Reviews written by registered user
|3 reviews in total|
"Stepford Wives" vs "Suburban Housewives" or perhaps an English "Twin
Peaks" - you'd understand the connection if you REALLY watched "Twin
Peaks". The acting is rich, the comedy black and the content adult. If
you enjoy bloke comedy then you will recognize a few faces. It doesn't
take long before you are well entrenched into the story line and you'll
be thanking Oxygen for running two episodes back to back.
Overall theme: Joyce and her husband have moved into a small English city (it has a church, so it's a city) as he has accepted a position as chief constable. Two factions of housewives are contending for influence/control over Joyce and ultimately, her husband's influence over local law enforcement. Each gun toting faction uses a different method of influence, fear and intimidation vs conscience and moral duty.
The supporting characters (more a case of caricatures) are campy and carried out by actors and actresses with the same commitment to their role as Don Adam's "Maxwell Smart".
I whole heartedly concur with the user comments dated August 12, 2001 which were printed by Just_Voards. If you HAVE seen the movie, read their comments as they are spot on and filled with lots of POTA trivia. If you HAVE NOT seen the movie, see the movie and THEN read Just_Voards comments. Would someone give this writer a newspaper column!? Well done!!!!
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
(contains spoilers!) It is not the first time the question has been
Ridley Scott has asked the same question...when you give an android the
ability to think and reason and prioritize independently (hence Artificial
Intelligence) what happens IF and WHEN emotion evolves.
It's one facet of the moral dilemma of building a computer to behave and
interact as a sentient being and Stanley Kubrick asks it in this film.
The first scene of this film brings us the mindless debate of making an android that can love but will it be loved back? (It is reasonable for us to conclude that if we can love our blanky, barbie or our teddy bear we can love an android that provides us love and companionship.) What we see on the surface of this film is the android that has been programmed to feel emotional love through imprinting but what is subtly introduced is that emotion has already begun to evolve in these androids without programming.
Example: Why doesn't teddy go to Martin who is his programmed and rightful owner? Does he actually PREFER David? Why does Joe continue to stay with David in Rouge (though no longer in danger of the "flesh fair") when as a "lover" he is in a climate to default to a programming priority? Why did teddy save the hair sample for so long instead of giving it to David at the soonest possible opportunity? Why are the androids (which were built by androids, mind you) so concerned with David's happiness? Why would the happiness of a fellow android even be part of the equation?
These issues are too obvious to be accidental. David processes with a logic platform of an adult but with the imprinted emotions of an infant. (Shades of Roy Baty and Pris.) This proves to be to his disadvantage; instead of crying from the crib which would have provoked a maternal response from Monica, he says "I love you mommy" constantly and spills her extinct perfume.
He is treated like a pet monkey. (and where is "Dad" in all this, isn't he concerned about losing his job by being so irresponsible with such precious equipment?) David's emotions are dismissed by his human companions because he is mecha, he can't possibly FEEL those emotions, really.
Then we are shown a world of Mechas where a humanitarian civilization is realized unlike any human ever could. Their accomplishments are collective, not competitive, not warring. They have survived our race physically, mentally and empathetically. Will the Mecha race be our survivors...our legacy...our "Uberman"? Do we have a responsibility to this legacy and what roll will we play in it's construction? Will we embrace it or will we respond in fear and anger? Flesh fair, anyone? We are coming upon the times when these questions must be asked and Kubrick has begun asking them.
With regard to Steven Speilberg's influence. I suspect that he has not deviated so far from the path. I found the film to be entirely Kubrickesque in nature and applaud Speilberg's effort to remain true to the cause. He has proved over and over again that he can step outside himself and embrace the vision of his constituents. (example: Empire of the Sun)