On Mon, Oct 01, 2001 at 05:15:34PM +0100, Leon Brocard wrote: > Simon Wilcox sent the following bits through the ether: > > > What the hell was Steven Spielberg on and can he pass it round ? > > I kind of liked AI. I had to feature a teddy in my summary. Greg and I > both think the teddy is the cutest part of the film and can't wait to > get one.
Teddy is clearly the best thing in the film. > It was quite interesting. However, it was too long. By half. It should > have stopped, errr, when he saw the boxes (he says carefully not > giving the plot away), or even before. The gratuitous CGI and the end > was stupid. Oh, and the plot at the end was too. But the teddy! I and the friend I saw it with decided that there were at least 4 different places it could have ended. Sadly, none of them was where it *did* end. As to the question of whether it would have been substantially the same if Kubrick had directed it... I don't think so. I think it would have been... well, darker, if nothing else. Also, thematically, it struck me as being much more up Kubrick's alley than Spielbergs - which might have made it better, regardless of a "happy" ending. I'm a big fan of Kubrick, but I certainly don't think he's infallible. Eyes Wide Shut, for instance, did not impress me. In fact, my reaction to that film is probably useful here: I didn't think it was that good, but it usually takes some time to develop a firm view of a kubrick film. With A. I., had it been made by kubrick, we might feel the same way. With Spielberg, I have no such expectations. dha -- David H. Adler - <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.panix.com/~dha/ for (('to you', 'dear '.shift)[0,0,1,0]) { print "Happy birthday $_" } - perl code for wishing someone a happy birthday Courtesy of purl
