Comment Its not the money; its the inherent lack of depth (Score 5) 163
Now i am a self-proclaimed movie buff and i have read some about this AI feature and i too was looking forward to seeing this--unfortunately kubrick died so i thought that there would be no hope, and right now i am beginning to think that i would have preferred to never see the movie than one completed by Speilburg.
Dont get me wrong, Speilburg is a good director and all, but he has inherent weaknesses that effectively ruin any attempt he makes at a serious intelligent movie. Speilburg has a tendency to be mellowdramatic, playing up the cheesy soundtrack in the background and focusing on something that will prove important later in the movie or hammers his theme in a little more nad holding that shot for a couple seconds too much. On the other hand, Kubrick was a master of cinematography, always integrating diogenic and non-diogenic sound in a very compelling way as opposed to the over the top, beat it through the thick skull of the common moviegoer method that Speilburg uses. Kubrick was a master of the camera who is famous not only for his vision but the way that he did it-if you ever watch a kubrick film notice the ceilings-something few directors ever utilize (mainly because the films are shot in real places instead of sound studios) nad his tracking shots where the camera goes for a long period of time without a cut to a different angle, also kubrick was great at capturing shadows and lighting especially on faces, which makes his films more memorable and more real (surreal sometimes). Again Speilburg is the opposite of this, everything he does is standard-on occation he will get a really good sharp significant shot and it will be very strong-but in the context of the film it stands out as different-that is the only reason why it stands out-otherwise Speilburgs camera isnt all that special. One other thing is that kubrick understood the notion of "nothing" time where there is no dialogue or any action, just very real "nothing," in real life we arent reading from a script so there is that "nothing" time-kubrick understands that perfectly while have you ever felt totally drawn into a speilburg film because it was soo real, well i havent and it is because there is always something going on (great for the short attention span audience btw). Another major problem and the one that i feel could tear apart AI once and for all is the way that Speilburg has to make everything epic-he has to impose a greater meaning on every film and proceed to wallop his audience over the head with that idea. Kubrick also takes on epic tasks in his films, but his theme resides below the surface and stays there the whole film, the effective nature of a true artist who conveys his ideals without the audience even realizing they have been indoctrinated.
I guess what i have been meaning to say the whole time is that the two directors work towards different audiences: kubrick towards the intellectual elite audience who is well read and understands the concept of art and meaning within a film and, speilburg who makes his movies for the masses (because guess what-those movies make money and get the awards that make ego-centric speilburg go) and guess what else-the masses are generally stupid, consider the USA today their source for news and NASCAR and WWF adequate sources of entertainment. When one mixes these two ideologies-there are going to be inherent problems, and that is why i do not want to ever see AI without the resurrection of kubrick from the grave or some amazingly talented director taking his place (and speilburg isnt that guy)
latre
Dont get me wrong, Speilburg is a good director and all, but he has inherent weaknesses that effectively ruin any attempt he makes at a serious intelligent movie. Speilburg has a tendency to be mellowdramatic, playing up the cheesy soundtrack in the background and focusing on something that will prove important later in the movie or hammers his theme in a little more nad holding that shot for a couple seconds too much. On the other hand, Kubrick was a master of cinematography, always integrating diogenic and non-diogenic sound in a very compelling way as opposed to the over the top, beat it through the thick skull of the common moviegoer method that Speilburg uses. Kubrick was a master of the camera who is famous not only for his vision but the way that he did it-if you ever watch a kubrick film notice the ceilings-something few directors ever utilize (mainly because the films are shot in real places instead of sound studios) nad his tracking shots where the camera goes for a long period of time without a cut to a different angle, also kubrick was great at capturing shadows and lighting especially on faces, which makes his films more memorable and more real (surreal sometimes). Again Speilburg is the opposite of this, everything he does is standard-on occation he will get a really good sharp significant shot and it will be very strong-but in the context of the film it stands out as different-that is the only reason why it stands out-otherwise Speilburgs camera isnt all that special. One other thing is that kubrick understood the notion of "nothing" time where there is no dialogue or any action, just very real "nothing," in real life we arent reading from a script so there is that "nothing" time-kubrick understands that perfectly while have you ever felt totally drawn into a speilburg film because it was soo real, well i havent and it is because there is always something going on (great for the short attention span audience btw). Another major problem and the one that i feel could tear apart AI once and for all is the way that Speilburg has to make everything epic-he has to impose a greater meaning on every film and proceed to wallop his audience over the head with that idea. Kubrick also takes on epic tasks in his films, but his theme resides below the surface and stays there the whole film, the effective nature of a true artist who conveys his ideals without the audience even realizing they have been indoctrinated.
I guess what i have been meaning to say the whole time is that the two directors work towards different audiences: kubrick towards the intellectual elite audience who is well read and understands the concept of art and meaning within a film and, speilburg who makes his movies for the masses (because guess what-those movies make money and get the awards that make ego-centric speilburg go) and guess what else-the masses are generally stupid, consider the USA today their source for news and NASCAR and WWF adequate sources of entertainment. When one mixes these two ideologies-there are going to be inherent problems, and that is why i do not want to ever see AI without the resurrection of kubrick from the grave or some amazingly talented director taking his place (and speilburg isnt that guy)
latre
