list http://www.spout.com/ Recent community activity around A.I.: Artificial Intelligence on Spout Copyright 2005-9 Spout, LLC Spout RSS http://www.spout.com/images/SpoutLogoRSS.jpg http://www.spout.com/ 136 30 http://www.spout.com/films/A_I_Artificial_Intelligence/192555/default.aspx Title: A.I.: Artificial Intelligence
Year: 2001
Director: Steven Spielberg
Plot: Based on the 1969 short story Super-Toys Last All Summer Long, by Brian Aldiss, this science fiction fantasy bears similarities to Pinocchio (1940) and originated as a long-gestating project of director Stanley Kubrick that passed to his friend Steven Spielberg after Kubrick's death. Haley Joel Osment stars as David, a "mecha" or robot of the future, when the polar ice caps have melted and submerged many coastal cities, causing worldwide starvation and human dependence upon robotic assistance. The first mecha designed to experience love, David is the "son" of Henry (Sam Robards), an employee of the company that built the boy, and the grief-stricken Monica (Frances O'Connor). David is meant to replace the couple's hopelessly comatose son, but when their natural child recovers, David is abandoned and sets out to become "a real boy" worthy of his mother's affection. Along the way, David is mentored by a pleasure-providing mecha named Gigolo Joe (Jude Law) and a talking "super toy" bear named Teddy. His adventures take him to the Roman Circus-style "Flesh Fair," where mechas are destroyed for the amusement of humans; Rouge City, where Gigolo Joe narrowly avoids capture by police; and finally a submerged New York City, where David's creator, Professor Hobby (William Hurt) reveals the secrets of the boy's creation. Brendan Gleeson and narrator Ben Kingsley co-star in A.I., which was adapted from Kubrick's treatment by Spielberg, in his first crack at screenwriting since Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977). ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide
Times Tagged: 57
Number of Lists: 88
Number of blog posts: 8
Number of discussion threads: 6
SpoutRating: 3
]]>Mon, 27 Jul 2009 19:08:33 GMTA.I.: Artificial Intelligence2001Steven SpielbergBased on the 1969 short story Super-Toys Last All Summer Long, by Brian Aldiss, this science fiction fantasy bears similarities to <a href=/films/26755/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Pinocchio</a> (1940) and originated as a long-gestating project of director <a href="/players/P____98221/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Stanley Kubrick</a> that passed to his friend <a href="/players/P___112325/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Steven Spielberg</a> after Kubrick's death. <a href="/players/P___215938/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Haley Joel Osment</a> stars as David, a "mecha" or robot of the future, when the polar ice caps have melted and submerged many coastal cities, causing worldwide starvation and human dependence upon robotic assistance. The first mecha designed to experience love, David is the "son" of Henry (<a href="/players/P____60516/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Sam Robards</a>), an employee of the company that built the boy, and the grief-stricken Monica (<a href="/players/P___228585/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Frances O'Connor</a>). David is meant to replace the couple's hopelessly comatose son, but when their natural child recovers, David is abandoned and sets out to become "a real boy" worthy of his mother's affection. Along the way, David is mentored by a pleasure-providing mecha named Gigolo Joe (<a href="/players/P___230573/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Jude Law</a>) and a talking "super toy" bear named Teddy. His adventures take him to the Roman Circus-style "Flesh Fair," where mechas are destroyed for the amusement of humans; Rouge City, where Gigolo Joe narrowly avoids capture by police; and finally a submerged New York City, where David's creator, Professor Hobby (<a href="/players/P____34104/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>William Hurt</a>) reveals the secrets of the boy's creation. <a href="/players/P____27217/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Brendan Gleeson</a> and narrator <a href="/players/P____38383/default.aspx" style='text-decoration:underline'>Ben Kingsley</a> co-star in A.I., which was adapted from Kubrick's treatment by Spielberg, in his first crack at screenwriting since <a href=/films/6460/default.aspx style='text-decoration:underline'>Close Encounters of the Third Kind</a> (1977). ~ Karl Williams, All Movie Guide57Tag Target (>10)88863http://www.spout.com/ProductImages/t17337xxkmb.jpghttp://www.spout.com/films/A_I_Artificial_Intelligence/192555/default.aspxFilm http://www.spout.com/blogs/wilmojako/archive/2008/12/14/38363.aspx Post By: wilmojako
Post To: wilmojako Blog
Post Date: 12/14/2008 10:01:09 PM
Body: A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001) Truly I admire Steven Spielberg's works on film industry. He is one of my inspiration to pushtrough my dream to be a filmmaker. I like his films a lot especially his 2001, Artificial Intelligence. I was moved with the story and the dramatic effect which i call it, the spielberg effect. The element he puts on his movie makes someone,like me, feel the spielberg effect. It is the overall impact which all the elements come together to create a single effect. The idea of the whole story is well conveyed upon reaching the point where all the elements come to a single effect. The A.I is a craft by Spielberg which moved me in a way that makes me realize the importance of his message. Osment played the role of David, a robot designed to feel the emotions as human do. The best part i really like from A.I is when David searches for the Blue fairy and ask to make him a realy boy so his mom would love him. He spends his life waiting and hoping that his wish will come true. After 2000 years, he still long for his wish to be fulfilled. That's then i realized that no matter who you are, what you are, you deserve to love and to be loved. Like David, no matter who he is, he never cease to hope and dream that someday he will become a real boy. The Spielberg effect touches me as his message of hope and love continue to live deep inside me. Hope is very important, it comes with patience. In life there is always hope to make us strong and 'fighting' no matter how hard the roads we are taking. Like David, he never gives up! Love is what everyone deserves, human or animal, living and non-living, they still need to be respected and loved. Feel the Spielberg effect.
]]>Mon, 15 Dec 2008 03:01:09 GMTwilmojakowilmojako Blog12/14/2008 10:01:09 PMA.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001) Truly I admire Steven Spielberg's works on film industry. He is one of my inspiration to pushtrough my dream to be a filmmaker. I like his films a lot especially his 2001, Artificial Intelligence. I was moved with the story and the dramatic effect which i call it, the spielberg effect. The element he puts on his movie makes someone,like me, feel the spielberg effect. It is the overall impact which all the elements come together to create a single effect. The idea of the whole story is well conveyed upon reaching the point where all the elements come to a single effect. The A.I is a craft by Spielberg which moved me in a way that makes me realize the importance of his message. Osment played the role of David, a robot designed to feel the emotions as human do. The best part i really like from A.I is when David searches for the Blue fairy and ask to make him a realy boy so his mom would love him. He spends his life waiting and hoping that his wish will come true. After 2000 years, he still long for his wish to be fulfilled. That's then i realized that no matter who you are, what you are, you deserve to love and to be loved. Like David, no matter who he is, he never cease to hope and dream that someday he will become a real boy. The Spielberg effect touches me as his message of hope and love continue to live deep inside me. Hope is very important, it comes with patience. In life there is always hope to make us strong and 'fighting' no matter how hard the roads we are taking. Like David, he never gives up! Love is what everyone deserves, human or animal, living and non-living, they still need to be respected and loved. Feel the Spielberg effect. http://www.spout.com/groups/sci_fi/Re_Isaac_Asimov/4/37623/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: sci-fi
Post Date: 11/25/2008 1:48:15 PM
Body: [quote user="SkyPilot"] I haven't read much Asimov. Which movies are influenced by his stories besides Bicentennial man and I, Robot? Do you think I, Robot influenced Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. [/quote] Asimov also wrote A.I. I have no idea about I, Robot influencing Dick's fim. I've never seen "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." I should probably check it out though. Funny how I never subscribed to this thread even though I started it... :0
]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 18:48:15 GMTrjspraguesci-fi11/25/2008 1:48:15 PM[quote user="SkyPilot"] I haven't read much Asimov. Which movies are influenced by his stories besides Bicentennial man and I, Robot? Do you think I, Robot influenced Philip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. [/quote] Asimov also wrote A.I. I have no idea about I, Robot influencing Dick's fim. I've never seen "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep." I should probably check it out though. Funny how I never subscribed to this thread even though I started it... :0 http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_24_Cyborgs_Androids/625/37608/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: rjsprague
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/25/2008 10:18:22 AM
Body: Isaac Asimov was deeply fascinated with androids: A.I. I, Robot Bicentennial Man
]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 15:18:22 GMTrjspragueWeekly Theme11/25/2008 10:18:22 AMIsaac Asimov was deeply fascinated with androids: A.I. I, Robot Bicentennial Man http://www.spout.com/groups/Weekly_Theme/Re_Weekly_Theme_for_November_24_Cyborgs_Androids/625/37597/1/ShowPost.aspx Post By: mciocco
Post To: Weekly Theme
Post Date: 11/24/2008 8:20:50 PM
Body: Let's see here, some of my favorite robots that are a little too human, or at least striving to be that way: The Terminator - Of course, it's not a particularly good thing that he looked so human, but this is one of my favorite movies of all time, so there! Ash from Alien and Bishop from Aliens - I'd bet most folks had no idea that Ash was even a synthetic until he went crazy and Ripley knocked his head off and he started squirting out all that white milky bloodlike stuff. And Bishop, of course, is not as crazy. He even follows Asimov's first law of robotics! Speaking of Asimov's robots, how about Data from Star Trek:TNG - Perhaps not so much in the movies (though I do like First Contact), but Data's quest to become more human was one of my favorite things about TNG. Gigolo Joe from A.I.: Artificial Intelligence - Ok, fine, maybe Haley Joel Osment's character too, but Jude Law's performance was awesome. Major Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell (and it's various sequels and Anime series) - She's a strange one because as a full replacement cyborg, she has a lot of identity issues (if you replace your entire body with artificial parts, are you still you?), but she's a great character. I suppose that a few of the above are technically cyborgs, but whatever. I still like them:p Oh, and I believe they're called "Fembots" not "Sexbots" (but I like where you're head's at. I also like women of that... caliber!)
]]>Tue, 25 Nov 2008 01:20:50 GMTmcioccoWeekly Theme11/24/2008 8:20:50 PMLet's see here, some of my favorite robots that are a little too human, or at least striving to be that way: The Terminator - Of course, it's not a particularly good thing that he looked so human, but this is one of my favorite movies of all time, so there! Ash from Alien and Bishop from Aliens - I'd bet most folks had no idea that Ash was even a synthetic until he went crazy and Ripley knocked his head off and he started squirting out all that white milky bloodlike stuff. And Bishop, of course, is not as crazy. He even follows Asimov's first law of robotics! Speaking of Asimov's robots, how about Data from Star Trek:TNG - Perhaps not so much in the movies (though I do like First Contact), but Data's quest to become more human was one of my favorite things about TNG. Gigolo Joe from A.I.: Artificial Intelligence - Ok, fine, maybe Haley Joel Osment's character too, but Jude Law's performance was awesome. Major Motoko Kusanagi from Ghost in the Shell (and it's various sequels and Anime series) - She's a strange one because as a full replacement cyborg, she has a lot of identity issues (if you replace your entire body with artificial parts, are you still you?), but she's a great character. I suppose that a few of the above are technically cyborgs, but whatever. I still like them:p Oh, and I believe they're called "Fembots" not "Sexbots" (but I like where you're head's at. I also like women of that... caliber!) http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/7/25/33086.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 7/25/2008 12:00:50 PM
Body: This week I wanted to make a simple point: Andrew Stanton’s WALL-E is a near-masterpiece of A.I. proportions and socio-political implications, reduced by its cloying musical score to just another ingenious Disney/Pixar heart-tugger. The most effective way to illustrate this would have been to create a video mash-up of the WALL-E score and an immersive philosophical sci-fi like 2001: A Space Odyssey, THX-1138 or Tarkovsky’s Solaris. But my laptop’s down, so I’m stuck here telling you rather than showing. Let’s try another way: This column is written by a single man in his 30’s who spends a lot of time alone. If Disney or Sony or the Weinstein Company made a movie about my life, there would be lots of alienated, bassy sounds over shots of me staring red-eyed at a library computer screen; piano tinkling accompanying my pitiful walk home; despairing choral chants and Middle Eastern wailing as I trudge up to the arthouse ticket booth on a Saturday night (”One for Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, please.”). You all would feel sorry for me and maybe see something of your own sorrows in mine. But you’d walk out of the movie filing me away with other cinematic sad sacks, somewhere between Travis Bickle and the fat guy with the watery eyes in Heavy. Then, on to dinner and your own troubles. But how could you forget me so easily? Don’t my isolation and suffering mean something beyond the screen? What about the scene where they diagnosed me with that rare illness? Or when that stick-up kid shot me in the leg? I was just trying to get home to my noodles. My dog falling down the elevator shaft–only a faint memory now, huh? Well, I blame the music. It never let you really get that close to me, beyond how cute and pathetic I am. There’s a lot more to me than my pratfalls and one-liners and humiliations. Even in my scene of triumph, when I won over the girl from the clutches of that finance asshole, your applause was mere ritual, far from spontaneous, because a 90-piece orchestra and a synth blast told you just when to decide that I was The Man. You clapped for me the way you’d clap for somebody else’s kid at the school play. Okay: WALL-E joins Shadow of a Doubt and On the Waterfront as another brilliant and devastating visual statement on American life dulled and softened by an overbearing orchestral score that says, “It’s only a movie, y’all. Have fun. Shrek it up. More popcorn!” The film’s mostly wordless first act builds a convincing world and lets the trash-compacting robot WALL-E wander yearningly through it (his loneliness in a world he never knew jibing with our wistfulness amid familiar ruins). Other than the old musical number WALL-E watches and imitates, Ben Burtt’s sound design is as much music as this segment requires. Along with the expected Pixar dynamism and grit, Burtt’s work makes WALL-E’s junkyard Earth a very real, menacing, strange and wondrous graveyard for the American empire. This intense WALL-eyed subjectivity and naturalism-plus-reminiscence can hang with the greatest of Studio Ghibli animations (and early Pixar shorts). Ghibli directors Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata can make things like leaves and parasols weep and die real deaths. Burrt and Stanton do the same for our beloved 20th century gadgets. But Thomas Newman’s score emerges like clockwork at plot points to lend the film a more Dreamworks-ish sense of hectic postmodern showmanship. Party time, not story time. The film’s cluttered and increasingly talky midsection set on a space colony/resort/mall throws the party in full swing. Yo Pixar, howbout a WALL-E DVD with the option to mute the musical score? Underneath your reliably sturdy, entertaining 2008-edition Disney product is a film of finer and deeper Pixar shadings that might just rouse the consumer blobs in the audience out of their floating recliners– rather than simply prod, placate and party with them. But that would be truly revolutionary, and I doubt your overlord Disney is having any part of that. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Fri, 25 Jul 2008 16:00:50 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com7/25/2008 12:00:50 PM This week I wanted to make a simple point: Andrew Stanton’s WALL-E is a near-masterpiece of A.I. proportions and socio-political implications, reduced by its cloying musical score to just another ingenious Disney/Pixar heart-tugger. The most effective way to illustrate this would have been to create a video mash-up of the WALL-E score and an immersive philosophical sci-fi like 2001: A Space Odyssey, THX-1138 or Tarkovsky’s Solaris. But my laptop’s down, so I’m stuck here telling you rather than showing. Let’s try another way: This column is written by a single man in his 30’s who spends a lot of time alone. If Disney or Sony or the Weinstein Company made a movie about my life, there would be lots of alienated, bassy sounds over shots of me staring red-eyed at a library computer screen; piano tinkling accompanying my pitiful walk home; despairing choral chants and Middle Eastern wailing as I trudge up to the arthouse ticket booth on a Saturday night (”One for Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia, please.”). You all would feel sorry for me and maybe see something of your own sorrows in mine. But you’d walk out of the movie filing me away with other cinematic sad sacks, somewhere between Travis Bickle and the fat guy with the watery eyes in Heavy. Then, on to dinner and your own troubles. But how could you forget me so easily? Don’t my isolation and suffering mean something beyond the screen? What about the scene where they diagnosed me with that rare illness? Or when that stick-up kid shot me in the leg? I was just trying to get home to my noodles. My dog falling down the elevator shaft–only a faint memory now, huh? Well, I blame the music. It never let you really get that close to me, beyond how cute and pathetic I am. There’s a lot more to me than my pratfalls and one-liners and humiliations. Even in my scene of triumph, when I won over the girl from the clutches of that finance asshole, your applause was mere ritual, far from spontaneous, because a 90-piece orchestra and a synth blast told you just when to decide that I was The Man. You clapped for me the way you’d clap for somebody else’s kid at the school play. Okay: WALL-E joins Shadow of a Doubt and On the Waterfront as another brilliant and devastating visual statement on American life dulled and softened by an overbearing orchestral score that says, “It’s only a movie, y’all. Have fun. Shrek it up. More popcorn!” The film’s mostly wordless first act builds a convincing world and lets the trash-compacting robot WALL-E wander yearningly through it (his loneliness in a world he never knew jibing with our wistfulness amid familiar ruins). Other than the old musical number WALL-E watches and imitates, Ben Burtt’s sound design is as much music as this segment requires. Along with the expected Pixar dynamism and grit, Burtt’s work makes WALL-E’s junkyard Earth a very real, menacing, strange and wondrous graveyard for the American empire. This intense WALL-eyed subjectivity and naturalism-plus-reminiscence can hang with the greatest of Studio Ghibli animations (and early Pixar shorts). Ghibli directors Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata can make things like leaves and parasols weep and die real deaths. Burrt and Stanton do the same for our beloved 20th century gadgets. But Thomas Newman’s score emerges like clockwork at plot points to lend the film a more Dreamworks-ish sense of hectic postmodern showmanship. Party time, not story time. The film’s cluttered and increasingly talky midsection set on a space colony/resort/mall throws the party in full swing. Yo Pixar, howbout a WALL-E DVD with the option to mute the musical score? Underneath your reliably sturdy, entertaining 2008-edition Disney product is a film of finer and deeper Pixar shadings that might just rouse the consumer blobs in the audience out of their floating recliners– rather than simply prod, placate and party with them. But that would be truly revolutionary, and I doubt your overlord Disney is having any part of that. Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/the_american_dream/archive/2008/6/15/31263.aspx Post By: The_American_Dream
Post To: The_American_Dream Blog
Post Date: 6/15/2008 11:31:24 PM
Body: FORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more. These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory. Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach. Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great cliché. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it. But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence. Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir. To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view. These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing. Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that. Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies.
]]>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:31:24 GMTThe_American_DreamThe_American_Dream Blog6/15/2008 11:31:24 PMFORWARD: This is a review of two movies, "Black Hawk Down" and "Saving Private Ryan", while also discussing principals that I believe make for better movies. In this review, I hope to look at more than just these movies and look at movies in general more. These two movies have a lot in common, not just their classification as war movies, they seek to put the viewer in the action of the movie and they have similar underlying themes of brotherhood among soldiers and never leave another man behind. But there is (I find) a better one between the two, despite similarities and differences. To discuss this, one has to really step back from what is normally looked at in a review and take into account some film theory. Starting, however, with themes. There are several in these movies, particularly that of camaraderie mentioned before. This is one part that "Saving Private Ryan" does discuss very well, "Saving Private Ryan" asks where the line is to be drawn between the life of one man and the lives of those trying to save him. "Black Hawk Down" decides to say 'just go get him'. Both are fine but frankly, "Saving Private Ryan" has an ambiguity there that is interesting. But there are other themes and motifs that are at the center of these movies that have to be seen in a light other than, what is an interesting topic to approach. Both movies also have this sometimes paradoxical view of, being a soldier is a great thing (even to the point where the movie could be used as propaganda), but also make very clear that they have the immortal 'can't we make a better world, end the suffering, bring them home' interpretation. The more extreme versions of this are clear too, "Paths of Glory" clearly has one to say over the other. However, on these themes, "Black Hawk Down" emphasizes the point that the characters are just ordinary people (another example of which is "The Lost Battalion"). Having that key point, particularly form the beginning, gives better character. "Saving Private Ryan" does touch on this, but they build it up, almost with suspense, this ends up making a great clich&eacute;. "The Lost Batalion" does this too but does not build up so much to it. But where the principals of film making come into these movies is when these movie tackle capturing the war experience. Both movies force the audience into the action, Spielberg even says in supplemental material on "Saving Private Ryan" that he wanted to get a "news reel" feel to the movie. Throughout "Saving Private Ryan" the camera is jostled almost to the point of "Blair Witch Project" status (although not as nauseating as "Cloverfield"). These principals that Spielberg tries to incorporate ultimately fail. The clear reason here is because he gets caught up in trying to get his "news reel" feel, and the movie forgets that it should be a movie. Ridley Scott however does not forget to keep his filmmakers reserve. Scott slams the audience into action and vividly puts the horrors of war not he screen but there is a key difference. The difference is that Scott uses the principals of filmmaking to his advantage in bringing across the point of graphic war violence. Before getting into this, more philosophical, part of the critique, it is important to describe what these principals are. Most of these seem relatively innocuous, but they are vital to good filmmaking. When setting up towards action, particularly when you are trying to capture real world action, it is vital to have some kind of establishment. When this is done it is far easier for us the audience to actually feel more in the action. To note another Ridley Scott film, "Kingdom of Heaven", Scott clearly shows his expertise in these fundaments by giving the viewer wide shots of armies and catapults and so on. When one has that in their mind, it makes the in-your-face action real. When the catapults have already been on the screen, when one sees a giant rock or ball of flame come through the wall, it is clear where it came from. Spielberg does this, only to a lesser degree, being jerked from one close-up of a tank firing to another close-up of somebody trying to cover from the debris and then going back to the wide of the whole ordeal is confusing. It becomes particularly annoying when all the action could have been in one shot. This principal goes way back, and is brought out all the time in movies made today like "Sin City" and "The Black Dahlia" but is not limited to this noir. To reiterate, and to explain better, one could not that in "Black Hawk Down" Scott always focuses the action after reviewing it first. For example; there is a point in which a convoy of transport vehicles (the viewer has already seen them get in) gets attacked and parts of one soldiers body fly about and in the last moments of his life he pulls a "Tell my wife I love her". But this short piece is done very nicely and Scott uses these principals throughout it; there is a wide shot and every vehicle passes, then there is a somewhat more close shot of the explosion going off and soldiers taking their defensive positions, then a very tight point-of-view shot from behind a vehicle that directs the attention at the dismembered body, then an over-the-shoulder view for the dialogue, after a bit more shooting there is a shot wrapping it all up of medics clearing the scene. This shows how, when used correctly, simple film theory produces a better result because of the greater knowledge about the action. That scene really sticks with me, although I can recall scenes from "Saving Private Ryan", parts like this of "Black Hawk Down" hold fast to a viewer. This is not that hard, scenes like that nicely dot even "Cloverfield", a movie totally in point-of-view. These are just one example of what these principals can do to heighten the action of the movie, but there is more than that to discuss between these two movies regarding character and how they are brought across. This needs to be discussed more than simply who the people are and how that is introduced, because the characters in movies should go beyond those on the screen, some face of humanity should be up there too. Spielberg is a master at this, "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence" not to mention "Schindler's List" and even "Munich" are testament to Spielberg's talent here. There should be something in characters that is somewhat openhanded or universal. Noted, the war genera is not easy for everyone to relate to, both movies use common ploys to achieve this but, in the end, faced between the full circle flashback of "Saving Private Ryan" and the end monologue of "Black Hawk Down" (which brings the themes of the movie full circle), the more simplistic monologue gives the audience resolve and makes a movie far more endearing. Additionally, Scott generally leaves an amount of bias aside. This is less clear in "Black Hawk Down" when it can be seen as a race-war from time to time. "Kingdom of Heaven" however is unflinching in how it shows both sides. Spielberg does not weigh both sides, this works well when his thesis is like that of "Schindler's List" in telling the stories of the holocaust, but "Saving Private Ryan" wants to deal with a war experience, that cannot be done without a more general view of people laying their lives on the line. And even when there is the element of race in "Black Hawk Down", Scott makes it clear, the reason for the fighting is far deeper than that. Again, these movies demonstrate how simple things go a long way in influencing the final product of a film. Between these two, "Black Hawk Down" really takes it away with all its many qualities. Despite even the best efforts of a great director, Spielberg, who knows how to always get the upper hand in movies with his long linage of big blockbusters and superstars. Scott has always been somewhat of an odd ball out on these matters, people are not always sure what to associate him with. But to end, on this (and other movies), Scott puts down only the best workings for some of the best movies. http://www.spout.com/blogs/cinemarian/archive/2008/5/12/28609.aspx Post By: CinemaRian
Post To: CinemaRian Blog
Post Date: 5/12/2008 11:44:18 AM
Body: A.I. is a cinematic chimera out of science fiction- it's as if Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick somehow merged together into one person and made a film that equaled the best of both of their films. Although we will never know what the film would have been like if it had been the full fledged collaboration the two filmmakers intended it to be (Kubrick died after completing multiple story conferences and early scripts with Spielberg), the result is a clear masterpiece- the best film of Spielberg's career. Like the best of Kubrick, the film is both cold and distant, while emotionally devastating at the same time. Kubrick's misanthropy would seem to contrast with Spielberg's innate humanism, but the movie manages to have it both ways. There are scenes in this movie of such depravity and tragedy that would make it among the most depressing of all films, and other scenes of such hope that the film also manages to be uplifting. Many find the movie's ending to be cloying and manipulative (one person told me "This would be one of the greatest movies ever made if Spielberg hadn't had fucked it up"), but I believe that it works. It is possible for a movie to show both the best and worst aspects of being human. It is not right to pidgeon hole movies in boxes of "happy" and "sad." Do you feel one of those to emotions all the time? The film is set sometime in the future, when robotics have advanced to the degree that some machines have apparently become sentient, a la HAL 9000. Or at least, I think they have. The movie is vague about its many of its more philosophical points. The one robot that definitely experiences consciousness is David (Haley Joel Osment), who was manufactured to be the first robot to be substitute child (in this future, there is an extremely low birth rate). David is given to a woman named Monica (Frances O'Connor), whose own son Martin (Jake Thomas) is a coma. She finds the idea creepy at first but eventually bonds with David, and they have a real mother-son relationship, which quickly becomes tested when Martin wakes up. The "brothers" quickly clash, and eventually David's "father" (Sam Robards) fears that the robot might unintentionally hurt his fragile brother, and orders Monica to take him back to the factory for destruction. Unable to watch David be destroyed, she abandons him with his robot bear Teddy (voice of Jack Angel). Pursued by a right-wing group who wants to destroy all robots, David and Teddy eventually meet up with Gigolo Joe (Jude Law) a android prostitute who is himself on the run for a murder he didn't commit. Together, the three set out to find the Blue Fairy, a character in the Pinocchio story that David thinks might make him human, unaware that the story is fiction. Watching David on his apparently fruitless quest to find the Blue Fairy, I began to think about what it meant to be human. Is it enough to love, as David does, or does there also need to be a concept of death, or perhaps religion? Unlike humans, the robots know exactly who made them, and what there intended function in life was to be. But the androids seem to have varying levels of awareness- does Teddy real care about the children he was created to be a friend for, who does he just seem to? Does he care about anything at all, or is he just a collection parts to act in a way to make humans feel good? In someways, the character with the most empty life seems to be Gigolo Joe. He was designed to love being a prostitute. I am not sure what is better, being self aware but having nothing but endless (and presumably physically unpleasurable) sexual encounters or to go through life a mere collection of circuits, carrying out a preprogrammed series of physical tasks. There is not enough space for me to write about how almost everything in this movie works. The special effects are some of the best ever committed to the screen- I couldn't figure out whether Teddy was a real robot or a CGI creation, but either way, he simply looks real. The acting is superb- Haley Joel Osment doesn't merely look cute like 90% of child actors, but creates a real character. Unlike so many cheesy-looking sci-fi films, the future looks, well, like the future. But the movie's greatest quality is its ability to work on both the head and the heart. It's a deep movie that is also an emotional roller coaster. By the end of the film about artificial life, I felt that the real thing is a strange experience. Humans are the only creatures that are capable of both selfless love, and pure unreasoned hate, and unfortunately, in the later stage, it's the innocent who suffer the most. I have a strange feeling that around January of 2010, when I compile my list of the ten best films of the decade, this movie will be on it. A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001)
]]>Mon, 12 May 2008 15:44:18 GMTCinemaRianCinemaRian Blog5/12/2008 11:44:18 AMA.I. is a cinematic chimera out of science fiction- it's as if Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick somehow merged together into one person and made a film that equaled the best of both of their films. Although we will never know what the film would have been like if it had been the full fledged collaboration the two filmmakers intended it to be (Kubrick died after completing multiple story conferences and early scripts with Spielberg), the result is a clear masterpiece- the best film of Spielberg's career. Like the best of Kubrick, the film is both cold and distant, while emotionally devastating at the same time. Kubrick's misanthropy would seem to contrast with Spielberg's innate humanism, but the movie manages to have it both ways. There are scenes in this movie of such depravity and tragedy that would make it among the most depressing of all films, and other scenes of such hope that the film also manages to be uplifting. Many find the movie's ending to be cloying and manipulative (one person told me "This would be one of the greatest movies ever made if Spielberg hadn't had fucked it up"), but I believe that it works. It is possible for a movie to show both the best and worst aspects of being human. It is not right to pidgeon hole movies in boxes of "happy" and "sad." Do you feel one of those to emotions all the time? The film is set sometime in the future, when robotics have advanced to the degree that some machines have apparently become sentient, a la HAL 9000. Or at least, I think they have. The movie is vague about its many of its more philosophical points. The one robot that definitely experiences consciousness is David (Haley Joel Osment), who was manufactured to be the first robot to be substitute child (in this future, there is an extremely low birth rate). David is given to a woman named Monica (Frances O'Connor), whose own son Martin (Jake Thomas) is a coma. She finds the idea creepy at first but eventually bonds with David, and they have a real mother-son relationship, which quickly becomes tested when Martin wakes up. The "brothers" quickly clash, and eventually David's "father" (Sam Robards) fears that the robot might unintentionally hurt his fragile brother, and orders Monica to take him back to the factory for destruction. Unable to watch David be destroyed, she abandons him with his robot bear Teddy (voice of Jack Angel). Pursued by a right-wing group who wants to destroy all robots, David and Teddy eventually meet up with Gigolo Joe (Jude Law) a android prostitute who is himself on the run for a murder he didn't commit. Together, the three set out to find the Blue Fairy, a character in the Pinocchio story that David thinks might make him human, unaware that the story is fiction. Watching David on his apparently fruitless quest to find the Blue Fairy, I began to think about what it meant to be human. Is it enough to love, as David does, or does there also need to be a concept of death, or perhaps religion? Unlike humans, the robots know exactly who made them, and what there intended function in life was to be. But the androids seem to have varying levels of awareness- does Teddy real care about the children he was created to be a friend for, who does he just seem to? Does he care about anything at all, or is he just a collection parts to act in a way to make humans feel good? In someways, the character with the most empty life seems to be Gigolo Joe. He was designed to love being a prostitute. I am not sure what is better, being self aware but having nothing but endless (and presumably physically unpleasurable) sexual encounters or to go through life a mere collection of circuits, carrying out a preprogrammed series of physical tasks. There is not enough space for me to write about how almost everything in this movie works. The special effects are some of the best ever committed to the screen- I couldn't figure out whether Teddy was a real robot or a CGI creation, but either way, he simply looks real. The acting is superb- Haley Joel Osment doesn't merely look cute like 90% of child actors, but creates a real character. Unlike so many cheesy-looking sci-fi films, the future looks, well, like the future. But the movie's greatest quality is its ability to work on both the head and the heart. It's a deep movie that is also an emotional roller coaster. By the end of the film about artificial life, I felt that the real thing is a strange experience. Humans are the only creatures that are capable of both selfless love, and pure unreasoned hate, and unfortunately, in the later stage, it's the innocent who suffer the most. I have a strange feeling that around January of 2010, when I compile my list of the ten best films of the decade, this movie will be on it. A.I.: Artificial Intelligence (2001) http://www.spout.com/blogs/karina/archive/2008/1/8/23633.aspx Post By: Karina
Post To: Karina on SpoutBlog
Post Date: 1/8/2008 5:00:48 PM
Body: Yet more chaos in the wake of The Fall of the Globes: yesterday, we noted that if nothing else, a minimized Golden Globes would spare us the inevitable tribute montage to Steven Spielberg, who is due to receive a Cecil B. DeMille award at the ceremony. Now it appears that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has decided (surely not without some help from the Spielberg camp) that, rather than accept the award at this year’s glorified press conference, “it would be better” (?!?) for the HFPA to just give him the same award next year, when presumably, there will be a four hour telecast to further pad with tributes to Spielberg’s special way with imperiled children, animatronic dinosaurs, animatronic children and imperiled dinosaurs. I got the Variety email alert for this story, and I admit it??????I literally, audibly cried, “Bah!” Other than that, I’ve got nothing. How about you? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina
]]>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:00:48 GMTKarinaKarina on SpoutBlog1/8/2008 5:00:48 PMYet more chaos in the wake of The Fall of the Globes: yesterday, we noted that if nothing else, a minimized Golden Globes would spare us the inevitable tribute montage to Steven Spielberg, who is due to receive a Cecil B. DeMille award at the ceremony. Now it appears that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has decided (surely not without some help from the Spielberg camp) that, rather than accept the award at this year’s glorified press conference, “it would be better” (?!?) for the HFPA to just give him the same award next year, when presumably, there will be a four hour telecast to further pad with tributes to Spielberg’s special way with imperiled children, animatronic dinosaurs, animatronic children and imperiled dinosaurs. I got the Variety email alert for this story, and I admit it??????I literally, audibly cried, “Bah!” Other than that, I’ve got nothing. How about you? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog » karina http://www.spout.com/blogs/spoutblog/archive/2008/1/8/23632.aspx Post By: SpoutBlog
Post To: SpoutBlog on spout.com
Post Date: 1/8/2008 5:00:31 PM
Body: Yet more chaos in the wake of The Fall of the Globes: yesterday, we noted that if nothing else, a minimized Golden Globes would spare us the inevitable tribute montage to Steven Spielberg, who is due to receive a Cecil B. DeMille award at the ceremony. Now it appears that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has decided (surely not without some help from the Spielberg camp) that, rather than accept the award at this year’s glorified press conference, “it would be better” (?!?) for the HFPA to just give him the same award next year, when presumably, there will be a four hour telecast to further pad with tributes to Spielberg’s special way with imperiled children, animatronic dinosaurs, animatronic children and imperiled dinosaurs. I got the Variety email alert for this story, and I admit it??????I literally, audibly cried, “Bah!” Other than that, I’ve got nothing. How about you? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog
]]>Tue, 08 Jan 2008 22:00:31 GMTSpoutBlogSpoutBlog on spout.com1/8/2008 5:00:31 PMYet more chaos in the wake of The Fall of the Globes: yesterday, we noted that if nothing else, a minimized Golden Globes would spare us the inevitable tribute montage to Steven Spielberg, who is due to receive a Cecil B. DeMille award at the ceremony. Now it appears that the Hollywood Foreign Press Association has decided (surely not without some help from the Spielberg camp) that, rather than accept the award at this year’s glorified press conference, “it would be better” (?!?) for the HFPA to just give him the same award next year, when presumably, there will be a four hour telecast to further pad with tributes to Spielberg’s special way with imperiled children, animatronic dinosaurs, animatronic children and imperiled dinosaurs. I got the Variety email alert for this story, and I admit it??????I literally, audibly cried, “Bah!” Other than that, I’ve got nothing. How about you? Originally posted on:SpoutBlog http://www.spout.com/blogs/jakestevens/archive/2007/11/5/21448.aspx Post By: JakeStevens
Post To: JakeStevens Blog
Post Date: 11/5/2007 8:01:12 PM
Body: I know, I know...everyone seems to bitch about what a great movie A.I. could've been had Stanley Kubrick directed it. But it's true - watch the special features that come with the 2-Disc DVD set and you'll see what I mean. Some of the most powerful and startling images have been watered down for a "family friendly" feel. I will admit, though, that it's better than your average Spielberg film. It's beautifully shot and then ending leaves you with an almost overwhelming sense of loss and sadness. Not terrible by any means, but could have been one of the best films ever made - not just "decent by Spielbergian" standards.
]]>Tue, 06 Nov 2007 01:01:12 GMTJakeStevensJakeStevens Blog11/5/2007 8:01:12 PMI know, I know...everyone seems to bitch about what a great movie A.I. could&#39;ve been had Stanley Kubrick directed it. But it&#39;s true - watch the special features that come with the 2-Disc DVD set and you&#39;ll see what I mean. Some of the most powerful and startling images have been watered down for a &quot;family friendly&quot; feel. I will admit, though, that it&#39;s better than your average Spielberg film. It&#39;s beautifully shot and then ending leaves you with an almost overwhelming sense of loss and sadness. Not terrible by any means, but could have been one of the best films ever made - not just &quot;decent by Spielbergian&quot; standards. http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/overrated/MemberTagFilms.aspxoverrated
Number of films tagged: 152

Number of people who tagged: 106

Number of times used: 240

]]>Fri, 20 Mar 2009 23:37:37 GMT152106240Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/Boring/MemberTagFilms.aspxBoring
Number of films tagged: 177

Number of people who tagged: 105

Number of times used: 207

]]>Tue, 29 Sep 2009 23:44:27 GMT177105207Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/drama/MemberTagFilms.aspxdrama
Number of films tagged: 525

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 624

]]>Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:39:10 GMT525102624Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sci-fi/MemberTagFilms.aspxsci-fi
Number of films tagged: 217

Number of people who tagged: 102

Number of times used: 375

]]>Fri, 04 Dec 2009 19:33:53 GMT217102375Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/future/MemberTagFilms.aspxfuture
Number of films tagged: 492

Number of people who tagged: 101

Number of times used: 258

]]>Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:46:43 GMT492101258Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/sad/MemberTagFilms.aspxsad
Number of films tagged: 170

Number of people who tagged: 96

Number of times used: 226

]]>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:35:46 GMT17096226Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/adventure/MemberTagFilms.aspxadventure
Number of films tagged: 227

Number of people who tagged: 95

Number of times used: 367

]]>Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:34:17 GMT22795367Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/lame/MemberTagFilms.aspxlame
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 65

Number of times used: 162

]]>Tue, 07 Jul 2009 01:10:30 GMT14065162Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/identity/MemberTagFilms.aspxidentity
Number of films tagged: 595

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 91

]]>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:43:41 GMT5955391Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/mother/MemberTagFilms.aspxmother
Number of films tagged: 2522

Number of people who tagged: 53

Number of times used: 152

]]>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 20:51:56 GMT252253152Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/torture/MemberTagFilms.aspxtorture
Number of films tagged: 571

Number of people who tagged: 43

Number of times used: 104

]]>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:51:19 GMT57143104Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/scifi/MemberTagFilms.aspxscifi
Number of films tagged: 56

Number of people who tagged: 36

Number of times used: 101

]]>Mon, 07 Sep 2009 07:07:43 GMT5636101Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/long/MemberTagFilms.aspxlong
Number of films tagged: 53

Number of people who tagged: 35

Number of times used: 63

]]>Wed, 09 Dec 2009 05:08:36 GMT533563Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/confusing/MemberTagFilms.aspxconfusing
Number of films tagged: 27

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 34

]]>Fri, 18 Sep 2009 14:44:43 GMT272834Tag http://www.spout.com/members/0/tags/visual/MemberTagFilms.aspxvisual
Number of films tagged: 140

Number of people who tagged: 28

Number of times used: 161

]]>Mon, 30 Nov 2009 19:54:25 GMT14028161Tag