealistic thing.

First off, we are dealing with sci-fi, but it's a pretty well-grounded sci-fi, especially emotionally. The entire first act of A.I. is full of contradictions, especially emotional ones, but that's why they're emotional and that's also why they're realistic. The dad brings home David against the mom's will, but after they bond, the mom becomes doting while the dad seems pretty cool to him. After the scissors incident, the mom is willing to "forgive" David, but the dad doesn't really want or need an explanation. The dad just fears that David is dangerous due to the fact that he isn't human.

After their real son miraculously awakens from his coma, he both feels threatened by David AND wants to put him in his place by treating him as an object. He needs to regain what he sees as his rightful station as a real son. Does he act "superevil" or does he act like millions of kids do on millions of playgrounds when somebody new or different shows up at school?

It's not that the mom doesn't love David, it's just that she is fearful of what may happen if he stays with the family. Is what she does cruel? Hell, yes. But she's acting on pure emotion, and more on the emotion of protecting her flesh-and-blood. She can also rationalize that what she's doing is acceptable because David is a machine. It's devastating to David since he knows no other family, but the mom is also sobbing as she abandons him.

I appreciate Mark's comments in helping me to remind me of the background of A.I. leading up for David's abrupt abandonment. While I can understand maxwelledison's difficulty with lead up to David's abandonment, particularly in that it appeared somehow disconnected and abrupt, I agree with Mark that this being a sci fi movie and that these scenes were only but a part of the entire movie, I was able to accept the possibility of the turn of events and felt the torment that did occur with the mother so that the realistic grey of decision-making allowed me to continue on with the movie without being stuck at this point like maxwelledison.

quote:

maxwelledison posted:

Mind you, the cutting of the dancing in Moulin Rouge depressed me more, because some of those people - maybe not the leads, perhaps, but some of them - CAN ACTUALLY DANCE. And if anyone's seen Singin' In The Rain, they know that if people can dance, you don't need fifty cuts in ten seconds to make it into good cinema, and if people can sing, you don't need pitch-correction on every note (really primitive pitch-correction, too - another early-adoption catastrophe), and if they can't sing and can't dance, what an interesting choice it was to sign up for a musical in the first place (unless it's Woody Allen directing it and you don't find out until after you've signed on).

If I remember correctly Moulin Rouge was a musical that took place in a nightclub, not a ballroom, where people went to have decadent fun, not Saturday Night Fever. The loved the movie and perhaps, it's fortunate that I only took modern dance, not classical dance so that technique wasn't the most important component of having fun and so that I didn't focus on the dance in Moulin Rouge as the storyline and the music as dance wasn't really the main focus nor even an essential nor even a necessary one in this movie, it was background to the point that technique shouldn't have been needed any more than for the artistic, brush strokes of canvass and setting for the movie. The focus was on Nicole Kidman and the surrealistic approach taken in the photography. Moulin Rouge (2001) deserved its best picture best cineatography, costume design nominations along with Nicole Kidman's nomination for best actress and of course winning for Art Direction- Set Design and its Golden Globe Musical/Comedy awards for actor and actress and musical score. This movies is among my favorite movies.

quote:

ChrisFromAstoria posted:

I recently caught ELIZABETHTOWN directed by Cameron Crowe (VANILLA SKY, JERRY MCGUIRE et al) and a cast that included Orlando Bloom, Kirsten Dunst & Susan Sarandon, though Bloom is not leading man material. This one is destined to become a camp classic, particulary one infamous scene with Sarandon doing an act on stage during a memorial.

I agree with ALEXANDER. I love Ollie Stone, but this one was a complete misfire. Good cast that included Colin Farrell, Angelina Jolie, Val Kilmer and the lovely Rosario Dawson. Another one that is destined for camp status. Like ELIZABETHTOWN, ALEXANDER is so bad it's good.

I have to respond as part of a minority to offer my support for both Alexander (2004) and Elizabethtown (2005) as both presenting entertaining, plot-rich, and character movies. Alexander has had many detractors on the basis of moral difficulties with its portrayal of homosexuality. I felt that this movie was rich with intense, complex, and deep character, particularly Colin Ferrell. I enjoyed this movie much more than Brad Pitt in Troy (2004) that I thought was much more stereotypical and cliche-ridden whereas Alexander was more epic and gritty in its depiction of the times.

Elizabethtown, particularly, the ending was a solid movie that addressed the tension surrounding death and funeral arrangements, it was able to combine comedy and drama, and didn't hold back the levity, where I really enjoyed Susan Sarandon dancing and her impact on the crowd. This is was twisting, emotional movie that had a brilliant narrative discourse at the end that was so different and challengingly cute - romantically innovative to compell somebody out of their morose, depression - a nice sassy, drink for the soul.

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I certainly don't have a problem with someone's honest reaction to something "forcing" them to see things a certain way, but in the case of A.I., I don't think it involves "The Idiot Plot", or Damien, or any other unrealistic thing.

First off, we are dealing with sci-fi, but it's a pretty well-grounded sci-fi, especially emotionally. The entire first act of A.I. is full of contradictions, especially emotional ones, but that's why they're emotional and that's also why they're realistic. The dad brings home David against the mom's will, but after they bond, the mom becomes doting while the dad seems pretty cool to him. After the scissors incident, the mom is willing to "forgive" David, but the dad doesn't really want or need an explanation. The dad just fears that David is dangerous due to the fact that he isn't human.

But y'see, to me, if we were meant to take these scenes as genuine and realistic human interaction (alright, human/robot interaction ), then the mother shouldn't have had any need to "forgive" David, because she would have found out almost immediately that the prank was their real kid's fault, and the father's fears wouldn't have been reinforced by the event (which is, let's face it, the major event that the film presents to justify the robot-kid's abandonment). They only don't find out because we cut away - it's not an uncommon device in films, but it always feels forced to me, because it says that these characters don't exist outside of the snippets that we see, and to me that drains them - they become polemical exercises, "the torn mother", "the jealous sibling" and so on, without any interior life. But I'm clearly the Lone Ranger here, and that's OK too. Hi-ho, Silver!

I see your point, but how does that justify the fact that 90% of the people I know don't interact honestly, and that families are being torn apart daily by selfishness and divorce?

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
I see your point, but how does that justify the fact that 90% of the people I know don't interact honestly, and that families are being torn apart daily by selfishness and divorce?

Obviously it doesn't justify it, nor does it explain it, but that's completely irrelevant to what I'm talking about, really. I'm not suggesting that people aren't selfish, that families don't divorce, that secrets are not concealed. I'm suggesting that the devices used to engender that mistrust and separation in the script of A.I. are too simplistic and couldn't reasonably be expected to prevail - that too much suspension of disbelief is required on the part of the audience. Even with her real child back, wouldn't a mother who had focussed her maternal instinct on the robot-child look for some other explanation for that child's behaviour? Wouldn't someone so divided on the notion of abandoning that child have investigated the situation - just a tiny bit?

The suggestion that she might now be ashamed of her feelings for the robot-child in the face of her real child - a much more human and believable motivation for the abandonment - is not pursued. Instead, she runs him out to the sticks and abandons him, horribly conflicted, because "they're going to destroy you"! And she still has no idea, has not bothered to ask or investigate, the causes of the incidents - with the scissors or the other children?

quote:

MONICA
Why do you keep imagining that he was purposely trying to harm me?

HENRY
Uh, because we don't know the answer to that! How is he worth the risk to you, or to Martin, or to us as a family?

"Because we don't know the answer to that!" All I'm sayin' is: pretty thin.

As a result, at a crucial moment - a motivating moment for the remainder of the movie - the plot is driving the characters (rather than the reverse), and I find that kind of cinema deeply unsatisfying. Fair enough?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: maxwelledison,

Sure, that's fair enough. Do you have an example of cinema where the characters always drive the plot and all their motivations are completely satisfying?

quote:

Originally posted by mark f:
Sure, that's fair enough. Do you have an example of cinema where the characters always drive the plot and all their motivations are completely satisfying?

Well, they're rarer than the other kind, but that's why good, solid scripts are such an asset. Chinatown is a great example of a labyrinthine plot that still doesn't have one moment where you say "he/she wouldn't do that". Each scene leads inevitably to the next because of the established (or, in the case of Evelyn Mulwray early on, as yet unrevealed) traits of the characters - nothing is forced.

Mind you, it feels like cheating to invoke Chinatown, because it's a hell of a standard to live up to, and I'm looking for nothing so legendary. I'm happy if I can watch a film and see the characters function as characters rather than devices, and I'd venture to suggest that most good films hold to that tenet. (of course, there are great arthouse films where that isn't true, because they're not narrative films - y'know, Un Chien Andalou and the like - but I'm talking about yer classic linear Hollywood piece, where there's internal and external logic to the characters' actions.)

Glancing back over the thread, for instance, I see that you've chosen Panic Room, and most of what's wrong with that film is that the characters don't make sense, don't behave in the way the film has told us that they should, yes? They begin to do things because the plot needs to get to point X in order to set up such-and-such a scene; of course, by the time the movie gets to those climactic scenes, it's already fatally compromised itself. That, for me, is another example of an Idiot Plot.

A.I. is nowhere near so idiotic, but David's abandonment is crucial to the film; in fact, it's the incident on which the entire plot hangs, both narratively and emotionally. If you can't suspend disbelief on that, then you can't get onboard with the remainder, and I couldn't.

quote:

maxwelledison posted:

A.I. is nowhere near so idiotic, but David's abandonment is crucial to the film; in fact, it's the incident on which the entire plot hangs, both narratively and emotionally. If you can't suspend disbelief on that, then you can't get onboard with the remainder, and I couldn't.

Since A.I. was sort of a science fiction fairy tale, it was ready for once upon a time story and suspension of disbelief because of my acute interest in science fiction and wanting to know where the plot will take me. In science fiction, there's a lot of speculation, suspension of disbelief and for me the David abandonment lead up was oh yea, hmm...that's a little odd, but I'll accept it, it's possible, let's see what happens next and enjoyed the rest of the show.

quote:

Originally posted by tabuno:
...for me the David abandonment lead up was oh yea, hmm...that's a little odd, but I'll accept it, it's possible, let's see what happens next and enjoyed the rest of the show.

I can dig it. I didn't think it was possible (or at least thought it so highly unlikely as to be ridiculous) and therein lie our different appreciations of the film, I guess. Huzzah!

But certainly no disrespect intended to sci-fi, which has given me some of my greatest cinema moments.

I can honestly say that the worst movie I have seen to date is 'Going overboard' which really surprised me cos I really like Adam Sandler, I think he's the best! the film was so slow and I cant remember laughing atall. (Directed by Valerie Breiman, never heard of her before!)
Anyone got a better worst movie!

Going back about a decade or so, "The Road to Wellville" was horrible. Yet it had Anthony Hopkins, Matthew Broderick, Bridgette Fonda, Dana Carvey, John Cusack, and more! "Peggy Sue Got Married" was liked by some, hated by others. It had Kathleen Turner, Nicolas Cage, Jim Carrey, Wil Shriver, Maureen O'Sullivan, Helen Hunt, and again "more!"

I actually liked Road to Wellville (as a farce) and Peggy Sue Got Married (as Back to the Future lite), so I'd never call them lousy, although I can understand that others wouldn't like them. I still think that they're both a solid B-.

quote:

. Rikard posted:

Going back about a decade or so, "The Road to Wellville" was horrible. Yet it had Anthony Hopkins, Matthew Broderick, Bridgette Fonda, Dana Carvey, John Cusack, and more! "Peggy Sue Got Married" was liked by some, hated by others. It had Kathleen Turner, Nicolas Cage, Jim Carrey, Wil Shriver, Maureen O'Sullivan, Helen Hunt, and again "more!"

I probably wouldn't go so far to say that it was one of the "worst" movies but as I recall there was something off about it, particularly when considering the cast. There was something not authentic in terms of period setting and design. It just didn't flow smoothly. But I did enjoy the film.

War of the Worlds, anyone? (Spielberg, Cruise)
Not that it was bad, it was just kind of disappointing considering all the high expectations moviegoers like myself put on it.

This discussion has already been posted on the Worst 5 of 2005 thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Edward Nygma:
I dunno, I mean, if you give me the choice between watching Hook or The Lost World I'd choose Hook instantly.

I would chose a pistol in my mouth.