A.I. Artificial Intelligence

Jeanine Salla. It's one of the first things one notices on the poster/trailer credits of the film. She's hailed as a Sentient Machine Therapist. This is the game. Look up her name on the internet, and go from there. I don't know if the contest is still going, but that's what it was, a contest.

From the get-go, this film was yet another Marketing Experiment by Spielberg and SKG and Dreamworks. Spielberg no longer makes movies to entertain. He makes movies to back up his already existing career, because the possibility for him to make a bad movie is just not acceptable. Well, it's too late.

Ever since Schindler's List, I have had a negative feeling towards Spielberg. Look at his track record.

Minority Report
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Saving Private Ryan
Amistad
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Schindler's List
Jurassic Park
Hook
Always
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Empire of the Sun
The Color Purple
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Raiders of the Lost Ark
1941
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Jaws
Duel

In the beginning, Spielberg set out to make entertaining movies. Up until 1941, he was on a role. That isn't even such a terrible film, it's very pretty to look at and there's some great acting, but overall the film failed. This was, in fact, the point where Spielberg and Kubrick crossed paths. Kubrick had viewed the film and said to Spielberg "I see what you were trying to do here, but it just didn't work out." Or something to that affect.

From there, it was entertainment central. In the next 5 years he would have the top top grossing films of their respective years, Raiders and E.T., along with the sequel to Raiders, which would get into the top ten, no problem.

Now, to mention sequels. People do sequels because the first one did well, people liked the character, they liked the look of the first film. When it comes to Indiana Jones, well, people had found their new Luke Skywalker. He became a hero, for young and old, and hell yes people would plop down money to see another adventure... and another one... then the tv show, the doll, the videogame. Indiana Jones was a character people could watch over and over again.

E.T. There'd never been a film like it. Regardless of any generation gaps that might have been created in the 80's, old and young people could still appreciate this film. That's why it did so well, because it wasn't for a specific audience, like most of Spielberg's earlier films.

Then comes The Color Purple. Now, for anyone who's ever read Alice Walker's fantastic book, you'll know that Spielberg was for certain, the wrong person for the job. The movie is a sentimental wash-out, that throws out one of the central themes in the book, lesbianism. Regardless of whether or not it was the studio who wanted it out, or Spielberg, Walker hated the adaptation of her novel.

This would be the first signs of Spielberg trying to make decisions based on audience, not truth to story. You can say he wanted to diversify his directing efforts, but I don't believe that at all. He was trying to cheat the house, find a sure bet on a film that would garner the critics praise and a larger, more intelligent audience. He was betting on a lot of people to come see this 'new' movie from Spielberg, and even though it's a good movie, and it gets those heart strings, and all that, and Whoopi Goldberg is incredible... it was the beginning of the end for him.

Empire of the Sun. This is where we get the 'risky' Spielberg. He's taking another unconventional shot, and this film did not do well at all. Sure, it was praised by critics, but it didn't make much of a dent at the box office. So, what next, to try and rally the troops? Another Indiana Jones film!!!

Sure, go back to your roots. Make the studio some much needed (eyerole) money. Sell out, again. It's not too predictable, what you're doing. No.

In 1989, I think Always was the last shot at a man who was being absorbed by money and by studios and by Hollywood, and by marketing. It's a fairly sentimental film, but I also think it's one of his smarter movies. There's a lot more originality in this film than his other, later work, and I think this was the last time anyone saw Spielberg ever again.

Case in point. Hook was a huge waste of time. Here's a great idea for a story. An aging Peter Pan (who could we get... hmmmm, oh, hey, how about everyone's friend Robin Williams!) goes against his arch nemesis Captain Hook (who could we get... hmmmm, how about the ever versatile Dustin Hoffman! People love him!). We can get Julia Roberts to wear a tight little pixie gown to get all the hicks excited, and throw in a bunch of kids so that the kids in the audience will be able to connect with them... yeah, that's great!

One of the pinnacle examples of a sell-out, in Hollywood history. The sentimentality of this film is dripping with disgust, and I was very sad to see such a cast play to such a pathetic film, one that was there to just make back the money it spent on its lavish production.

Jurassic Park. Michael Crichton had sold, in record time, just about every one of his books rights. Congo, Disclosure, Rising Sun... everything this man would put out, after Jurassic Park, would be picked up for film. And, it's not to say that Jurassic Park isn't a good book, it's fantastic. If you've never read it, keep it in mind that it was written BEFORE the movie. You'll see the cleverness of the book, from there.

Spielberg had another massive money maker on his hands. A live dinosaur park + Spielberg + Stan Winston = money. Spielberg had the resources, he had a great book to get the script written from (the script was written by Crichton and David Koepp (who gets 3 million just to change the title page of the script). Put in a decent cast, but make sure that the dinosaurs look REALLY REAL, and people will come.

It's at this point that I decided that Spielberg no longer actually makes his films. He has others make it for him. Stan Winston was the creative force behind that entire picture, and should be given the majority of the credit. His work over the years has been so incredible, from Predator, Edward Scissor Hands, Terminator... just about every film you see that has some cool alien, or weapon, or something... it's probably Winston's work, and his studio.

Schindler's List. Another pinnacle sell-out movie.

Note: if you're reading this, please make sure to read the List review... it addresses a number of the opinions I wrote of here, in a much more positive light.

Sure, it's a good film. Sure, it's about the HOLOCAUST. I mean, come on, who isn't going to like this movie. It would be bad of you not to like it. It's based on a novel, like a lot of his previous work (safe, adaptations are safe, because your demographic (the readers) are already intelligent enough to have read the book, or know about the book, or will read the book once the movie's over).

It's the second production that Spielberg uses camera genius Janusz Kaminski. Now, I love this guys work. I think he's a god behind the camera, and he's the main reason that List looks so goddamn good. But, this is not a Spielberg movie, as much as it's a Spielberg production.

Producer Spielberg - I know, I know! We'll make it in black and white! Just like Scorsese did in Raging Bull, except, you know, this won't be about boxing!

Producer Kathleen Kennedy - I don't know Steven. People don't really like black and white films, now-a-days.

Spielberg - Trust me. This movie is about a time and place where people associate it with black and white television. It's a perfect thing, this "Holocaust" to capitalize on.

Now, you know that was something that was running through their minds. I don't remember hearing anything about the money this movie made going to holocaust survivors. I don't remember anything like that. And if money did go, the only reason is because it was 'expected'. This is the same thing that happened with Saving Private Ryan, which I'll get to.

The Lost World was by far, one of the worst sequels ever made. Vince Vaughn had just starred in Swingers, which had done very well, and Spielberg saw him as the next big thing, the next young hunk actor, and signed him on toot-sweet. He was terrible. Crichton took them all for a ride, with an absurd story. If you've read the novel, you can see him trying to think of different cool things to put in the book, to see if they'd actually create them for the movie. Case in point, that big trailer type thing. Come on, like that would survive a goddamn T-Rex attack. Jesus. At least they didn't put in those silly chameleon shape-shifting things... though I haven't seen part III yet, so, who knows.

Amistad. Another absurd film choice for Spielberg. Another 'demographic' choice, as well. Let's get back to our roots and show the world that Spielberg has a heart of gold. We've done the holocaust, what's next? Let's do a movie about slavery! Jesus, how predictable. A terrible movie, to boot, and did terrible at the box-office. The project was helmed by actress and activist (and producer of this film) Debbie Allen, which made for great PR, which is pretty much what Spielberg is after, always.

Saving Private Ryan. Using one of the all time safest actors in Hollywood, Tom Hanks, ILM and Kaminski created a fantastically violent film that showed no gray area in the realm and ideas of war. The first forty minutes are the most brutal I'd ever seen, and I thought the film was one of the prettier moments in history. Then came act II. Jesus, again, dripping with that Spielberg crap, the only thing that propels this movie is the violence. The story is ludicrous and, again, sentimentally drowning. Hanks tries desperately to save this film, but to no avail. This was a film that Spielberg got claps on the back from many WWII veterans, even though all he did was depict some violence, and not any of the real attrocities of the war. Good going, make some money, donate some, here's a medal, give us a call when you're out on the coast, we'll do lunch.

Yeah, ok.

Third act, we're treated to every girls dream guy (in 1998), Matt Damon. Sure, throw him in the mix for a larger audience. No, couldn't get an unknown for the part. That wouldn't get the ticket sales up. Do you see the patern here? He's taking 'safe' actors to act in his films. These blockbuster names for pretty movies with pathetic stories. This is exactly what happened with A.I.

My wife and I got up on Saturday the 30th, relatively early. Now, since ticket prices are ridiculous in Manhattan (and Brooklyn), I have decided to not pay those prices any more. I think it's sad and pathetic that the prices of concessions and tickets keep rising, especially since the economy is at a standstill. And, no way in hell will these prices ever drop. Figures why four leading theater chains have filed for bankruptcy protection in the last six months. Sure, build another theater in the heart of Union Square, 13 theaters, in one of the most expensive spots in Manhattan. The ticket prices alone, for the entire month, must just pay for rent, alone. It's absurd.

So, we went to a local theater near us and sat in front of a father and his two kids, who would not shut up for the entire movie. Jesus, when I was a kid and I talked during a movie, my dad said to me "Look. I paid for these tickets. If you want to talk, go talk outside, by yourself. If not, shut up."

Only now do I understand what he was talking about. God, I miss him.

So, anyway, back to the movie.

The first act of this film is terrible. There is pretty much no set-up at all, and William Hurt is as wooden as he usually is. The little Winston ILM glimpse that we're given in the movie is not enough to whet my appetite, at all. Plus, I think the script was reaching when we were given the A.I. 101, of the how and why of these machines. We were also subjected to an absurd narration of life in the future, that put everything neatly wrapped in a red bow. Especially the child bearing laws. Jesus, if people thought that was original... first off, go look at China, then come talk to me.

The idea of child bearing laws has been prevalent in science-fiction since the mid-50's. It's nothing new.

From there, we're thrust into the lives of the Swinton's. The cryogenic visits are so reminiscent of Ubik by Philip K. Dick, I thought I was going to be sick.

The Swinton's are a terribly partnered husband and wife. Sam Robards does a terrible job in his role as the husband, while Frances O'Conner, who was picked out of the blue, having starred in nothing truly mainstream, did a barely mediocre job as the mother who lost her son, got her son back, and then dumped her new son in a forest. That was it. For me, there were moments of actual acting, but the rest of it was "I'm in a Spielberg movie! I'm in a Spielberg movie!". I'm sorry if it sounds cynical, but I hated her work.

Haley Joel Osment. I didn't really think his work was that spectacular. Loved his work in The Sixth Sense and Forrest Gump, but I did not enjoy his work here. I think it was too much for him, too soon. Sure, he was acting at the right place, at the right time, but I still think they should have used an unknown. I know Kubrick wouldn't have used someone like Osment.

Jude Law. Eh, ok, he did a good job, and he's got a much brighter personality than the other actors, for certain. I think the part was wasted on him. The role of Gigolo Joe was pretty useless, in the grand scheme of this film, in regards to him strictly being an explanation point in the film. He kind of had to shed a little light to David (Osment), and then, absurdly, he was whisked away for no real reason. In regards to his character, being framed for the killing of the woman... was he framed? Who was that guy in the hotel room with him? Was that her husband? Her lover? There would be fingerprints all over the place, of that man's. What the...?

This film made some terrible excuses for other things to happen. Like David getting pulled out of the water by Joe (in the copter), only to get Joe caught by cops, and then send David back under water so he could freeze. Jesus, but that was pathetic.

Devices like that are used by a novice. I think Spielberg ruined this film six ways to sunday, and there's a good reason why he hasn't written in over twenty years. He can't write any more. The constant Pinocchio referencing was used up too quickly, and Spielberg came off more like Oliver Stone, pounding the ideas into your head, rather than letting the audience use their imaginations.

The third act, just before David freezes, is ok. But the sentimentality of Dr. Know, and his absurd happening into this film was just terrible. Oh, and while we're at it, why don't we make Robin Williams Dr. Know! He's a nice, safe, friendly voice that won't offend anyone.

Do you see? Using Chris Rock as some comic relief? Why? What purpose does it serve? Do you already know you're making a bad film, so you have to cushion it as much as possible?

I think Spielberg failed on too many levels here.

I think Kaminski shot ok, but it was not as spectacular as the photography on Saving Private Ryan or List.

I think Stan Winston and his studio did a bang-up job on the robots.

I think the actors should all take some time off.

The future for Spielberg is with two more 'safe' projects. Minority Report, based on a Philip Dick story, is starring another Hollywood 'safe' actor, Tom Cruise. No money will be lost there, but I wonder if Cruise will instill his absurd ego under the guise of Spielberg, like he did in Mission Impossible II.

His second project is another one of those films that he thinks he has to make, to keep people thinking he's cultured. Based on the best selling novel Memoirs of a Geisha, this is going to be another List/Amistad debacle. Just sad that he thinks he needs to make these films, just to garner a more intelligent audience. Not to entertain, but to make a thinking mans/woman's movie. Jesus, it's sad. (note: Spielberg is no longer shooting Geisha, as of 2003)

If you're interested in androids, robots, etc., read the work of Philip K. Dick. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Ubik. We Can Build You. The Simulacra. Solar Lottery. Clans of the Alphane Moon. Among many others, he had the robot thing down pat. Read Asimov. Read Heinlein. But don't go into this movie thinking this is original work. It's speculation, at its worst.

The fourth act of this film is testament to his speculation. Oh, what a handy little explanation of the space/time continuum. Thanks Steven!

The ending, the narration, all of it is Spielberg trying to add something to the film that shouldn't have been there. An absurd explanation of the universe and how it works in his eyes. This works better in fiction because, well, it's fiction. But once someone like Spielberg starts to rant on something unexplainable like that, it comes off as preaching which, by the end of this film, I did not want to hear, at all.

First thing I said as I left the theater: "I feel cheated. I want my money back".

Super Toys Last Forever the short story that the film was based on, the story that inspired Kubrick for this particular film.

This was Spielberg trying to be Kubrick, and failing miserably. Kubrick would have shit himself, if he were alive to see this pathetic film. It's not Kubrick, at all, and I'm sure that whatever notes Kubrick had that Spielberg got to, were thrown out the window.

J.P.