The animation does indeed suck. The story's not all that great. The voice acting leaves much to be desired. The lighting is horrible and the textures are gaudy and annoying. Yet...for some odd reason I still liked it. I think for the same reason I enjoy silly little student films. That's all this is--a feature-length student film. I can see it gaining an audience on college campuses. I could see watching it again, high as a kite. But to take this seriously is just wrong.
BTW I'd also like to mention that I'm currently working on a $90m CG Feature, and this film made me feel that much more secure about my job. Thanks Hoodwinked!
When I first heard of Michael Moore in the 80s, I was told that he was a leftist extremist communist nut. When I saw the trailer for this film, I thought to watch it.
After seeing this film, I can say this: If this film could be considered the opinions and viewpoint of the democratic, liberal left wing, COUNT ME IN!!!
I have been changed since watching this film. Never before has a film so touched and changed the way I see the world. It made me think. Yes he was saying this sucks and that sucks, and this is wrong and that is wrong, but he was backing it up with FACTS, and that's all I care about. You can spout off about whatever you want, but if you can't back it up, it's B.S.
I went out and purchased Moore's book, "Stupid White Men." I can't wait to dig into it.
So, I guess you can consider my butt converted. I'm changing my voting registration.
This film totally deserves at least Best Documentary Feature at the Academy Awards this year. HIGHLY RECOMMENDED (for anyone with an open mind)
Lynch has a really big problem consistent in all his movies. I recently saw Mullholland Drive so now I've seen basically all his publicly available films. Lynch, you've got some truly great ideas. Seriously. BUT...you don't know how to tell a story. All you do is grab a bunch of cool ideas, throw them together, and fling them on screen for all to guess at. Don't do that. That's the reason why your films continue to bomb. They will bomb and bomb and all the DGA awards in the world aren't going to make you a better storyteller.
Another common theme to Lynch: tits. He flings them everywhere. So the hell what? Who cares? Kubrick pulled it off, Lynch doesn't. I'm old enough to not care about nudity in movies anymore, why doesn't he? And what's with the DGA? Okay, you bunch of loons see some titties and give him Best Director? Whatever. Now I know in the future that when I make films, all I have to do is show people humping, preferably two chicks, lots of tits, and nonsensical scenes of people standing still against a black background, not saying anything. The fact that I had to watch Lost Highway so many times to try to figure it out is a really big problem. I'm not saying sell out like Bay or Woo or whatever, but isn't the point of being a director to tell a story? Can you imagine sitting around a campfire, listening to someone tell this tale? You'd slap them across the face for not making sense.
I dunno, I've given up on Lynch. One less Lynch fan here, folks.
I think this movie was re-edited shortly before it's release. I say this because there are two things I've noticed: One, the line in the trailer "Bring me the space man!" is omitted. Two, there is not one, but two big plot twists in the film. The first one is cool and works well, the other is HORRIBLE. Burton, if this was your fault, you are an idiot. If it was Fox's fault, all you studio execs are idiots.
The similarities between the original and the Burton films are few. There's the forbidden zone, there's a quick cameo of Dr. Zeus (ever so briefly, you have to be looking for him in the background). There's a bigger cameo of Charlton Heston as General Thade's father, also saying the like "Damn them! Damn them all to hell!" which brought on cheers in the crowd. There's also the first line between Marky Mark and an ape: "Get your hand off me you damn dirty human!" which wasn't received so well.
The main plot twist was a good adaptation of the original, and perhaps a bit more realstic. However the second one brought on "boo's" from the crowd. People were really p***ed off at it. I won't give it away here, but let's just say that the other 99.9% of the film BARELY makes up for how bad this ending is.
Tim Roth as Thade was INCREDIBLE. He stole the show. He was evil incarnate, and I'd watch the movie again just for him (and then I'll walk out of the theater right before the crappy ending).
9/10, would have been a 10 but minus 1 for the ending.
Let me begin with this, while I will describe the ending in vague terms, this review will contain NO SPOILERS.
I now understand exactly how I would've felt back in 1968 when 2001: A Space Oddysey came out. Audiences, then as now, either "get it" or say "what the hell was that all about?" Think about it: audiences were thinking for "2001": "What was that? A baby in a sphere? A light tunnel? An old dying dude in a bed? Monkeys? A BIG BLACK STUPID BOX???"
When I watched A.I., I thought of the audience. I could totally see how people who saw 2001 would laugh at certain scenes. So with A.I. There were many people, almost the entire theater, especially near the end, who were laughing and leaving the theater early. Let me be blunt: If you didn't "get" 2001, you will NOT "get" A.I.
It's different, it's emotional, it's thought-provoking, it's brilliant, it's KUBRICK. He came back to life to direct this film. Only on certain occasions could you tell Spielberg couldn't help himself and had to be Spielberg. While at other times, Spielberg was somewhere else, letting Kubrick direct.
Anyone who says this film sucks obviously didn't "get" it. And yes, there is something to "get" with this film.
Haley Joel Osment was AWESOME. If he isn't the best child actor on the face of the earth, I wanna meet the kid who is. Jude Law wasn't as amazing, but his character wasn't really allowed to be. But still, with what he had, Jude Law was also great.
Let this be a lesson to Lucas: there ARE good child actors out there. But more importantly, there are GREAT child actors out there. You suck for what you did in Episode I, but Spielberg showed you up by making this film.
Let this be a lesson to Spielberg: You don't have to explain EVERYTHING to the audience. You don't have to hold the audience by the hand and hit them over the head with emotion. Let the scenes play themselves out.
The voiceovers were distracting and unnessary. It'd be like Kubrick's original idea of having voiceovers in 2001: it would've been weird, and it was definately weird here.
The story, while on the outset seems like a ripoff of Pinocchio, it is definately not. Even to the point of directly referencing it throughout the film. This movie is original, bold, and not for everyone. That's the one main problem: this is not a film for the audience. This is a film for that 1 or 2 percent of the population who, on seeing 2001 in the theater, stood up and cheered. I was so floored by this film that as we walked out of the theater I stopped and shouted at the top of my lungs: "That was F&*@ING BRILLIANT!!!" which is what I would have said had I been in the theater of "2001" in 1968.
I now love Kubrick more than ever. I have more of a personal respect and admiration for him and his work than I ever did before.
Again, if you can't get into movies like 2001 that break the mold of conventional filmmaking, you will not like A.I.
If you've got the CPU power and harddrive space, I'd totally recommend downloading BMW's propriatary movie player from their site so you can watch the films in nice high-resolution and director commentary, just like a DVD! Looking forward to the Making Of and Powderkeg.
BMW: Please release a DVD of these films! Please! Please! Now! Thanks.
This movie was absolutely horrible to watch. The story is incoherent at best, and the whole "two-girls-finding-love-in-an-evil-man-infested-world-that-are-punished-for- their-love" idea has already been done innumerous times, so the sentiment that this film is so unique and bold and new is bull. I don't care if this was based on a true story. For heaven's sake, don't use Hilary Swank to play someone who is supposed to be mistaken for a guy! I mean, how ignorant can these people be? I'm willing to bet that the real Teena Brandon was much more masculine in her appearance. The fact that all the men who are in this film are portrayed as fat, stupid, and evil simply added to the absurdity of this movie.
Kimberly Peirce is an obvious man-hater and it shows very clearly in her directing. And Tracy Granger, I'm sorry, but you have to be one of the worst editors ever in film. Where's the concept of continuity? This film jumps around so much that all you end up getting is one simpathetic look at Swank after another. I'm sure that the public agrees for the most part on this since it pretty much bombed at the box office and nobody is really renting it. Just because you have gay characters doesn't mean that you are Gandhi. Look what happened to "Ellen". 0 out of 10.
Spend your money on some ice cream and a rental.